User talk:Bogorm/archive4

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

Antecedent confabulations[edit]

Auguſt-November 2008
December 2008-February 2009
March -May 2009


Богорм, привет. Действительно ли существует у вас выражение той има арменска уста — "he’s a braggart"? Если да, добавь пожалуйста в арменски. И ещё, разве Български должен быть с большой буквы? --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Привет. Отроду не слыхал об этом выражении (но мне все-таки лишь 22 года), ты где встретил его? български должен всегда быть со строчной(можно сказать маленькой?) буквой за исключением случаев, где слово стоит в начале предложения. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Руски тоже надо было переименовать. Если заметишь снова подобные слова с прописной буквой, можешь переименовать их. Искал Немски или Френски, но их нет (даже и со строчной буквой). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Нашёл в EuroDict. Гугл выдаёт 246 результатов. Можешь посмотреть о хвастунах ли там речь или буквально об армянских устах? PS. Строчная буква = маленькая буква. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Возможно и существует, но из 42 примеров (Гугл удалил подобные) некие действительно касаются арменцев. Но было и случаи, где фразеологическое применение неоспоримо... Я не знаю, стоит ли создавать статью, скорее нет (примеры такие отрывочные и из форумов, ну если найти какой-то иллюстративный, это другое дело), так как срв. сколько результатов Гугл выдает для одного обычного (другой пример, не столько популярное, но знакомое выражение), популярного, т. е. распространенного выражения. Это очевидно не такое, либо редкое, либо устаревшее. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Да нет, отдельную статью создавать конечно не надо. Просто добавил в арменски в качестве примера. Спасибо за помощь! --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Bogorm. Although the Citations namespace is really useful for when there are a lot of citations, it's always helpful to have a few on the main page itself. It really helps illustrate the different senses. Ƿidsiþ 09:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I am no more moving quotations from the main article to the Citations space, if there are less then three of them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Bogorm,

FYI: Wiktionary:Quotations.

RuakhTALK 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Against which of yonder rules did I trespass? If you are referring to the same moves of quotations, the superior section applies. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
All of them. See necessitous?diff=6717183. —RuakhTALK 14:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I shall heed them thenceforward. I have not been adding quotations recently, so belike I must have needed to recollect the format. I simply copied the quotation I had added to Wiktionnaire hither. Usually, when I add quotations, I do it en masse, so I shall be more circumspect. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-)   —RuakhTALK 14:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello. Would you like adminship? See Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-06/User:Bogorm for admin? --Jackofclubs 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination and trust, I accepted it and mitigated the outlook of my user page. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • BTW, I sure hope that your possible non-election for sysop will not fuel your absence of this project, it's just a few essentially not that particularly important buttons.. --Ivan Štambuk 14:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian romanisation[edit]

Привет, здесь есть таблицы по транслитерации болгарского? Как например траснлитерировать украинский город Харьков, по-болгарски Харков, по-украински Харкiв (Kharkiv) Anatoli 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Богорм сейчас наверное в море плавает, я отвечу :) Есть, смотри Wiktionary:Bulgarian transliteration. Харков будет Harkov. --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Спасибо! Anatoli 06:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

dateless, deedless[edit]

When you have the chance, please take a look at these terms. They are related in English. The etymology at dateless#Etymology 1 is something I found. I can't make sense of the development. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

deedless is certainly akin to Old Norse dáðlauss (from dáð, deed, virtue) and to rare Danish dådløs and German tatenlos (from dåd, Tat, deed). According to dåd#Etymology it derives from proto-IE *dʰeh₁-, to place. As for dateless, I have no knowledge of Old English and am not certain about its relation with thought and deed. There is Old Norse þótti (thought). Widsith is conversant with Old English, he may find more about þeatless. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Again, the same clicking mistake as last time. Thanks for pointing it out. --B. Jankuloski 11:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Bogorm, nice to see that you're interested in the language of Buddha :)

Few things I have to say regarding your recent edits:

  • The preferred spelling is Pali not Pāḷi, as that is the most common name of the language, and the name of Category:Pali language.
  • Pali is not really appropriate to be added as as cognate of Sanskrit term, as its attestation postdate it in a millennium or so. I've (and others) have already added lots of lexemes of modern and Middle Indo-Aryan tongues as if "descending" from Sanskrit, treating Sanskrit as a reasonably close attestation of Proto-Indo-Aryan. Plus, all the Indo-Aryan languages are more or less Sanskritized, and it's often very hard to determine what is a Sanskritism (directly borrowed or phonetically adapted) and what is an inherited word.
  • The script: You're using the Latin transcription. Now, Pali has been like Sanskrit written in basically all Indic (and other East Asian, wherever Buddhism has spread) script, and the choice of choosing any one of them is basically PoV. Dbachmann once wrote that using Devanagari for Sanskrit is also Hindu-centric, regardless of whether it is by far the most common script used to write Sanskrit (which it is). So we're using Devanagari for Sanskrit, but allowing any other script, given that the Sanskrit word was attested in it (if anyone feels the need to do such a perverse act in the first place). Dbachmann originally started adding Sanskrit word in IAST transcription, just like you're doing now for Pali, but lots of folks objected (primarily Ullmann and Connel IIRC) with the argument that we're adding words as they're attested, not in some scholarly transcription schemes used to facilitate learning the language (which brings us to the perennial question: Is Wiktionary intended to be an archeological or educational facility?). And their argument is basically correct, as Sanskrit, Pali etc. are nothing more but literary languages today (though there are a few places where they're still spoken, I have no doubts about that), and Wiktionary should simply be a container of the lexemes attested in them. So what do you think on mandating that the preferred guideline for Pali should be like that of Sanskrit: Devanagari always, other scripts allowed if there is evidence, transcription only in tr= parameters for {{t}}, term and others? --Ivan Štambuk 10:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If you insist on using Devanagari for Pali as well, I shall adhere thereto, but my main reason for using Latin script was that it is præferred by Rhys-Davids in his monumental work. As for not mentioning Pali in Sanskrit etymologies: I think we already agreed that in etymology sections of any language of a certain family (Indo-Aryan) the addition of cognates from the same family is unrestricted, i. e. in Sanskrit etymologies one should be free to add Gujarati, Bengal, Marathi, Nepalese, Ardhamagadhi (the language of Mahavira) and so on. If you think this is to be interdicted, would you explain why? How should I expand the etymology sections of Persian words with regard to fellow Indo-Iranian languages? No restraint for Tajik, Avestan, Balochi, Ossetian of course, but for the Indo-Aryan languages? I think they should also be added freely, since Indo-Aryan and Iranian together constitute the Indo-Iranian family. What is your opinion? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I am not especially favourable to Devanagari for Pali, because its original script must have been a south Indian script, whence modern Burmese and Sinhalese originated. Do you know if it is digitalised? Devanagari arrived much later, in the first centuries AD, whereas Pali is written centuries BC (3rd Buddhist council under Ashoka). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
My point exactly, Pali originated in areas where scripts like Sinhala were predominant, thus forcing Devanagari upon the language when it was never wrirtten in that script does not make much sense. -- Prince Kassad 11:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be great if you could add and link Pali words in Devanagari (I assume that you have basic familiarity of the script and can use some online Roman script -> Devangari translators).
As for the etymologies: Yes, words from languages in the same branch should be added, but not with major chronological jumps. Old, Middle and New Indo-Aryan/Iranian tongues should not be intermixed. As it turns out, there is just one Old Indo-Aryan form: Sanskrit, and 2 Iranian: Old Persian and Avestan, and these 3 should always mention each other if cognates are present. Modern Indo-Aryan languages should OTOH link to each other (Hindi/Urdu with Marathi, Sinhalese, Bengali and others you mention), mentioning Sanskrit or Proto-Indo-Aryan/Iranian origin if it's present (99% are, although there are a few words not attested in Sanskrit, that are of Common Indo-Iranian origin). If no Old/Middle Persian word is attested, modern Persian would suffice in Sanskrit etymology. If there is no Old Iranian cognates present, any of the middle and new Iranian languages can serve as a replacement in Sanskrit etymology. But older ones always have the precedence. Modern Indo-Aryan languages can also mention a few cognates from modern Iranian languages, no problems with that. --Ivan Štambuk 11:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Then where would you place Pali and Ardhamagadhi? They are not modern (obviously) and according to you they are not ancient (which I would refrain to indorse). But they somehow should be linked with the cognate languages from their family, do you not find? Same quæstion about Sogdian, which you again did not mention among the ancient languages, although it is older than OCS, which is to be treated as ancient (Ardhamagadhi and Pali are older too). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
All Prakrits are Middle Indo-Aryan, Sogdian is Middle Iranian. They are ancient of course, but not "ancient enough". Byzantine Greek is also ancient, but we always prefer the most archaic form of Greek when adding cognates (even Mycenaean when it is attested). OCS has no relations to this issue, as it is representative of another branch. In phonology OCS is more conservative (with respect to PIE) than any Middle Indo-Aryan/Iranian language, now that you mention it, regardless of the fact that it was attested much later (I prefer to refrain from using terms young and old when discussing languages). The rate of language change is not linear with the oldness of its attestations, and we should not discriminate among languages just because some happened to be attested much earlier. For comparative etymological purposes, all of them are equally important. --Ivan Štambuk 11:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So do you agree on adding Middle Indo-Iranian languages next to modern Indo-Iranian, exempli gratia Pali or Sogdian in etymology sections of Persian or Hindi? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, that would be inadvisable. All Prakrits should link only among each other, and Middle Iranian languages among each other. The only exception as I said would be if you would add the Sanskrit word and then list several modern IA cognates in parentheses in the etymology section of some modern Iranian languages, because of the sometimes unresolvable problem of not knowing whether the IA word is inherited from Proto-Indo-Aryan (i.e. are the modern Indo-Aryan and Modern Iranian words in question real cognates) or not (in case of Sanskritism) - this way we ignore the issue altogether. Since Brahmi and Sogdian script are still not encoded in Unicode (this latter furthermore is not coming anytime soon), I think that it would be the best to focus on entries in other scripts which are supported by Unicode. --Ivan Štambuk 13:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brahmi is expected to come in Unicode 5.1, you can read the proposal here. Seems like 5.1 is going to be the most awesome release of Unicode ever!
Also, with regard to Pali etymologies, this is what WP writes:

The connections were sufficiently well-known that technical terms from Sanskrit were easily converted into Pali by a set of conventional phonological transformations. These transformations mimicked a subset of the phonological developments that had occurred in Proto-Pali. Because of the prevalence of these transformations, it is not always possible to tell whether a given Pali word is a part of the old Prakrit lexicon, or a transformed borrowing from Sanskrit. The existence of a Sanskrit word regularly corresponding to a Pali word is not always secure evidence of the Pali etymology, since, in some cases, artificial Sanskrit words were created by back-formation from Prakrit words.

In other words, it would be the best equip oneself with some Pali etymological dictionary when adding Pali etymologies, as everything deduced on the basis of common sense of attested phonological developments may very misleading.
As for the choice of Devangari: Well Sanskrit was not written it in either for almost 2500 years, but we still use it today, because it's the most prevalent Indic script used for writing Sanskrit. Do English Pali handbooks today really prefer Sinhalese script to Devanagari? --Ivan Štambuk 11:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

English Pali handbooks prefer Latin, unlike Sanskrit ones which almost uniformly use Devanagari. I only used Sinhala because of your argument that Latin was historically never used for that language. -- Prince Kassad 11:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Ivan, there is one peculiarity, when I add some cognate Indo-Iranian words. My main interests there are Pali, Ossetian and Persian/Tajik. I shall not add Pali any more (after your dissuasion), but I can link Sanskrit with Persian and am not conversant with Old Persian script, so would you transform it, if an Old Persian word is attested? I can not link Persian words with Hindi either, but rather with Sanskrit. Is this a problem? I. e. I do not want to infringe on any policies, but just to contribute to etymology sections according to mine ability. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just place {{rfscript|Old Persian Cuneiform}} and it'll be taken care of (sooner or later). You can add Sanskrit with modern Persian, but please also place Hindi/Urdu cognates if they're present in the following parentheses, unless they're Sanskritisms (i.e. if the spelling is identical to that of Sanskrit, there's no need to mention them, as user can find them at the same page) --Ivan Štambuk 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
But if the spelling of Hindi and Sanskrit is not identical, it is unlikely that I would find the Hindi word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Often you can find them by using the "What links here" link. Also, you can query them in Turner's comparative IA dictionary [1] (Hindi words are marked with the abbreviation "H."). --Ivan Štambuk 12:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but.[edit]

Would you please, please refrain from your use of ſ in anything but your signature -- your continued use of this in talk pages and discussions makes it nearly impossible to access for me and I'm sure many other editors. Please when you return from wikibreak discontinue your use of the character -- even when you feel indignant about something, because if it is hard for editors to read your comments due to the spellings you use it is also going to be hard for people to address your concerns or to address what you said. I really do appreciate you cooperation in this matter. --Neskaya kanetsv 04:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I shall acquiesce in your requæst. But apart from my signature, I am eager to præserve the sharp s in my user page as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated, but could you also try not to use alternate spellings (requæst, præserve)? My concern here is that characters such as that aren't accessible, and break not only screen readers, but some braille displays and other methods of accessible computer access. To be honest, user space is user space and within reason, whatever goes there. But in discussions, the key should be that as many people can understand the discussion as possible, which means that not using obsolete or archaic spellings of otherwise normal words is useful in encouraging participation. —Neskaya kanetsv? 23:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


I don't know whether you know about this vote, but your input would be much appreciated. – Krun 14:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not modify votes[edit]

This revision is entirely incorrect. Do not modify the text of a vote when it is live or after it has been closed. The votes on that page apply to the text as it stood then, not to your revisions. DAVilla 06:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but wherefore would you link only Jefferson to the respective article and not Mussolini (I am asking out of curiosity)? Furthermore, the visible text per se has not been changed, as no letters or spaces were removed or added, just the code, so that the link and therewith some sort of symmetry or equality are provided. If you still consider this inappropriate, I shall apologise. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bogorm,
What you don't realize is, all of those "oppose" votes are actually due entirely to the non-linking of Mussolini. By linking Mussolini without correcting their votes to "support", you've made it seem that their opinion was the exact opposite of what it actually was.
(O.K., not really. But still, you see the problem: after a proposal has failed, "improving" it is deceptive, since it makes it look like the improved version failed.)
RuakhTALK 14:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I shan't relapse in similar edits, but the modification was so slight, that any claim of improvement or distortion would not hold. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

порнографичен vs порнографски[edit]

Hey there. I found порнографичен in a Bulgarian dictionary I have and noticed that a BG section was added to порнографски. Are they synonymous? Was the dictionary slightly off? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the difference is subtle... порнографски can be applied to nouns such as актриса, филм..., but порнографичен prædominantly to e. g. съдържание (content), действия (activities), so perhaps порнографичен is suitable only before abstract nouns and has limited (more formal) usage. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool... thanks for your help :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian texts[edit]

The Internet Archive apparently has some English-translated SC literature, primarily however of Serbian literary circle: folk tales, poems, fairy tales and similar. It's mostly of corpus collected by V. S. Karadžić. Lots of them are also shared with Bosniaks and Croats (e.g. c.f. Laž za opkladu : Лаж за опкладу - one of my childhood favorites :D) - irrefutable evidence of people's cultures intermingled for centuries. I was thinking of dumping some of them to English Wikisource, side-by-side with SC original, and every word wikifed to English Wiktionary entry, in pretty much exactly the same way that A-cai has been doing with Romance of the Three Kingdoms for Mandarin. Methinks it would be a superb learning utility. As an active learner of SC, I would be very interested in your comments on the idea.

Some of the works I had in mind are:

and so on. The vocabulary in those work is a bit archaic by today's standard, but the language is very vigorous and abundant with extremely interesting words. --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've just discovered this Serbian-English and English-Serbian pocket dictionary (1920), from which I started shamelessly copying entries to Wiktionary (it's out of copyright). Read the preface, you'll be delighted :D --Ivan Štambuk 21:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice links, I am in favour of your prospects, it would be truly auxialiary to learners of the language. A-cai's accomplishment is undoubtedly outstanding. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


Bogorm-san, konnichiwa! First, sorry for my terribly late reply. I'm responding to your comment on my talk page about "農協", which I've got half a year ago. (I've been for the most part inactive during the period.) The clip was from a Japanese TV show Sora Mimi Hour, which is well explained here. From the linked page: "... The programme asks viewers to send in segments from songs which sound like they are being sung in Japanese. These segments are lovingly choreographed into mini video clips which hilariously illustrate the Japanese sounding lyric segment. Thus a phrase from a song sung in english also sounds remarkably like a completely different phrase in Japanese, with completely different meanings. The more surreal or strange sounding entries are awarded ...". And in the awarded Prince's music video clip, a phrase "don't stop dancing" sounds like 農協牛乳 to Japanese native speakers, though only the number of the syllables is actually matching. But it really does :). You can still check it on a Japanese video sharing site (an account needed). Cheers! --Tohru 13:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Konnichiwa, Tohru-san. Thanks for the explanation, this programme sounds truly intriguing. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Привет Bogorm,
А что с словами поляк и полька? Это точные синонимы? Maro 21:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (отвечай по английски пожалуйста :)

Привет, Maro. Yes, these two are also possible translations, they are in fact the most current ones. лях and пшек are peculiar to the Russian language, they have, I believe, no æquivalents in other Slavic languages (at least with the same meaning). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving June discussion[edit]

Thanks for doing it. I've occasionally been annoyed when a discussion not completely dead was archived. I hope what I did (leaving a stub with the most recent comments and a link to the archive) is an acceptable compromise between the need to reduce the size of the page and maintaining some visibility for topics not completely dead. I suppose a really hot topic might warrant keeping the whole discussion, but that doesn't happen too often. Thanks again. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting eligibility 2[edit]

Hi Bogorm. There are some difficulties with interpreting the votes, because the way the vote has been set up it becomes less obvious whether those who voted for more restrictive option 1 are also supportive of less restrictive option 2, unless they haven't explicitly said so (by also voting for option 2). Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider voting also for option 2, if you are supportive of it (note that you cannot vote against it). We need 75% of supportive votes for it to pass. --Ivan Štambuk 13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why can't he vote against it, if he can vote for it? --Rising Sun 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I would guess that he supports the idea. That's why. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
He can — and, at the time that Ivan wrote his comment, did. —RuakhTALK 03:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Nice quotation, but you might want to add it to dree one's weird rather than dree. Ƿidsiþ 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely belongs there. I simply did not pay attention to the derived terms section. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


That seems fine to me; you could also consider {{Scotland}} in the circumstances. Ƿidsiþ 06:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

telove, teljosana[edit]

Привет, Богорм. В болгарском должны быть слова telove, teljosana со значением "нитка". Не мог бы ты их создать? Они заимствованы из турецкого tel. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Привет. Да, все точно - создал тел (tel). Это как раз единственное (или, по крайней мере, единственное в голову пришедшее) слово женского рода, чье окончание мн. ч - -ове. Оно означает металлическая нитка, синоним - жица. Насчет тельосан - никогда не слышал, но гугл выдает пример из болгарской возрожденской литературы (вторая половина ХІХ в.) - [3]. Не могу с уверенностью сказать что оно означает и так как есть только один цитат из требуемых три в случае RFD и значение неясное, не создал статью (В Болгарии произведения этой эпохи часто издаются с небольшим словарем в конце книги, так как они часто изобилуют турцизмами, непонятными для современного читателя. Турцизмы были большей частью оттеснены в первые десятилетия после освобождения 1878). Возможно, оно диалектное. Некоторые, как тел, сохранились, другие, например большинство слов в Appendix:List of Balkanisms нужно отмечать как obsolete и dialectal. То же самое слово - тел, есть и в сербскохорватском. Кстати, оно непременно пришло из турецкого? А не непосредственно из армянского? Много армян заселились в Болгарию в ХІХ в., но Петар Скок утверждает, что оно турецкого происхождения... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Хорошо, спасибо. Не думаю, чтобы армянские слова появлялись в болгарском без турецкого опосредования. Так что Скок прав :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Feminine gender[edit]

I would like to know, as I touched on briefly at Talk:бременен, whether, in Bulgarian (or maybe Slavic languages more generally), a noun must be feminine in order to denote a woman or other female creature. Do all occupational or otherwise descriptive titles have a female version, or could a masculine noun (meaning e.g. pilot, baker, mayor, fool, pragmatist, or whatever) be used? – Krun 15:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions occur - for example госпожо професор is a current appellation for a female professor: Mrs. Professor. There is the theoretical application of the suffix -ка to build професорка, but this is usually frowned upon as illiterate. The same happens with президент, министър and other loanwords (one exception is шеф - шефка, with a full-fledge female form, chief). Most words of Slavic origin though have a female form. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much the same is in Serbo-Croatian, where the surge of politically-correct neologisms eventually created monsters such as borkinja "female figher" (< borac (fighter)) which are ridiculed by the common people (and not used in spoken language) but purists tend to advise their usage and put them to dictionaries, and some cocky writers use them. Some suffixes are unproductive in the creation of feminine counterparts (e.g. Turkish suffix -džija) and sometimes mocijski parnjak (that's the fancy name for these feminine counterparts in the grammar books) cannot be coined due to semantics (e.g. for cinik (cynic), there is no *cinika). As in Bulgarian, this whole problem generally occurs in words coined with agentive suffixes of non-Slavic origin.. --Ivan Štambuk 08:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, this is generally a vestige of the situation in Proto-Indo-European :D PIE originally did not have masculine/feminine gender distinction - it developed rather late (after the split of the Anatolian branch), under circumstances which are still unclear (my favorite theory is that of Karl Brugmann, that the feminine-gender forming suffix *-(e)h₂ [which yielded *-a in most of the PIE daughters] was fossilized from the ending of the noun from "woman", gʷen(e)h₂-, which caused agreement with the preceding nominals [adjectives, pronouns..] and has eventually spread to all the "naturally" feminine/female objects..). Anyway, I've read somewhere that the only noun in PIE languages where masculine agent was derived from the feminine (and not vice versa, as it is usually) is the noun for "widow" *h₁widʰéwh₂ (which was originally a collective denoting "family of the deceased").. 6 thousand years later, we're struggling with the spread of that -a suffix :D --Ivan Štambuk 09:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
So, when adjectives come into the game, for a woman who is a cynic, the construction “neudat cinik” e.g. could occur? – Krun 10:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Right (though that particular construction is quite imaginative ^_^). In practice you get stuff like this[4] (randomly googled): Ona je kao direktor uprave za investicije morala da podnese izveštaj "She as the director of the investment board had to file a report...". (masculine direktor instead of feminine direktorica [Western SC] or direktorka [Eastern SC]). Or e.g. this one[5] Radila je u Ekonomskom institutu SFRJ, bila je šef kabineta.. "She worked at the Economic Institute of the SFRJ, serving as a chief of the cabinet.." (masculine šef instead of feminine šefica). In prectice, very, very often masculine nouns are used for female professions simply by inertia, let alone in those weird neo-coinages like borkinja which no one uses.. In proper sexist-free language one should of course always prefer the feminine counterparts (if they exist) --Ivan Štambuk 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
And in Bulgarian something like бременен професор? – Krun 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this is never used with this adjective. Adverbial usage is possible, e. g. Професор Иванова е бременна. The usage of other masculine or feminine forms of the adjectives before similar words of masculine gender when used to denote a female person is virtually non-existent. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The stricken example was not appropriate since бременна referred to Иванова, not the noun. Well, in this case I must admit it is proscribed from a semantical point of view. бременен професор is not applicable at all. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
But Ivan, is a sentence like Она jе добар шеф possible in Serbo-Croatian? Or only adverbial usage of the adjective is allowed? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It is possible in theory, and moreover very much used in practice (to tell you the truth, given the much-too-spread analphabetism, I suspect that one is more likely to come across ona je dobar šef rather than on ona je dobra šefica !). It is not, however, considered a "good thing". jezični savjetnici strongly object against such usage, and resident grammar Nazis tend to be driven insane by such constructions.
Also, some argue that such cases are not something irregular/illiterate, and that they reflect the expansion of the semantic field of agentive nouns that are grammatically masculine into naturally female domain. E.g. like we have the word čov(j)ek "man, either male or female". Hence šef is bot "male boss" and "female boss" :D It all depends on your PoV (prescriptive/descriptive)..
(And it's especially pernicious when it comes to foreign names/ handbook on automata theory had Greibach normal form translated as Greibechov normalni oblik ! (it is named after Sheila Greibach who is a woman :). Such constructions, once they pervade the literature, are impossible to get rid of..) --Ivan Štambuk 12:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
These cases are proscribed by common practice here too. I feel quite uncomfortable and exhilarated when I hear them. But the adverbial usage does not seem improper, does it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by adverbial usage ? --Ivan Štambuk 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
When the adjective does not preceed the noun, in your case it would be šef je dobra. Is this valid? Or šef je dobar, even though it is a female boss? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Or prædicative is the proper term for this? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
No, those constructions are not allowed at all... Ona je dobar šef is used (though improperly), but šef je dobra is completely forbidden. --Ivan Štambuk 14:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Here the situation is similar. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Did you study OCS (or "Old Bulgarian", as your scholars prefer to term it :) or plan to do so in the near future? We have currently a large number OCS lemmata (more or less the whole lexis), and these are loooong overdue to be expanded and cleaned up. Haven't been touched for more than a year or so. Angr displayed some interest a while back, but nothing serious. If you have desire to help contributing in that area, please let me know. --Ivan Štambuk 12:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have not studied it yet, but before I decide, may I ask about one peculiarity? In the entries I stumble upon here and in w:Old Church Slavonic grammar I have not met any accents, but clerical books whereof I have caught a glimpse, are replete with accents and I usually abhor languages with accents in the script (some exceptions being French and Slovak which I am fond of). So could you tell me whether accents are essential and indispensable in that language or a picturesque feature in ornate books? For the moment I intend to pick up some Slovenian and Slovak, but if I make up my mind, I shall apprise you. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this are later accents marks in Church Slavonic traditinos... We have absolutely no idea how these words were pronounced at the time of writing of OCS manuscripts (we don't even know what exactly jat sounded like). Proto-Slavic accents are however pretty easily reconstructable from the comparative evidence (in languages which have preserved them, like Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Bulgarian..even vowel lengths in Czech are of value!), and we can make quite precise educated guess on prosodic properties of those words in the 9th century, but as I said: things like vowel lengths, and real Slavonic accents (acute & circumflex) were unmarked in the OCS MSS. On so-called "OCS wikipedia" thy use stress marks like in Church Slavonic traditions, but this has abs. nothing to do with the real Cyrillo-Methodian traditions. We'll here completely ignore those marks for breathing, softening of pronunciation and similar, because they're impossible to type and of no real value.
I've acquired several OCS e-books in the last several months (mostly from uz-trans, including Lunt's uber-awesome grammar), which got me motivated, and I'll probably start expanding OCS entries soon, after studying it a bit more and making some tools to help out with the transition to Unicode 5.1-compatible Cyrillic and the automatic generation of entries in Glagolitic. So I thought of notifying you as you might be interested, because it's mostly Bulgarian cultural heritage... --Ivan Štambuk 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
It sounds awesome. Then it is probable that I might become more interested and eager to learn it in the near future. Do you intend to add quotations from Joan Ekzarh, Černorizec Hrabar or other illustrious writers as is the wont with Latin and Ovidius, Horatius...? If the accent marks are not obligatory, then their writings would be easily digitalised. Do you know whether they are available somewhere in the net? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
No, these are later writers which we'll handle under ==Church Slavonic==. OCS pertains only to a small number of the canonical MSS. I still have traumas on Černorizec from high school because we had to memorize his whole O pismenexъ by heart. Prěžde ubo slověne ne iměaxǫ kъńigъ... I get chills down my spine when I remember that. Lots of Croatian (and other) Church Slavonic MSS you can find in critical editions in the issues of Slovo as well as many Russian Orthodox websites. OCS canon (all the bigger MSS.) is available at TITUS. This are all in machine processable format and I plan to convert them to Unicode-friendly Cyrillic and Glagolitic and dump to Wikisource (International) so that we can link to them in quotations. The whole OCS canon is rather small, less than 3000 lemmata. It could possibly be the first language we can "complete". --Ivan Štambuk 17:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I can only welcome your endeavour, it is valorous. Somewhere I read Gothic (and Ugaritic ?) has less. It would be nice to complete it too. I noticed that Afrikaans wiktionary is ahead with Gothic, it has a significant number of Gothic entries, but I have no idea about the reason. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of koberec[edit]

Greetings, in the appreciated etymology of Czech "koberec" you write "The Slavic word derives from Old Norse kögurr (“‘quilt’”)". Which Slavic word do you mean? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Proto-Slavic which I could not find as reconstructed. Its descendants include, as noted, the Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian and Russian words. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
When you write "The source for the Slavic words is ...", do you mean "The Slavic words "koberec", "ковёр" and "губер" are derived from ..."? --Dan Polansky 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, precisely. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I have rewritten the etymology in koberec into the following format: "From <etymon>, according to <scholar>; cognates include <cognates>", as is usual with English etymologies. Hope it is okay with you. The formatting rests on the assumption that the main information in the etymology section is the etymology, while the cognates are of second importance; and also that statements about the subject matter come first and scholarly sources backing those statements come second. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I made the etymology of the Slovak entry consistent with the Czech one. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. On another note, I have removed Slovak interwiki from "koberec", as the Slovak Wiktionary does not have the entry yet. --Dan Polansky 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for apprising me of the interwiki, I would have failed to descry it. It should have been a Serbo-Croatian interwiki, but I must have been distracted when adding it or thinking about the Slovak entry there. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay, so let me do the word lookup for the words that I do not know by heart: "apprise" - to notify; "descry" - * to see * to notice carefully; to detect.
I think you'd better leave interwikis alone, avoiding their manual entry; they are added by a bot automatically.
I have now found a link to your source[6], and am beginning to wonder.
Can you please translate for me the following sentence from the source?:
  • Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл. ko<gurr "ковер, одеяло" (Миккола, Мém. Sос. Néopħilol. 1, 389 и сл.), происхождение которого в свою очередь неясно (Хольтхаузен, Awn. Wb. 171).
Why, when the source (Vasmer) seems to mention several possible etymologies, you mention only one in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the source is at ковёр#References. I did not quote it under the Slovak and Czech entries, because I do not expect most people learning those two languages to be able to read sources in Russian, therefore in the Russian entry. I suppose you found it out there. However, if you insist, I can henceforth provide the sk and cs entries with the source from Vasmer as well. The source præsents two theories - the one from Mikkola which is critically mentioned by Vasmer (your quote is from the Russian translation, the original is das von Mikkola als Quelle angesehene kögurr genügt lautlich nicht=k. which Mikkola considers to be the source does not suffice phonetically) and the Turkic origin, which he favours. I mentioned both of them, not just the one of them, which I cherish. What exactly is your objection? I did not pick up just one of them, as you imply. However, I am not capable of formatting entries in Turkic languages, because I do not have any knowledge (soever, skip this word, if you will) in any of them, therefore I just mentioned the theorised Turkic origin. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the bot, it not only does not add interwiki links to sh wiktionary, but erases them. I already complained about that here, where the diffs from the removals are visible, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore interwiki links to Serbo-Croatian wiktionary can not be handled for the moment by this bot. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) If I understand correctly, you are using Vasmer as your source, yet Vasmer thinks that "kögurr" is implausible, preceding his note on "kögurr" with the following sentence:
  • "Источником было, возм., дунайско-болг., волжско-болг. (др.-чув.) *kavǝ̂r--из *kebir; ср. ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz, чагат., вост.-тюрк. kigiz "войлочное одеяло", тат., казах. kīz, монг. kebis "ковер", калм. kews̨; см. Рясянен, FUF 29, 196; ZfslPh 20, 448; Рамстедт, KWb. 230."
This sentence explicitly mentions Turkish "kiviz" and "küwuz" and some hypothetical roots: "*kavǝ̂r", from "*kebir". So your source seems to mention the Turkish etymology as the main one, while mentioning the Old Norse "kögurr" only as a hypothesis that he finds implausible. By contrast, what you posted to "koberec" reads exactly the other way around: "kögurr" is positively asserted, while Turkic origins are merely claimed to be "theorised", which reads like "hypothesized", without the specific Turkish words being mentioned. This makes the etymology entered into "koberec" look untrustworthy or misleading, to me anyway. But there is also the possibility that I have misunderstood something, as I have rather little knowledge of Russian.
Given that you speak Russian and I do not, I think it would be best if you give all the etymologies considered by Vasmer equal standing in Wiktionary, indicating in the etymology sections of Wiktionary as candidate etymons all the terms that are considered by Vasmer, your source. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about Turkish etymology, the theory as favoured by Vasmer speaks about Turkic theory and the distinction is crucial (at the time of the borrowing the ethnogenesis of the Turkish people had not begun). The source is not mine, it is the one which I consulted at that moment for this word. And it also mentions the explanation of the venerable Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who is a classical scholar in linguistics. When tha classics are not consistent in unifying around one theory, it is our duty to præsent all possibilities as stated by them. what I posted in koberec read the following way "kögurr" is positively asserted by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola, while ..., this distinction is crucial as well. Had I mentioned only the ON origin without a single word about the Turkic theory, then it would have been misinterpretation of the source. I have not acted this way, instead I added both theories and even explained which prominent scholar embraces the ON theory and what other theories apart from his there are. I explicitly mentioned by whom it is asserted in order to fend off similar objections, when the classical scholars dissent in their theories, which is always my wont, my habit, whenever I stumble upon such dissensions (confer the etymolgy of кайгана where the Greek origin is also asserted by one of our classical scholars in linguistics, academician Stefan Mladenov, whilst another linguists embrace the Turkish theory - this time the Turkish/Persian word of the concurrent theory is not reconstructed, is attested, even has its entry here, so Ilinked them, which is by far not the case with unattested Turkic (supposedly Turkic, as is the case with Proto-Bulgarian) languages). And yes, the Turkic theory is theorised, because the Proto-Bulgarian root is unattested unlike the Old Norse word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
As for the scholar himself, see the Polish article about Jooseppi Julius Mikkola - he has written Die Chronologie der türkischen Donaubulgaren, has specialised with Proto-Bulgarians, and even though he considered them Turkic, if he could not link the Slavic words with the Proto-Bulgarian reconstructed word, then this is what makes to me personally embracing the Turkic theory misleading. But notwithstanding, both theories should have their place at the etymology section regardless of mine or your personal præference for the Old Norse or Turkic origin, since both stem from classical scholars in this realm. This is what I struggled to accomplish. However, if you wish, you may add the supposed Turkic reconstructed root. I am not conversant with Proto-Turkic roots. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Now I figured out why you mentioned Turkish - ср.-тюрк means Middle Turkic. тюркский (Vasmer: тюр.) in Russian means Turkic, whereas турецкий (Vasmer: тур.) means Turkish. In the second half of the first millenium anno Domini speaking about Tukish does not have much sense. If you are interested in other Russian abbreviations in Vasmer's dictionary and/or you intend to use it, I can always answer your quæestions about the abbreviations, as can Vahagn Petrosyan as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There is another problem which I noticed now, when I observed more carefully the Russian translation. In this case, it is too bold, because Источником было means the source was... (no probably, no perhaps... alas), whereas the German original is die Quelle ist wohl and wohl means probably, arguably and was omitted by the Russian translation. This wohl means that Vasmer asserted with a temperate and not absolute certainty the Turkic origin, as the Russian translation implies. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are interested in Vasmer, I recommend you the German edition, since your German is at intermediate level according to the Babel box. Consulting it can spare us of such lengthy discussions in the future. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) My mistake in confounding Turkish with Turkic; the term that I have misread was "ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz".
What is your source of the etymology? Is it Vasmer or do you have a work by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola? That Jooseppi Julius Mikkola is (a) classic and (b) venerable does not speak in his favor, in my eyes anyway; scholarly sources should be as modern and reliable as possible, not classic and venerable. Aristotle is classic and venerable, yet I rely on him neither for physics, nor for philosophy.
What do you need "præference" and "quæstions" for? Are these spellings recognized as a valid ones by your favorite spell checker? In contemporary English, these are spelling errors.
As regards what is theorized and what not, while the existence of the Old Norse term is attested, its being an etymological root is no more theorized than the other options that Vasmer considers.
I guess what got me suspicious was that you entered a particular Old Norse term into etymology, while omitting all other particular terms mentioned by Vasmer. As regards the omitted "wohl" meaning "likely" or "probably", that does not change the fact that Vasmer proposed a Turkic origin as the probable one, and the Old Norse as an improbable one. --Dan Polansky 14:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not change his præference, but it does not change the fact either that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola favours the Old Norse origin and that both Mikkola and Vasmer are authorities (if the word classic is undesirable for you) in linguistics. I understand you suspicion about not adding the supposed Turkic root - for two reasons: 1) it is unattested, but this is not a problem per se, since I add reconstructed Gothic words, when I can consult more sources, i. e. when I have sources for checking the spelling before adding it (which is not the case with Turkic languages - the second reason), because reconstructions may vary in time (unlike attested words) and above you just expressed your desire for the newest reliable source.
præference and quæstion are established dated (archaic, if you præfere) English spellings. If you do not believe me, ask Doremítzwr, he is a native speaker and cherishes them as much as I do. I am fond of the ſharp ſ as well, but for the moment I refrain from uſing it.
Neither theory is more or less theorised. The Turkic one by Vasmer, the Old Norse by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola. A reader of wiktionary is likely to expect a comprehensive review of the theories about the origin of koberec and I did my best in trying to provide one with the help of Vasmer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Okay. But that means we have two authorities disagreeing, one authority being more modern - Vasmer, another more dated - Mikkola. Thus the etymology about which the two authorities disagree is contentious.
I have tried to make the uncertainty clearer by adding "possibly " to the etymology of "koberec", to weaken the claim. --Dan Polansky 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Returning back to the issue, I have removed the Old Norse etymology from koberec, the one that Vasmer deems implausible. The reasoning behind the move is that the source that is cited does not support Old Norse etymology, and that you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies. If you can cite the Old Norse etymology in a modern source, it can be put back.
On another note, the reader of Wiktionary does not not expect to find a comprehensive overview of what was in the past deemed knowledge. The etymology sections of Wiktionary should not document the revision history of the allegoric wiki tracking the development and changes of human knowledge, as it were. The etymology sections should not list hypotheses that have been superseded or rejected by a modern research. That is why the term "classical" or "classic" as applied to etymologies is rather pejorative than anything else. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This etymology seems to be deemed plausible at least by Karl Brugmann (apart from Jooseppi Julius Mikkola) who is an uncontested and prominent authority in the realm of linguistics as well as by the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie. Your blatant præference exclusively for the brand-new editions over the ones issued a certain amount of time ago, concomitant with the absence of source from your side, id est with your criticism of extant sources without quoting refuting sources, if any, is about to deprive the etymology of this entry of a well-founded theory supported by Brugman, Mikkola and the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie (all are quoted under koberec#References). I am eager to remind you that this is about linguistics, not physics or genetics, where only the brand-new sources are revered, in this realm classical sources must be taken into account. Hardly anyone would quote Newton in a dissertation in physics (not least because he wrote in Latin and the knowledge of this magnificent language among contemporary physicists is anything but common), but in etymological works cites date even to the 18th century and in order to show you how a breakthrough in linguistics could not be superseded for more than a century, I need only to refer you to the Monier-Williams dictionary of Sanskrit, which Ivan frequently cites, which has not been superseded neither in volume nor in quality and which was published in 1899. Dvoretsky's Latin dictionary published in the 1940s has not been superseded in volume and exhaustiveness either. Now I am too tired to draw edificatory conclusions, I would liefer leave that for you.
you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies - as for this argumentum ad hominem, exactly this sort of accusations has compelled me to quote almost everytime the source for the descendence from Old Norse of words in English and other non-North Germanic languages, leading to a needless waste of time and resources. Obviously I need to keep referencing etymology sections, whenever Old Norse or Gothic are mentioned (outside da, no, sv and is entries for Old Norse of course), as was and is still my wont here, because of your suspicious attitude. Now, I would be truly reconnaissant, if you commit yourself to finding a refuting source, modern or not, regardless for me (why regardless, I already explained with the help of Monier-Williams' and Dvoretsky's dictionaries), because erasing quoted sources without finding due refutation seems too distrustful. And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility. And I assure you that all the Old Norse etymologies which I have been adding for more than a year are all based on linguistic sources and no one is botched up by me. These, which I myself suspect, are to be found only on my user page and in no other place. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As for your discontentment from my writing style, I converse much more often with Ivan, who is no native speaker of English either, and he has not complained hitherto thereabout. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on your last comment and removal of a significant part of the etymology I am already convinced that your appraisal of the initial shape of the etymology section as appreciated etymology (your comment from 13:45, 27 November 2009) was meant to be ironic, was it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Re: "And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility." -- heh, what you have put into parentheses as if it were marginal is exactly what is at stake. I was indeed referring to your beginnings at Wiktionary. Hence my suspicion when I see Old Norse etymology added inspite of the modern source--Vasmer--deeming it dubious. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with civility and incivility; a personal attack has to do with civility. I am not calling you any names; I am mery stating a fact about some of your past contributions. In any case, the track record is there in the oldest archive of your talk page.
As regards you writing style consisting of using archaic spellings and rare archaic words, I merely indicated that I don't like it and that it makes reading what you write more difficult - how else would you know if I did not let you know? Apart from not liking the archaic spellings, I have also mentioned words that I had to look up, which I do not need to with the words used by other contributors. You are intentionally making it more difficult to understand what you write. That Ivan did not complain may be caused by his better acquaintance with archaic English than I have. I am not particularly interested in archaic English; I am interested in building a dictionary and communicating with its editors in modern English. Which, again, "liefer" is not, and I had to look it up. --Dan Polansky 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I am relieved now, if you are referring only to this first week of my activity here in August 2008. Yes, I admit that I was unoriented then, but I also atoned that and have never since added an Old Norse descendence claim without looking for confirmation. The archaic language from my last post was as caustic as was ironic your appreciated etymology at the beginning of this section. Ok then, I shall restrict the use of those favourite words of mine when conversing with non-native speakers of English. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you please translate the following: Snad bude východisko přece jen románské (bud' stfr. carpite nebo sloveso fr. couvrir); b jest hledati asi v severní Itálii. - I understand that some connection to couvrir is supposed, by I am eager to know whether it is mentioned critically or with a high probability. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I did not mean "appreciated etymology" ironically or sarcastically; at first I was glad that you have added etymology to a Czech entry.
Re translation: I estimate that term "východisko" is used to mean "origin"; "přece jen" could be rendered as German "doch". An imperfect translation could read: "The origin would perhaps be Romance (either Middle French carpite or the French verb couvrir); b is likely to be sought in the northern Italy." The following terms in the source text weaken certainty of statement: "snad .. přece jen", "asi". Overall, to render it as "highly likely" would be a mistranslation; even "likely" seems to be too strong. My impression is that the author indicates his best estimate in which he is far from sure. Hope that helps a bit. --Dan Polansky 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does help. It would be advisable at least for the Romance theory to be mentioned, since its proponent issued it in 1957, whereas the work of Mikkola is half a century older than that. Machek also mentions the possibility of German origin: Mor. a slc. k. možno míti též za přejaté z něm. Kober nůše, ale významy jsou ponekad rozdílné - Moravian and Slovak k. may be conceived as loaned from German Kober (nůše ?), but the meanings sometimes differ - do I understand it aright? Kober is an archaic German word for some sort of basket according to Grimm. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Is Moravian a synonym for Czech? I thought Moravia is only a geographical term, not a linguistic one... I also noticed that most verbs from Category:Czech verbs end in -t, whereas in Machek they end in -ti. Is -ti a dated ending? Was there a spelling reform in Czech between 1957 and 2000? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable with only the Turkic theory left in the etymology section, when Vasmer describes 4 and Machek another two. Please, try to understand my concern. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Sorry for the belated reply. There are some dialects of Czech spoken in Moravia, but it is unknown to me that one of them or all of them collectively would be called "Moravian". "-ti" is an obsolete ending of Czech verbs; the modern ending is "-t", plentifully present in Wiktionary; so "dělati" is obsolete and "dělat" is modern.
I think Machek and his speculations can be left out from Wiktionary without much loss. This is not a moral criticism of Machek; he honestly indicates the uncertainty of his estimations, as he should. I have no problem with other options mentioned by Vasmer being mentioned in Wiktionary. I for one would not have a problem if you add the more speculative etymologies to the talk page, under a section "Czech - etymology", or of the sort. The talk page is just talk page, and can contain also hypotheses that are refused, as long as these are sourced and not wholly arbitrary. Other editors may differ, though. Other than that, I would leave a further discussion of etymology of "koberec" to you and Ivan, as you are both intensely interested in etymologies. --Dan Polansky 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Haven't read the whole discussion). Bogorm, it's highly unlikely that's it's from Old Norse. Even Vasmer explicitly says so ("Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл" :) The word is from Turkic (as Vasmer claims), if you don't believe see p. 710 of the 2003 Altaic Etymological Dictionary by Starostin, Dybo & Mudrak [online entry here] (which is much more recent source than either Vasmer and esp. Brugmann & Mikkola) which unambiguously states (on the topmost entry for Proto-Turkic word for "carpet"): "Chuv. (Bulg.) > ORuss. kovьrъ ‘carpet’." Old Norse theory is really not worth mentioning. I can understand your passion for finding ancient Germanic loanwords in the Slavic, but they are not that numerous as Brugmann & co originally thought :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ivan, above I explained how distorted is the original German die Quelle ist wohl wolgabulg. ... (wohl expressing a temperate certainty like exemply gratia probably) as compared to the absolute certainty expressed in the Russian translation, where the word wohl has not been translated... I also stressed that many breakthroughs in the realm of linguistics such as Monier Williams Sanskrit dictionary (1899) or Dvoretsky's and Korolkov's Latin - Russian dictionary (1949) remain unsurpassable up to modern times and it is inacceptable to dismiss some linguistic source simply because of the edition year, this is neither physics nor genetics after all. I only wanted to prove that accepting only the brand new in linguistics is faux pas. Dan has not præsented refuting evidence, but you have come up with those two sources. I feel particularly suspicious that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who has specialised in the field of Proto-Bulgarian history (according to the article about him) does not even mention the possibility of Proto-Bulgarian origin (in the 1900s), that Vasmer hæsitatingly indorses the Turkic origin (1950s), that Václav Machek mentions some connection to carpet and couvrir or to German Kober again with no discussion soever of the alleged Turkic origin (1957) and that finally at the beginning of the 21st century this Turkic version has been imposed... But well, I am not against it being mentioned, I even added it as a possibility to the article, but I would like to ask whether concurrent theories should be expurgated, what do you think? Mikkola and Karl Brugmann indorsed it, Vasmer mentions it, albeit critically, so why remove it, as Dan made? The principal opposition to well-established classical works is not an option in linguistics, is it? And what worries me about Starostin is that he supports the highly controversial appurtenance of the isolated Japanese language to the Altaic language family (according to the article about him), which would obviously strengthen the positions of Turkic/Altaic theories. Therefore I feel much more inclined to Jooseppi Julius Mikkola and Karl Brugmann and feel particularly aggrieved when their achievement is being removed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No, they're simply too old to be valid uncontroversial references. Linguistic science of IE etymology was very primitive back then (there were lots of ad-hoc explanations and "rules"). The topic of Germanic loanwords into Slavic is also very contested, and 90% of what used to proposed as some alleged prehistoric borrowings are simply nonsense by today's standards (also is valid for so-called "Iranian borrowings"). Find a work published in the last 30-40 years (and by that I don't mean work merely referencing Brugmmann or Mikkola's theory, but critically examining it at concluding that it's plausible) that supports Germanic origin and we can add it. Controversial theories must be well-sourced. I don't know what Machek is hallucinating about, this word was borrowed more than 1000 years ago and has nothing to do with modern-day German, English or French. Also, the disputed status of Altaic and of other Starostin's work in no way invalidates this particular Turkic etymon of Old Russian word mentioned in that book. --Ivan Štambuk 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Dan translated it above from Czech. Of course not modern French, but some Old French præcursor carpite and the præcursos of couvrir. Another possibility according to Machek is archaic German (well, the OHG prædecessor) Kober, which means basket - if přejaté means loaned, I asked Dan about that. I know you are particularly distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis which was supposed to stress the links between the languages at the beginning of the 20th centuries and which was subsequently dismissed, but... Well, I shall try to find out something. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it is attested in Old Russian is a very strong case to dismiss any German/English/French origin (Vasmer also notes that). I'm not really distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis, it's just that I tend not to take sides with the preference of hypotheses on the basis of some ideological convictions. There are lots of ancient isoglosses (lexical, e.g. words for "thousand", and phonological, e.g. the reflexes of PIE syllabic sonorants..) that Slavic shares with Germanic, but this word has nothing to do with that: it is obviously some kind of a late borrowing in Slavic, and the only question is from which language. Turkic simply makes the strongest case here, given the widespread distribution of the term (in all 3 Slavic branches), and the history of interaction of Slavic speakers with Turkic people. --Ivan Štambuk 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

sh interwiki[edit]

I'm a bit confused: Does Interwicket still remove it as you mention it here on new entries, or just not adding it as you informed me on my talkpage a while back? If necessary, I can write a bot that will propagate sh interwiki specifically (and Volkovbot already does it AFAICS?), so that you don't need to waste time doing that manually. --Ivan Štambuk 15:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this, this and this are removal, are they not? Could you please take a look at the section above, as me and Dan discuss the origin of koberec, ковёр explicated by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola and Vasmer. Is there really no SC word for carpet, which is cognate with those two? Some word from the old Croatian writers perhaps? I would like to know Skok's view on that... Are you also suspicious of kögurr as source? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
There is губер, woolen cover, right? But I could not find it in Skok... Could you please check its origin and tell me if there is another source confirming the Old Norse origin beside Mikkola? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No guber is from Hungarian guba (apparently that meaning is missing in the linked Hungarian entry). I'll look into the above discussion tomorrow, I need to go to work now. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 16:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, could you check this out? It seems someone was fiddling with the etymology and tried to add a Bulgarian cognate but where the transliteration should be there are Cyrillic characters. 50 Xylophone Players talk 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi there Bogorm. Do you think you could add the translations for the noun form of the word hydrate? Cheers, Razorflame 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks :) You just confirmed that the translation that I added and then removed because I thought it was incorrect. You added the same translation that I added, but then had second thoughts about it and removed it. Thanks for clearing this up :) Razorflame 13:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I am glad at your interest in Bulgarian and that you found out the proper spelling. If you have second thoughts about the correct romanisation, see Wiktionary:Bulgarian transliteration. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :). I did want to learn some Bulgarian, but I didn't know where to start. Cheers, Razorflame 13:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Those two seem appropriate for beginners. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have quæstions about Bulgarian vocabulary or grammar, I will be glad to help. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links :). I'll continue along my quest of trying to learn some Bulgarian :). I've learnt a decent amount of Esperanto now, so I feel like I can branch out and start by learning some new languages :) Cheers, Razorflame 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


خائن (khaa'in) is the word for traitor (plural = خوان (khuwwaan) and خونة (kháwana)). It derives from خان (khaana, to be disloyal). The verbal noun of خان (khaana, to be disloyal) is خون (khawn, a being disloyal, treacherousness). Related words are خوان (khawwaan, unreliable, faithless) and خؤون (kha'uun, faithless, traitorous). The French seems to be from the noun خوان (khawwaan), a synonym of خائن (khaa'in). —Stephen 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Hello there. I'm learning Bulgarian, and I made my first main entry for Bulgarian. Can you double-check it to make sure everything is correct? The entry is ханос. Thanks, Razorflame 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to disappoint you, but this is a rare word whose meaning I myself today discovered in a specialised biology site (I am bad at biology) - it means some fish species, whose Western name is Serranus cabrilla and it has little to do with sediment. How did you stumble upon this peculiar word? I am willing to be of any avail, but biology is verily my Achilles' heel. I rectified the translation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I came upon it in on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. Thank you for the double-check. I guess I still have more to learn ;). Thanks again, Razorflame 17:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I just found another translation for sediment. утайка. Is this the correct translation? I also believe this to be a feminine noun. Am I right? Razorflame 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, утайка is the correct translation and it is feminine. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I feel like I am starting to learn. Am I correct in thinking that the plural of that word adds a т to the end of the word? Razorflame 17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, as far as I can generalise ex tempore, all feminine nouns form the plural in -и except one, but actually it is not a good idea to have the prural form in the infl template, because the habit with Bulgarian nouns here is to include the inflection under a separate section where the definite and indefinite forms (roughly corresponding to English the noun and a noun) are visible. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I was going to try to get those inflection templates into the entries, but I would have no idea which ones to use where, so I was thinking to just leave them out because I don't know them yet. Maybe you could help me learn which ones to use where? Thanks again for the help and sorry if I made more work for you :( Razorflame 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No need to worry. If you are unsure about further Bulgarian nouns, place a {{attention|bg}} and I or Arath shall/will have a look and fix them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, will do in the future. Thanks very much for the help. Just a quickie, but how did I do on: метеор and астероид? Thanks, Razorflame 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks promising. Only a footnote - in loanwords of Latin or Greek origin such as метеор the stress in Bulgarian and Russian is the same, while in астероид, период ... they differ. The rest was correct. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the information! It'll help very much so in the future when I go to make more Bulgarian entries. Cheers, Razorflame 07:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

<----Hi there Bogorm. Thank you for the help that you have given me so far. There are just two things that I need to learn before I can continue making Bulgarian entries. How can I tell which gender a noun is and how can I tell where the stress indicator goes? Thanks for the massive amount of help you've given me so far, Razorflame 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are some rules for determining the gender of a noun. E. g. words ending in -о or -е are neuter, most words ending in -а/-я are feminine, but the few who are masculine, are declined like feminine (vocative form -о/-йо, definite form -та, but the præceding adjectives, if any, are of course masculine), all nouns ending in -ост, -ка, -ца are feminine, endings designating professions like -ар, -ик are masculine. As for the stress, well... here I can't tell you much. From all Slavic languages the stress is clear only in Slovak and Czech, where it falls on the first syllable. Although I myself speak Russian at an advanced level, I hæsitate now and again where to pose the stress, since this is a tricky issue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much for the information :). I'll be sure to use it in the future. Anyways, thanks again for your massive amounts of help in helping me to learn basic Bulgarian :). Cheers, Razorflame 19:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
In Bulgarian and Russian stress is free (which means phonologically unpredictable and you must learn it by heart :). The same is in Serbo-Croatian and Slovene (where you also have vowel lengths and rising/falling tone!) There are probably some rules where it's most likely to be placed, depending on the word structure, and whether the word is an inherited, basic word (which would mean that the stress is also likely to be inherited, unpredictably), or a recent borrowing or coinage (which would mean that the stress is likely to be artificially placed on a certain predefined syllable), but generally you must look up the position of stress in a dictionary to be 100% sure. Also, if you happen to know a thing or two on Slavic accentology, and if you know the stress in one of those languages, you can predict the stress in the other ones using regular sound changes. --Ivan Štambuk 19:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:´´From all Slavic languages the stress is clear only in Slovak and Czech, where it falls on the first syllable´´ - in Polish, the stress is almost always on the penultimate syllable, with the exceptions of some loanwords (fizyka [ˈfʲizɨka]) and some Polish clitics. I'm not Polish speaker (despite my username), and it's sort of funny to hear spoken Polish forms like 'narodowEgo', 'polskiEgo', 'SolidarnOści' where you might expect it to sound similar to Russian cognates, 'narOdnogo', 'solidArnosti'.--Miacek 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Miacek. I am delighted to see you here too :) Thanks for the information, I really do not speak Polish at all (although when I log in on Polish Wikipedia for some wikilinks I can grasp one word or two). Enjoy your stay. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Bogorm. I’ve dealt with this entry and have replied to you on my talk page.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)



Не мог бы пожалуйста добавить перевод на болгарский? Заранее спасибо. --Anatoli 08:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Привет. Готово. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Я видел. Спасибо! --Anatoli 22:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Who is this guy? :) --Ivan Štambuk 12:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not know him, nor have I talked to him. I simply admire his zeal in sh wikt and the sections of (very nice) English words which he creates there. My main activity on sh wikt are other fellow Slavic languages, so I am merely trying to help in formatting his entries. He is doing fine, is he not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I remarked that you are struggling to recruit him here, but more contributors are needed on the wikir(j)еčnik as well ^_^ It is about to pass the 500-threshold in the immediate future. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

چار or چوار[edit]

Hello, You are right: the differences are dialectical. I just went ahead and added the entries. The dictionaries I have at home have both entries, while the online dictionaries tend to have one or the other, but not both. As you can see from the entry چار, it could have more than one meaning. The dictionaries I have at home are فرهنگ کوردی فارسی by مامۆستا هه‌ژار, Saladin's English-Kurdish Dictionary by Salah Saadallah, and The Sharezoor Kurdish-English Dictionary by Shafiq Qazzaz. The online dictionaries I checked which gave only one of the words are Namonet, and Mizgin
Hope that helped. Gbeebani 19:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I responded on the Appendix discussion page.Gbeebani 21:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)*d%C3%A9%E1%B8%B1m%CC%A5t

обич - accent?[edit]

Привет, Bogorm. обич и любов - это синонимы? Какое ударение в слове "обич" óbič или obíč. В болгарской Википедии ничего не написано. Проверь пожалуйста перевод в love (noun)--Anatoli 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Привет, Анатолий. Нет, они не синонимы. Словом любов принято обозначать это чувство в религиозном (по отношению к Богу) и эротичном смысле, тогда как слово обич относится к чувству между родителями и детьми или между друзьями, это любовь в не-эротичном и не-религиозном смысле. В латинском языке подобное отличие проводится между caritas и amor, дело подобное, а в греческом обич соответствует agape и storge, а любовь - eros. Это, конечно, трудно выразить ограниченными в этом отношении возможностями английского языка, но я постарался, насколько я способен. attachment конечно - привязанность (по-болгарски привързаност), не очень подходит, но я вставил для лучшего понимания; affection куда двусмысленное, обозначая оба значения. Наверное, надо было оставить только agape, но тогда возникнло бы впечатление, что это перевод с болгарского на греческий, поэтому я не довольствовался этим словом, хотя оно точнейшее. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Ударение на первом слоге - óбич, в определенной форме - на последнем (обичтá). Ты как добрался до этого интересного слова? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

bre in gd[edit]

FYI, re this edit. However, I don't know where you came across the term - could it be a typo for brae#Scots? (It derives from Old Norse brá, as well as the Gaelic bràigh does.) --Thrissel 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I came across the word in Vasmer's Russian Etymological dictionary here. According to Vasmer the word is related to Russian берег, German Berg, Armenian բարձր and Irish brí (mountain). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You mean this: кимр. bre "гора, холм"? Doesn't it point to Welsh, rather than to Scottish Gaelic? Both are Celtic languages, though, so it's probable the origin would be the same. BTW my source was this: this - digital version of a dictionary first published in 1911 and already marking it as obsolete. --Thrissel 15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it points indeed to Welsh. I do not know why I have been so distracted to overlook this. Thanks for the link to the dictionary. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

harr and чрънъ[edit]

Hello Bogorm. I just noticed you adding Norw. and Swed. harr "grayling" as a cognate of OCS.чрънъ "black". It may interest you that Bjorvand and Lindeman ("harr" in Våre arveord, 2007) think this connection is improbable, invoking Chr. S. Stang (Lexikalische Sonderübereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen, 1972). Instead, they think harr is related to Lith. karšis "bream", kiršlys "grayling" and keršas "piebald". Kåre-Olav 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Kåre-Olav. Ok, it is interesting indeed... At first Mikkola's derivation of koberec/ковёр from kǫgurr is being quæstioned (see twelve sections above), and now the relation of harr to чёрный. I am already feeling increasingly disconcerted by seeing established relationships between Slavic and Germanic words (J. J. Mikkola in the case of kǫgurr, Vasmer in the case of harr and чёрный) being subverted by novel theories. It is just a general impression which I cannot escape and which invigorates my habitual conservatism. Anyway, thanks for bringing it to mine attention. Could you kindly check whether those authors have anything to say about the derivation of koberec/ковёр from Old Norse kǫgurr, as I am struggling to substantiate it with sources more recent than Mikkola or Brugmann? Regards. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Bjorvand & Lindeman don't mention kǫgurr, as the word didn't survive into modern Norwegian. Kåre-Olav 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)