User talk:Rua

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:CodeCat)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Zeeuws009:46, 21 May 2020
Template:prefixsee109:12, 28 April 2020
My change to *gʷelbʰ-018:57, 26 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bō-109:02, 25 April 2020
van006:57, 25 April 2020
werpijan218:21, 24 April 2020
Synonyms for aiskōną110:25, 23 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás310:42, 20 April 2020
Mistake with rollback on Reconstructed Terms108:18, 19 April 2020
User Talkpage Vandal016:07, 18 April 2020
Borre/brenje211:50, 18 April 2020
Kumyk noun declension template221:42, 4 April 2020
lammas008:48, 28 March 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/kafl318:02, 23 March 2020
Dutch language210:13, 21 March 2020
Proper nouns in PG322:04, 15 March 2020
*albiz from *albʰós423:42, 14 March 2020
{{l|grc|ἡλίκος||which size}}, {{l|sla-pro|*velikъ}} and suchlike406:03, 10 March 2020
Unexplained (probably mistaken) rollback on Proto-Hellenic.613:32, 6 March 2020
Unexplained rollbacks on PIE entries.401:16, 14 February 2020
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Dag Rua, ik zie dat je vorig jaar wat basaal werk aan het Zeeuws hebt gedaan. Aangezien het lijkt voort te bouwen op het beginnetje dat ik twee maanden eerder heb gemaakt, wil ik je daar even voor bedanken. Overigens ga ik er graag nog een keer mee verder, maar ik kan weinig beloven aangezien ik offline dringender bezigheden heb.

Steinbach (talk)09:46, 21 May 2020

Template:prefixsee

You seem to be the chief creator of this template. I wish to let you know that it does not, at least not always, arrange the prefixed terms in a correct alphabetic order, see uudis-.

Hekaheka (talk)09:08, 28 April 2020

The template seems to put first those terms that have been defined with "affix" and only then start listing the ones created with "prefix". I don't know whether this is an intentional feature.

Hekaheka (talk)09:11, 28 April 2020
 

My change to *gʷelbʰ-

Hello Rua, thanks for the advice on my change to *gʷelbʰ-, but in the entry *kalbaz a way is mentioned in which the word could have been derived from *gʷelbʰ-. That's also why I added the "uncertain" parameter.

Malcolm77 (talk)18:56, 26 April 2020

Hi Rua, I was wondering if you could help sort the descendants (in the "unsorted" group) at *bō-; I'm not familiar enough with the sound change laws. Thanks!

Julia 01:59, 25 April 2020

Not really, it looks almost like each descendant came from its own form.

Rua (mew)09:02, 25 April 2020
 

Hi :) It looks like somethings going wrong here. Due to the long/short vowel distinction in Old Dutch: fán=catch, fan=of. dum. "van" and decendants are derived from fané, not from fanhanã. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)06:57, 25 April 2020

I've always observed the same, that the vowel should be 'i'. Due to the by-forms (worpio, gurpio, etc) I wonder if this is actually from *wurpijan, which I had added a few days ago. Do you think this might have been the case ?

Leasnam (talk)18:00, 24 April 2020

Quite possible. I think it should be moved and the aberrant term deleted.

Rua (mew)18:11, 24 April 2020

ok, shall do.

Leasnam (talk)18:21, 24 April 2020
 
 

Synonyms for aiskōną

I've added *frēgōną and *spurjaną as synonyms for *aiskōną. Today their descendants are used by multiple languages (e.g. German and Dutch use descendants of frēgōną, the North Germanic ones use descendants of spurjaną) to mean "to ask". Is it thus acceptable to list those words as synonyms?

RayZa (talk)09:53, 23 April 2020

I'm not sure if they were exact synonyms. *aiskōną seems to be more wanting to have something, while *frēgōną seems to be about wanting to know something.

Rua (mew)10:25, 23 April 2020
 

Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás

Why do you cancel edits?

Gnosandes (talk)10:35, 20 April 2020

Why do you? And why do you make edits that you know are disputed?

Rua (mew)10:36, 20 April 2020

How are they disputed? The presence of an accent paradigm d? Which you write as two paradigms b and c? At the same time, oxytone shows a good number of dialects. This is accentology ignorance. And I'm not talking about terrible etymology...

Gnosandes (talk)10:42, 20 April 2020
 

Also, you're very close to getting blocked again.

Rua (mew)10:40, 20 April 2020
 

Mistake with rollback on Reconstructed Terms

I believe the rollback you made on the link Reconstructed terms was a mistake. Romanian is also a romance language related to the other four, thus the words in that language are cognates with one another.

Harshmoney (talk)23:51, 18 April 2020

Yes, it is a Romance language, but does every single Romance language need to be listed?

Rua (mew)08:18, 19 April 2020
 

User Talkpage Vandal

Blocking a single IP for a year site-wide is rather pointless: this is the second IP they've used, and the range they're in is too wide to block all of it. I've started doing range blocks specific to the User talk namespace wherever they edit from, but I suspect they'll be able to get around it for a while.

Their whole game is to goad people into action and then laugh at the frustration when it doesn't work. The best response is to calmly stop up any hole they pop out of until they run out of holes. Maybe it will require an abuse filter eventually, but I'm not going to go out of my way.

I get a lot less of this kind of abuse than some of the others, and that's mostly because I don't get upset. Being insulted or pranked on a wiki talk page is not high on the list of things that bother me. I just clean it up and ignore it until the pathetic waste of their time takes its toll. I find boredom is my best weapon.

Chuck Entz (talk)16:07, 18 April 2020

Borre/brenje

Thank you for adding them correctly! :) I do see one issue. In the current form, it is not specified that the verb "borre" (intransitive) derives from od. "brinnan" < "brinnana", while "brenje" (transitive) derives from od. "brennan" < "brannijana". Is there a way to fix this? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)11:35, 18 April 2020

There is only a single entry for them in Middle Dutch, because they were no longer distinguished by that time. Presumably, one of the Limburgish words was loaned from High German.

Rua (mew)11:38, 18 April 2020

It would be highly unlikely such a difference in transitivity is loaned if it vanished early on. But I remember we already had a disagreement on a similar subject earlier on, so I will leave it to that.

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)11:50, 18 April 2020
 
 

Kumyk noun declension template

Remembering the cooperation we had on Budukh, would you be interested? See яш for an example. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahverdi Verdizade (talk)16:45, 4 April 2020

I don't really have the time/mental clarity for that at the moment. But the Budukh code is at Module:bdk-nouns. Do you think you understand it enough to make a copy at Module:kum-nouns and adjust it for Kumyk?

Rua (mew)18:00, 4 April 2020

I can make a try, or wait for someone else to help. Thanks anyway :) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahverdi Verdizade (talk)21:42, 4 April 2020
 
 

@Rua The 'thanks' was for correcting the lua. Fortunately, the Estonian etymology would not be run through by many people. I was unpleasantly surprised that its author seemed to be ignorant of the fact that Proto-Finnic, or at least, Finn-Ugric has far more franchise as a single language than Proto-Germanic, since the latter is simply formed (as you know) from its core of mezzo-Indo-European (if you like) and the borrowed forms from the substrate language (and dialects) in Scandinavia. Before Celtic had any influence there, it is obvious to most who have studied the ancient languages of Europe that Proto-Finnic was that substrate language and, therefore all the Germanic forms for 'lamb' were in fact derivatives from the substrate root borrowed into Proto-Germanic; whereas the English term is clearly a derivative from the PG form later. Therefore an etymologist can safely assume that: Proto-Germanic *lambaz is borrowed from Proto-Finnic *lambas. The same applies, incidentally to Finnish 'flikka' cognate with Swedish 'flicka' ultimately form the root of Old Cornish 'flogh' (child) - not found in the other Celtic dialects. In both of these cases the words are so basic to everyday farm life that borrowing from a more recent cosmopolitan language is inadmissible. Kind regards. 08:47,28th March Andrew (talk)

Andrew08:48, 28 March 2020

Geez, Rua, you can't wait until I move things around to start a discussion about it? You have to do it while I'm in the process, breaking the things I'm working on?

{{victar|talk}}17:58, 23 March 2020

How am I supposed to see when you're done?

Rua (mew)17:59, 23 March 2020

You literally moved it 3 minutes after I did and was in the process of cleaning up links. There are timestamps for this shit. Also, would it kill you to start a discussion first?

{{victar|talk}}18:01, 23 March 2020

Depends. Where's the discussion?

Rua (mew)18:02, 23 March 2020
 
 
 

Dutch language

I don't know if that's a good thing to do. But I would like to ask you, as a native speaker of the Dutch language, to please advise me of good textbooks on this language. Their names and the like. I will be very grateful for this. Thanks. :ь

Gnosandes (talk)15:54, 20 March 2020

As I've never had to learn Dutch from a book, I've no idea what books there are.

Rua (mew)17:12, 20 March 2020

That is, you are not taught the Dutch language at school? Well, if not, then no. Thanks. :)

Gnosandes (talk)10:13, 21 March 2020
 
 

Proper nouns in PG

Can you please direct me to the vote or discussion were proper nouns in Proto-Germanic were made forbidden? I cannot find one.

{{victar|talk}}20:18, 15 March 2020

They're not forbidden, we have many of them. This just isn't one, it's a regular noun.

Rua (mew)20:27, 15 March 2020

Putting a pin in that. Where is the vote/discussion on any reconstructed lemma relating to nationality being set to lowercase?

{{victar|talk}}20:57, 15 March 2020

Talk to my lawyer, since you clearly want to be one.

Rua (mew)22:04, 15 March 2020
 
 
 

*albiz from *albʰós

Please can you specify why Proto-Germanic *albiz does NOT derive from Proto-Indo-European *albʰós ? I have quoted from Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok to show that it does.

24.108.56.7220:31, 1 November 2019

It's *albī, not *albiz which is a different word. It can't be derived from *albʰós, nor from its feminine form, because the Germanic form does not match. The Germanic form must come from *albʰih₂, which is an ih₂/yeh₂ stem noun.

Rua (mew)20:50, 1 November 2019

isl.-fno. elfr, no., da. elv; jfr ty. flodn. Elbe germ.-lat. Albis), ävensom mlty. elve, flodbädd; ett sålunda väsentl. nord-germ. ord, som i riksspr. (liksom åtm. i regel i fsv. o. åtm. äldre fno.) användes endast om större åar o. tycks saknas t. ex. i de ösv. dial.; av germ. *albi-; väl femininbildning till ie. *albho-

Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok p. 1298

The dictionary backs me up! Please tell me why I should not revert.

24.108.56.7222:42, 2 November 2019

I just told you why, the forms don't match.

Rua (mew)09:45, 3 November 2019
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 23:42, 14 March 2020

Other IP user here. I would usually not touch this with a nine foot pole as they say, but your wording "must" is too strong, even if it can't be regularly derived directly from *albʰós, f. nom. *albʰéh₂, f. loc. *albʰéh₂(i), etc. that I have to believe you, if you meant that it couldn't be inherited.

The PGem root is "river", but Kroonen says only that it's probably from the river "Elbe" (one of the major confluences in central north Germany).

I guess that it is possible the inflection was innovated after PIE. This might be due to "Elb'" being the combining form (Elbgewässer), or any other reason. "derived" can well come with a breaking change. The status quo is being not that precise about the inheritance template anyway, are we? Maybe we should be.

The association to "white" is reasonable, reflected in the literature, even if the typology is perhaps naive. The problem is, I expect, to find non-German comparands that match exactly, which would require specialized literature on hydronymy to check.

It may be best left unrooted for the time being.

A counter opinion for OP to consider, *albʰos- alternatively gives \*h₂elbʰos-, because \*h₂e, dubbed the a-colouring laryngeal, frequently reflects a in descendents. In contrast, PIE \*a is marginal, even contestable. Anyhow, *h₂el- (to grow, old) could make sense here. And if not, then \*a may be prefered as a clue to a substrate language, e.g. old-European-Hydronymy, which is perhaps still a little naive. 109.41.1.176 17:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

109.41.1.17617:23, 8 March 2020
 
 
 
 

{{l|grc|ἡλίκος||which size}}, {{l|sla-pro|*velikъ}} and suchlike

Wonderful, What was your reason for the revert?

I don't disagree with it. I wanted to take it to the ES later. The entries are confusing, helikos links *yos, Greek hos, but also confers to helix, that says it were uncertain, giving *swe- or *h2el-. There Lat. aequalis is also compared, which says "uncertain".

Doesn't a comparison suggest itself, or can you reject it off-hand? I do myself at least disagree with the presentation, but it's in line with the linked articles, "compare, cf." I thought.

There is *wel- "to grow" just the same, if I remember correctly, which matches both Slavic and Greek. The suffixes seem different at first, but neither is fully explained in these pages, that's usually the end of my research. Neither is my resort.

Instead I'm actually interested in a better explanation for PGem \*likaz, so it's really about the suffix. Although if there were a relation, it would be difficult to derive.

Should I take this to the ES, where more people pay attention?

109.41.1.17618:25, 8 March 2020

Which revert are you talking about?

Rua (mew)18:26, 8 March 2020

this one

Your UI script slows down my phone and editing the previous post hung up on update. Wasn't there a way to switch to classic view? At least it shouldn't prevent me from using the preview, that was my fault. The links are: ἡλίκος (hēlíkos, which size), *velikъ --what went wrong with the title?

Turns out it does break preview for me, loading "No such thread".

109.41.1.17618:35, 8 March 2020

The etymology at ἡλίκος (hēlíkos) shows something very different from what you proposed.

Rua (mew)21:44, 8 March 2020

I have said that it is confusing. This wording is misleading: “the same suffix as talis …”. Maybe I never followed the link, as it reminded me of cases like ‘’-(t)icus’’, see ‘’-cus’’ below.

Now that I read the entry I see what you mean: helix and talis, and maybe ‘’helikos’’ as well if this is to be inferred, do tentatively agree that *h2el- could be the second element, while *swe-, *to-, and *yos- would give each the respective initial element. It’s a bit messy, and there’s more.

Insofar I had implied that the remaining elements would match in *velikъ and helikos, you might object that I haven't read closely: The PSlav entry links *-ikъ without further PIE root, and notes that it were “Probably not related to Sanskrit -ईक (-īká) and Latin -īco”, whereas the AGr entry links *kos-, the same Latin ‘’-ico’’ links to, ultimately, listing e.g.: PSlav *-kъ and *-ъkъ, PGem *-gaz, Latin ‘’-cus’’, AGr -κός, PII *-kas, and *-kasa, *-ćasa … Meanwhile, the /i/ in ‘’helikos’’ et al goes unexplained, and I could not tell the /ks/ in ‘’helix’’, either.
‘’-icus’’ effectively explains PIE “*-ikos” thus: “From i-stem + -cus, occurring in some original case and later used freely” (is there a shorter word for this meme, ‘’o.i.s.o.c.a.l.u.f.’’?). It does not list ‘’-ico’’ as relative, whereas ‘’-ico’’ is: “From -ō suffixed to words with stems ending in -ic (e.g. -icus)” (surely a case of o.i.s.o.c.a.l.u.f.). Lat. ‘’-o-’’ counts eight derivations, it’s a single vowel, I have to ignore this. A bit vexing, AGr. '’hos’’ implicates a diphtong ‘’*ey’’similar to *-ikъ, but in the wrong place, as ’’hos’’ is etymologized “From Proto-Indo-European *yós, *yéh₂, *yód (“who, which”), from the relative stem *yo-, from the anaphoric stem *i-, *ey-.” whereas “the *-i in *-ikъ thus reflects a diphthong *ey”, which is maybe implied by *velьjь, “From vele + jь with tense e becoming ь”? Indeed: *yos links *jь. What’s an i-stem?

This’s what the pages say. It “probably” does not contradict the comparison. I’m first of all focused on the semantics, though, which match so well that no explanation was needed. For a start it might be best to tie up the loose ends.

Dercksen assigns *welh1- to *velikъ indeed, further indexing a doublette *velъkъ with West Slavic variants.

Does that make sense sofar? Wellicht? 109.41.0.191

109.41.0.19106:03, 10 March 2020
 
 
 
 

Unexplained (probably mistaken) rollback on Proto-Hellenic.

Hi. There's a problem with inflection-table. You had rolled it back. Rua, can you please, explain, why did you did this?

Sashatrk (talk)10:20, 6 March 2020

The inflection was incorrect.

Rua (mew)11:20, 6 March 2020

😯. What's wrong in inflection?

Sashatrk (talk)11:45, 6 March 2020

Most of the forms seem wrong, and cannot be ancestral to the Ancient Greek forms. The accusative singular must be *gʷṓn, inherited from the PIE form and directly reflected in Epic Greek. The nominative and accusative plural must likewise be *gʷówes and *gʷówəs.

Rua (mew)11:57, 6 March 2020

🤯. So which inflection-table do you think should be?

Sashatrk (talk)12:08, 6 March 2020

We currently don't have an inflection table for this word.

Rua (mew)12:30, 6 March 2020
 
 
 
 
 

Unexplained rollbacks on PIE entries.

Title. 216.165.95.140 19:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

216.165.95.14019:39, 13 February 2020
@Rua You've done it again. Hello?
216.165.95.14020:10, 13 February 2020
 

Because PIE is too uncertain, we don't have pronunciations on PIE pages. If you want to add them, you need to get consensus for it first.

Rua (mew)20:10, 13 February 2020

I think that the inclusion of reconstructed pronunciation is helpful. It's nice to have something to go on, especially for words with many laryngeals which would otherwise appear to be unpronounceable. Merely including a reconstructed pronunciation does NOT imply that the reconstruction is certain.

Where is there a rule that says "thou shalt not include reconstructed pronunciations on PIE entries"? I must've missed that memo. On the other hand, the pronunciation at *méh₂tēr was there for years, since 2014. You have made several edits on that entry since then, without touching the pronunciation. It stood there until today when, moments after I mentioned it, you decided that it should be removed. It seems that you are the one who is suddenly going against consensus here and demanding that these pronunciations be removed.

I must also remark that your behavior very much contradicts your proclaimed "inclusionist" label on your Wikipedia user page.

BirdValiant (talk)23:09, 13 February 2020
 

I've gone to the Beer Parlor with this issue.

BirdValiant (talk)01:15, 14 February 2020
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page