User talk:CodeCat

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
ey123:21, 24 February 2017
Balto-Slavic glottal stop2415:21, 24 February 2017
Latvian divi2015:04, 24 February 2017
{{desctree|frk|*blāw}}003:27, 24 February 2017
surname template/module007:18, 22 February 2017
inflection of, form of templates222:20, 20 February 2017, 16 February 2017
Italian IPA318:36, 15 February 2017
Origin of the phrase Sica1004:31, 15 February 2017
CAT:E004:53, 14 February 2017
Why do you delete200:11, 14 February 2017
Reason?502:21, 13 February 2017
Module errors100:40, 13 February 2017
undo revision PS *mysljati213:03, 2 February 2017
es114:54, 1 February 2017
The '"Errors" editor321:13, 30 January 2017
Definitions of the word kurwa009:30, 28 January 2017
Definitions of the word kurwa009:30, 28 January 2017
gracht213:14, 23 January 2017
Place names011:23, 21 January 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Balto-Slavic glottal stop

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 15:19, 24 February 2017

What symbol should be used for the glottal stop in *mouʔros? I got the reconstruction from Derksen.

Vahag (talk)15:24, 10 August 2013

I don't think the glottal stop is actually a phoneme in PBS although there is some disagreement on the exact interpretation. PIE laryngeals eventually led to the acute/circumflex distinction, so it's a matter of tone more than it is of actual phonemes. We don't normally include tones in entry names, mainly because there is still so much active research being done in that area. So I think the entry should be moved to *mauras and to indicate the tones in the entry itself.

CodeCat15:28, 10 August 2013

Isn't it still appropriate to indicate the presence of the disputed phoneme using a capital H?

Jackwolfroven (talk)18:24, 10 August 2013

If it's a phoneme, yes. But even that is disputed. Certainly not everyone or even the majority would reconstruct a distinct phoneme in such words, and they would assume that laryngeals had already been converted to tonal distinctions.

CodeCat18:34, 10 August 2013

Really? I didn't know that. I've only seen reconstructions giving *H rather than not on Wikipedia and Wiktionary.

Jackwolfroven (talk)02:27, 11 August 2013

We have *sūnus and *źirnan, both of which are sourced.

CodeCat02:32, 11 August 2013

Given the lack of a reference for the Proto-Balto-Slavic word you referenced, I reverted this back to Proto-Baltic. I'll be OK with it if you place a reference in the Proto-Balto-Slavic page (Appendix:Proto-Balto-Slavic/duwō). I also suggest following the format in sniegs or liepa for citations in Latvian (and perhaps other) etymology sections. Thanks! --Pereru (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pereru (talk)13:15, 4 September 2013

What I disagree with is removing links to the PBS pages. If they exist, why not link to them?

CodeCat13:17, 4 September 2013
Edited by author.
Last edit: 13:39, 4 September 2013

Because, if these pages exist but without references, they are to me as pages on words that we have no quotations for: doubtful (unless the words are commonly known). That is, to me, a reconstruction must have been proposed somewhere in order to exist and have a right to be here. (Out of curiosity, what is the official policy for creating pages for reconstructed protoforms? This has certainly been discussed already, right?)

Pereru (talk)13:38, 4 September 2013

We link to words without quotations too, it would be kind of crazy not to...

CodeCat13:39, 4 September 2013

Because you believe they exist? So can I create a word like crazify and link to it somewhere else? How can you tell the difference between a word without quotes and a non-existing one created by a vandal? (For normal English words the difference is unimportant, since we all know these words exist anyway; but for lesser known languages, and especially for reconstructions, how can you tell real contributions from vandalism without quotations?)

Pereru (talk)13:41, 4 September 2013

Well, the reconstruction you gave for Proto-Baltic is valid for Proto-Balto-Slavic as well because the Proto-Slavic form can be derived directly from it through the normal sound changes: w vs. v is just a notational difference, as is u vs ъ. And the change of ō to ā is completely regular in Slavic and is well documented. So yes I am very confident that it's correct.

CodeCat13:45, 4 September 2013


Any idea why {{desctree|frk|*blāw}} isn't working? I just get an error: Lua error in Module:debug at line 35: Lua error in Module:descendants_tree at line 18: attempt to perform arithmetic on local 'index' (a nil value)

Victar (talk)03:27, 24 February 2017

surname template/module

Hi there. Do you think you could modify the surname template/module so that "from=language code" gets automagically changed to "lang=language name"? Coding (as an example) "from=fr" puts it in a non-existent category.

SemperBlotto (talk)07:18, 22 February 2017

inflection of, form of templates

Hi CodeCat, in some of the older edited pages, e.g., they do not use these templates, e.g. topje. Can your mewbot do anything to automatically use these templates? One way it could do is using smart detection of words and convert it to the appropriate parameters in the templates. Thanks! (I tried to do some for the Polish entries, but I gave up and I can't code :/.)

AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/)10:39, 20 February 2017

I wowuld need a list of them first. Can you make a list of all Dutch nouns ending in -je that don't use {{nl-noun form of}}?

CodeCat15:26, 20 February 2017

Very sorry codecat, but I cannot find the list. It takes a long time, and I thought that your bot can find the algorithms.

AWESOME meeos * (chōmtī hao /t͡ɕoːm˩˧.tiː˩˧ haw˦˥/)22:20, 20 February 2017

I don't know much about Latin. What is the IP doing? I blocked them for 15 min.

Equinox 21:34, 16 February 2017

They're adding a long vowel in places where a long vowel could not exist. Latin always shortened long vowels before n + consonant. You can see this also before the 3rd person plural ending -nt. {{la-IPA}} also shows a short vowel. It's only long phonetically, because the following n disappears in speech, but this is not indicated in writing.

CodeCat21:36, 16 February 2017

Italian IPA

Hi, CodeCat. Since my last summer proposal didn't go further (and as you know my Lua knowledge is equal to almost zero), I'd like to ask you if you're willing to help me with the creation of a module for {{it-IPA}}; maybe basing it on Module:ca-IPA, as you had suggested then. Naturally, a lot of code should be changed. Let me know! ;)

I'm sorry, I know I might be bothersome, but could you at least reply, just to know if you're interested or not? Thank you.

Not really at the moment.

CodeCat18:18, 15 February 2017

Okay, tell me when (but only if) you are. Thanks ;)


Origin of the phrase Sica

Despite having an evidence for the phrase in Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques et Romaines, tome 4, volume 2 (R–S), Paris, 1926, p. 1300, s.v. sica, the name Sica comes from Proto-Indo-European root sek-, meaning "to cut", "to section", certain members keep reverting it to a non-existing "Proto-Albanian" language that should cognate with the "Illyrian". Proto-Albanian is not attested and neither is "Illyrian language". Proposing it to be an Albanian phrase is out of question.

Sica - "First mentioned in Ennius (Annals, 5.540)"

No written form of Illyrian or Proto-Albanian was ever attested by any historian or a linguist, whatsoever. As such they can't be used as valid sources for the sake of personal agenda by Albanian nationalists.

The phrase "Sica" refers to a sword, and the phrase "Seci" is commonly used in Slavic languages to define a cutting process of any kind. For an example, the phrase "Sekira" or "Sikira" are few among them with a distinctive root "SEK" which cognates to that of "SIK"(SIC).

"Woodard 2008, p. 6: "While the Illyrians are a well-documented people of antiquity, not a single verifiable inscription has survived written in the Illyrian language."

"Alb. thika 'knife', Old Ir. cath "wise", Lat. cōs, (gen. cōtis) "whetstone", catus "sharp, acute", Eng. hone, Arm. sur "sharp", srem "to sharpen", Avest. saēni "pot", sal "slab, anvil", Skt. śitá "sharp"; borrowed into Lat. sicca "dagger", Lat. sicarii "assassins", Rus. siečiénije "cut, section; cross-section", siečj, rassiekatj "to whip, flog; to cut, shred, split, sever"", 29 January 2017

Pinging @Chuck Entz in case he wants to tackle this topic.

JohnC502:37, 29 January 2017

Please do it elsewhere, I'm not interested.

CodeCat02:38, 29 January 2017

Yeah, I'm sorry that you got pulled into this.

JohnC502:41, 29 January 2017

I don't think pinging works with Liquid Threads- no signature. Not that I would have had much to contribute- this person is obviously more concerned with rooting Albanian references out of etymologies and promoting Slavic than with accuracy.

Chuck Entz (talk)06:31, 29 January 2017

Proto-Albanian or rather Albanian language on it's own is not attested before 15th century. Illyrians are far older. Any reference to Albanian language before 15th century?, 4 February 2017

Proto-languages, by definition, aren't attested, so that's really beside the point. You can get a good idea of what the ancestral language to all the attested varieties of Albanian was like by using the comparative method, just as you can get a good idea of what the ancestor of all the attested Indo-European languages is by using the same method. Such theoretical languages created by the comparative language are called proto-languages and are routinely used in etymologies, with the fact that they're theoretical indicated by an * next to the term. As long as the reconstruction is done by someone who knows what they're doing, it's not a problem. The references show that the Proto-Albanian form given was done by someone qualified to do so. You can't remove Proto-Albanian as unattested without also removing Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Slavic, since they're equally unattested. You seem to be confused about the relationship of Proto-Albanian, Proto-Slavic, Illyrian and Proto-Indo-European: in spite of meager evidence for Illyrian, it's pretty much universally agreed among modern linguists that all of them are Indo-European. In fact, the "Alb. thika 'knife'" in your first post refers to an Albanian word that's in the etymology you replaced. Contact between the ancestors of the Albanians and the Romans is strongly suggested by loanwords in Albanian that had to have come from Latin at a fairly early stage.

As for your edit comments about De Vaan: not everyone agrees with him on every issue, but I doubt any serious linguist would dispute that he is a serious scholar and a good source on Indo-European linguistics in general. You, on the other hand, seem to be so offended by the mere mention of the possibility of any connection between the Albanians and anything Classical that you're indiscriminately throwing in stuff from 90-year-old references that you don't understand and making strange accusations about bias and Albanian nationalism, even though w:Michiel de Vaan is the Dutch author of an important work on Latin and Italic etymology and w:Vladimir Orel was a Russian expert on Proto-Slavic.

Chuck Entz (talk)00:40, 5 February 2017

Referring to a Sword Sica without mentioning the Slavic connotation is a serious misinformation for the sake of propagating a nationalistically oriented approach to the Albanian origin for whatever reason.

There are clear references to the Proto-Slavic, which is not attested by the connotations in a written form, but make total sense geographically and ethnologically.

Proto-Albanian, on another case, is simply a stub, something that's not possible given the historic influence and geographic positions of the Slavic-spoken people in the region.

There is no attested connection between the Albanians and Illyrians, and the phrase "Thika" derives from the phrase "Sica", which in turn got introduced to the Latin languages thanks to the Roman historians who wrote about the sword used by a different culture. Sica is NOT a Roman sword. Sica did not originate in the Latin language as evidenced by the historic reports.

Proclaiming that it is LATIN in origin is a serious misconception and a fallacy.

Again, Albanian language is not attested before the 15th century in any written form. Illyrian language is not attested in the history in any written literature work. The "Proto-Albanian" as a concept is ludicrous at best, especially since the phrase Sica got introduced to the Latin languages. In Albanian language it is a loanword from the Latin, but it is not originally an Albanian blade nor is the name of Albanian origin. Furthermore, the very phrase Sica would be the same on Albanian language, which is not the case.

De Vaan did not study any Slavic language nor is he a good source on the origin of the sword's name since he only took the side of Latin phrases and sentences without mentioning any other Balkan people who had a different culture such as Dacians, Thracians and Illyrians. It is not a question of his reputation, but of his objectivity., 13 February 2017

You have three Zulu entries that you left with module errors.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds04:53, 14 February 2017

Why do you delete

Why do you delete "please add IPA" tag? you should add it rather than delete/undo.

Propatriamori (talk)00:06, 14 February 2017

I'm removing the other stuff that you put on the page that doesn't belong there.

CodeCat00:07, 14 February 2017

What do you mean "that doesnt belong there"? "please add IPA" tag cant put on that page?

Propatriamori (talk)00:11, 14 February 2017

What's your reason for this revert: diff?

01:24, 13 February 2017

It's an adjective in Latin but in species names it's not.

CodeCat01:31, 13 February 2017

No, it's an adjective- most specific epithets are. Still, the edit only changed the header without changing the rest of the entry, which would have been a problem.

Chuck Entz (talk)01:37, 13 February 2017

How is it an adjective? Do parts of speech even make sense for translingual?

CodeCat01:40, 13 February 2017

Taxonomic names are a strange combination of Latin and translingual: they don't have to be Latin in origin, but the rules of formation and treatment specify that they conform to Latin grammar. Here are a couple of relevant parts of the code for animal names:

Chuck Entz (talk)02:21, 13 February 2017

Is that your opinion or do you have any sources, or are taxonomical terms always nouns? And what's the POS of marmorata in "Felis marmorata" or "vibrans" in "Seioptera vibrans"? I guess, we can already agree that Felis is a feminine noun. - 01:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

PS: This was an answer to CodeCat's first reply. And it's partly a rhetoric question, because ICZN 11.9 is clear: "A species-group name must be a word of two or more letters, or a compound word (see Article 11.9.5), and, if a Latin or latinized word must be, or be treated as, [...] an adjective or participle in the nominative singular (as in Echinus esculentus, Felis marmorata, Seioptera vibrans) [...]".
@CodeCat: ICZN talks of POS like nouns, adjectives and participles. Also noun (that's what you readded into sapiens) is a POS too. If POS would not make sense for taxonomical terms, then it would have to be ===Word===. - 02:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
01:56, 13 February 2017

Module errors

As much as I appreciate the irony of your being on the receiving end of your own modules >;p, I would appreciate it more if you would fix the three Zulu entries in Cat:E. Thanks!

Chuck Entz (talk)00:24, 13 February 2017

I will, but a proper solution requires a bit of work that I haven't felt like doing.

CodeCat00:40, 13 February 2017

undo revision PS *mysljati

I couldn't find this word in ЭССЯ. Judging by first version, likely author of the entry took the descendants from prefixed forms. There is no мышлять in Russian wiki, nor mišljati in Croatian, nor mišljati in Slovene, nor myšlet in Czech, nor myślać in Polish, nor myšľať in Slovak. That's why i added {{needsources}}. —Игорь Тълкачь (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Игорь Тълкачь (talk)20:42, 1 February 2017

Not every page needs sources. Do you dispute the Proto-Slavic reconstruction, or the existence of the descendants? For the latter, you use RFV.

CodeCat21:38, 1 February 2017

Both, i started dispute there.

Игорь Тълкачь (talk)13:03, 2 February 2017

Should the Old Dutch form be included in the etymology of es as a mainspace form or as a reconstruction? It's only attested in compounds and as a toponym.

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)14:33, 1 February 2017

It has to be attested itself, not as part of a compound or other word. This is for the same reason that verdwijnen does not necessarily count as an attestation to dwijnen.

CodeCat14:54, 1 February 2017

The '"Errors" editor

Is it possible to search or make a filter for whenever "Errors. (Missing informations.)" appears in a comment? This user is very frustrating but fortunately is easily identifiable.

JohnC518:26, 30 January 2017


CodeCat20:34, 30 January 2017

Do you have any guidance in this respect?

JohnC521:05, 30 January 2017

Not really.

CodeCat21:13, 30 January 2017

Definitions of the word kurwa

The edit on the page kurwa you reverted yesterday was submitted because, at least in my opinion, the definition that was removed is vastly incorrect. First and foremost, a 'comma substitution' (which isn't even a linguistic term) can't be a noun. What the author of this contribution had probably meant to add is already covered in the 2.5 section. I believe it's a minor vandalism that had been submitted for humorous reasons. The expression '(…)(usually successful) attempt to leave not much space for objection' clearly highlights it. I'm afraid the rollback you made is an error or an oversight., 28 January 2017

Definitions of the word kurwa

The edit on the page kurwa you reverted yesterday was submitted because, at least in my opinion, the definition that was removed is vastly incorrect. First and foremost, a 'comma substitution' (which isn't even a linguistic term) can't be a noun. What the author of this contribution had probably meant to add is already covered in the 2.5 section. I believe it's a minor vandalism that had been submitted for humorous reasons. The expression '(…)(usually successful) attempt to leave not much space for objection' clearly highlights it. I'm afraid the rollback you made is an error or an oversight., 28 January 2017

Hi, I noticed you added an additional noun section to gracht for the neuter headword. Should second headword lines with the same etymology be put in their own section as much as possible?

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)10:53, 21 January 2017

Yes, though I would rather find a way to just have one headword per etymology.

CodeCat12:42, 21 January 2017

All right, then I'll follow that format for now.

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)13:14, 23 January 2017

Place names

I hope you don't mind me messaging you to say that voting is open on Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-01/Policy on place names.

John Cross (talk)11:23, 21 January 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page