Please do not invent speculative etymologies that incorporate unattested words. There is no evidence of a Latin verb *undulare. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Invent? You could or should say that only when you're as omniscient as God. So you're supposed to invent the meaning of invent. For your fallibility at least, refer to Essence Dictionaire Francais-Coreen, Minjungseorim, Seoul, Korea, 1992, reading:
- onduler ... [lat. undulare < unda (=onde)].
- Sorry this Korean stuff may be unavailable to you. Should you believe me, however, you could do without your making reference. And please be convinced I never invented it. Is it fair enough? At the moment I would not go beyond that hard evidence.
- By the way, I like you to answer my last comment in the #reduplication, especially as regards why you deleted chick flick again. --nemo 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- At Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Invented etymologies, just before the following short off-centered and irrelevant response to my first rely, as above, EncycloPetey prompted other administrators of his kind to support him in blocking me unreasonably and unseasonably indeed. He just unjustly ignored the hard evidence that I never invented Latin undulare but adopted it from the (perhaps best) French-Korean dictionary. Is this adoption enough for me to be blocked at all? From the beginning, he and his "community" no doubt had little intention to discuss with me reasonably. All the more, then, he could never avoid apologizing to me for accusing me of inventing undulare. The sooner the better. Instead, however, he fatally insisted my source is in error. He may be too foolish to know what may result from his wrong tongue, perhaps even damaging the Wiktionary proper, I fear. All the so-called community of administrators should not shy away from your fools doing evil. "Don't be evil" is a good policy, if not the best. "Destroy shamelessness" again! -- This right-aligned passage is now inserted, so as to help understand the state of affairs, by KYPark, aka, --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- I did not delete anything, as you can see the entry still exists. It is a valid word. However, as I explained to you before, it is not an example of reduplication. Rather, it is a compound term. --EncycloPetey 04:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh my! By "you deleted [it] again" I meant as such "from Category:Reduplication" by virtue of again, as you did indeed! Sorry anyway if I was wrong to use "delete" in this goddam tongue.
- Far more importantly, I was waiting for your reply on the main point here, relating to your undoing of Etymology of undulate and gondola. --nemo 05:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- You do not have to curse in correspondence. That is rude. I already told you why I reverted the etymology. It included a portion that erroneously claimed the word comes from a Latin word which, in fact, did not exist. Your source is in error.
- Further, you went beyond the error in your source, and included speculative cognates that are not cognates. Cognates almost always belong to the same part of speech and represent the same word as handed down from a parent language that contained a source words from which both descendants evolved. However, in this case the putative source word did not exist. The root word unda was modified in French to create a verb, and that word then passed into English. The first portion of the word undulate may be cognate with a pportion of the word gondola, but the two words are themselves not cognates. (See cognate in The Oxford Companion to the English Language.) --EncycloPetey 12:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
This time you are supposed to invent the meaning of cognates such that:
- they should "belong to the same part of speech"
or such that:
- "The first portion of the word undulate may be cognate with a pportion of the word gondola, but the two words are themselves not cognates. (See cognate in The Oxford Companion to the English Language.)"
Should Oxford so dictate indeed, we'd better throw it into the wastebasket. And, by typing "cognate" into the search slot and click the Search button, you could be convinced otherwise of Wiktionary practice. The spirit of cognates requires little or no more than more or less genetic inheritance from the same ancestry. Hence, gene, genetic, generic, generate, degenerate, etc., are all cognate or simply akin, regardless of parts of speech. So are akin, kin, kind, Kindergarten, etc. Again, so are queen, quean, gynaecological, and perhaps cunnilingus, cunny, or coney (as of "No money no coney" also rhymed with honey), etc.
You seem to admit LL. undulatus ("undulated"), which looks like nothing but the past participle of undulare, which in turn even the guru only next to God could not dare to declare does not exist, unless an evil or arrogant conspiration requires it do no more. Such may be the case with *gondolare, which would be in principle hardest to falsify. Our poor degree of assurance in practice gives rise to the starred or assumed such as *undula ("wavelet"), which unlikely gave birth to French onduler, whence English undulate hardly stemmed, not to mention German undulieren.
I neither uttered nor intended any curse whatsoever. Remember it is rude indeed to say someone is rude who is not in fact. But you were rude enough to suggest as if I had invented something cunning. --nemo 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- KYPark, please, no more "cognates" among borrowed terms, or terms that were subsequently coined. gene, genetic, generic etc. are not cognates. Perhaps "akin" or "related" (they should be listed in ====Related terms====), but not cognates. queen and quean are cognates, but queen and gyna- in gynaecological are not. The word cognate should only be used for words that are inherited from common ancestor language (so that you can observe regular sound changes, [i.e. sound correspondences] on them), and not for words that were borrowed in later historical periods, or even worse coined on the basis of some Latin or Greek lexical roots. --Ivan (ⰃⰎⰀⰃⰑⰎⰅⰞⰉ) 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- The following section #cognates, kins or relatives should be inserted here for reading chronologically. -- KYPark, aka, --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- KYPark. You are now flatly lying. You used the word "goddam", which is cursing. If you do not know what you are saying, then perhaps you should pause longer this time and reflect before formulating a reply. Yes, there is a Classical Latin word undulatus, but it is an adjective formed from the noun unda (or undula). The fact that it "looks" like a perfect participle is because it's an adjective, and these two sets of words share the same endings. This does not mean that a verb must have existed in Latin. No Latin sources exist containing the verb *undulo. No Latin dictionary I have checked contains the word *undulo. If you believe that a Latin verb undulo exists, then please provide a quote from a Latin source that uses the verb. A dictionary of French that erroneously hypothesizes the existence of the word does not demonstrate that the verb ever existed. Unsupportable theological speculation is fine for personal essays, but it is not appropriate for Wiktionary. You do not get to claim that an undocumented word exists, then support it with theological ramblings. We want evidence. --EncycloPetey 04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Flatly lying? This is offensive indeed rather than rude, you know. Didn't the biblical story on the Tower of Babel suggest all human tongues were god-damned or "confused" in other words, as per the biblical exegesis, to my and most Christian regret? But be advised I'm atheist. Whether goddamned or not, language is always all confusion. To taste how I regret it, just have a look at the opening quote from Lao Tzu on my page w:User:KYPark. My wording "this goddam tongue" indicates nothing but English that is so easy to speak while so easy to hear confused, as if it had been damned by God. The curse, if any here, was not caused by me but by God many milennia ago, believe it or not. I shifted the cause of your confusion or misunderstanding to such a goddam tongue, including my likely fault! To be honest, however, you strangely misunderstood the meaning of deleted in the passage "you deleted chick flick again". The blue link suggests it is NEVER deleted, and "again" suggests it is AGAIN deleted from Category:Reduplication by you. I greatly regret all this waste of our time and energy.
- You seem to definitely deny *undulo but favor *undula, even though both possibilities may be equally assumed, hence no record whatsoever so far. English verbs rhyming /-late/ are mostly if not entirely derived from Latin past participles rhyming /-latus/. The derivation of undulatus from nothing but *undula is too "hypothetico-deductive" to be reasonable and seasonable. It is simpy impossible and dictative, though it may be similar to the PIE's way of doing or reverse engineering. It also looks like human creation of, and belief in, a god. Should we hypothesize from scratch something most likely to explain Latin undulatus and all its Descendants, it would be much better to assume *undulo ("to wave") than *undula ("wavelet"). --nemo 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The administrator User:EncycloPetey have not reasonably discussed here and elsewhere at all, but unreasonably and unseasonably blocked me for a day benevolently instead of 2 weeks or forever. Via Wiktionary:Feedback#undulate, I appealed to the community for his apology to me, without hiding myself or attempting to be anonymous. Advise me why it should be strictly so. User:Robert Ullmann imposed another blocking on me for hinting I'm KYPark, not conforming to the strict formalism of hiding or protecting oneself in anonymy. Then User:EncycloPetey imposed still another longer on me. Now he would do the ultimatum. I never fear that but wish that he and his kind be well aware they benefit little from their shameless injustice. "Destroy shamelessness" again! -- KYPark aka --nemo 08:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- This is related to Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Where is Wiktionary going at all?. -- KYPark aka --nemo 09:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)