User talk:kc_kennylau

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


Archives[edit]

confédérer[edit]

Hi Kenny. Can fr-conj-auto be modified to generate the correct forms of this type of verb? Or should I use fr-conj-é-er? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Yes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Module:nan-pron[edit]

There are now 140 Chinese entries in Category:Pages with module errors. All the ones I've checked so far have had problems with the POJ. Please look into this. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I put them there so that other users (or I) would correct the pojs. I also left a note in the edit summary: "having them change it themselves is the solution, not changing it for them". --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Module errors are a really lousy way to do this, because they ruin things for the 99.99% of the site users who don't know POJ from PB&J. Then there's the matter of flooding Category:Pages with module errors: if there are any unrelated module errors in Han-character entries, no one will know, because one would have to look at 89 entries in order to spot them. Can't you have the module display some kind of text and add a cleanup category without actually throwing a module error? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Maybe I'd just clean them up as fast as possible. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Module:parameters[edit]

Would you mind explaining what your recent edits were for? —CodeCat 15:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I added them in the documentation. It is for allowing numbers in lists to appear in places other than at the end of the parameter name. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense, but I wonder if = is such a good placeholder. Then again, it can't appear in parameter names so I can't think of anything better. —CodeCat 15:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if = can appear in parameter names like this: {{foo|pa{{=}}ram=val{{=}}ue}}. --WikiTiki89 16:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Yes it can. Then what do you suggest? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I suggest ignoring this and proceding as before. No one in their right mind would put an = in a parameter name, especially when such a workaround is necessary to use it. --WikiTiki89 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Just remember, this is a wiki, so there's no requirement that anyone be in their right mind to edit here- as should be obvious after even a brief perusal of the forums... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89, Chuck Entz: Then what do you two suggest? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: But there is a requirement that you be in the right mind when you edit modules, creating an interface for others to follow. Someone might be silly enough to write {{foo|pa{{=}}ram=val{{=}}ue}} in the main namespace, but no one would (or no one should) actually write a module to expect that as input. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:ja-pron/documentation[edit]

This has had a module error for a couple of days because of an outdated usage example. That's a good sign that you need to check that all the examples are correct for the syntax the module currently requires. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Ok, fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:fr-conj-auto[edit]

Hello. I've noticed a problem with this template. "offrir" gives "offert ~ /ɔ.fʁe/" and " "recueillir" gives "recueilli ~ /ʁə.kœ.je/". --Omnipaedista 08:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem fixed! --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Pipe character in Lua patterns[edit]

The pipe | isn't used in Lua string patterns, so I don't think you need to escape it. —CodeCat 18:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Module:ja[edit]

Your edit comment "reform add_ruby_backend" should really have read "wreck add_ruby_backend just before quitting for the day". See Category:Pages with module errors (297 entries, at the moment, one of which isn't yours). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Heya, it looks like a recent module edit broke whitespace handling to force proper romaji. 大和言葉 has {{ja-noun|やまと ことば}}, but this is now showing:
‎(hiragana やまとことば, romaji yamatokotoba)
... instead of the expected:
‎(hiragana やまとことば, romaji yamato kotoba)
Could you take a look? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha, thank you for the fix! And for clarity, I posted here not to blame, but in the hopes that you might know how to fix it.  :) Thanks again! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

idem[edit]

I couldn't say anything regarding the etymology. I just noticed that the source doesn't back up the claim. With the given source, one maybe could mention something like "probably from *isdem" in the etymology section, even though the source is older (from "1859") and maybe outdated. So, looking into dictionaries:

  • Georges states "idem" comes from "is" and the suffix "dem" ("-dem"). That should be the same as already mentioned in the entry.
  • Lewis and Short state "masc. eidem, freq. in MSS. and inscrr.; [...] rarely isdem or eisdem;". That is, there was "isdem" as a Latin word, as an alternative form. But well, "isdem" could also be a later from and not the original form.

-Compcit (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Compcit: I would suggest you reply at your original post for the next time. And for "isdem", it is indeed an alternative form of "eisdem", the dative plural of "īdem". The point of disagreement is whether "isdem" is a historically alternate form of "īdem". --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Compcit: Oops, I just read that "isdem" is an alternative form of "īdem". --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, according to dictionaries "isdem" is a old form for nom. sg. masc. The old reference in idem also mentioned "nom. neuter [...] probably [...] iddem", but I didn't find that in dictionaries. That is, when mentioning that form, it should probably be marked with a star.
Furthermore, dictionaries and grammar books also mention forms which are missing in idem:
  • Nom. pl. "eīdem" (Lewis & Short have it as "plur. nom. eidem" and Georges states that "idem" is poetically and as "eīdem" and "īdem" one can find these forms in grammar books)
  • Nom. pl. "iīdem" and dat. and abl. pl. "iīsdem" (also mentioned in an older English Latin grammar book, though Lewis & Short state "not iidem, iisdem")
  • Dat. sg. "īdem" (according to Georges in inscriptions etc.) and dat. sg. fem. "eaedem" (somewhere according to Georges, giving "Anthol. Lat. 1536, 2 M." as source) [Georges is missing a comma in his dictionary, but one can still understand his text]
-Compcit (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Module:ja (again)[edit]

I hesitate to bother you after leaving such a grumpy message last time, but there are a couple of module errors still, at すすむ and 鞭撻. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology for "Hele"[edit]

First, some background information.

On January the 30th, I made an anonymous edit on my tablet on the following page: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hele#English.

I adduced my reasons for editing: "hüllen" is the German verb to which the English verb " to hele" is directly related.

On January the 31st, user Kc kennylau (you) reverted my edit and asked: "why?", thus requesting some additional information.

Well, here is my response:

Because, it fits the bill much better than "hehlen". "Hüllen", just like its English counterpart "hele", is associated with covering something, as in the German phrase "etw. in Schweigen hüllen (to cloak something in secrecy)".

There are, of course, no Modern English examples to speak of for the word "hele", and that is why I had to have recourse to Middle English for examples:

1. Helen (Middle English)

(a) To cover (sth.), deck; fig. blot out (sin); of darkness: cover (the earth); ~ clos, cover tight; ~ over; (b) to clothe (sb.); cover (sth.) with armor; helen abouten (withouten), wrap around (one's body), cover; (c) to make a roof on (a building), roof; (d) to embrace, fondle.

Here are a few English examples:

1. Hwat deð si moder hire bearn..his hafed heleð to don him slepe; modernized spelling: "what doth the mother (to) her bairn... his head heleth to do him sleep"; Modern English translation: "What does the mother do with her child... covers its head for it to sleep."

2. Fond he..A welle wel helid under a ston; modernized spelling: "found he... a well well heled under a stone"; Modern English translation: " he found... a well (a hole in the ground) well covered by a stone."

3. His heued [was] heled mid þornene crune; modernized spelling: "his head was heled mid a thorny crown"; Modern English translation: "his head was covered with a thorny crown."

German example:

Das Mädchen sprach von Liebe,Die Mutter von Eh', - Nun ist die Welt so trübe,Der Weg gehüllt in Schnee

The lassie spoke of love, the mother ever of honor, - Now the world is so drab, the path covered with snow

P.S. But anyhow, the German words "hehlen" and "hüllen" are probably related, in one way or another, inasmuch as the English words "to give" and "to yive" are related, as well...

References:

https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/h%C3%BCllen

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/m/mec/med-idx?type=byte&byte=75022745&egdisplay=compact&egs=75035634

http://www.dict.cc/?s=etw.+in+Schweigen+h%C3%BCllen

http://www.liedergalerie.de/Texte

Mountebank1 (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mountebank1: Thank you for your information, while I am still convinced that "hele" is related to "hehlen" more than "hüllen", because of the following reasons:
  1. "hele" and "hehlen" both have a long "e" vowel /eː/, pronounced the same (before the Great Vowel Shift).
  2. Semantics is not enough to judge etymology, because semantic shifts happen way faster than short vowel to long vowel shifts.
  3. "hehlen" does have an obsolete meaning of "conceal", according to duden.de.
However, your point still stands:
  1. "hehlen" and "hüllen" are related, according to this "ablautend verwandt mit hüllen" and this "verwandt mit hehlen", although their etymology does not overlap at all. This is a fact I cannot explain.
The above. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe everything goes back to the same Proto-Indo-European root, but with different ablaut grades: hele and hehlen are the e grade, and hüllen is the zero grade. Since ablaut was still productive in Proto-Germanic, I'm not sure where the two grades split from each other, but hehlen is much closer etymologically- and this is an etymology we're talking about. Yes, hüllen preserves the semantics better, but that doesn't make much difference to English speakers, who aren't familiar with either of the German terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But, they are related.

Here’s my idea of where they came from:

Now, of course it’s not all that cut and dry, but it does seem to me that the verbs hehlen and hüllen must have been ultimately derived from these two related PIE roots *kel and *kal. One was used to form verbs and the other to form nouns. The German verb hüllen, by the looks of it, derives from the German noun Hülle which derives from the PIE root *kal and hehlen and hele both ultimately derive from the PIE root *kel.

Hehlen

From Proto-Indo-European *ḱel-, to Proto-Germanic *helaną, to Old High German helan, to Middle High German heln, to Modern German hehlen.

Hüllen

From Proto-Indo-European *kal-, to *hulus in Proto-Germanic, to hulla in Old German and hulu in Old English. From Old German hulla and Old English hulu we get Modern German Hülle and Modern English hull.


However, I do see your point and I do now trow it probable and palpable to reason that German “hehlen” and English “hele” are more closely related to each other than “hüllen” and “hele” are. And I think, maybe, we could all benefit from expanding the etymology for the word “hele” to indicate its probable relation to the German verb “hüllen” and the English word “hull”. Well, I don’t know, what do you guys think?

Also, Duden relates “hehlen” to “Hülle”, as well. It’s not just me.

Herkunft

mittelhochdeutsch heln, althochdeutsch helan = bedecken, verbergen, verstecken, ablautend verwandt mit hüllen, Halle

P.S. I still find it kind of freaky that “hüllen“and „hele“ are almost semantically identical. I mean, I can say in German: „Ich wurde in einer Decke gehüllt“ and to express the same thing in English I can say: „I was heled( covered) in a blanket“, but you can’t say: „Ich wurde in einer Decke gehehlt“ in German, because it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I mean, it’s like saying: „I was hulled in a blanket“. Well, it‘s this kind of freaky stuff that threw me off the trail, I guess.

By the way, I also did some further digging and what I have found is quite fascinating.

From the PIE root *kal derives the Latin word for hide(as in a hard aminal skin), callum, and the Latin word for to hide, celare, derives from the PIE root *kel, from which, by the way, the English verb to conceal is also derived. What I find quite fascinating is that the English noun hide, an animal skin, and the verb to hide, to conceal, hele, mirror the Latin words callum and celare.

Also, the Old English word helan itself conjures up the images of someone putting/hiding something in the animal skin/hide that that someone is wearing for clothing in my mind.

Just, look at this Old English sentence:

Hí hǽlon ðæt hí forhelan ne mihton; modernized spelling: “hie (they) hole that hie forhele might not”; translation: “they hole what they might not forhele”; paraphrase: "they tried to hide what could not be kept hidden (by them)".

You see, it’s like they tried to put/hide something inside their „coats made of animal skins“ that could never be kept inside such a coat for long. I mean, It’s a kind of beautiful metaphor, isn’t it?!

Also, check out this one:

Hé ðæt hæl ǽrest sce petre; modernized spelling: “he that hole erst (from) saint Petre”; translation: “he at first heled that from Saint Peter”.

It’s like this “he” at first hid something, metaphorically, from Saint Peter in his “coat made of animal skins”, or like he withheld something from St. Peter in such a coat.

Come to think of it, hele probably traces its origins all the way back to the very beginning of PIE, at the very least. I mean just imagine that you are an early human and that you are somewhere in Eastern Europe in autumn time wearing a bear skin/hide for a coat and it is starting to snow and you just so happen to find some stone that would make a great spear-tip, and because the winter is coming you know that this is probably the last stone of this type that you will find until the spring comes again, and so that is why you don’t want anybody to know that you have found this pointy stone and so you just “hele/hide” it in your “bear-hide”.

What do you guys think?

References:

http://www.bosworthtoller.com/018612

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/celo#Latin

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/callum

Mountebank1 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your bot![edit]

Many Esperanto proper nouns have irregular endings, and for these proper nouns, {{eo-proper noun}} cannot be bot-replaced with {{eo-head}}. Please be more careful. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: Could I have an example of an entry I messed up? Thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Kaaba, Eva, Afrodita. Also tut-tera teksaĵo, which doesn't have an irregular ending, but does lack plural forms. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I apologize for my carelessness. I will be more careful next time. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. There is a silver lining—this brought my attention to a large number of proper nouns ending in j, such as Antiloj, whose accusatives are not displayed correctly by either head template (the accusative of Antiloj should be Antilojn). If you happen to know how to fix that, please let me know—otherwise, I'll post in the grease pit. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: Please be patient. I'm fixing them. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think the plural issue is your fault—it's an unrelated problem. I just thought you might know how to fix it, since you seem to be knowledgeable about this kind of thing. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: Having reverted all problematic edits, I thought I would just use "eo-proper noun" for every one instead. And I fixed the plural thing. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thank you. One last problem: The entry Bosnio kaj Hercegovino is showing the accusative as "Bosnion kajn Hercegovinon" when it should be "Bosnion kaj Hercegovinon"—please let me know if you know how to fix that. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Gender of Esperanto bariono[edit]

Hi there, I saw you added the masculine gender to the Esperanto translation of baryon. Why was that? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Because I made a mistake. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
All right, just making sure. And thanks for fixing it. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

pasèk and kréta[edit]

Taling is used for both é & è. However, there is no particular way to distinguish é & è while using Javanese script. Cahyo Ramadhani (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cahyo Ramadhani: Thank you for your information. What should I default it to? --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It is better to set é default for taling. It appears more frequent than the è in usage. Cahyo Ramadhani (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Actually I did make a mistake in that edit. I would like to re-write my opinion here.

In his dictionary, Thiều Chửu said that 鳩 is the Eudynamys bird. He said that 鳩 cannot make a nest for its own, therefore people use the word 鳩 to refer to a clumsy man who cannot handle his house affairs.

Thiều Chửu also said that, 鳩 never get choked when eating, therefore people usually carve the image of 鳩 into a stick for elder people. That stick is called "鳩杖".

His originial Vietnamese words: "鳩  cưu. Con tu hú. Tính nó vụng không biết làm tổ, nên hay dùng để nói ví những kẻ không biết kinh doanh việc nhà. Nó lại là một loài chim ăn không mắc nghẹn bao giờ, cho nên những gậy của người già chống hay khắc hình con cưu vào. Như cưu trượng 鳩杖  gậy khắc hình chim cưu."

Cheers. Sholokhov (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Probably you already know the word "雎鳩" i.e. the osprey. Honestly I believe 鳩 may not be the dove. Sholokhov (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Sholokhov: Thanks for your opinion. I brought this matter to WT:ES. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sholokhov (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymtree[edit]

I think you may want to participate in the GP discussion before doing more of these. —CodeCat 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: If your method is followed, I am still contributing by grouping all the descendants in one page. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
But my proposal is meant to have the descendants on different pages. I find it much more workable to have the descendants on the page where they belong. I don't like etymtree at all. —CodeCat 18:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Oops, I misunderstood you. Then I would stop. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

guaglione[edit]

The etymology is uncertain: I added one of the possible. Italy.png IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) Italy.png 18:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know, I've just put one that I've found in some websites, but I'm not an expert of etymology. Italy.png IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) Italy.png 08:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

derivcatboiler[edit]

So it looks like you have been bot-removing arguments to derivcatboiler, which has probably broken a great deal of categories. You can see an example of the problem discussed at WT:ES#old Romance or Slavic Yiddish words. Can you fix this? @-scheΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@-sche: Done. Would appreciate it if you guys could report here instead of reverting them for the next time. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. -sche didn't realise this was a problem that you had caused, AFAICT. If you had posted in the GP about what you were doing, I'm sure he would've noticed and this wouldn't've happened at all. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the issue, in any case. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Duplication of character categories[edit]

While the code you added to Module:headword looks like it works (from the code at least), when a strange character occurs more than once, the category for it is also added more than once. This is not a problem as such, but it is slightly ugly. —CodeCat 17:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Perhaps you can edit it to something better. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lojban translation[edit]

Where did you get the Lojban translation of gravitational wave (falbaibon) from? -Xbony2 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Xbony2: I made that word myself. You can revert if you like, or put a better translation there. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. It can stay there, unless another translation "beats it" in the future. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@Xbony2: Thanks. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderfool[edit]

IMO, it's less important to figure out whether an entry is WF or not than it is to figure out if it's a worthwhile entry. WF and his socks have created hundreds of bad entries...and hundreds of acceptable entries. I tried to say this on Ungoliant's page, but he insists on removing good-faith edits in an effort to piss me off. Purplebackpack89 17:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Alright. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/February#Tying_ancestors_to_families_by_default[edit]

Based on how it's displaying now (e.g. 'Ancient Greek' is not listed as the child of anything), it may be necessary to update Module:User:kc_kennylau/ancestor chain to reflect this new feature of Module:languages. Sorry we suddenly changed Module:languages' behaviour, but all the additions of ancestors people were undertaking inspired by your module was creating a lot of unnecessary duplication of information. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And this is why we invented these modules. So that we wouldn't have to fix more than one module when we wanted to change behaviour. The ancestor chain might be better implemented using the functions in Module:languages... —CodeCat 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: I originally planned to do that in Module:User:kc_kennylau/ancestor chain/with family/documentation but it was too large, until I found out today that only -pro are used. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Well, it is not me who removed the getAll() function.... --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! One bug: Proto-Baltic should be a descendant of Proto-Balto-Slavic (which is listed as its parent in Module:etymology_languages/data), and likewise for a few other things (such as Proto-Canaanite). - -sche (discuss) 02:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, we got rid of Proto-Baltic as a language. It shouldn't be listed at all. —CodeCat 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@-sche: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Well, I listed it as an etym-only language. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I still don't think we should be listing them as languages in the ancestor chain. Etymology-only languages are varieties or dialects of their parent language, and are subsumed under that language. The ancestor of the Baltic languages is Balto-Slavic, this is what Module:languages generates. Your module is doing something else. —CodeCat 02:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Alright. Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to pester, but did you have any thoughts on this request? —JohnC5 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:label with wrong lang parameter[edit]

Hi Kenny. There are lots of terms in this category. I can't see what's wrong with them. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto {{lb|en|archaic}} in French section. --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
How does the template know it's in a French section? —CodeCat 18:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Well... by analyzing the whole code. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Ruakh#February 2016[edit]

Hi,

You never replied at User talk:Ruakh#February 2016, so I wanted to make sure you'd seen my reply there?

Thanks,
RuakhTALK 07:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:eo-part-form[edit]

I've noticed you've deleted the categorization for this so that preparatan, for example, is no longer categorized in any Esperanto categories. Why is this? What do you hope to achieve? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the template to put these pages back in the categories where they should be. I don't know what Kc kennylau was trying to accomplish by removing the categorization. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

English as an abugida[edit]

Sounds even more difficult :) —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: JS-T- BKOZ YOR NOT YuZ-D- T ƏT ƏN-D- ƏAIM YUZŋ FNETK S-PEL2ŋ. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
ƏT- KAIN-D- ƏV MEK-S- SEN-S- NAO.Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: ƏI CAN ƏUSE ƏOR-ΘOG-RAΦIC S-PEL2Iŋ PER-FEC-T-LY. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
ɑɪ̯ i eɪ̯ ɪz- ɒl-s səɔɹ-tɪd-Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
(ƏEDT KONF-LKT-) @Aryamanarora: /æz wɛl æz ʊtɪŋ wʌn vl əuvr t sɪmbl-z-/. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
ɑɪ̯ jəs-t- fɪɡɚd- ðæt- aʊ̯t-. he, kæn j t͡ʃɛk- i eɪ̯ dæʃ- t-ɹæn-z-lɪt-?Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: I'm actually checking, if you could please stop editing it for a moment. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I just undid all my edits after realizing that they broke it. Some bugs:
  • "e" and "ē" should be switched
  • "ə" should be "a", by IAST.
  • Gemination with ੱ should affect the following consonant, not the the one it is placed over.
Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora: Fixed all, the schwa as well as the glottal stop are placeholders. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, okay, great! —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

delirans[edit]

The mod:la-adj/data is producing the wrong result. Could we fix it? —JohnC5 22:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Fixi. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Latin Module namespaces[edit]

We need to update the Latin modules so that they linkcorectly in the Appendix and soon the Reconstruction namespaces. This goes for headwords and tables? —JohnC5 00:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: All the linking should be handled in Module:links, which already handles the Reconstruction namespace properly. If the Latin modules aren't working, then all that needs to be done is to make sure they are properly using Module:links. --WikiTiki89 15:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Sorry, yeah. In truth, all the Latin templates when used in the Apppendix or Reconstruction namespaces should prepend an asterisk if it is not present. For instance, RC:Latin/linguaticum is currently wrong. It's easy enough to change it, but we should do it automatically. —JohnC5 15:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see now. --WikiTiki89 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

暗戀[edit]

Hi, I removed ngam3 lyun2 from the pronunciations because it is hypercorrection of am3 lyun2. AFAIK, the 'ng' consonant only appears in the 4th, 5th and 6th tones (陽聲) unless there are tone changes, like 鵝 (ngo4-2). Do you think we should include all hypercorrections (and perhaps all "懶音")? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: You're correct that the 'ng' consonant only appears in the bright tones. I thought it is a common practice to include it in as well, since it is so common (cf. ), and since http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-can/ also included those "ng" hypercorrections. However, the n-l merger would not be included. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, thought it was common practice to leave out these hypercorrections. I don't see any real argument for excluding the n-l merger if the ng- hypercorrection is to be included. Also, would we then want to exclude/include the dropping of ng- in words like 我 (ngo5 → o5)? Perhaps we could automate these phonological changes in the IPA??? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: The argument is that dictionaries include it. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 14:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

T:la-decl-1&2[edit]

I'm not so sure about the new table layout. I like mnemonic value of listing the related forms together, but English Classics scholarship uses nom.-gen.-dat.-acc.-abl.-voc.-loc.. No offense, but I don't think it's a good idea to diverge. @I'm so meta even this acronym: Any thoughts? —JohnC5 22:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Yes, I agree, unfortunately for Kenny's new format. This sort of thing makes sense in a declensions appendix, but not, IMO, in the tables in entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I third that wholeheartedly. We need to follow the standards that already exist among Anglophone Latinists. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree as well. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree, too. Perhaps use of very subtle shadings/backgrounds might tie the natural groupings together. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, Metaknowledge, Mr. Granger, Chuck Entz: Better now? --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, what range of colours would be acceptable? I intend to generate the colours in the range automatically. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I like it! As someone who is deuteranomalous, however, I don't have much in the way of color advice. —JohnC5 15:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Vidētur ut omnia rūpī. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Eek. Colōrēs istī videntur mihi nimiī. —JohnC5 16:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Fīnem offerās. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Colōrēs pallidifēcī. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Mihi placet multō melius. —JohnC5 19:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Module:la-adj/table problems[edit]

I almost forgot what I came here for:

5 entries in Cat:E trying to call a non-existent "add" function. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin verbs[edit]

I've made a start on running the bot again.

Could you check aliger please, and also the long-existing subniger. The usage of the "la-decl-1&2" template doesn't seem to match the template's documentation. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

p.s. The usage of "la-decl-3rd-1E" in, for example, breviceps doesn't match the documentation (shouldn't there be a second parameter "brevicipit"?) - needless to say, my bot creates rubbish. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

p.p.s. tertius decimus looks wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: As a matter of fact, I only guaranteed -costus -florus -setus to be unchanged. For 1&2, the nom_m_sg would be without -us if the parameter provided matches the pagename. Also, -(e)r would be interpreted as shown in subniger. For the method for generating stem2 from stem1 in the 3rd declension, here is the conversion table:
Do this first:
"tūdō" > "tūdin"
"is" > ""
"āns" > "ant"
"ēns" > "ent"
"ōns" > "ont"
"ceps" > "cipit"
"us" > "or"
"ex" > "ic"
If none matched, then do this:
"ma" > "mat"
"e" > ""
"men" > "min"
"er" > "r"
"or" > "ōr"
"ō" > "ōn"
"s" > "t"
"x" > "c"
If still none matched, then return original stem.
Hope this helps. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kenny, I'll do some more programming tomorrow, using the above and the logic in the /data part of the module. p.s. Could you check xanthopallescens please (3rd-1E or maybe even 3rd-part?). SemperBlotto (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

opacitas etc[edit]

This is defined as an adjective. Shouldn't it be a noun? (and headword genitive doesn't match table) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin verbs (2016)[edit]

Hi there Kenny. It looks like all the verbs are missing the ablative supine. Could you generate one for me (maybe amātū that I could use as a model? Cheers SemperBlotto (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Actually versu exists. But I'll still create amatu. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there again. Could you confirm that the future active participle of aborior is "aboriturus". My bot generates "aborturus". SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: According to cactus, the F.A.I. is aboritūrum esse instead of abortūrus esse, and the F.A.P. is aboritūrus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC) edited 23:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: After studying other websites, all orior verbs (orior, aborior, adorior, coorior) should have -oritūrus esse and -oritūrus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Same indeed with morior. —JohnC5 03:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Sicne alterīs fīnientī "morior"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quid quaeris? Nōn intellēxī. —JohnC5 04:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Is it so with other verbs ending in "morior"? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe so. —JohnC5 04:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Could you research that in my stead? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems all these do take -moritūrus. —JohnC5 04:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=commoriturus&la=la By the way, do you know how to find all the inflected forms of a word in L&S? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Voilà! No I do not, but I have often wondered if such a thing were possible. —JohnC5 04:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I am now totally confused (this is why I stopped Latin botting). Is the inflection of aborior correct, or does it need to be changed? Is the module generating the correct forms, or does it need to be changed? I'll ignore this type of Latin verb for the time being. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, JohnC5: All verbs ending in orior (including horior) have their F.A.P. and F.A.I. in -oritūrus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, JohnC5: Sed extortus facit extortūrus non extoritūrus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain - but could you just answer yes or no to my two questions? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Here:
  1. aboritūrus and aboritūrus esse are correct.
  2. The module is now generating the correct forms:
    Supine stems: conmortu, commortu, dēmortu, ēmortu, inmortu, immortu, inēmortu, intermortu, permortu, praemortu, superēmortu: generates -moritūrus.
    Supine stems: ort, abort, adort, coort, exort, hort, obort: generates -oritūrus.
    morior has no F.A.I. but its F.A.P. is moritūrus.
--kc_kennylau (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Could your bot please use {{m}} in etymologies? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin verbs (status report)[edit]

Hi Kenny. There are 4,500 entries in Category:Latin verbs with red links in their conjugation tables. I am working through them in alphabetical order. Progress at first was very very slow as I had to check, and modify the bot for each type of verb. Progress has now quickened, but it is still going to take a long time as I have to look at each verb to see if it is of a form that the bot can handle. The participles need individual attention as they contain a simple translation. I am ignoring anything at all difficult or irregular. Feel free to do any of those manually. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) p.s. I shall break off and do other things (Italian, French, English) from time to time.

@SemperBlotto: {{rfdef|lang=la}}. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Are you incorporating the short forms in -re, e.g. abdīcēbāre for abdīcēbāris of abdīcō? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, no, I didn't see that (and abdixere for abdixerunt). I'll fix it. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah (again), that's irregular. I'm leaving them alone for the moment - maybe next year. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: How is it irregular? --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It uses {{la-conj-irreg|dico|ab}} SemperBlotto (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

4,500 => 3,500 => 2,000 (and counting) SemperBlotto (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

==> ~120. So I'm giving it a break for a little. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Thank you very much. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, SemperBlotto, thank you very much indeed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

advenio[edit]

Could you create {{la-conj-3rd -io}} for this page? DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@DTLHS: What is the problem with 4th conjugation? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau That's what was on the page before JohnC5 edited it today. DTLHS (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Not related, but please deal with Wiktionary:Grease pit#garish Latin inflection tables. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you please undo the colours in the declension tables? Wait until there's consensus in favour; right now there's clear consensus against. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:itc-conj-base/core[edit]

The whole point of me rewriting Template:itc-conj-base was to give the parameters sensible names akin to what is used in the modules. But with your new template, you've made it just as incomprehensible as before. —CodeCat 15:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Those names are just for myself. The other developers use your sensible names just fine. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. Template:itc-conj-base/core is very hard to understand now because all the parameters are numbered. —CodeCat 15:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Alright, wait. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Seriously, I don't think it looks better now. 321 just means 3rd block, 2nd column, 1st row. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On Proto-Italic *f etc.[edit]

Hail Kc kennylau,

Should not initial PIE *dʰ > PIt. *θ instead of *f ? What norm do you use? GuitarDudeness (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@GuitarDudeness: Mihi videtur ut non usus est "θ" hic. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What's the word in question? Also, see WT:AITC. —JohnC5 21:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: In this case *fakiō for *θakiō or even *θakjō. Thus following the Wikipedia article vs. Wiktionary's *þakjō. GuitarDudeness (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GuitarDudeness: it is actually an "i". "i" and "j" were separate phonemes in PIt. that could both be followed by a vowel (cf. *djous > ju- vs *diem > die-). --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
But *djēm is given as the accusative case of *djous, why *j > *i here? GuitarDudeness (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GuitarDudeness: I got that from WT:AITC and looks like I got something wrong. The original quote is here:
Note, however, that there was a distinction between -CjV-/-CwV- and -CiV-/-CuV-, which is not indicated in Latin spelling, but it is often noted in the native alphabet of Oscan for example. This distinction should be indicated in Proto-Italic appropriately. If it's unclear whether to use *j/*w or *i/*u, use the former. There was apparently some allophony in this case, which is why we have both diēs (with *dj- > *di-) and Iuppiter (with *dj- > *j-) from the same Italic word *djous!
--kc_kennylau (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@kc kennylau: Excellent. So I understand you use De Vaan, Michiel (2008). Are you certain it is *fakiō and not *fakjō (since "If it is unclear whether to use *j/*w or *i/*u, use the former.")? And what does he say of PIE *dʰ > PIt. *θ? *þ? *f? GuitarDudeness (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GuitarDudeness: De Vaan does specify between *j and *i, including the *-j- verbs and the *-i- verbs. He used -i- in this case. He uses *dʰ > *f, supposing because this is the most recent common ancestor of the Italic languages (all use f). --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@kc kennylau: Very well. Can you give me one example of such *j-verbs? What are the PIE causes for one and the other? GuitarDudeness (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GuitarDudeness: *gʷenjō < *gʷm̥-yé- (*gʷem-), *fakiō < *dʰh₁-k-i- (*dʰeh₁-). --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@kc kennylau: Magnificent. So for *i-verbs there is that prothetic *-i- (+ *-yé- or thematic stem?). Does De Vaan offer any etymology for such *-i-? But then how has someone put PIt. *kapjō (which I adapted following your *kapiō) under PIE *kh₂p-yé- ‎refering to De Vaan? GuitarDudeness (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@GuitarDudeness: *kapiō is a strange verb, because De Vaan uses PIE. *-i- and *-i̯e- (which becomes *i in PIt. according to him) instead of PIE. *-ie- (which becomes *j in PIt. instead). However, the Greek cognate κάπτω ‎(káptō) reflects *-j- in PIE instead. We have *fugiō as comparison, which must be an -i- here or else the Latin form would be -jj-, and De vaan gives PIt. *-i- and PIE *-i- for that. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
It gets stranger too. The 3rd conjugation io-verbs and the 4th conjugation were originally a single class. Sihler notes that the verbs have two sources: ye-presents and denominatives (originally from i-stems and consonant stems). The long vowel in the 4th conjugation is from early Italic -ije-, while the 3rd conjugation verbs reflect shorter -je-. Sihler doesn't elaborate on whether the denominatives always result in 4th conjugation verbs, but it seems so. What is fundamentally going on is a syllabification of the -y- somewhere in the history of some ye-stems, which shifted them to the 4th conjugation. This included at least veniō but of course many others. The conditioning that led to this change is unknown, however. Sihler considers the 3rd conjugation verbs a "leftover" of the verbs that didn't change to the 4th conjugation, but he also notes that some verbs like fugiō and fodiō can't be original because -dj- and -gj- assimilate to -jj- in early Latin. He also remarks that fodiō can't be original on account of its o-grade. —CodeCat 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: But what of *kh₂p-i- and *dʰh₁-k-i-? Are these some i-stem nouns whence the denominative verbs, if not from simple ye-presents? GuitarDudeness (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If those etymologies are correct, then it seems that these were unsyllabified to -je- at some point, which landed them in the 3rd conjugation. Ancient Greek κάπτω ‎(káptō) must reflect a nonsyllabic -y- too. But I'm a little skeptical about these i-suffix presents to begin with, I've never seem them mentioned elsewhere before. —CodeCat 15:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @CodeCat: I suppose the third-conjugation IO verbs come from PIt. *iō or *jō, while the fouth-conjugation verbs come from PIt. *īō. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not possible though, there's no source for this ī. What happened according to Sihler is that at some point in early Italic, there were the -jō ~ -je- class and the -ijō ~ -ije- class. The latter became -iō ~ -ie- upon the loss of -j-, and this then coalesced into -iō ~ -ī-, whence the 4th conjugation. The mystery is why some of the verbs originally in the -jō ~ -je- ended up in the -iō ~ -ī- class and why not all of them did. —CodeCat 15:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Sihler does mention *-īō verbs. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Where? —CodeCat 16:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Top of P.537. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you're reading that wrong. The paradigms he gives there are not historical, but kind of "pseud-paradigms" that are formed as if made from the thematic vowels ī and i. The real history is more complex, as he elaborates in the same section. —CodeCat 16:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also to note that Sihler puts all these verbs with *-yé- present stem. And again the argument here was on whether *kapjō or *kapiō, and its kind, should be written. If as you say the *-jō ~ -je- class became the 3rd. conjugation then these are *-jō. GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat, GuitarDudeness: If the stem is indeed *fakj-, then how does it behave when forming compounds? *fakjnos? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The ye-suffix appears only in the (present) verb, not in other derivatives from the root. —CodeCat 23:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Cool. Then why are we not seeing *faknos? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No idea. If the -i- is indeed derived from the -j- of the verb somehow (which I find unlikely), the word must have been formed very late. —CodeCat 23:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Module:gu-translit[edit]

See Cat:E. Strange things happening with links using the module, though I'm not sure why they're turning up now. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger functions in Module:la-adj/table[edit]

Can you make the merger functions in Module:la-adj/table ignore footnotes? At the moment, we have tables like this one, which has near-identical footnotes (the numbers are different) for adjacent identical inflectional forms because if you remove one of the footnotes, the merger function regards the inflectional forms as different and if you remove one of the overrides, the table doesn't display both inflectional forms for the relevant gender or genders. Esszet (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Esszet: Yes, I can. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Latin nouns[edit]

Hi Kenny. I'm turning my attention to the mass of missing noun forms. The first one I looked at was abax - the documentation of {{la-decl-3rd}} doesn't explain the x ==> c change. Is there any chance of the documentation being brought up to date? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • p.s. "Wiktionary:Latin templates" says, for la-decl-3rd, "(1st argument = gender, 2nd = nominative singular, 3rd = root)". This is clearly wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    @SemperBlotto: See #Latin verbs. --kc_kennylau (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Could you check cadmia please - strange looking ?macrons? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: That symbol means that vowel can be both long and short. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to code it in Python. It always gets converted to two characters (an "i" with a macron, followed by a breve). I'll have to leave it for now. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: It is indeed an "i" with a macron followed by a (combining) breve. You can verify it here. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
In these situations, I'd prefer to have the word written out twice, once with a macron and once without (or even with a breve). Combining two contradicting symbols can be confusing. --WikiTiki89 14:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I've got red-linked nouns down to under 200 but have suddenly got a password problem running the bot. I'm taking a break. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi there (password problem went away). iugerum and jugerum are in this cat but don't seem to have any red links. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Many of the remaining terms in Category:Latin nouns with red links in their declension tables are suffixes. I have deliberately left them alone. Should I generate their inflected forms? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Just make sure that the L3 header is "suffix". --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've done the suffixes (see -cen as an example). The remaining nine entries are just too bothersome. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Thank you very much! --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bagdadum[edit]

Shouldn't this be Bagdadus? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

[1][edit]

Cur fecisti hanc modificationem? --Romanophile (contributions) 13:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Romanophile: Complicātus est. Lingua "Vulgar Latin" est, sed templati Proto-Romantiā scriptum sunt. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reality check requested[edit]

Fête Phung (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks)/À la 雞 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) has been globally locked under his accounts Fête (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) and Phung Wilson (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) for persistently making bad edits and for generally being a pest. He has no common sense when it comes to Canadian French, English, and pronunciation in general, but he also edits in his native Cantonese. I would appreciate it if you could go through his Chinese/Cantonese edits and let me know if he has similar problems there, or whether there's one small area where he can be trusted to do good work without constant checking. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Sorry I am quite busy this week. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No problem. It can wait. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Some edits are good, but they need constant checking. --kc_kennylau (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Module:hy-pronunciation[edit]

Hi. Can you take a look at the failing testcases in Module:hy-pronunciation/testcases please? They happen when the consonant contains more than one symbol in IPA. --Vahag (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Vahag (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again. Can you fix the failing testcase in Module:hy-pronunciation/testcases? --Vahag (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Module:la-verb[edit]

Module:la-verb

Hello, Kenny. I have found some suspicious lines in Module:la-verb.

1) prefix lengthening in conjugation of "sum"

Line 1706:

   -- Future infinitives
   data.forms["futr_actv_inf"] = {"[[" .. prefix_f .. "futūrus]] [[esse]]", prefix_f .. "fore"}

The "prefix_f" is suspicious here. It conflicts with the future active participle. For example, in entry "insum", the future active infinitive is "infutūrus esse, infore", but future active participle is "īnfutūrus".

The comment at Line 1649 says:

   -- The vowel of the prefix is lengthened if it ends in -n and the next word begins with f- or s-.

but at Line 1687:

   data.forms["1s_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "essem", prefix_f .. "forem"}
   data.forms["2s_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "essēs", prefix_f .. "forēs"}
   data.forms["3s_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "esset", prefix_f .. "foret"}
   data.forms["1p_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "essēmus", prefix_f .. "forēmus"}
   data.forms["2p_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "essētis", prefix_f .. "forētis"}
   data.forms["3p_impf_actv_subj"] = {prefix_d .. "essent", prefix_f .. "forent"}

It seems they are aslo suspicious. Should "inforem", "inforēs", ... be "īnforem", "īnforēs", ... ?

2) Line 727:

   data.forms["2s_pres_actv_impr"] = prefix .. "aï"

Is "aï" a misspell of "aī" ?

3) Verb "soleo" is a semi-deponent, but unlike other semi-deponent (audeo, fio, fido), there are "passive" perfect and pluperfect in the conjugation table, while in others there are only "active" perfect and pluperfect.

Please check. —This unsigned comment was added by Hellrex (talkcontribs) at 13:37, 26 April 2016‎ (UTC).

@Hellrex: Thanks. I've fixed the first issue. @JohnC5: Could you help me to look at the other two issues? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
is correct in this case. It is mean to represent dysillabic ăĭ (OLD has both of the vowels short). As for the semi-deponents, the perfective forms should all be marked as active in this case (if that is possible). I think Hellrex is saying that the perfective forms would mean "I have been accustomed to" which seems passive. However, they are actually active from Latin's standpoint. So change all the label for the semi-deponent to only be active. Also, OLD claims there exists an archaic perfect stem soluī we should probably mention somewhere... —JohnC5 16:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5 Then the "aī or āī" in the entry "ai" must be wrong. Hellrex (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Hellrex: Fixed! —JohnC5 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I think changing the passive perfect and pluperfect of "soleo" to active can be achieved by modifying these lines at Line 1580: Hellrex (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
   irreg_conjugations["soleo"] = function(args, data, typeinfo)
        table.insert(data.title, "[[Appendix:Latin second conjugation|second conjugation]]")
   -    table.insert(data.title, "[[semi-deponent]]")
        table.insert(data.title, "no [[future]]")
        table.insert(data.categories, "Latin second conjugation verbs")
   -    table.insert(data.categories, "Latin semi-deponent verbs")
        table.insert(data.categories, "Latin defective verbs")
        
        prefix = typeinfo.prefix or ""
        
   +    typeinfo.subtype = "semi-depon"
   +
        local ppplink = m_links.full_link(prefix .. "solitus", nil, lang, nil, "term", nil, {}, false)
        local sumlink = m_links.full_link("sum", nil, lang, nil, "term", nil, {}, false)
   
        data.forms["1s_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "soleō"
        data.forms["2s_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēs"
        data.forms["3s_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solet"
        data.forms["1p_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēmus"
        data.forms["2p_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solētis"
        data.forms["3p_pres_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solent"
        
        data.forms["1s_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbam"
        data.forms["2s_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbās"
        data.forms["3s_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbat"
        data.forms["1p_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbāmus"
        data.forms["2p_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbātis"
        data.forms["3p_impf_actv_indc"] = prefix .. "solēbant"
        
        data.forms["perf_pasv_indc"] = ppplink .. " + present active indicative of " .. sumlink
        data.forms["plup_pasv_indc"] = ppplink .. " + imperfect active indicative of " .. sumlink
   
        data.forms["1s_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleam"
        data.forms["2s_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleās"
        data.forms["3s_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleat"
        data.forms["1p_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleāmus"
        data.forms["2p_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleātis"
        data.forms["3p_pres_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "soleant"
        
        data.forms["1s_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solērem"
        data.forms["2s_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solērēs"
        data.forms["3s_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solēret"
        data.forms["1p_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solērēmus"
        data.forms["2p_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solērētis"
        data.forms["3p_impf_actv_subj"] = prefix .. "solērent"
   
        data.forms["perf_pasv_subj"] = ppplink .. " + present active subjunctive of " .. sumlink
        data.forms["plup_pasv_subj"] = ppplink .. " + imperfect active subjunctive of " .. sumlink
        
        data.forms["pres_actv_inf"] = prefix .. "solēre"
   -    data.forms["perf_actv_inf"] = "[[" .. prefix .. "solitus]] [[esse]]"
   +    data.forms["perf_pasv_inf"] = "[[" .. prefix .. "solitus]] [[esse]]"
        data.forms["pres_actv_ptc"] = prefix .. "solēns"
   -    data.forms["perf_actv_ptc"] = prefix .. "solitus"
   +    data.forms["perf_pasv_ptc"] = prefix .. "solitus"
   end

Module:gu-translit[edit]

Hi! Do you think you could fix this up a little? I've been adding lines to the testcases page for everytime I see the module mess up, but I'm not good enough with lua to fix it. DerekWinters (talk) 04:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: Could you explain to me (આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય: "āntarrāṣṭrīya" / "ā̃tarrāṣṭrīya") and (વિદુગ્ધધુ: "vidugdhadhu" / "vidugddhu")? In particular, સમજાવવું is "samjāvvũ" instead of "samjāvavũ". --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking at આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય, I believe that might just be a special case where it would surely be "āntarrāṣṭrīya", but the majority of words like આંતરડું would be ā̃tarḍũ. I think આંતરરાષ્ટ્રીય is pronounced the way it is because it is derived from a compound using आन्तर ‎(āntara), which would always be "āntar", even in Gujarati. Otherwise, આંતરડું is a tadbhav word which would thus be pronounced with the nasalization.
વિદુગ્ધધુ would be hyphenated as વિ‧દુગ્‧ધ‧ધુ, which leads to its pronunciation as "vidugdhadhu". It could not be hypehnated as વિ‧દુગ્‧ધધુ, and even if it were, then the last part would be "dhadhu".
સમજાવવું would be hyphenated as સમ‧જાવ‧વું sam‧jāv‧vũ. I think w:Gujarati phonology might help you. DerekWinters (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

TLFi links on multiword entries[edit]

Hey Kenny. You bot added an External links section to French pages en masse linking to the TLFi, but that dictionary doesn't have multiword entries, so all the links like this one are dead links. Could you please remove all such External links sections that you added on multiword French entries, and not add them there any more? Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I second Μετάknowledge's request and note that I've removed many such links from one-word French entries which don't have corresponding entries in the Trésor; please don't add those links to entries without first checking that the Trésor actually lists the relevant term. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BUMP. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I thought I already removed all TLFi links on multiword entries... --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have loads of pages for French phrases on my Watchlist, so I wasn't aware of that. Thank you, anyway. Can you, in future, add {{R:TLFi}} only to Wiktionary entries that have corresponding entries in the Trésor, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Sure! --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Module for Minnan Pronunciation[edit]

Hi, I really want to include the Quanzhou dialect pronunciation in the Minnan pronunciation module. I know how the sound correspondences work, but I don't know how to code. Could you help me? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mar vin kaiser: Of course! How may I help you? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it, the current functionality of the Minnan pronunciation in Chinese entries only shows Taipei and Zhangzhou, and doesn't show Xiamen and Quanzhou, especially Quanzhou. I think that the pronunciation should at least show four to five pronunciations, from Zhangzhou, Xiamen, Quanzhou, and whatever representative dialect there is for Taiwan (whether Tainan, Taipei or Kaohsiung). Because of this, editors have resulted into putting notes in the entry, like in 紅毛塗. Can we fix this?
Also another problem I have with the status quo is that you input the Taipei pronunciation in Pe̍h-ōe-jī (I think) and then the Taipei and Zhangzhou pronunciation is automatically generated. This could be a problem when a word is dialect-specific, like for example, a word only exists in, let's say, Quanzhou, so if an entry is made, then it would also automatically generate Taipei and Zhangzhou pronunciation even though the Quanzhou pronunciation is the only relevant pronunciation. Could we make it such that we could choose which pronunciations would appear?
Also, not all dialectal pronunciation differences can be explained by sound correspondence. My example would be the sixth tone in Zhangzhou and Taipei. It could correspond to either the fourth tone or the fifth tone in Quanzhou. So a generator wouldn't know which one to generate. Also, some consonant changes are also possible not consistent with sound correspondence. So, would it be possible to manually edit the pronunciation for a specific word entry?
Sorry if I included all the problems I thought of in a single reply. I hope that my explanation was understandable though. As I said, I don't know how to code. But I have knowledge about the dialectal differences in Minnan. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang: What do you think about this? --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a very promising proposal and thanks for having thought about this thoroughly Mar vin kaiser. You are probably aware, but just in case, there is some previous preliminary discussion at Module talk:nan-pron. Pinging @Justinrleung too. There are two points which may be worthy of discussion:
  1. How many dialects are we expecting to cover - are they looking to automatically generate pronunciations individually? There may be up to ten locations (e.g. 飛行機, 西瓜) and listing all the dialectal pronunciations individually may not be aesthetically pleasing. Maybe we can list by POJ, using a format similar to 日期 for Mandarin, and list 2 max most representative dialects for each POJ reading, although this requires that we have IPA support for all and runs the risk of some POJ readings having no IPA if we don't.
  2. What additional support for other dialects will be needed in POJ? Would you be able to list the peculiarities of each dialect, compared to the Xiamen dialect (on which the POJ is based)? I understand there will be an additional tone symbol needed for Quanzhou and some additional rhyme support needed.
A possibility for the input format is something like
|mn=tp,kh,hc,tc:hoe-lêng-ki/lk,sx:hui-hêng-ki/tn:poe-lêng-ki/yl:hui-lêng-ki/mg:hoe-nn̄g-ki
for 飛行機. That's all I can think of for now. Cheers, Wyang (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang, Mar vin kaiser That's exactly what I was thinking for the input! With the resources I have at hand, there could be up to 13 dialects (3 main dialects in Fujian and 10 in Taiwan) to cover. I like the idea of listing by POJ. Now for IPA, we could use this and this as a reference for tones. Other parts of this website have info on additional rhymes that are needed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Question: Why not use Hanzi (as |mn=臺北,高雄,新竹,臺中:hoe-lêng-ki)? —suzukaze (tc) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c We could also do that, but it might just be a bit harder to type. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 07:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm just concerned about collision between abbreviations. —suzukaze (tc) 08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c, justinrleung: Current places we have:
  • tp: Taipei
  • kh/kx: Kaohsiung
  • hc/xz/sj/st: Hsinchu
  • tc/tz/tj/tt: Taichung
  • lk/lg: Lukang
  • sx/ss/sk: Sanxia
  • tn/tl: Tainan
  • yl/il: Yilan
  • mg/mk: Magong
  • zz/cc/cz/lc: Zhangzhou
  • xm/em/hm/am: Xiamen
  • qz/cz/cj/tt/cc: Quanzhou
Thus three resolvable collisions are found. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool that we have resources for Taiwanese variants. Here are my thoughts on the matter.
1. I think each entry should at least show the dialectal pronunciation of 1.) Xiamen, 2.) Zhangzhou, 3.) Quanzhou, 4.) 1 or 2 Taiwanese variant representatives. I believe the prestige dialect of Taiwan is Kaohsiung/Tainan, and Taipei is another important dialect. About including the other Taiwanese dialects, I'm having mixed feelings about that, because the good thing about that is that it would show more information, but the bad thing about that is that we would have to show the 12 IPA pronunciations of all the dialects. I was thinking that showing around 4-5 IPA pronunciations would be enough, and the variant pronunciations would be labelled instead, what dialect/s it corresponds to, though it can be discussed further.
2. For generating pronunciations with IPA, it's possible that there's only one POJ written there, and each dialect has its own take on the exact tone. So, if you mean that, yeah. If the consonants or vowels would differ, then I think they should be different POJ entries.
3. I think the POJ suffices in transcribing all the dialects. Even Quanzhou, even if it has an extra tone, POJ also has a diacritic for that. And POJ can transcribe the schwa sounds of Quanzhou also. I don't understand what "rhyme support" means though. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser Are you referring to ir for /ɯ/ and er for /ə/? I don't think those are part of the standard POJ, but they can certainly be used. "Rhyme support" is just referring to vowels (+ finals). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung Yeah, I was referring to those sounds, but I didn't know the final "r" wasn't part of the standard POJ, but they could be used, yeah. So I see no other problem here though, aside from the creation of the module for it? I speak the Quanzhou dialect actually, so I'm excited to finally see it here in Wiktionary. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung @Wyang @kc kennylau @Suzukaze-c do you guys see any other concerns regarding this? Thanks. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems good to me. Including 4-5 IPAs is fine. We have to make sure the existing pages containing multiple Min Nan pronunciations (e.g. 人民) are updated once the dialectal support is added. Would we be able to produce a list of POJ initials, rhymes and tone values (and sandhi patterns) used for each dialect included in the IPA? That would be immensely helpful. Wyang (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang Actually, @Justinrleung already summarized all of this in his page, here. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Continued below...

That is a great page. I have added the support in Module:nan-pron (functions generate_all, generate_IPA and poj_check_syllable). Seems to be working well (, 飛行機, 阿母). There are several things I would like to bring to everyone's attention:

  • Please check the code in Module:nan-pron, especially the three new functions, to make sure they are correct.
  • Please please check the tone-sandhi patterns of syllables preceding 仔, in the list tone_sandhi. I'm absolutely unsure about this and it's probably wrong.
  • There was a 'triple' function in the original to-IPA code, possibly used for handling triplicated characters. I can't find any examples on Wiktionary though. The code is still in the module but has been commented out.
  • The placement of mn_note is now at the end of the Hokkien section, so is the audio. These are probably not ideal.
  • More varieties can be added to the function generate_all (two places - abbreviation and link). If you use a shorthand that is not recognised, it will not show up.
  • Next step would be review of all existing multi-pronunciation unmarked Min Nan pages. I've categorised these into Category:Min Nan terms needing attention, under the sortkey "*". Pages using POJs which are not applicable across the five major IPA dialects are also listed there.
  • As always, feel free to change or fix anything, especially layout.

Wyang (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang FINALLY!!! It's doing great, although there's always room for improvement. There is a particular problem with 中華人民共和國. The prefixes don't go away. Not sure what's going on. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wyang @Justinrleung This word 人馬 has two pronunciations. What do you guys think about how it's laid out? Do you think that's ok, or should the two pronunciations of each dialect be put in a single line? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting to edit, and I notice that a lot of words actually have the same POJ for all dialects, so I keep copy-pasting "|mn=kh,qz,tp,xm,zz:“ to each entry, to show all the five IPA's. I was wondering if it would be a better idea if the default is to show all 5 pronunciations unless an abbreviation is placed? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
That is the eventual goal. At the moment I think we have to make sure all the existing unmarked readings are truly pan-dialectal. There are still many high-risk entries that have not been reviewed (e.g. Category:Min Nan terms needing attention, most of the terms containing "人" on page 1). After that is done, we can relax the requirement in the module to generate all five pronunciations (see comment on line 358 in Module:nan-pron). Wyang (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think there's something wrong with 陰入 of Quanzhou. It's ⁵ in most sources, ⁴ in a few sources, but not ³³, which is what is generated. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, you are right. It should be fixed now. Wyang (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a problem with 頭家娘. Pronunciation won't register for Zhangzhou. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser Fixed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 10:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Another problem with 舅仔. It says in 閩南方言大詞典 that in Zhangzhou, the first character has no tone sandhi, but in Xiamen, it shows a tone sandhi. Do you guys think that it's a typo or there really is tone sandhi? The dictionary specifically lists the Zhangzhou and Xiamen pronunciations separately, meaning that they're different pronunciations, and the only thing different is the tone sandhi. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Another problem with 姨仔. I'm pretty sure that the sandhi of the first character in Quanzhou is NOT /i²⁴⁻⁴¹ a⁵⁵⁴/. It should be /i²⁴⁻²² a⁵⁵⁴/. /i²⁴⁻⁴¹ a⁵⁵⁴/ is too awkward to pronounce.--Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see point 2 in my post above (05:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)) regarding the second problem - please help check the tone-sandhi patterns of syllables preceding 仔. Wyang (talk) 10:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way for us to include the distinction between literary and colloquial pronunciation, especially for single characters?--Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
On a sidenote, can we do away with entries āu-piah and make it like the Romaji entries of Japanese words? Like ushiro. Because it's too repetitive, having two articles for the same word, and one word could have multiple pronunciations and each of the entries of those pronunciations would be a separate entry containing the same thing? I think it's better if in the āu-piah entry, we just find "Peh-oe-ji reading of 後壁” or something like that. Opinions? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

What about the entry format of words like kha-báng with no Hanzi representation? —suzukaze (tc) 03:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I've previously brought out the idea for making POJ entries like pinyin entries, but because POJ was used as an actual writing system (instead of simply as a romanization system like pinyin or romaji), it was decided (I think, if I remember correctly) that POJ entries be kept as is. However, my opinion is that POJ entries should be like pinyin entries. About words without hanzi representation, I think we can keep them as they are, just like Cantonese entries that can't be written with hanzi (e.g. band, friend). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with Justinrleung. Actually, 閩南方言大詞典 transcribed these loanwords into Min Nan from Japanese in hanzi, so we have no problem for most of the loanwords. For example, ne-kut-tái is written as 捏居帶, and bì-luh, bih-luh, and bì-lù is 米汝. Sadly, I can't find kha-báng in the dictionary, so as proposed by Justinrleung, we can keep them as they are. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
How do we show 輕聲? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Use two hyphens before the syllable(s) with neutral tone. Note that you need to write the original tone. See 昨日 and 我們. Also, the module does not support IPA for neutral tone. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 15:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

有家教/冇家教[edit]

你好!如果畀人教咗都仲特登犯錯,就有冇家教呀?64.18.87.172 18:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

留級[edit]

你好!唔該你喺Wiktionnaire開留級嗰篇文啦。206.180.250.57 22:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Naskapi (nsk)[edit]

Hi! Can you please create a transliteration module for Naskapi? This should be helpful. I have no experience with making syllabics modules here, and I see that you have before. Thanks in advance :) DerekWinters (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the orthography does not distinguish between short and long vowels. Does it make sense to make it anyways? DerekWinters (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@DerekWinters: Sorry for replying so late. You would need to come up with a mechanism for specifying long vowels. I would suggest ᓯᑯᑕ:ᐤ ‎for ᓯᑯᑕᐤ (phonetic spellings would have to be specified as a parameter). --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

book[edit]

Hi, Kenny. I am looking for a Cantonese word for "volume" (book). It is said to be pronounced , but I don’t know what kind of transcription that is. Apparently it is, or was, used with 書/书 ‎(shü): shü pò. (It is the etymon of a Khmer word.) —Stephen (Talk) 13:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Doesn't sound familiar to me. My guess is 書簿 --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Kenny. It could be a very old term which is no longer used. I’m going to go with 簿 bou6, and if somebody has a better idea, they can change it. —Stephen (Talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: Do you have other words with that system of transcription? --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
No, that’s the only one I have found. It’s possible that it’s from a different Chinese dialect. The editors there are known to be a little careless. —Stephen (Talk) 16:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown: I think 書簿 is one word and it should be pronounced as syu1 bou6-2. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: I just thought of 書鋪 syu1 pou3 bookshop. --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. I think it is most likely 書簿, since the Khmer word សៀវភៅ (siǝw pʰɨw) means "book". The word for bookshop is ហាងសៀវភៅ (haang siǝw pʰɨw), which seems to correspond with Cantonese 行書簿 ‎(haang4 syu1 bou6-2). —Stephen (Talk) 07:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

en->zh[edit]

Hi. Could you please translate this passage for me from en->zh?

"Hi. I am an 18-year-old bisexual girl looking for a sweet, older girl to talk to. I do not speak Chinese, but I'd like to learn the language. I am from the United States."

(I wouldn't ask what this is for though lol) Philmonte101 (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wyang: I think you are better at translation than me, so maybe you could help me. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately I can't help with this; this translation request is silly. Wyang (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Script ancestor list[edit]

In a recent discussion here, they have added parents to all scripts. Could you do an ancestor chain on the scripts? —JohnC5 15:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnC5: Sorry for the late reply, but factum est (it is too short so don't be disappointed). --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks so much for this! As it turns out, I had misunderstood how this system works. The parent field shows when a script is a subset or extension of another script. I think, instead, I'd like to add an ancestors field to show the genetic relations of the scripts. Could I perhaps importune you to add this field and the chain functionality? ;DJohnC5 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: I am afraid that I don't have the knowledge to judge which script is the ancestor of which script. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, but I do. I'm just asking for the functionality to be set up. —JohnC5 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Ergō mē dōnā exempla. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'm about to go out of town, so I will hit you up later, but I was thinking of functionality almost identical to ancestors in the language modules. —JohnC5 12:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User: Conrad.Irwin/creationrules.js[edit]

Hello! Since you seem to be practiced in editing creationrules.js, is it possible that you might process the edit request I have made here? Thank you in advance.__Gamren (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Gamren: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, that was fast! Thanks.__Gamren (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
However, I now see a different problem (that has nothing to do with your edit): Autogenerated imperative entries use nocat=1, which yields a Lua error. Could you delete that part? (You can try it at nedgøre, aflive).__Gamren (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@Gamren: Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks.__Gamren (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)