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
Trouble adding a new label to Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names219:45, 3 March 2015
(Re-)implementing f1tr=, etc. for {{temp|head}}?313:45, 2 March 2015
Could you check this over1513:36, 2 March 2015
Grease pit idea120:09, 18 February 2015
Module:en-headword016:57, 16 February 2015
ABC header for Norwegian415:56, 15 February 2015
Alternative form of007:11, 14 February 2015
Template:es-noun015:50, 8 February 2015
Template:es-noun015:50, 8 February 2015
Template:ast-adj-mf and Template:ast-adj015:47, 8 February 2015
''*grysti'' or ''*gryzti'' ?018:27, 7 February 2015
Template:ast-noun117:55, 5 February 2015
Language Code "kv"409:45, 3 February 2015
CONGLATURATION509:48, 28 January 2015
pt-verb/conj702:24, 27 January 2015
Ejakulacija edit200:44, 27 January 2015
User rights300:06, 26 January 2015
nrf for Norman319:10, 25 January 2015
vrddhi gerundive220:57, 22 January 2015
manslaughter416:22, 19 January 2015
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Hi CodeCat. I tried adding "provinces of the Roman Empire" as a label to Module:category tree/topic cat/data/Place names, but {{topic cat|…|provinces of the Roman Empire}} ended up generating the error message "Lua error in Module:category_tree at line 126: attempt to index field 'name' (a nil value)" in Category:en:Provinces of the Roman Empire, Category:fr:Provinces of the Roman Empire, and Category:la:Provinces of the Roman Empire. I don't understand what I've done wrong; could you explain to me how to fix this, please?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A.14:09, 3 March 2015

It's because there is no category "Roman Empire" yet.

CodeCat17:09, 3 March 2015

Thanks. I've fixed it now. :-)

 — I.S.M.E.T.A.19:45, 3 March 2015

(Re-)implementing f1tr=, etc. for {{temp|head}}?

How hard would it be to do this? It seems it should be possible since underlyingly it's supported in the module code. I ask because things like {{arz-verb}} and {{arz-noun}} are written to use f1tr=.

Benwing (talk)05:41, 2 March 2015

I thought I did that already?

CodeCat12:26, 2 March 2015

Well, something doesn't work. Take a look at حفظ under Egyptian Arabic. The imperfect should have a translit by it. It uses {{arz-verb}} which does fill in a translit using impftr=, and this is mapped to f1tr= by {{arz-verb}}, but nothing is displayed. Maybe you have a hack somewhere to only display translits for certain languages? If so, can this hack be extended to include Egyptian Arabic (and probably various other Arabic dialects, at least Moroccan Arabic, North Levantine Arabic, South Levantine Arabic, and Libyan Arabic)? Thanks.

Benwing (talk)13:42, 2 March 2015

I had a look, and you used the wrong number. "Perfect" was already form 1, so the next one after that is form 2.

CodeCat13:45, 2 March 2015

Could you check this over

Could you look over the entry I made at *stéh₂mn̥ and tell me whether it looks correct and whether some entries should be moved to a *stéh₂mōn entry? Thanks for the help!

JohnC511:31, 18 February 2015

It looks ok. Neuters often don't have plurals, instead they have collective nouns which inflect like singulars. *stéh₂mōn is really just the plural, although it's actually *stéh₂mō (-n is lost after ō via w:Szemerényi's law).

CodeCat13:58, 18 February 2015

Drat, I totally knew that! Also, for the *-mn̥ entry. It seems to me that *-h₂ with and abstract t-stem may also form the collective noun as in -mentum and -μᾰ (-ma). Am I way off base on this one?

JohnC520:54, 18 February 2015

I don't actually know, but it does seem at least somewhat plausible that those two suffixes are related. Of course there's still the question of why the nominative has -ma and not -maton, and why the Latin suffix has a thematic stem while the Greek suffix is athematic (the Greek presumably reflects earlier -mn̥t-, the Latin reflects -mn̥to-m).

CodeCat21:12, 18 February 2015

In both cases I believe it was reanalysis.

  • For -mentum, there are examples like armentum, whose earlier form (armenta) is 1st declension. This would then have been reanalyzed as the neuter plural.
  • Similarly, I suspect the that -μᾰ was suppletive (*-mn̥, *-mn̥th₂) and the t-stem crept back into all the singular forms except the nominative singular.

This may just be idle rambling from having looked at these too long, but it seems plausible to me.

JohnC521:54, 18 February 2015

For me, the simplest explanation for the Greek form is just as an athematic -mn̥t-. Greek regularly loses final -t, so in the nominative the result would be -mn̥t > -mat > -ma or -mn̥t > -mn̥ > -ma (both orders are possible and give the same result). In the other forms, the -t- was not final, so it was retained. I see no reason to involve suppletion, unless I am missing something.

CodeCat22:01, 18 February 2015

I know I just asked you to check out something, but I was working on *wéytis, and there seems to be a great disagreement about whether the underlying root should be *wey-, *weh₁i-, or *weyh₁-. I was wondering whether you could shed any light on this? It appears to be a very productive root, and so I find it hard to believe there isn't a consensus on this.

JohnC512:05, 25 February 2015

I suspect that Old Irish féith must reflect Proto-Celtic *wēitis, as a short -ei- would be reflected as é, later ía in Old Irish. So this would then have to come from *weh₁i-. On the other hand, the -th- is palatalised, which is indicated by the preceding -i- in the spelling, and it's possible that palatalisation inhibits the é > ía change. You would have to ask someone more knowledgeable like User:Angr about it.

Germanic *wiþiz can't reflect *weyh₁-, as this can't result in a short -i- in zero grade: *wih₁- would give a long ī. I'm less certain about the outcome of a zero-grade *wh₁i-, as presumably this would turn the preceding semivowel into a full vowel: *wh₁i- > *uh₁i- > *ūi-. On the other hand, it's also possible that it remained as a semivowel, in which case the expected result would be *wh₁i- > *wi-, with the laryngeal simply lost.

Lithuanian výtis has an acute accent, which must reflect either a former laryngeal or the "new long grade" of Balto-Slavic. It can't reflect *wey-, as a Lithuanian y always reflects an "old" long vowel, generally from a laryngeal. A full grade -ey- gives -ei- or -ie- in Lithuanian. This also means that it probably can't reflect *weh₁i-, which would not account for the length, although I have no idea what -eh₁i- gives in Lithuanian. Balto-Slavic developed a new type of long grade ablaut though, which could have been introduced in a zero grade form: *wh₁i- > *wi- > *wī-.

Latin ī must reflect -eyh₁-, -ih₁- or -ey-, so that rules out *weh₁i- and its zero grade *wh₁i-. The former would give *vē- if I'm not mistaken.

So while some possibilities can be ruled out, I can't say anything conclusive. It would be a good idea to take this to the ES.

CodeCat15:22, 25 February 2015

Very well. May I quote you when I make the post (as I have no idea how to link here)? Also, with this information and given that De Vaan (for some strange reason) has *wh₁itis, could we maybe maybe posit *wéh₁ytis and propose that some of the forms came from the oblique form? This would give:

  • *wéh₁ytis:
    féith (*wēitis)
  • *wh₁itéy-:

I'd also like to add the wrinkle that, if we assume that वेमन् (veman, loom, slay) and vīmen stem from the same form, this points towards *wéymn̥.
PS: Is there a particular Vedic dictionary that gives word accentuation or can you construct it from rules in Panini?

JohnC521:37, 25 February 2015

I don't know much about Sanskrit so I can't help you there.

I don't find *wh₁itéy- very convincing as the origin of the Balto-Slavic forms, personally. The long vowel can be explained, in general, as either from a following laryngeal or from the new length ablaut. However, such new long vowels were always used in specific derivational processes that were innovated within Balto-Slavic, and I find it very unlikely that an old formation like a ti-stem would have such a long vowel. What also needs to be considered is that ti-stems became productive as infinitives in Balto-Slavic, so if one of them happened to survive as a noun, it must be an archaism and thus can't be an innovated derivation at the same time.

CodeCat23:39, 25 February 2015

Hi. I'm pretty sure that *weh₁i- would become *wei- in Celtic, not #wēi-. Beekes makes the exact same point about the sequence *-eh₂i- turning (generally) into *-ai- not #-āi-; *-āi- must reflect *-eh₂ei- or similar.

Benwing (talk)05:48, 2 March 2015

Ok, but ei generally becomes ē in Celtic, so does a former eh₁i also become ē or does it remain separate?

Also, the shortening of long diphthongs is because of w:Osthoff's law.

CodeCat12:28, 2 March 2015

Presumably eh₁i becomes ē just like ei. Loss of laryngeals between vowels occurred early in most (all?) daughters, followed (usually) by early vowel contraction.

Benwing (talk)13:36, 2 March 2015

Grease pit idea

Hey, I know you're really busy, but could you look at my Chinese classifier template idea when you have time here? Thanks.

WikiWinters (talk)20:06, 18 February 2015

I don't know much about the specifics of Chinese, so I can't tell without some more information. Most important is how a native speaker would determine what classifier to use. If a human can't reliably predict it based on the word's shape, neither can a computer.

CodeCat20:09, 18 February 2015

How much did I break Module:en-headword with my most recent edit? I hope not too much

Type56op9 (talk)16:57, 16 February 2015

ABC header for Norwegian

Can you remember how I set up a template for this (sometime last year I think), adapting it from Danish? I now have Teodor605 asking me how to do it, as I mentioned the lack of one in Norsk Wiktionary. I can't find the discussion we had, in the Grease Pit I think.

Donnanz (talk)14:00, 15 February 2015

What's an ABC header?

CodeCat14:32, 15 February 2015

Like here (an index I suppose) - Aa, Bb, Cc etc. I can't find the template.

Donnanz (talk)15:43, 15 February 2015

It's at Template:nb-categoryTOC.

CodeCat15:48, 15 February 2015

Ah, thanks for finding it. I was looking under index templates. I will send it to Teodor.

Donnanz (talk)15:56, 15 February 2015

Alternative form of

You have made some changes to Template:alternative_form_of which at least I do not find positive:

  1. Unlike other similar templates (e.g. alternative spelling of, alternative term for) it returns a lower case text: alternative form of... I think it should return capital initial letter as default: Alternative form of….
  2. The documentation on the template page is no more valid. As only you know how the template currently works you should either update the documentation or change whatever modules it takes to change to make the functioning of the template to match the documentation.
Hekaheka (talk)07:11, 14 February 2015

Also, while it's on my mind, could you fully WT:ACCELerate Template:es-noun for entries like oceanógrafo, so the feminine form of the nouns can be ACCELeratedly added? It works in Portuguese, but not in Spanish, sadly.

Type56op9 (talk)15:50, 8 February 2015

Also, while it's on my mind, could you fully WT:ACCELerate Template:es-noun for entries like oceanógrafo, so the feminine form of the nouns can be ACCELeratedly added? It works in Portuguese, but not in Spanish, sadly.

Type56op9 (talk)15:50, 8 February 2015

Hi again CodeCat. I've been trying to fiddle with the templates Template:ast-adj-mf and Template:ast-adj to make them track down green links, but am failing epically at doing it. For example, I would like the template to be able to find missing adjective forms for words like xenital and oncenu and categorise them in Category:Missing Asturian adjective forms‎. Can you do it for me?

Type56op9 (talk)15:47, 8 February 2015

''*grysti'' or ''*gryzti'' ?

How come that we have *grysti instead of *gryzti ?

If this is assmilated then shoud all words suffixed with *orz-, *jьz-, *vъz- be assimilated as well ?

As a mather of fact should all words lacking ь or ъ be completely assimilated ? 03:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC), 7 February 2015

Hi CodeCat, thanks again for being generally excellent. I have a request for you. A while ago, Template:ast-noun was fully WT:ACCELerated, but nowadays I can't get any green links working. Any idea how to fix it?

Type56op9 (talk)12:02, 5 February 2015


CodeCat17:55, 5 February 2015

Language Code "kv"

Is there a reason why you converted ambiguous, but harmless instances of "Komi" in Proto-Uralic descendents sections into fatally wrong {{l|kv}}? I was just going to change them all back, but I thought I'd check first.

Chuck Entz (talk)22:10, 1 February 2015

They were labelled "Komi", so I used the code for Komi. I don't know what else to do, the entries didn't have any information to let me determine which kind of Komi.

CodeCat22:21, 1 February 2015

You could have left them as text and added attention templates to get someone to fix them. At least that way, we wouldn't have a dozen+ entries with module errors while we're waiting for someone to figure out what to do.

Chuck Entz (talk)22:33, 1 February 2015

Nobody ever checks the attention categories though, at least this worked?

CodeCat22:39, 1 February 2015

It's > 98% safe to assume that any form labeled just "Komi" with no caveats is Komi-Zyrian. The terminology Komi = {Komi-Zyrian, Komi-Permyak} is something I've only ever seen on Wikimedia, most of the rest of the world operates on Komi sensu lato ("Komi-ic"?) = {Komi, Permyak}. Besides, the differences in the two standards are absolutely minimal, when it comes to inherited root words. (I'd probably do a general cleanup at some point anyway, once I get around to working on common Permic vocabulary, maybe some years down the line.)

Tropylium (talk)09:45, 3 February 2015


You broke WT:FSCK#Output and WT:LOL#n.

Keφr18:54, 26 January 2015

And xte. Also, why the camel case when all the other fields use underscores? This is a quite jarring inconsistency.

Keφr19:15, 26 January 2015

xte shouldn't be broken, as only the data format has changed, not the functions.

CodeCat19:15, 26 January 2015

xte bypasses them.

Keφr23:22, 26 January 2015

Well there's your problem...

CodeCat23:32, 26 January 2015

It has to bypass them, otherwise it would DoS the WMF servers every time it encountered a larger translation table.

Keφr09:17, 27 January 2015


Hi, I'm currently working on replacements for {{pt-verb}} and {{pt-conj}}. The verb headwords are now generated using the new module you added recently which I modified (Module:User:Jberkel/pt-headword). Since I just started working with modules on Wiktionary could you take a quick look and see if my changes make sense ? To summarise, I did the following:

Jberkel (talk)16:25, 23 January 2015

It seems rather complicated for something that could really be much simpler than that.

CodeCat16:56, 23 January 2015

I'm not sure how this could be made much simpler. It's quite easy to understand compared to the current version and its nested template madness (pt-verb/doWork/add etc). And the code I wrote is not doing much - some lookups and data presentation. How would you simplify this ?

Jberkel (talk)17:19, 23 January 2015

Well, the templates that Daniel Carrero made are often quite convoluted.

As far as generating a table goes, I use the approach you see in Module:hu-nominals. At the bottom is a make_table function which takes a list of forms and puts them in a table. Everything in the tableCreator module could replaced with a function like that, in theory.

While having the endings as pure data can work, there are often situations where the preceding stem changes depending on what kind of ending is added, and other things like that. So my preference is to treat inflection types as functions, rather than as lists of endings. That way it's much easier to account for predictable changes.

CodeCat17:35, 23 January 2015

Agreed, the table generation code is not straightforward, but there are a few conditionals in there. It also combines the functionality of both {{pt-conj-2pp}} and {{pt-conj}}. As for the data-based approach, it is obviously not as powerful and elegant as a generative approach but simple to implement and understand.

My goal was to create a drop-in replacement for the current inflection code which would produce exactly the same output, with better performance and maintainability.

Once that is in place we can look at ways to replace the data with generators, I think Ungoliant_MMDCCLXIV (talkcontribs) had some ideas for that already. I'm a fan of doing refactorings step-by-step and not in one big swoop.

Jberkel (talk)18:27, 23 January 2015

I prefer doing it step by step as well. I guess it's just because I've done this many times already, I am able to skip some steps.

CodeCat20:17, 23 January 2015

Ejakulacija edit

CodeCat your bot has reverted my edit in error

==Slovene== added ==Serbo-Croatian== removed. Please re-Revert.


BigBearLovesPanda (talk)22:35, 26 January 2015

No, the entry is for Serbo-Croatian, your edit was a mistake.

CodeCat22:36, 26 January 2015

The English translation link to the Slovene page directed to the Serbo-Croatian page by mistake though it wasn't immediately obvious in the Wiktionary Android App I use on my Tablet. I'll create a Slovene page and hopefully the Translation link will then work correctly.

BigBearLovesPanda (talk)00:44, 27 January 2015

User rights

Hi, CodeCat! I noticed that you just revoked my rights as autopatroller. If I may ask, what is the reason for this?

WikiWinters (talk)23:19, 25 January 2015

I noticed you have been making several edits today that seemed to contain some rather sloppy mistakes. Some examples:

And that's just from your last 50 edits.

CodeCat23:38, 25 January 2015

I apologize. Is there any possibility for redemption of autopatrolling rights?

WikiWinters (talk)23:44, 25 January 2015

Autopatrolling is not a right as such, because it doesn't affect anything a user does. Rather it affects what other users see. It's granted when a user's edits can be trusted to contain no significant number of mistakes, meaning that they no longer need consistent reviewing. I removed autopatrolling for you because the examples above meant that your edits do need reviewing IMO. I could have reviewed and fixed them all myself, but removing autopatrolling would bring it to the attention of other editors as well.

So I would say that it can be activated again if there is some indication that your edits no longer need checking.

CodeCat00:06, 26 January 2015

nrf for Norman

OK, so if I want to edit Module:wikimedia_languages/data so that it knows that what we call "nrf" is what Wikipedia calls "nrm", can I write:

m["nrm"] = {
        wiktionary_code = "roa-nor", "nrf",

or do I have to repeat the whole shebang and write:

m["nrm"] = {
        wiktionary_code = "roa-nor",

m["nrm"] = {
        wiktionary_code = "nrf",

in full? I don't want to eliminate "roa-nor" yet, because there are still pages that use that.

Aɴɢʀ (talk)18:46, 25 January 2015

Neither would work. The first would trigger an error, and in the second example the second definition will override the first.

CodeCat19:04, 25 January 2015

So there's no way to get both {{wikipedia|lang=roa-nor}} and {{wikipedia|lang=nrf}} to point to w:nrm:?

Aɴɢʀ (talk)19:07, 25 January 2015

Module:wikimedia languages/data defines the mapping from Wikimedia languages to Wiktionary ones. So it's what you'd use if you have a Wikimedia code and want to convert it to a local code. What you're doing is the reverse, which is handled by our regular language modules.

CodeCat19:10, 25 January 2015

vrddhi gerundive

Edited by author.
Last edit: 20:57, 22 January 2015

Kroonen calls adjectives of the type *mētiz(from *metaną), *bēriz(from *beraną) "vrddhi gerundives". Should we follow suit? Or is it okay to call them long-grade verbal adjectives?

Anglom (talk)20:31, 3 May 2014

I would prefer the latter as it's clearer.

CodeCat20:31, 3 May 2014

Alright, thank you.

Anglom (talk)20:32, 3 May 2014


Hey. Since you're a native speaker of both English and Dutch: manslaughter is defined as "killing someone unlawfully, but not willfully", and it's translated with German Totschlag and Dutch doodslag. Something's wrong here because the English definition doesn't fit the German and (I'm quite sure) Dutch meaning. "Totschlag" is killing willfully but without prearrangement. Now, is the English definition wrong? Or are the translations wrong? Maybe you could help if you have the time. Thanks.

Kolmiel (talk)01:36, 18 January 2015

This is mostly a legal distinction so I don't really know all the relevant definitions, as it may be different from place to place.

The Dutch Wikipedia says:

Doodslag is het opzettelijk, maar niet met voorbedachten rade, beroven van het leven van een ander. Wanneer er wel sprake is van voorbedachten rade, spreekt men van moord.
"Doodslag" is to purposefully, but not with prearrangement, take the life of another. When there is prearrangement, one speaks of murder.

And in the links to other articles, the link to the English Wikipedia points to "Manslaughter".

CodeCat01:40, 18 January 2015

Yeah, it would take a legal expert in both "continental European" and "Anglo-Saxon" law... But at any rate Totschlag/doodslag is always willful. German Wikipedia's definitions of "Totschlag" for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland all specifically use the word "vorsätzlich" (= opzettelijk).

I think the solution might be the following. English wikipedia distinguishes between w:voluntary manslaughter and w:involuntary manslaughter. Thus it seems that the definition of "manslaughter" in Wiktionary would have to be changed because manslaughter can indeed be willful. And "voluntary manslaughter" is the German/Dutch Totschlag/doodslag.

"Involuntary manslaughter" would be something else. In Germany there is Körperverletzung mit Todesfolge ("assault resulting in death") and fahrlässige Tötung ("negligent homicide"). But this is another topic, that would get to specialized for myself.

But I would feel comfortable to change the definition of manslaughter to something like: A criminal act of killing a human being considered less culpable than murder (based on w:Manslaughter). And then I would add "voluntary" in brackets to the German/Dutch translations. That should be fine, right?

Kolmiel (talk)16:12, 19 January 2015

Maybe you should ask in the Tea Room?

CodeCat16:13, 19 January 2015

Ok. Will do.

Kolmiel (talk)16:22, 19 January 2015
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page