User talk:JohnC5

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive – 20142015

Greek Nasal Accent[edit]

Hi did you know if there is an nasal accent in Ancient Greek ? I need it pro my varg ? 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "nasal accent", but the accent represented by acute/circumflex was a pitch accent. Nasalisation of vowels may have occurred, but it was never phonemic. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 14:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Are you referring to any word in particular, Nemzag, or generally? I would advise using this copy of the LSJ which provides accents very accurately. —JohnC5 18:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Kanth you ! I don't know who is Nemzag, your page don't talk about accent, and the list is limited to some A terms. 22:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
It has everything, you just have to use the search bar. A reference table for the search bar encoding may be found at {{R:LSJ}} under the “Transcription characters”. That page does list the accents in the entry of each word. —JohnC5 23:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm searching pro a website listing all terms using Qoppa, San, Digamma (both version) and others ancient removed letter, I can't find any in web, do you know something ? 09:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
{{R:LSJ}} and {{R:DGE}} will have digammata when known. For the others, I do not know. —JohnC5 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a fair point, actually; English has categories like this. On the other hand, this appears to be manual. Is it possible to put something like this into {{head}}? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: If we create module:grc-headword, easily. Without that, it would become more difficult and would require you to juryrig something with invocations of the match function in Module:string in the headword templates. —JohnC5 16:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Why would we need to create a separate module? We can easily modify the show_headword_line function in Module:headword. Perhaps add a category in Module:languages/data for a list of 'notable' characters (e.g. "[0-9À-ÿ]", although it would certainly have more characters), then something like for i in mw.ustring.gmatch(<headword>,<list>) do <add category> end. (Alternatively, you could do the reverse, and make a list of characters that are typical, then your function would be the same except the list would be "[^ 'A-Za-z]". This may be easier.) CodeCat, comments?—ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: That's fair. Though specifying them in each headword template for a language is a pain. The optimal method, I think, would be to specify notable = "[0-9À-ÿ]", in Module:languages per language and then reference that list in Module:headword. I think it would be nice to have a "notable" category that get categories by character and then a catchall which will get anything outside of the "standard characters" + "notable characters". This would also be useful for debugging. —JohnC5 18:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope you realize that you and and ObsequiousNewt suggested the exact same thing. It's a good idea though. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Lol, I do now! I skimmed over this earlier and clearly misread everything. Newt shows him/herself to be as prudent and wise as ever; whereas I am always making careless misakes. —JohnC5 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat, what do you think of this suggestion? —JohnC5 00:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it's a great idea. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: so, should we bring this up in the GP? You know how much I hate starting discussions in the main rooms... —JohnC5 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Done; see Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/February#Autopopulation of Category:Terms by their individual characters by language via Template:head. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we will want to have some kind of global list of characters that are not interesting in any language. This would include spaces, punctuation and the like. For individual languages, a list of uninteresting characters would be far more effective than a list of unusual characters, too. —CodeCat 01:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
John, what do you think are the chances that Nemzag (who is probably this user) is Wikinger? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
So, that is a very interesting question. The use of pro my varg (for my work), Kanth, and generally ungrammatical English are extremely characteristic of Nemzag. While Wikinger does seem interested in AG letter forms, it seems to me that Wikinger is far more sophisticated and intentional in style of abuse compared with Nemzag, whom I would consider just plain crazy. This person may well be Wikinger, if the user's claim to recognize the name Nemzag is to be believed. Wikinger did seem to use similarly broken English to this and claimed to be on a mission (“This is not obsession. This is my Ultracatholic inquisitorial fanatism to fight for preserving of heritage of my Catholic Faith. God obliges me here: [1] in general to fight for His Catholicism, especially against stubborn sinners who perform removals of Catholic Heritage in part or in whole.”). I think we have fairly well established that Nemzag was an Albanian Muslim, which does not jive with Wikinger's narrative. I believe they are distinct people and that the above user is more likely to be Wikinger than Nemzag. —JohnC5 22:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe, but by all appearances Wikinger pretended to be several different people. It's true that Nemzag has had a fairly consistent alibi throughout his time at Wiktionary, though. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 01:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I my little JohnC5 & ObsequiousNewt, I'm the son of Ouranos also know as the crasy caesar sartena rovel kami kamli Nemzag, the one who will make your life a real nightmare :) !!! No I can confirm, I'm not that Wikinger and I don't know who he is, hope that he will make you became crazy as I'm you will be surely beddër and less boring... Good dayë. 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Some comments by Werdna Yrneh Yarg[edit]

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg Hello Andrew, I've been following your user page for a while now. I believe I am right in saying that you wish to demonstrate the Celtic words that appear in English. It seems that, in the above statement, you are claiming there are words in English inherited from Celtic as opposed to borrowed from Celtic. This is not the case. English is a Germanic language, and any non-Germanic word (and some Germanic ones, for that matter) must have been borrowed into the language at some point. —JohnC5 17:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5 Thank you for your message. It conveys what I always supposed at one time. Recent scientific finds have disproved that, however: I was only advised as to this properly last night, by my ex English post-graduate English lecturer; that except in the East of England, the Angles and Saxons found it relatively easy to settle with the natives due to their tongue being already a from of Germanic akin to Brythonic. So just because a lexeme can be traced to a Germanic root does not in every case mean that that root was not already in Britain! I go by Barber's Story of Language', where it clearly states that the number of Celtic words borrowed into English are like 'a drop in the ocean'. Practically every European language has its small group of older words that have been assimilated into its vocabulary. Both Cornish and Welsh are both Brythonic, as you know; but a number of words have been similated into Welsh from the Silures - the Iberian race that remained after the conquests. If I ask: "Are you an etymologist" (that I would not have the audacity to do), I would be speaking in Germanic (except obviously for the lexeme, 'etymologist'); but if I were to ask: "Do you do a number of edits?", I am no longer using a Germanic idiom, but a Celtic one. The dilution of old Germanic grammar, where Old English once had not only 'neuter' but duals in some of the nouns and adjectives, surely demonstrates in itself the influence of the non-educated element that possibly predominated in the British race and carried forward elements of their own vocubulary. All of this, you would be surely more aware of than I; but my user page is not simply to defend any Celtic element in the English vocabulary, but to be a simple restricted treatise of etymology as a whole. Kind Regards, Andrew H. Gray 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew
P.S. I have transferred your message from the exhaustive Talk Pages of Leasnam to mine to save room on his page. Andrew H. Gray 13:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew
So, I have a few comments, and I by no means wish to offend:
  • Brythonic would never have been similar or mutually understandable to Germanic speaking groups like the Angles or Saxons.
  • “Do you wish to do a number of edits?” is perfectly normal Germanic sentence structure. I have no idea where you got the idea that it is Celtic.
  • Old English grammar did not “disintegrate” by any means. Languages change over time, and the ignorance of the population does not cause any form of degradation. This also presumes that Proto-Germanic grammar is somehow more formal and complex. Languages tend to substitute one form of complexity for another over time.
I am still very confused as to the point you are trying to make and its purpose. Fortunately, you are very friendly and seem to be acting in good faith. —JohnC5 04:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Dear John[[User talk:JohnC5|C5] Thank you so much for your reply: to start with, I need to apologise for mis-quoting 'C. L. Barber, on "the Story of Language" - not "History", as I put - and had to correct this in my previous paragraph! Also, what I put about a form of Germanic already existing, I now see was quite misleading. What I should have stated was that recently science has unveiled that when the Germanic tribes moved around Europe they also settled in England, thereby facilitating the settling of conquering Saxons and Angles, (in that order), to understand the language. I will delete the term "disintigration" in accord with your reply. Also, I freely admit that I had real difficulty in believing any similarity between Brythonic (that is of the Celtic branch as you know) and Proto-Germanic.

The point of comparing the Germanic and Celtic idioms, to which you made reference, was to show that due to Celtic being thrifty with its verbs, the repetition of 'do' with a verb, is not found in any other Germanic language that I am aware of, and therefore is of earlier grammatical structure. The Germanic grammatical idiom is "edit you?" - surely not; "Do you edit". In the following sentences you will notice that I have used this bizarre idiom at least twice, when I mean: "it means not" and I believe not", respectively! By 'assmimilation' into Old English, I meant 'absorbed', so if that is what you meant by 'borrowing', your term is quite suitable and is reflected by other authors. It just does not mean that those few lexemes were not in existence when the Germanic languages pervaded parts of Britain - they could have been borrowed from what existed beforehand. I do not believe that there is any proof that the previous vocabulary was totally wiped out: 'tungolcraft' for astronomy, is an example of this. "-craft" is obviously Germanic; but where does one find a similar lexeme to "tungol" (star)? One can only summise its formation as possibly being related to 'don' (to carry, bear) and gol-ow (light), < Proto-Celtic *wlugos. This, among a number of others have become completely lost to English now; but that in itself, with others, like DOWN, DUN, BROCK and COOMB, et cetera, have had no valid proof as to their non-existence before the Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Vikings conquered England. Another familiar lexeme is that of PEAT < Anglo-Latin PETA, already in use at the time of the Germanic invasions. I trust that this clarifies the facts; although, for myself, I have had to learn as much as I can, since a little knowledge of etymologies is like a little knowledge of electricity! Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 09:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Andrew

"edit you?" is Germanic; and "do you edit?" is also Germanic. Both have the verb first place in interrogative. The roots of the do-periphrastic can be found in the Middle English causitive use of don (e.g. Þe king dēde þe mayden arise "the king made the maiden arise") and in the use of don as an empty, meaningless verb (e.g. He dude writes sende, where writes sende kinda behaves like a verbal noun (i.e. "he did writs-sending")). English is not the only Germanic language to use do as an empty verb: Dutch does also, (though not as elaborately as English, and not in exactly the same way). OE tungol is clearly traced to PGmc *tunglą. Leasnam (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Dear John[[User talk:JohnC5|C5] What you state is instructive and helpful, but still does not provide any effective examples in other Germanic languages to prove the point of being Germanic. It has been established that the Brythonic vocabulary has largely taken over that of the Punic, but the grammar of the latter carried through in some Celtic dialects. So, as you know better than I, the Germanic tribes, before conquering the Dutch, encountered the Celtic race there. Also PGmc *tunglą is simply conjecture if it be a root of lexemes in other Germanic languages, if no other examples exist; but if in Old English alone, that is quite feasable. The Germanic word for STAR is steorra, and correspond with the Common Germanic forms STER-N, et cetera. I am not trying to be awkward here or elsewhere, but simply to arrive at accuracy, in view of what is logically acceptable by the general reader. Unfounded assumptions have been made by some 'etymologists' that are neither true, nor are logically acceptable. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 16:26, 2 February 2016 (talk)
  • It is Leasnam who responded to you.
  • What do you mean that “It has been established that the Brythonic vocabulary has largely taken over that of the Punic”? Punic is not only geographically and temporally distant from Proto-Brythonic but also generally unrelated.
  • What do you mean by “the Germanic tribes, before conquering the Dutch”?
I will admit to being more confused than less. —JohnC5 16:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Dear John[[User talk:JohnC5|C5] Thank you again for your comments; it is time that I just stop wasting your time! However, regarding Punic, it is totally unrelated to both Brythonic and Goidelic, but cognate - although distant - with the Bronze Age languages between around 1500 BCE and 500 BCE in the British Isles, possibly that of the Parthusians or Milesians that arrived before the Formosians or Formorians, being the latter wave of Celtic invasion, into Ireland. An example of a derivative of that language is Old Cornish KĒR, cognate with Welsh CAER, akin to Punic QERETH (town, city). "Angr" has clarified your explanation about the auxiliary verb todo, and confirms your presentation of this, thank you. My due apologies for ignorance there. The Teutonic peoples, when moving west into Holland met Celts there, so they did not conquer the 'Dutch', as I badly put, but became 'Dutch' - as we say - afterwards. If you did need to reply, could you please do so on my talk page, rather than use up your space with my replies. Thanks in anticipation. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 11:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Andrew

yep I think it was a rollback. why asking?[edit]

? --Horsesongrassland (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Horsesongrassland Short answer: we don't really support Altaic theories. Longer answer: see here. —JohnC5 19:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually you do (I know what I am talking about), and you are not an academician. so at the end I will have to revert you. --Horsesongrassland (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Horsesongrassland To be honest, you have no idea whether I am an “academician”, academic, or anything else. Please bring your point up in the Etymology scriptorium before continuing. —JohnC5 21:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for my last statement. But.. come on Johnny, don't be so diffident :P Decision
"Only option 2 is supported, and it has consensus. "Proto-Altaic is allowed in appendices and entries can only link to it." DAVilla 09:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)" The matter I was working on was not even about Proto-Altaic anyway. So... --Horsesongrassland (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)