User talk:Insaneguy1083

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! -- Apisite (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Wie geht's ustad?

Your Babel Box does not contain German, yet you read German language sources. How does that work out for you? You seem to be missing that "kaulen" does exist in Rheinisches Wörterbuch for example (Woerterbuchnetz). 2A00:20:6045:8673:A4E5:A8A1:F3B0:B0CE 21:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, if I'm being honest here, I'm just using Google Translate. In particular, I was looking for the etymology of ־עכץ (-ekhts), and came across this paper about Yiddish which was written in German. Direct quote: "Slawische Wortendungen wie -ekhts sind nicht in jedem Fall negativ konnotiert; durch das stark ausgeprägte Komponentenbewusstsein bei jiddischen Muttersprachlern liegt eine solche Bedeutungszuweisung abernahe."

For "kaulen", I didn't find an entry on either English or German Wiktionary, so I just assumed it wasn't prominent enough of a dialectal word to make it onto either Wiktionaries. I wasn't and still am not particularly knowledgeable about the descendants of MHG, so I'm happy for anyone with better knowledge in that area to correct me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm doing that and it doesn't work on the dense style of dict.s or language of a more technical nature. I have no idea what "Komponentenbewusstsein" (supra) is, if not something the author made up some time ago to mean agglutinating. 2A00:20:600B:A334:D621:1C31:E814:104E 15:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

As to the etymol-ekhts of this affix, I have spent too much time on it. -s is explained under Dutch niets as participle gerund ending. Grimm and others on the other hand explain MHG ichts as gerund in the phrase "ihtes iht". I don't believe these are fully understood. I have looked up Middle High German for similar shapes twice, to limited success. Now I'm not sure of any independent constructions in Yiddish or Slavic east and west, but the material you are gathering is interesting. A priori, I think it's a good idea to reckon with various different origins that converged on one bleached morpheme in the Yiddish branch. This means that a mere [-neg] connotation is not necessary nor sufficient. And, while one would prefer isoglosses if the suffix was borrowed, this isn't strictly necessary if the construction was productive and perhaps subject to rebracketing.

Long story short, here are two German words which reach their final form only later and they are nevertheless relevant, IMHO. Kehricht is connotated with nichts, "das geht dich einen feuchten Kehrricht an". Mostrich instead of mustard is very curious because Senf as I would call it indicates a Coptic etymon, and because it seems to be distantly related to moss; moos-icht (“moss”) being one example from Fick (1878: 701), s.v. "-uht", as indicated by Lexer, Nachträge, cf. -ëht. 2A00:20:6083:7010:559B:EF34:D18C:384A 19:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Janusz Siatkowski talks about German derivations from Slavic in Zeitschrift für Slavistik (1995, pp. 325-334), including for example Lodderak "Liederjan" (cp. Lotterleben, -ak). I don't know where to sort these (de with regional labels?). Some more or less relevant excerpts:

> Huppatz ‚Heuschrecke‘ von dt. huppen „hüpfen“ ([…]);

• literally grasshopper. Czech hubac "Großmaul" could instead relate to its devouring the harvest.

> Klickatz ‚Eichelhäher‘, vllt. von dt. Klickert ‚ds.‘ ([…]),

• I have no idea what this is (if not onomatopeia). If bracketing Eichel-Häher is correct and this relates, it would indicate /*(h)extz/ alright.

> Nackatz scherh. ‚nackter Mensch‘ von dt. nackt (BBW III 397), vgl. Siatkowski (1992a: 149).

• From the top of my head, I know nackert, nacksch, nackig, nackend; Nackedei.
• NB: "Bellmann (1971: 34) betrachtet es als ein sorbisches Wort,".

> He [that is Zimmermann (1908)] writes, that the Germans living in Prussian territory among Poles were surely aware of the existence of the suffix -ak, which used to form words with clearly negative impression. [translation mine, AAnon]

> Fressack, wenn er zuviel aß (vgl. dt. fressen)

• Fressack or Fresssack, Freßsack is understood as Sack (thus Siatkowski later in the text), not unlike lardbag). Speaking of which, I read that Saxon is an insult in eastern European languages, but found no definition, as if it isn't lexical. I doubt that douche and douchebag have any relation to showers; Preußenbeutel shows a clear ethnic slur (or does Prussian derive from sparkling as so many inherently racist etymologies of folks and nations would suggest?).

> Dämelack, bzw. Damlak "Dummkopf, dummer Mensch"

• Dämlack. The etymology of dämlich has always been doubtful. Lackel (DWDS) exists independently; Lackei is not found? I doubt that Lackaffe had anything to do with laquor or apes.

>Faulak bzw. Faulaks ‚Faulenzer, Faulpelz‘

• That's the second final -s in these examples. I have argued multiple times that English augmentative ass is a relic of Germanic *-az, which is exceedingly unlikely. I feel very insecure about this word and its etymology, so this is speculation:
• maybe related to אָפּפֿאַלעכץ?!

>[…] Mummatsch, Mummatz ‚Kinderschreck, Schreckgespenst für Kinder‘ von „mumm, mumm“-rufen (Hinze 1965: 345-347).

• More variants in Bellmann's Slavoteutonica (1971): Buback, Bubatach, Bubu (p. 211), present in Czech myths (p. 211), also Bumann, Bubumann, Butzemann, Bebak, Schwarzer, schwarzer Mann, böser Mann, Popel, Popelmann, Popanz, Wauwau, Essenkehrer or Schornsteinfeger, (alter) Josef, Ruprecht, Nickel(s), Krampus (charted p. 168).
• Boohoo, I'm scared. That these were omnomnom onomatopoeia, like Buhai, is incredible (thus Bellmann, it wouldn't even matter if the stem was Germanic or Slavic). muffled is clearly mouth+full for example.
• Later in the text he argues Kaschubian mumač ... auch "Vogelscheuche" (scarecrow, strawman), mumače "Tiermasken" (p. 331-332 with further references), eventually "[…] → Mummaks (westlich der Oder)."
• I assume Mümmelmann (“bunny”) and Bubatz (“weed, cannabis”) (recently trending) are arguments in favor of strawman being close to the original meaning. Animal masks on the other hand compare better to mummy, Persian muyima "wax".
• But cp. Mummenschanz. The change *m > *b before sonorant is in German(ic) (citation needed).

>[…] Wörter, in denen das eventuelle slavische Suffix -ak durch das ([…] ndt. Suffix -jack überlagert wurde, wie z. B. Nabbjack, Kennabjack, Kujabjack ‚Mann aus Kujawien‘ sowie Zelowjack […]

>mit einer Rücknahme des dt. Lautwandels t → z und w → b auch Telubjack ‚Mensch‘, das auf poln. człowiek ‚ds.‘ zurückgeht (Winter 1967: 113).

• Jacke is evidently French in origin!? Although, I believe it is in part related to wig.

>[…] hypochoristische Adjektive und von ihnen abgeleitete Substantive mit den slavischen Diminutivsuffixen -uśk(i), -učk(i), -ičk(i).

• E.g. kleinusches Kind. However, a relatable idiom is Erdnuckel (“knob”) (knuckles?), where -n- could be dative, Erden, irden.

Inconclusive 2A00:20:604B:E47:F6E6:721:AF0:139D 23:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Etymologies

Hey there, thanks for your stellar effort creating new entries, especially for Yiddish! It's especially admirable that you are trying to include etymologies for your entries but could you please make an effort to source these or to at least clearly indicate where you are going out on a limb? For under-resourced languages such as Yiddish this is especially important as there are not many native speakers to help clean up after us non-native editors. Feel free to couch speculation in terms such as "possibly calqued/borrowed from" or else indicate where you have merely provided a surface analysis (which is sometimes better than nothing but often results in folk etymology and for many terms fails to provide a historically satisfactory account). That way it will be clearer to those who come after you what may need building upon. Finally, it's ok to admit you don't know and ask others for help, where necessary. The {{rfe}} template is quite suited to this, as it will add the page to a category where (eventually) someone qualified will see it and fix it. IMO it's better for us to include no information at all rather than misleading or outright wrong information posing as the gospel truth. P.s. and if you need help with German (or its connections to Yiddish), feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page. P.P.S. Check out Category:Yiddish reference templates, particularly Harkavy (at least the 1910 edition) and Abelson which are (so far as I can tell) already in the public domain and thus available on archive.org. Keep up the good work and I'll catch you round! Helrasincke (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the neologisms come from the Comprehensive English-Yiddish Dictionary (2016), which I do not myself have access to but I've taken some words from here, which, given it's written by a scholar specializing in Yiddish, I'd take to be legit. Some other words I take from the University of Kentucky Yiddish dictionary lookup, and often it's hard to source anything beyond that as the lookup itself might sometimes be the only source on the internet which has ever written down that term electronically. A good amount of my terms also come from the "Yiddish Word Of The Day" Tumblr blog, which I know is a bit dubious scholarly speaking but I give credence to because it's run by native Yiddish speakers. Some words require a bit more research on dialectal German dictionaries and such, and I've tried to include those in the edit history of the words because I'm not really versed in the formatting of stating source material. If there's any glaring issues in some of my etymologies then do let me know. To my knowledge I already have been adding "possibly" and {{rfe}} in some of the etymologies, and I myself regularly post in the Scriptorium. With surface analyses, I often just follow the entry of the German cognate if one exists. If they don't state some sort of ulterior etymology that descends from e.g. MHG, then I would assume it just comes from the binary combination of a stem and a suf/prefix. Again, feel free to let me know if any of my etymologies are actually dubious, I'd be fine with adding more speculative words in the Etymology section. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah source citing can be a pain, luckily things are not too strict here even in comparison to WP but it's still good just to acknowledge where you got ideas from (even mentioning "Compare German XYZ") for 2 reasons: 1) it's not optional, it's a legal (and IMO to the extent that it's just polite to acknowledge others efforts, moral) requirement, the neglect of which could endanger the whole project and 2) it's very helpful for those who wish to build on what you've laid down, to work out where the idea came from in order to adequately assess it in a new light. For etymologies, inline citations are still best, you could even just use the format <ref>Author Lastname, Work, (page), date<ref> and if really in doubt, use{{rfref|with a mention of author/work or a www.url.com}}. For some references to use in the 'further reading' section I've just made some easy to use templates for Abelson and Harkavy 1910; it turns out a template for Harkavy 1928 already exists. Those first two are English to Yiddish dictionaries directed at speakers of Yiddish, but may still provide some solid references, plus they are public domain. Feel free to let me know if I can create any more for you, possibly for those dialectal German sources you mention. Unfortunately, it's problematic to assume that the German etymologies are all up to standard; many are also often merely surface etymologies, neglecting historical development (see my post regarding backformations from inherited terms in the scriptorium; a surprisingly large number of German compounds can be traced to MHG and we only have a fraction mentioned). Surface analysis is unfortunately very prone to misleading conclusions since there is a lot more at play than "hey, this kinda looks/sounds/smells like that". But I agree that it's still a valid inclusion, provided it's clearly marked as such.

Just a few points since you mention it (please don't take this as a personal criticism, it's more just to highlight things to look out for):

• I would say it's a bit of a stretch to relate טעקסט (tekst) to קאָנטעקסט (kontekst); the con- prefix is unlikely to be productive in Yiddish so the claim makes even less sense than the equivalent English parallel.
• Since {{R:Duden}} traces German zerfallen back to MHG zervallen, zevallen and OHG zafallen, zifallen, it seems most likely that Yiddish צעפֿאַלן (tsefaln) also shares this origin rather than having been independently derived in the language stage we refer to as Yiddish.
• I'd nitpick the explanation offered at פֿאַרליאַפּען (farlyapen), since if I had to guess purely based on the morphology, we have Yiddish prefix פֿאַר־ (far-) and a Russian-looking root corresponding to ляпать (ljapatʹ) plus the inflectional ending. A cursory google suggests that the simplex ליאַפּען (lyapen) also exists, so it would make more sense (even from the perspective of surface analysis) to explain the loan there. A comparison to a Russian or other Slavic equivalent could however be useful. I can't speak for Yiddish but you can have a look on Russian Wiktionary how the cognate German prefix ver- translates between German and Russian, you'll notice Russian в- (v-) doesn't come up. I'd be surprised if Yiddish equivalent behaved radically differently (though it'd be helpful to see a larger collection of correspondences), so it's not much of a useful parallel and given the mental gymnastics required to establish the connection, I'd rather drop it. Helrasincke (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• קאָנטעקסט (kontekst) and טעקסט (tekst): yeah, fair. Pretty certain קאָנ־ (kon-) doesn't exist; my head was just thinking of two words that share a same ending.
• צעפֿאַלן (tsefaln): again, not surprised this has a further etymology beyond the addition of a prefix to a verb. Thanks for adding the proper etymology to the entry. I've fixed up the formatting a bit, perhaps in a style more consistent to my own.
• פֿאַרליאַפּען (farlyapen): you're right, ליאַפּען (lyapen) does exist, and I should probably add it since it has its own meaning according to the University of Kentucky Yiddish dictionary lookup. I will however dispute the prefix part: the English definition of German ver- states in the second sense: Inseparable verbal prefix that denotes a transition of the object into a state, which is indicated by the stem. while the first sense of Russian в- (v-) states: added to verbs, forms verbs with the approximate meaning "in" or "into". So I would feel like these two prefixes are comparable in this respect. Particularly, with one of the examples listed on ver-, we have sich verlieben (“to fall in love”). This is directly comparable to Russian влюби́ться (vljubítʹsja), also meaning "to fall in love". We've got the prefix, we've got the root verb meaning "to love", and we've got the reflexive particle. So I think the calque part makes sense, especially since ляпать (ljapatʹ) and вляпаться (vljapatʹsja), despite one being formed from the other, have pretty different meanings that I wouldn't be able to just explain on the root word.

On an unrelated note, I will admit that I can't really explain the -k- that appears in טשיפּקעלע‎ (tshipkele‎). I used to think it came from ־קע (-ke), but טשיפּקע (tshipke) doesn't really exist to my knowledge. I've changed that part.

Also, between געבוי (geboy) and געבײַ‎ (gebay‎), which one do you think is the Germanism (cf. געבײַדע (gebayde)) and which one is the actual Germanic inherited form from Middle High German gebiuwe and such? I've been mulling over this for a few days and don't really have a conclusive answer. Thanks for pointing out the holes in my etymologies though; will try to source them where possible in future. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the little while getting back to you.

• קאָנ־‎ (kon-‎) does exist (794 hits here) but I doubt it is productive word element anymore.
• The definition entry for the German prefix referring to "change of state" only applies to formations from nouns or adjectives, not verbs (see “ver-” in Duden online, senses 1-2) So perhaps it is ver- +‎ Liebe +‎ -n, but then our analogy to Russian doesn't really work (the main way to form a verb from a noun or adjective in Russian is to adds a verbal stem, -ей (-ej), to the base form (see Townsend, Russian Word Formation. 1975). It seems to me that Yiddish פֿאַר־ (far-) is more abstract, Katz lists it as having the following basic meanings: 'completeness of action; initiation of a change in circumstances; debasement of the value' (in Grammar of the Yiddish Language. 1987). It is not specified which word-classes this combines with for which meanings. I contrast this to אײַנ־ (ayn-), which is defined there as: 'enter a new state; change of situation' (again, Katz); which I think is more concrete and a closer parallel to Russian в- (v-) (generally used with a primary spatial meaning, with more secondary metaphorical senses, often though not exclusively with what are termed verbs of motion (входить (vxoditʹ), влетать (vletatʹ)). For a comparison, I found the following translations for 'fall in love':

1. אײַנליבן זיך אין ― aynlibn zikh in ― to fall in love with (my emphasis); contrast with the German sich einlieben ― to ingratiate oneself (literally, “to make oneself loved”), влюбиться в ― vljubitʹsja v ― fall in love with. A form without -ся (-sja) also exists: влюбить (vljubitʹ, “to cause sb to fall in love with oneself, to enamour”)
2. פֿאַרליבן זיך אין ― farlibn zikh in ― to fall in love with, compare German sich verlieben ― to fall in love.
3. Interestingly, 'fall' in the English fall in love also indicates a change of state (c.f. fall asleep) and performs a similar function to ver-/far-. Though, given the connection of ליאַפּען (lyapen) to hitting, it might also be interesting to compare the English figurative sense of smite (“strike with a firm blow”): be smitten with ― to be head over heels in love with (literally, “to be struck with love for”).

As for the root, I also suspect it is more likely to have been originally borrowed from Ukrainian though, but that's just a hunch c.f. כליאַפּען (khlyapen) from хляпати (xljapaty)) though, so perhaps it's worth keeping the origin open. See also the etymology for "ляп", in Горох — Этимологія). It's worth noting that we also have ליאַפּ (lyap, “heavy downpour; a slap, blow”), כליאַפּ (khlyap, “heavy rain”) (I can't establish any straightfoward connections outside of East Slavic, but possibly relevant here are also Proto-Slavic *lopьjь (“torrent, downpour”), *lopati (“to rattle; to gulp, to swallow”), *lopiti (“to clap, to bang, to strike”), maybe even *xlapati (“splash”)), but without the root meaning 'love'.

Still, you could be onto something; the connection is theoretically possible, though I still have some reservations and would be interested to look into the historical development of the usage. In any case, I've expanded the etymologies for ляпать (ljapatʹ) and ляп (ljap), making references to several etymological dictionaries; they both seem to have a Slavic root, I couldn't find a mention of a contraction from the Latin loan but have left it in for now because it's at least plausible and maybe some one else can find a source.

• A google search for טשיפּקע (tshipke) only yields six results; BUT, one of them is this text file, hoparently a word list sted by none other than the very same University of Kentucky site you're using. I'm also working on an overview of Yiddish morphemes to help break works down.
• Regarding your final question as to whether געבוי‎ (geboy‎) and געבײַ‎‎ (gebay‎‎) is the inherited and which borrowed, I can suggest a diagnostic which you can hopefully use independently in the future. Since we know the MHG form gebiuwe and the Modern German form Gebäu, we should be able to use historical vowel changes to distinguish the two forms in Yiddish. We can see from this table (which I suggest might be useful to refer to whenever in doubt). We can see that MHG iu became Modern German äu, eu (/ɔʏ/), standard Yiddish /aɪ/ (and dialectal /aɪ/, /aː/, /a/). The main point being, no Yiddish dialect shows MHG iu ⇾ /ɔʏ/. Thus, we can be pretty sure that the German form is the one with the German vowel (let me know if that's not clear).
• I've just added another reference template, {{R:yi:JNW}}, which is potentially also useful to you, even just to confirm spellings/existence of words (although it's in Dutch, it's a really huge dictionary—possibly one of the biggest yet-and has a lot of rare words too, some of which yield no results on a google search. I think they are also open to user feedback). I also found the following print dictionaries from the Yiddish Book Center, several of which are searchable (by English terms at least, the Yiddish parts don't seem to have been successfully OCR'ed).

Helrasincke (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, and I'll be sure to check out the Dutch Yiddish dictionary. Always nice to have a more European perspective on Yiddish, since the dictionaries I've been referencing are mostly American. One thing I've been wondering: do you reckon שטונד (shtund) is a back-formation from German Stunde, or was it inherited from MHG in the same way as קעז (kez)? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, Stunde descends from Middle High German stunde, stunt, so it's probable Yiddish also inherited it. But I would like to make a point which cannot be stressed enough. Up until relatively recently (mid to late 17th century, i.e. long after we can speak of a separate Yiddish language), there was a pretty large amount of dialectal variation in German, a lot of which even made its way into regional norms in the written language (particularly vowels but also variations of b/p, d/t, g/k). MHG also had a lot of variation which you don't tend to see unless dealing with primary sources, because modern reproductions and scholarship primarily uses a normalised orthography based on the the Swabian Chancery. So there will be many questions which neither a lone term from MHG nor from modern, standardised German will be able to adequately explain.

On this topic, I think the etymology at שטונד (shtund) is factually incorrect. Unstressed final vowels are not dropped in Yiddish "by analogy" with some word or other; they are no longer present as the result of a regular historical development (called apocope) which occurred in earlier Yiddish as well as most of the modern variants descended from MHG (many varieties of East Central German, from which Standard German is largely derived, are a notable exception). Compare:

• Middle High German kelte (“cold”), German Kälte, Yiddish קעלט (kelt), Central Franconian Käll, Luxembourgish Keelt (see more at Old High German kalti; or:
• Middle High German müede, muode (“tired”), German müde, Bohemian German /miːd/, Rhine Franconian miid, Poylish/Ukrainish מיד (mid) 'mid', Western Yiddish מוד (mud) /muːd/, Litvish מוד (mud) /mʊd/. See more at Old High German muodi.

Helrasincke (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I was writing that if we assume that שטונד (shtund) was borrowed from German Stunde, then we could presume the final vowel to have been dropped by analogy of words that were inherited from MHG which lost their final vowels via apocope. We've seen several examples of distinctly Daytshmerish words that were subsequently "Yiddishized" by applying features more consistent with Yiddish phonological developments and such (cf. קורצשלאָס (kurtsshlos), and also this; quote: "As with the Yiddishized Americanisms, some Germanisms have been modified in order to appear less like German: “bullfight” der oksnfekht (not oksnkamf); ... “short circuit” der kurtsshlos (not kurtsshlus).")

On the flip side, if we assume that שטונד (shtund) was instead inherited from MHG, then of course this is a standard development that is also observed in numerous other Yiddish words. Hence my question earlier on whether it was 1) inherited or 2) borrowed from German and subsequently Yiddishized via removal of final vowel. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

In the absence of compelling information to the contrary, the simplest explanation is usually the best. As I said, the form without the final vowel already coexisted in MHG with the form in final vowel, so this one seems a no-brainer. Second, that's interesting. If, as you claim at the entry for קורצשלאָס (kurtsshlos), שלוס (shlus) and שלאָס (shlos) are semantically unrelated, I don't understand then why you would have marked them as a doublets of each other at שלוס (shlus)? Further complicating the argument is that Grimm lists 'dorst' as an documented older form of Durst. Something's gotta give. Helrasincke (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

They're doublets because שלוס (shlus) was borrowed from German, while שלאָס (shlos) was inherited from MHG. Doublets don't have to be related semantically (and "related semantically" is just a fancy term meaning "means the same or a similar thing"), they just have to come from the same origin which they do here, the former via German and the latter directly from MHG. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point. Because there has been (from what I can see) no significant changes in meaning, if they both ultimately come from MHG sliezen, OHG sliozen then either they are semantically related (which doesn't mean they have to have the same or similar meaning, but rather that there is a conceptual relation - which may nonetheless be distinct), in which case they are also doublets, or they are not semantically related and thus not doublets. The nouns derive from different (but related) senses of the verb, 'to end' Schluss (“end”), 'to close, lock' Schloss (“lock”), and 'to surround' Schloss (“castle”) respectively. It all depends on how you assess the conceptual relation between conclude, close, shut, lock. For reference, German schließen has 26 distinct meanings & submeanings given in the Duden. Yet, I've actually never heard anyone suggest that German Schluss and Schloss are doublets, so perhaps we should raise the question.

Also, I do note that Yiddish שעה (sheh, “hour”) also exists in addition, but this doesn't exclude the possibility that Yiddish retained both. In fact, the word for 'hour' given in Levitas' Shemot Devarim is שטונד (shtund), given twice, and both times glossed by German Stund (not Stunde; this was centuries before German had any kind of strictly standardised spelling either). It is worth remembering this dictionary was published in 1542, which is not long after the language branched off because as Beider writes in The Origins of Yiddish Dialects:

"If we take into account purely linguistic criteria, it appears that the age of Yiddish is often overestimated. It is worth speaking about Yiddish as a separate language only from the fifteenth century onward. Any placement of the “birth” of Yiddish in a period before the Black Death is speculative." Helrasincke (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Schaechter-Viswanath and Glasser

Hi, I've made a template {{R:yi:CEYD}} for S-V&G's dictionary. Note that |1= is the English entry, since it's an English-to-Yiddish dictionary. —Mahāgaja · talk 11:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I'd argue that it can go both ways, since (especially on the online version) I can write the Yiddish word and get various results in English pertaining to the Yiddish word.

(Plus what do I do with words with many meanings? List every single English word that leads to that Yiddish word?) Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm assuming the page number stuff isn't really for me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that having a template is great (because it means I no longer have to copy and paste the reference from my older entries), especially for English entries with only one corresponding Yiddish entry and vice versa (e.g. פֿלאָוט (flout)), but for Yiddish words with many other senses (e.g. שטעקן (shtekn)) I think it'd simply suffice to add the Yiddish entry instead. Just my two cents. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess the issue is I only have the dead-tree edition. Is the online version available for everyone, or is it behind a paywall? If it's available for everyone, then we should link to the entry. {{R:ga:NEID}} works this way for Irish: it's an English-to-Irish dictionary, but online you can search for the Irish word and get all the entries where it appears. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly the online one is paywalled. I paid a few US Dollars to get a one-month unlimited searches subscription, and that's why I can access so many words on there (including, as it turns out, words added after 2016). Free accounts do exist and if one so desires one can fact-check my additions to Wiktionary, but each free account only permits 5 searches and eventually I just got tired of using burner emails to get just a few words. And even then, you need an account to even see the results of the search, so it's not really possible to link to the entry itself. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, let's keep referencing the book. That way, people can at least go to a library to see the book without paying for it. As for Yiddish words with many senses, it's probably sufficient to list one English entry per etymology and part of speech. Alternatively, we can use {{R:yi:CYED}} instead and list the Yiddish entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of dictionaries, do you reckon this is a reliable source from which to source Yiddish words for Wiktionary? It seems to also include dialectal pronunciations of certain words, like malkhume for מלחמה (milkhome). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Stop, please

Please stop with the Karelian entries for just a second and look at the fixes I add to the entries you created. Karelian is not unified - so most of the entries you're creating following Zaykov will not be the same in Tver Karelian, and should thus not have a Tver Karelian inflection table. Every Karelian entry does need a {{krl-regional}} table at the beginning: It shows the etymologically related variants of either standard. If you don't know the Tver Karelian variant, leave that parameter entry and the page will be added to a cleanup category. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the language and its phonology and morphology before you add entries, so you can pick up errors and I don't have to go after you. Thadh (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. I just saw a few terms in a dictionary that I thought were interesting. Still lots for me to learn, it seems. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that you like the language, and I encourage you to edit it, but only after you've familiarised yourself with how the language works and how our entries are written. Thadh (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. Although I did encounter quite a few nouns without declensions or {{krl-regional}} tables while looking through them to check for declension patterns and such. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's due to us formalising Karelian as a pluricentric language being very recent. Most of the entries have been created before that, and thus before the creation of {{krl-regional}}. See WT:AKRL. Thadh (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving Yiddish to {{number box}}

I've created Module:number list/data/yi based on the information from {{cardinalbox}}. I'd like to convert {{cardinalbox}} to {{number box}} which is the modern/cleaner way of doing things (since the data is stored in the data file).

You can see what the change looks like here: old and new (diff)

Do you have any objections to this? Do you think I need to bring this to beer parlor or somewhere? I don't know who makes decisions for Yiddish. tbm (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't make the decisions, but I think it looks fine. You could try the beer parlor, although Mahagaja could be one to ask regarding Yiddish decisions. I'm not sure either. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I started the conversion here already and there aren't many active editors, let me just ping @Mahagaja here and see if there are objections. I did some tests and I'm pretty sure the conversion to {{number box}} won't break anything. I also handled the "opt" info (Adjectival form and Counting form) tbm (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know enough about these templates to have a strong opinion. If it doesn't break anything, go for it! —Mahāgaja · talk 06:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mahagaja Thanks for your feedback. I've gone ahead and made the change. I compared before and after and don't see any regressions but please ping me if you notice any problems. tbm (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct translation of your example for the Belarusian word гешэфт

In the sentence "Усё гешэ́фты не́йкія водзіць з ім" the word "усё" has the same meaning as the Russian adverb всё and is translated as always, all the time, constantly. The words "усё" and "усе" are different, the presence or absence of dots above ё makes a big difference in this context. Ssvb (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So I suppose the translation should be "they (sg.) are always conducting some kinds of geshefts with him"? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not all that happy about this particular example. It's too short and lacks context. Extra explanations in the translated text are only making everything more messy. I think that it's probably better to just provide sufficiently long quotations from real books, taking advantage of the "Wiktionary is not paper" aspect of the WT:NOT policy. I have added one quotation to the гешэфт article and I can add even more of them. BTW, I would generally appreciate native English speakers to watch my back and monitor whether my translations of book quotations are alright and grammatically correct. Don't hesitate to edit my translations if necessary. Don't worry about introducing mistakes, I will check if the English translations still properly convey the intended message of the original Belarusian text after your or anybody else's edits to step in if anything is off. —Ssvb (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I would suggest updating the definition of усё (usjó), because the current one doesn't include the meaning of always. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that was good suggestion and looks like User:Helrasincke already took care of it. But there are still a lot of inaccuracies or incomplete information in many other places. —Ssvb (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IPA ɡ

Hey, when adding pronunciations, please make sure to use the IPA symbol ⟨ɡ⟩ rather than the normal ⟨g⟩. Thanks! —Mahāgaja · talk 09:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

On PC I just type IPA using https://ipa.typeit.org/full/. If it comes out with the incorrect "g", I'm not entirely certain how to fix it other than just saving the IPA ⟨ɡ⟩ in some text file or something. Same goes for other IPA letters. I've been aware of this issue for a while now (I do read new edits from time to time), but again, haven't really found any real solution that doesn't involve saving the specific character somewhere. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: turns out the website I use does have the IPA g, it's just (for some reason) not the default when I type in "g" into the text box. I'll click that ɡ next time. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are (or become) familiar with XSAMPA, you can use {{subst:x2IPA}} (and its allies, {{subst:x2i}} and {{subst:x2ipachar}}) to convert regular ASCII characters into IPA. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

At https://ipa.typeit.org/full/ if you press alt-G four times, ɡ appears. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Mansi entries

Hi there!

I know you have only made two entries in Mansi, but before making them, please read Wiktionary:About Mansi, and work according to that. In regards to usage examples, I would rather leave them out entirely for the sake of being consistent with dialects. Or if you are making an entry from one specific dialect, add a label and do not use the declension/possessive tables, since those were made for Sosva Mansi. Ewithu (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Belarusian

Please use the col-auto template in the derived/related terms sections Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay! Insaneguy1083 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks :) Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

But then I guess I just don't show the definitions of the words? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wdym Наименее Полезное (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out. col-auto is still relatively new to me. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Please also use "From" in etimologies and "af|be||" instead of "suffix|be||", thanks! Наименее Полезное (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083 Please be more careful Наименее Полезное (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083 Again, use "from" at the beginning of etymologies Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083 Where did you find this alternative pronunciation of дзот? Наименее Полезное (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Russian-language Wiktionary of the Russian term. I'm not 100% sure it applies to the Belarusian term; hell, I'm not even sure it applies to the Russian term. But being originally an initialism, it would kinda make sense to partially pronounce the letters separately. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone say that in my life, and as it's a term borrowed from Russian, it's not entirely certain that the pronunciation will be the same, be careful Наименее Полезное (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное: Yes, there are surely local accents and pronunciation differences.

For example, the Belarusians have no sound щ and tend to pronounce the Russian word щётка incorrectly as two separate sounds ш and ч like in this video. Here's another video with a different guy also having a wrong pronunciation of щ in the Russian word помещение and additionally having less than ideal pronunciation of ч. Most Belarusians have an accent in their Russian speech without realizing this. But it's fine as long as "перетряхивать тех, кто врёт" is not mispronounced as "ператрахивать тех, кто в рот" ;-)

So I won't be surprised if "дз" in the Russian word дзот is actually pronounced as two separate sounds by the true native Russians. It would be very interesting to have it recorded for comparison. --Ssvb (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083: If in doubt, you can look up the standard Belarusian literary pronunciation at https://corpus.by/VoicedElectronicGrammaticalDictionary/?lang=en (that's a web interface for a collection of the available orthoepic dictionaries). --Ssvb (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that you still don't use the inh+/bor+/com+ and col-auto template, please... Наименее Полезное (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm? I do use inh+, bor+ and col-auto. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное: Just for the record, which policy requires this? --Ssvb (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I read other Slavic languages pages and it's like it's a standard to use them Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair use requires giving proper credit to the authors of quotations, as explained in WT:FAQ

In your recent edit, you added some sentences as the usage examples for дзот (dzot). But these are the quotations directly taken from the Kandrat Krapiva's Explanatory Dictionary of the Belarusian Language (1977-1984). Also while doing so, the information about the original authors of these quotations ("Шчарбатаў" and "Дудо") was stripped, but this is something that we shouldn't do. Additionally, directly copying content of another dictionary is a questionable practice by itself. It's best to take quotations from Wikisource or Google Books. --Ssvb (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I know I probably should've used some template like quote-book or something, but the truth is just that I'm not good with using templates outside of coi and ux. Thanks for the reminder nonetheless. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083: The quote-book template indeed looks menacing, but it's probably not necessary to use all of its features. The WT:QUOTE policy says "Ideally, quotations should" and lists some bullet points. But I wonder how much of this is the actual requirement? --Ssvb (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083: I created a topic in BP with a question about what could possibly constitute a minimalistic quotation. --Ssvb (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Unattested Łacinka

Re diff: "Szwiejcaryja" is unattested and uses a very uncommon older Łacinka. Can you not add something that can't be attested? "Šviejcaryja" is the standard Łacinka. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 05:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, Łacinka is based on Taraškievica, so "Švajcaryja" is more accurate. Šviejcaryja" is a recent invention. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You can always add the Łacinka to the actual Taraškievica entry. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Taraškievica entries are mostly soft-redirect, alt form entries. Łacinka based on the government spelling are simply wrong in many cases. "śnieh" is Łacinka for both снег and сьнег. ""snieh"" is simply wrong! Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have removed "Šviejcaryja" as well. Simply unattestable. "Švajcaryja" is but barely. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, Łacinka is a Latinization scheme. Just because no one's used it doesn't mean it won't have a Łacinka form. So whether the form is "attestable" is pretty irrelevant. Since so few people even use Łacinka in 2024, there's bound to be lesser-used words which one might consider "unattestable". To some degree, a lot of these are hypothetical forms, like I don't imagine a lot of people are going around writing pra dzotaŭ. Personally I would include both Šviejcaryja and Švajcaryja at least. @Ssvb @Наименее Полезное what do you think? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose wholesale addition of Łacinka spellings in all Belarusian terms. I expressed this several times. It's exactly what I feared when we allow Łacinka spellings to be added as alt forms - that we get a lot of rubbish, made up forms. We already have a Wiktionary transliteration standard. Transliterations are not words. We only add alternative forms as real spellings, actually used.

I can see in Wiktionary:About Belarusian drafted by @Ssvb all Łacinka spellings are based on Taraškievica. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Found this old topic: Adding Łacinka spelling to Belarusian words Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I stand with @Atitarev. Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev: The word "Švajcaryja" can be found, for example, in the archives of Chryścijanskaja Dumka 1938, № 14 (162), page 5. It was a journal printed on paper. There are certainly additional examples in the other sources, but the problem is that many paper books, journals and newspapers from 1937 (and newer) haven't become public domain yet. Belarusian Wikisource currently only can offer a single book Biełaruski chryścijanski ruch (1939) as an example of letter v in Łacinka spelling. But the older spelling variants "Šwajcaryja", "Šwajcaryi"/"Szwajcaryi" (genitive/dative/locative) and many examples of the Cyrillic spelling "Швайцарыя" can be easily found on Wikisource, originating from the time period before w got replaced with v.

In the more modern days, there was Naša Niva web article "Беларусь – Швайцарыя – 1:2" from 2008 in Taraškievica orthography. With an automatically converted Lacinka version of the same article available here: "Biełaruś – Švajcaryja – 1:2". But it isn't a durably archived source and the "automatic conversion" disclaimer is there for a reason (it may and sometimes does fail).

Later Naša Niva switched to the government orthography for the newer articles. Here's one example: "Швейцарыя хоча правесці самую танную Алімпіяду ў гісторыі". This article gets converted into "Šviejcaryja choča pravieści samuju tannuju Alimpijadu ŭ historyi" by the automatic converter. It's interesting that their converter can successfully do the "правесці" -> "pravieści" conversion, but fails at "Швейцарыя" and gets "Šviejcaryja" for it. I want to remind @Insaneguy1083, that this still doesn't make the "Šviejcaryja" spelling attestable. The converter is just doing what it can and might be improved one day. --Ssvb (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb. I see, so you are agreeing, thanks.

I also pinged you on Wiktionary_talk:About_Belarusian#Spelling.

I think it's worth applying a bit stricter rules on Łacinka forms.

We can be flexible in terms of supplying Łacinka alt forms on non-Taraškievica entries, as long as they are attestable. Also, let's stick to the latest, spelling convention without trying to supply all possible spelling (e.g. "š", not "sz", "v", not "w", etc.), which were used once or twice. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Yes, I noticed your ping and I'll reply a bit later there.

Anyway, I believe that the situation with the sz=š, cz=č, ż=ž, w=v equivalence in Belarusian Łacinka is very similar to the situation with ae=ä, oe=ö, ue=ü, ss=ß in German. It doesn't look like people are eager to rush adding all the theoretically possible variants as the alt forms of the German words. Yes, there's the German umlautless spellings category, but it only has 13 entries (such as "ueber" vs. "über"). Searching for "koennen" from the Wiktionary main page currently doesn't find anything. But searching for "koennen" in German Wikisource seems to find all conjugation forms of "können".

Also I see some similarities with the handling of the Russian ё / е, as it was discussed in Wiktionary_talk:About_Russian#Category:Russian_spellings_with_е_instead_of_ё. Could the @Benwing2's proposal be extended to handle the Belarusian sz/cz digraphs and German umlauts in a similar fashion?

Right now searching for "Švajcaryja" from the Wiktionary main page successfully finds Швейцарыя and Швайцарыя entries thanks to the Wiktionary's transliteration of "Швайцарыя" coincidentally matching the real Łacinka spelling. But searching for "Szwajcaryja" doesn't find anything, similar to how it doesn't work for the German "koennen".

Searching for "szkoła" currently finds the Polish "szkoła", but there's no hint that the Belarusian word may have the same spelling (with tons of examples attesting both "szkoła" and "škoła" in Belarusian Wikisource). A soft redirect might be useful, similar to how there's a soft redirect from "елка" to "ёлка". --Ssvb (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb, @Benwing2: I don't think adding searches like sz=š, cz=č, ż=ž, w=v is doable with Wiktionary tools but it may be requested in a similar fashion how ё=е, etc. were done but it's outside Wiktionary (I don't remember the exact site name, sorry). Digraphs with single letters may not be easy or even desirable. I wonder how many wrong combinations in may produce for any language.

In my opinion, allowing equivalent searches = yes or maybe (especially single letter equivalences), allowing such respellings - no, let's stick to a more strict spelling. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev @Ssvb I completely agree. Anatoli, maybe you're thinking of the Phabricator site, where bug reports are filed? In any case, yes, I don't want to have Wiktionary cluttered with lots of soft or hard redirects for systematically-derivable alternative spellings (like koennen vs. können). It might be possible to implement equivalent searches ourselves using JavaScript; something like this was done, for example, with w vs. wynn (ƿ) in Old English, where typing in the spelling of an Old English term with ƿ instead of w will automatically redirect to the version with w after a few seconds. In any case, I see this as extremely low priority. AFAIK Łacinka is not especially important compared with standard Belarusian or even Taraškievica, and adding a zillion entries for unattested Łacinka terms gives undue weight to Łacinka. It reminds me a bit of the wynn thing in Old English; the only reason we have this redirect to w is that there was a particular user who was obsessed with adding redirects involving wynn spellings (or even wholesale copies of the standard-spelling entry into the wynn-spelling entry). This seriously cluttered the Old English categories and it took a vote to ban such spellings. There is a similar thing with certain hobbyist users who like to add entries for English terms involving obsolete typographical symbols like æ, œ and ſ just because they think it's cool or whatever. Benwing2 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 @Atitarev: Getting correct and easy to maintain Taraškievica support in Wiktionary automatically unlocks Łacinka. The majority of words (around 80% or more) are exactly the same in both the official and Taraškievica orthography. So Template:be-ndecl and the other templates for the other parts of speech just need a parameter, which would allow to select the orthography type ("only official", "only Taraškievica" or "both simultaneously"). This kind of categorization is currently missing. Among the words that are different, the majority are automatically convertible (e.g. getting "сьнег" from "снег" is easy using the code similar to Module:be-pronunciation), leaving only a handful of problematic foreign loanwords to deal with. The words, that are marked as valid Taraškievica, can be automatically converted to Łacinka. The other words can be romanized for illustrative-purposes-only without pretending that this romanization means something.

As for the derivable alternative spellings, maybe an automatic template can do this? Producing searchable keywords and planting them into each dictionary entry. --Ssvb (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb AFAIK Taraškievica is not always derivable automatically from standard Belarusian spelling, and I don't have time at this point to implement proper Taraškievica support. Benwing2 (talk) 06:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, on this point, how would Łacinka deal with esp. newer English loanwords or specific place names? I know that Polish sometimes borrows words and spells them partially or fully unadapted, like Malmö (as opposed to *Malme) or Zurych (as opposed to *Curych). Does Łacinka have any kind of policy for that? Or do we really end up with *Malmio (Мальмё (Malʹmjó)) and Ciurych? Or, well, siorfinh? I assume Łacinka just follows the Cyrillic spelling in this regard. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Insaneguy1083: The 1918's edition of Taraškievica prescribed unadapted borrowing. That's where the old spelling variants with unstressed "o" come from. The words "London" ("Лёндон") and "filozofija" ("філёзофія") were given as examples on this page in the Taraškievič's textbook. The Latin spelling of the foreign words was adopted directly and the Cyrillic spelling was just a standard conversion from Łacinka. But I'm not sure about how the diacritics from "Malmö" were supposed to be converted.

But the 2005's edition of Taraškievica now has rather detailed instructions and prescribes how to convert the borrowed foreign words into Cyrillic. The word "surfing" is even used as an example. The rule №86 states that either letter "э" or "а" is used for a stressed vowel, that's why it turns into "сэрфінг" ("serfinh"). --Ssvb (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2: There's even no necessity to derive Taraškievica automatically from the standard Belarusian spelling for foreign loanwords with tricky pronunciation. There are not too many of such words (like міф vs. міт or Лондан vs. Лёндан) and the entries for them are created manually anyway. And if you are talking about the romanization of the official Belarusian spelling for such foreign loanwords, then I believe that it's preferable to just have a reasonably phonetically accurate transcription for them via simply applying a generic Cyrillic->Łacinka conversion instead of doing a futile attempt to accurately match the actual preferred/prescribed Taraškievica spelling via some sort of fragile heuristics. They just should not be treated like real words and shouldn't be turned into wiki links in the declension tables.

The coding issue seems to be completely orthogonal and it probably doesn't matter, who implements the code after the consensus is reached. My understanding is that the bulk of this functionality (the automatic Official->Taraškievica->Łacinka conversion) can be isolated in a separate module and I can implement such module myself without touching the existing modules and without any risk of breaking them. --Ssvb (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ssvb I have already said I oppose creating soft redirects for Łacinka terms, and AFAIK User:Atitarev agrees. Benwing2 (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Benwing2 @Atitarev: I think that we all agree about having no need for the obsolete/superseded Łacinka terms (with sz/cz/w). And I'm not thrilled about manually creating soft redirects for the modern Łacinka terms either. At least not until this can be automated by a bot, and we are a long way from even discussing that. By far more urgent issues exist.

My suggestion boils down to eliminating or reducing the need for soft redirects for Łacinka terms via using Łacinka for transliteration in the declension tables. These entries are searchable and this fact alone makes them useful.

As for the soft redirects, we do have them for the Cyrillic Taraškievica terms whenever they differ from the official spelling. I hope that you are not suggesting to ditch these soft redirects. Their creation can be potentially semi-automated for the easy cases (such as "снег"->"сьнег") if the main entry ("снег") is appropriately marked by a human via adding some sort of a flag "convertible to Taraškievica if the soft sign is recovered". But this part is not urgent either.

The most important thing right now is to be able to mark the words like, for example, "пень" as being simultaneously valid for both the official spelling and Taraškievica. Because having this information missing in the newly created entries today means that somebody will need to revisit these entries again in the future when this becomes possible. --Ssvb (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Lithuanian šìrdis

You say the spelling make it obvious how its pronounced. But how do we show the difference between šìrdis with acute accent on the initial diphthong and šir̃dis with the circumflex accent? The Wikipedia article says that the difference is falling tone versus 'something different', which I presume would include level and rising tones. It also strongly suggests that the difference is being lost. --RichardW57 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable on tones in Lithuanian, but I know for a fact that šìrdį (singular accusative) is pronounced /ˈɕɪrʲdʲiː/, pronounced as such by Monika Liu in the song "Sentimentai". So I just derived the pronunciation of šìrdis from there. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Stubs

It would be appreciated if, instead of stubs, you at least provided a source... Also Slavic langs tend to use + templates. Vininn126 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're copying from Wikipedia, then that's a bad idea and you should probably stop. There tend to be a lot of protologisms and the like and we don't accept it in our CFI. Vininn126 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I feel like most of the stuff I added (kalns, diekou, tēp etc.) are pretty well-established terms in Samogitian. And I would provide sources if there was some sort of established Wiktionary Samogitian reference material - God knows I love adding a "References" or "Further reading" section in my Belarusian, Lithuanian and Yiddish entries - but there isn't. So I'm just going off of the poorly-written earlier Samogitian entries from 2017 and the like, which don't even have declension tables.

On the topic of Samogitian though, thoughts on this? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I am no expert. We'd need someone more knowledgeable. Vininn126 (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure there are respectable sources on Samogitian out there, grammars and dictionaries even. Just find them and reference those. Thadh (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] example. Thadh (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check that out in detail at some point. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, a cursory look at this glossary suggests that papinīčė is definitely attested, while papinīks should possibly be papininks instead. That being said, I've also found words that use both -nīks and -ninks. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)