User talk:LibCae

Welcome!

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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Wyang (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Solon

Hey LibCae, keep up the good work. I see you've added Solon (I'm guessing this is the 'Eastern Evenki' you've mentioned) as an alternative form to дылача, previously I've asked for Solon to get a separate code in accordance to its treatment in (Russian) the literature and it was granted, so Solon and Evenki are treated as two languages.

So far I've used either Cyrillic or an ad hoc latin transcription to write Solon since that's how materials I have write it. I see you've written it in Pinyin. Is this an official Pinyin orthography or a scholarly concensus? If yes, could you recommend some resources that I could use to find modern spellings of words given elsewhere? Crom daba (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Crom daba, I was originally writing to you about Solon problems but you commented me first. The “Eastern” Evenki speakings I heard were Russo-Yakutians but not Solon. I do agree to a separate treatment for Solon from Evenki on Wiktionary, but I’m not sure yet about it’s language-name acceptance so far. The term Solon is used to call Chinese Evenks historically, obseletely, Russo-linguistically and strictly excluding Chinese Khamnigans, Tunguses and Yakuts.

I added terms according to DU Dao’erji (Do Dorji)’s Ewenki–Chinese Dictionary (in Chinese, 1998). The dictionary used letter barred o, as Du’s 2007-version alphabet shown on Wikipedia used ō. So far there is no true official Evenki script in China (like Chinese Tuvan), but the Ewenki Museum (鄂温克博物馆) in China used Kesingge et al or Du’s alphabet for sign as EWENGKI NI MUZEI.

With it’s standard, the dictionary is mixed-dialectical, including Solon, Khamnigan, and Shilu (使鹿, “reindeer-herding”, for Chinese Yakuts). We may not use the name just Solon by the Russian way, but may Chinese Evenki or Ewenki. The latter is the official ethno-linguistical name for Chinese native Evenks by the People’s Republic. LibCae (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree that "Solon" is obsolete in English. Flipping through most recent work, Andreas Hölzl and José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente, if stuff from 2000s is valid there's also Tsumagari, Gorelova, Zhang (Kilen grammar) and Nikolaeva. A notable exception are Janhunen and Khabtagaeva who write "Solon Evenki/Ewenki".

Du's dictionary looks very useful, I support using his orthography, although maybe ɵ could be replaced with ō. Mixed nature of the dictionary may be a problem though, is there a way to tell whether a given word is Solon, Khamnigan or Yakut (these are probably what we call Oroqen in English, they also have a separate language code in our scheme, although AFAIK they aren't significantly different from other Evenki groups)? Crom daba (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, ‘obseletely’ I meant just in Chinese. The subgroups of Evenks without official status shown are certainly not the Oroqens (which is one of the ‘fifty-six ethnic groups’). I’m sorry that Du didn’t label dialectical informations of terms, but the terms ‘Khamnigan’ and ‘Yakut’ there both means an Evenki dialect, due to geographical issues, the variations of these dialects (especially phonemically) seem not to be so much. LibCae (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018

Dialect mixing's unfortunate, although it doesn't mean we can't compare Solon terms given elsewhere with Du and adopt his orthography. How do you feel about ɵ/ō?

I'm trying to piece together a picture of Evenki dialects, but getting good info is hard. This work by Doerfer (in German) helps to delineate Solon from Oroqen (Birar-Kumar-Gankui), but doesn't mention any dialectal division within Solon and it doesn't mention Khamnigan and Yakuts. The only information I could find on the Yakut Evenki of China is this page. If Chinese Khamnigan and Yakuts are similar to Evenki dialects spoken in Zabaykalsky Krai and on the Russian part of Argun river respectively, they could potentially be very different from Solons proper. Crom daba (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Barred o is adoptable. About the dialects, I just found a Chinese disquisition (by CHAO Ke, 1985). I know that you don’t understand Chinese, I’ll read it. And, I’ve already seen a q—s variation in Du’s dictionary: qaalbang—saalbang—‘birch’. LibCae (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually Tsumagari does mention the non-Solon Chinese Evenki dialects, weird how I didn't check that first:

<blockqoute>Thus,according to the Chinese terminology, the Ewenki people are subdivided into:(1) the Solon Ewenki

(Chi. Suolun Ewenke), (2) the Tungus Ewenki ( Tonggusi Ewenke), and (3) the Yakut Ewenki( Yakute Ewenke). Of these three, the Solon group accounts for 90 per cent of the total population of some 29000 Ewenkis (1992). In Chinese usage,the Ewenki language ( Ewenke-yu) practically means the language of the Solon group, while the languages of the other two groups are regarded as the dialects of the former. According to the generally accepted linguistic classification of Tungusic, however, the language of the Solon group should be regarded as a separate language (i.e. Solon), not as a dialect of Siberian Ewenki (Rus.Evenk) as the name implies. On the other hand,so-called Tungus Ewenki (aka Khamnigan Ewenki) and Yakut Ewenki (aka Oluguya Ewenki), together with the language of the Orochen (Elunchun) which is another officially recognized Tungusic minority in China,can be identified as dialects of Ewenki proper (see Janhunen 1991 and Tsumagari 1992, 1997b).

He also has a work about them that I cannot access: A basic vocabulary of Khamnigan and Oluguya Ewenki in northern Inner Mongolia.

Solon s is a regular reflex of Proto-Tungusic *ç, although it is sporadically preserved so this might or might not be indicative of dialect mixing in the dictionary. Crom daba (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Merging Classical Mongolian into Mongolian

Hey, I've made a request to merge Mongolian and Classical Mongolian, your input about this as an active Mongolian editor would be valuable. Crom daba (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you about the merger request. LibCae (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Kazakh word حوشۇن

I would like to know the resources of the word حوشۇن because I found many Kazakh translations of the word banner except this one. Besides, I suggest that the page should merge with the one with Cyrillic alphabet title. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. May we not merger but use a template as simplified Chinese, Cyrillic Uzbek or Uyghur in each Modern Chinese Kazak article? About khoshun, I had once seen it in a Xinjiang-pressed dictionary, probably 汉哈大词典 (I still have got a photo of the page), the word would be common in Kazak(h) texts and lists about the PRC administrative divisions. LibCae (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Dongxiang بی

Hey, might I know which source did you use for this word? Crom daba (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s written in Perso-Arabic Xiaojing (小经), the traditional script used by the Dongxiang people. The word, I had seen it both in a civil written letter (October 1981), and a paper by Chen Yuanlong (2015). LibCae 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I had access to materials like that.

How do you feel about redirecting Xiaojing spellings to pinyin based ones used by Ma Guozhong (2000)? If I understand correctly, Xiaojing orthography was never standardized and has no official support, so it would be simpler to just have all entries redirected to Ma's spelling.

See my change at بی and tell me if you find it acceptable. Crom daba (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

May we need a regional box template for Dongxiang (like for Persian)? To put glosses under the Latin spellings, listing Xiaojing spellings, with links to Latin under the Perso-Arabics. It might be suitable. Xiaojing’s pretty like Chagatai, there were word spellings with no variants. And the analysis of the abjad’s status was ongoing in Gansu, by local governments and organisations. But before an official status, we could keep on Ma’s orthography. It’s right, simpler. LibCae 15:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

关于FVS字符

您好，请您原谅我一个多月后才看到您的信息😓。非常感谢您谢谢提醒我不要敲与语言无关的话。 但还是有两点不太明白。1.请问您所说的“FVS characters”具体是什么呢？（在Baidu、Bing上搜索了一下，但是没有搜到）据我所知，满文在Unicode standards之内。
2.“correct language codes”是否只能在ISO639-3的标准以内呢？
3.每一个单词是否需要注明出处呢？ 祝愿您编辑顺利。 MiiCii (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You may see how FVS characters control Mongolian letter forms at https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1800.pdf. However, under our fonts (e.g. Noto Sans Mongolian) words may not be correctly displayed as the Unicode standard. The language codes, I meant which were used in the Wiktionary templates (e.g. of derivation), shall be checked that if they conform with the related languages, or it may make a wrong category, like Russian words under French. For the references, see WT:REF. Thank you. PS we might have talks in English, in order to, make everybody here (the English Wiktionary) understand. LibCae 12:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi LibCae,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi LibCae,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi LibCae,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Nested translations

Hello,

Can we have use nesting only as agreed on, please? If nesting is not added by the translation-adder, maybe we shouldn't nest them that way?

E.g. For Uyghur, the Arabic script is defaults, so is Roman/Latin for Uzbek or Malay, so I think we should use:

• Uyghur: ئافغانىستان (afghanistan)

  Cyrillic: Авғанстан (Awghanstan)

Rather than:

• Uyghur:

  Arabic: ئافغانىستان (afghanistan)

  Cyrillic: Авғанстан (Awghanstan)

For Mongolian, I think it's better to use this nesting, see also Uyghurjin:

• Mongolian: Монгол (mn) (Mongol), Монгол улс (Mongol uls)

  Uyghurjin: ᠮᠣᠩᠭ᠋ᠣᠯ (moŋɣol), ᠮᠣᠩᠭ᠋ᠣᠯ
  ᠤᠯᠤᠰ (moŋɣol ulus)

In any case, the agreed format should be discussed and added to MediaWiki:Gadget-TranslationAdder.js. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It was my fault used personal type of nesting without discussion. But I’m not agreed your way of nesting, considered that both those ‘alternative script forms’ are not used as each other’s auxiliary, but actually used equally now by region or occasion. Radically I don’t think China’s Uyghur Arabic shall be defaulted, only because of it’s population advantage. However your type of nesting is suitable for the obsolete Janalif or UYY spellings, which might be secondarily listed. About Mongolian, I don’t know if ‘Uyghurjin’’s good idea. You know the term refers much more the Uyghur-script Middle Mongolian spellings, rather than their modern forms, there were quite many differences between Middle Uyghurjin and Modern Mongolian. For me, I just chose the name for the script code Mong, ‘Mongolian’. LibCae, 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Presupposed misspelling of Written Oirat ᠨᡇᠷ (nur)

Hello,

I would like to know why you thought that Written Oirat ᠨᡇᠷ (nur) would've been misspelt and how it should be written instead. HeliosX (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you got an attesting source of reference for the short-vowel spelling? I mean I’ve been seen the long-vowel ones both in Qing and Russian materials, as nuur, or nour, with Mongolian a rounded to o. However, I’ve never checked the word in original Dzungarian texts, perhaps there would be alternative spellings. LibCae, 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

@HeliosX: Hello. I’m sure that words like нур, нүр, дү in Cyrillic orthography were originally long-voweled, and (modern) vowel reductions were never (as I know) presented in the Clear Script spelling system. If you have a manuscript or typography with this spelling, please tell me. Thank you. LibCae (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

塔爾巴哈臺

Hello. Was Manchu ᡨᠠᡵᠪᠠᡥᠠᡨᠠᡳ (tarbahatai) borrowed from Written Oirat? If so, what's that word in Written Oirat? I only have the cognate of the word in Mongolian. RcAlex36 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve checked 西域同文錄, the Clear Script spelling was recorded as tarbagatai (ᡐᠠᠷᡋᠠᡎᠠᡐᠠᡅ). According to the book, the loan is derived from Jungarian Oirat.

However, Written Oirat and Classical Mongolian were actually considered as one joint system when transliterating into Manchu. So it’s hard to certificate and prove that if the loan was directly borrowed from xwo or via cmg. But as I’ve seen no earlier Mongolic recordings of the loan before the Oirats’ migration to today’s Northern Xinjiang, I thought the direct borrowing might be more possible. LibCae 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ (min)

Hello. Can "Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ (min)" translate into "I (first-person singular pronoun)"? Is it "(possessive) My", which is related to Written Manchu ᠮᡳᠨᡳ (mini)?
Could you give some examples/references according to ancient books?MiiCii (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve heard the form as a subject spoken in this video youtu.be/m8q8-KmHuok or b23.tv/kd8LzR (native Sanjiazi Manchu and Xibe speakers talking; with romanised subtitles), but so far not in otherwhere attested. LibCae 15:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen the same one on bilibili.com(https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV15t411t7Dn?from=search&seid=12804859026212456841) more than once. In the video, we can find several sentences including "min". From my perspective, some can translate into "1st-person singular pronoun I" (01:14 ᠣᠩᡤᠣᠯᠣ ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠵᡳ᠍ᡥᡝ ᠠᡴᡡ/ongolo min jihe aqu, ""I have never been here(Cabcal) before" 03:18 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡵᡴᡡ/min tsarqu，"I don't know"), but according to vertical Manchu script on the right side of the screen, each place consists of "min" is correspond to written word "Manchu ᠮᡳᠨᡳ (mini)"(00:24 ᠰᡳ ᡩᠠᠮᠪᠠᡤᡠ ᠣᠮᡳ᠍ᠮᠪᡳ᠈ ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᡨᡠ᠋ᠸᠠᠮᡝ ᠣᠴᡳ/si dameng omim, min tamci...;01:34 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡥᠠᡩᡝ᠋ ᡝᡵᡝ ᠪᠠᡩᡝ᠋ ᠮᠠᠨ᠋ᠵᡠ ᠨᡳ᠍ᠶᠠᠯᠮᠠ…/min tsahe, er bade manju nyame...;03:18 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᠰᠠᡵᡴᡡ/min tsarqu;04:25 ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨᡳ ᡨᡝ᠋ᡩᡝ᠋ ᠠᠯᠠᠮᠪᡳ/min ted alemye) MiiCii (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) 00:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this type of nonstandard pronoun forms (also men for ‘we’) was never written before. I’m not agree with the Manchu subtitles because of its possessively suffixed -i, for a nominative pronoun it’s inexplicable. But min- and men- are oblique stems of the pronouns, they might be able alternatives… We really need materials on it. LibCae (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You've got a point there. I consulted acquaintance who is a speaker of Xibe this morning and she said that in Spoken Xibe, "min"for "my" and "bi"for"I"is different. Meanwhile, according to Basic Vocabulary Collection of Spoken Manchu(which is now recoginzed officially as Xibe language in Xinjiang, China) (Japanese original title:滿洲語口語基礎語彙集) written by Kengo Yamamoto with the assistance of a native Xibe speaker, "I"is corresponded to "bii"[biˑ](Literary:ᠪᡳ/bi), while "my" is corresponded to "mini"[miɲ](Literary:ᠮᡳᠨᡳ/mini).

We can consider "ᠮᡳᠨ᠊/min-" and "ᠮᡝᠨ᠊/men-" as the stems of "first-person singular pronoun" and "third-person singular pronoun", which are corresponded to ("ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨ᠋ᡩᡝ᠋/min-de","ᠮᡳᠮᠪᡝ/mim-be","ᠮᡳᠨᠴᡳ/min-ci" and "ᠮᡝᠨᡩᡝ᠋/men-de", "ᠮᡝᠮᠪᡝ/mem-be", "ᠮᡝᠨᠴᡳ/men-ci"). As we both know, when "ᠮᡳᠨ᠊/min-" is grafted to the suffix "᠊ᠪᡝ/-be", the stem should change into "ᠮᡳᠮ᠊/mim-", so the whole word becomes "ᠮᡳᠮᠪᡝ/mimbe". Though it's hard for us to find the materials on "min-" and "men-", they can be considered as roots, for Manchu is a aggulucative language. Is it feasible to move the page Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ (min)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠨ (men) to Manchu ᠮᡳᠨ᠊ (min-)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠨ᠊ (men-) and then create a page titled Manchu ᠮᡳᠮ᠊ (mim-)/Manchu ᠮᡝᠮ᠊ (mem-)?MiiCii (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. So far there had been little evidence for min so I’m hoing to abandon this entry. However, min- as an oblique stem could be accepted, displaying as traditional form ᠮᡳ᠍ᠨ without connecting nirugu (I see stems had never be written in this form). LibCae (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you help editing?

I started the programs of Manchu Wikinews/Even Wikivoyage, Even Wiktionary/Even Wikibooks, Evenki Wiktionary/Evenki Wikibooks, Oroqen Wiktionary/Oroqen Wiktionary/Oroqen Wikibooks, Negidal Wiktionary/Negidal Wiktionary/Negidal Wikibooks, Udege Wiktionary/Udege Wikibooks, Oroch Wiktionary/Oroch Wiktionary/Oroch Wikibooks, Nanai Wiktionary/Nanai Wikibooks, Ulch Wiktionary/Ulch Wiktionary/Ulch Wikibooks, Orok Wiktionary/Orok Wikibooks on 14th July, 2020. If you know at least one of these Tungusic languages, can you help editing? (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We sent you an e-mail

Hello LibCae,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

巴里坤

Hi, it's nice to see you around again! Would you mind taking a look at the etymological section of 巴里坤? I put there that 巴里坤 was borrowed from Oirat via Manchu, but that was speculative. I am also uncertain if it involved Chagatai. Thanks in advance! RcAlex36 (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I remembered there were attested -n, -l variants in Manchu documents and the form 巴里坤 should be borrowed from the -n variant. I’m going to search the documents and find out this for a reference support. LibCae (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I found the spelling bar kun in Qing-era texts. The character 里 for liquid -r/-l, was more commonly used not in Qing, but in Liao and Jin transliterations. Strictly 巴里坤 shall correspond with a sound *bari kun, but I didn’t see this spelling attested, as also in Uygur and Kazak there is just Barköl. On the Renat map spelling ᡋᠠᠷ ᡍᡉᠯ is attested. In Manchu, l had to be one of the consonants that often avoid word-final position, as Mongolian words were loaned with -n instead of original -l. A suspected derivation of mine might be 巴里坤 ← Manchu ᠪᠠᡵ ᡴᡠᠨ ← Oirat ᡋᠠᠷ ᡍᡉᠯ. LibCae (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

May I ask which Qing-era text is ᠪᠠᡵ ᡴᡠᠨ found in? Thanks! RcAlex36 (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@RcAlex36: Please check this paper 宋冰《满汉合璧〈庸言知旨〉研究》and its references. LibCae (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Kazakh transliterations (ٷ, ٶ, ٵ, ٸ)

I noticed you modify one of the Kazakh transliterations. As far as I know, the ligatures (ٵ, etc.) are used when the front vowel is at the beginning of a word and there is no ك, گ or ە shown in the word.

Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Tuvan

Where did you get the information for the IPA changes? Particularly: that the R is flapped and not trilled? Alves9 (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The book Грамматика тувинского языка says r is weaker than Russian. You can also clearly hear this tap in actual speaking (e.g. TV broadcast) and singing. There’re some audio recordings on tuvan.swarthmore.edu and forvo.com. However, the rhotic in China’s Altay dialect is pronounced as a trill; it may be an influence of Oirat-Mongolian. LibCae 04:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I've heard people from both the western and central regions pronouncing it with a trill, in both singing and normal speech. Of course, that doesn't mean anything, since phonologies aren't based on individuals' subjective perceptions, which are prone to error. But the point is: if it can be pronounced as a trill, then it should be annotated so. People in Russia also frequently reduce their R's to a single tap; it isn't unusual for a language to have both a trill and a tapped R as an allophone. Regardless, if you want to make changes to the IPA, you will need better material than a Russian grammar with vague phonological descriptions. Alves9 (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

We do have several different opinions, as well as phonetic transcription of б- and д-. Actually they are final voiced or initial devoiced, as we know Tuvan vowels voice consonants (not only intervocalically). Standard IPA lacks accurate VOT markings. As in a broad transcription I used /b/ and /d/ to avoid equating them with the voiceless Mongolian consonants, they are phonetically different at all.

About r, sometimes I watch the most formal news broadcasts. Although it has listed by Harrison’s grammar as a trill, surely I don’t see this variation is the much more frequently pronounced one—whereas in Mongolian you can always hear trills. The Wikipedia entry of Tuvan listed the flap [ɾ].

Generally at least for me there’s no book paying more attention on Tuvan phonetics than that Russian. It might be vague for r and a but otherwise it is accurate. :) LibCae (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

吐魯番

Since this word is attested in Ming dynasty texts such as 皇明經世文編, 國朝獻徵錄, 國朝典故 and 胡端敏奏議, I think 吐魯番 was borrowed from Chagatai. Could you please verify and modify the etymology section? RcAlex36 (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Mongolian terms without Uyghurjin script

Will Category:Mongolian terms without Uyghurjin script be moved from the Mongolian headword templates to {{mn-variant}} now that the latter has been made? --Apisite (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the module to change: Module:mn-headword. --Apisite (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! LibCae (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Zaqafqaziya

I am interested in hearing your reasoning about what underlay the pronunciation you added there. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This kind of accented syllables of Western Turkic (incl. Azerbaijani) languages do sound pretty differently from original Russian, as I everyday heard. They are usually high-pitched but not as well loudly pronounced. On this word, I also heard a pronunciation on Forvo. LibCae 02:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I will change and simplify the transcription for the sake of consistency with other entries, but it was interesting to see how you transcribed it. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Middle Mongol 斡羅思

Hello, an IP added in the etymology section of 俄羅斯 that Classical Mongolian ᠣᠷᠤᠰ᠋ (orus) is derived from Middle Mongol 斡羅思 (orus). Could you please check if 斡羅思 is attested in Middle Mongol? Thanks. RcAlex36 (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow you are so meticulous :3 I could find the plural form orusut in 元朝秘史. Please check again at mnuuts.com (typing this romanisation). It must be better to find an Uighur-script spelling attested, especially of the singular form. However, I do not have much materials. I will try to search. LibCae (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember which source you obtained the form 斡羅思 from in this edit (diff) you made in 2019? RcAlex36 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find 斡羅思 in the Chinese translation of the book here. RcAlex36 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

諤斯騰

Hi, is 諤斯騰 (e.g. in 傲爾他克齊諤斯騰) from Turkic? If so, what's the word in Uyghur? RcAlex36 (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur ئۆستەڭ (östeng) means ‘canal for irrigation (渠)’. LibCae (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

президентиден

I just noticed you created this entry as the Tuvan ablative singular of президент, but президент has no Tuvan entry yet, so if you could add one that'd be nice. 37.110.218.43 09:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I just saw now that you added {{rfv}} to the entry after you created it...is that what you meant to do? It just seems to me that it's rather odd for someone to create an entry and immediately request verification for it, just want to make sure that you didn't intend to use a different template. If you did intend to do RFV then you should probably add a section to WT:RFVNE too. 37.110.218.43 10:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Yup I see it was mistyped! Thanks you! LibCae (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

烏魯木齊

Just so you know, the word dates back to much earlier than what most modern sources suggest. I've added some notes at Talk:烏魯木齊. In light of the 925 CE attestation in a Dunhuang manuscript, I suppose the word is unlikely to be Mongolic in origin. RcAlex36 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes! Pre-Mongolic materials are great, hence ‘great pasture’ should be confirmed as a folk etymology. LibCae (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

بەيلە

Could you add any references to the word "بەيلە" (Cyrillic: бейле) if possible? I did not find the word in either Chinese-Kazakh or Russian-Kazakh dictionaries. It might not be a proper Kazakh word and its relation to Manchu language is also suspicious. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 07:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me about this word. I just realised that *بەيلە was actually a typo, since which I actually found was the spelling of بەلە on https://www.sozdik.net (as a translation of Chinese). The correct spelling is similar to Uyghur. Such titles were given to (not claimed by) the Kazakhs, and yes as Manchu terms they are too foreign. After some direct contacts with the Qing dynasty, I thought Manchu borrowings were possible, and neither Chinese nor Mongolian was more influential in this term. LibCae (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We had better validate the lemmas carefully before we create their pages. Otherwise the pages should be deleted. I suggest you mark that page for deletion because it is a typo as you mentioned. Besides, the possible Kazakh translation of ᠪᡝᡳᠯᡝ could be бек. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. Please check: I’ve added the ruquest to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Non-English. LibCae (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Mongolian Ornative and other things

Hi - what is this? I cannot find anything about it, and it's not referenced in any of the works I've looked at. I'm also unsure why you deleted the attributive sense at ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ (qaɣan), or why you made the entry out of sync with хаан (xaan). We should be putting information in one place, and then automatically copying it to other entries.

I also don't know why you deleted the phonemic IPA, either. Theknightwho (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The ornative case in Mongolian is suffixed with either -tU or -tAi, those who might be translated as ‘having’ or ‘with’. I’m going to try my best to fix some entries, since mostly I couldn’t complete them in a single editing. Please check the following editings. Thank you. LibCae (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@LibCae We call that the comitative case. It is important that we are consistent in our terminology. Theknightwho (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Middle Polish

Please see Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits, but we are currently deciding how to handle Middle Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Middle Polish is very important. Thank for your work. You made 300 years of East-Central European history of visible on Wiktionary! LibCae (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

closer to two hundred but thank you! (I have been doing work with Old Polish as well). Vininn126 (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

kk-scripts

@LibCae Hi, thanks for making the template, but could you please add the option of Latin script when you can? Rodrigo5260 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m so appreciative. Honestly, I suggest a separate template for recent experimental Kazakh Latin alphabets. At this moment we can see random orthographies in the streets of Astana and Almaty, as the reform is still ongoing, the latest version is not yet dominated. Similarly, there are also obsolete Cyrillic spellings that we can decide to display. Should we have a further discussion together or start voting? LibCae (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Kazakh Pre-Reform Spellings

@LibCae, I love your new Kazakh word template! I'm curious about how you found the pre-reform spellings for some of the words. It's clear for words like дүние, which would be spelled دنیا based on the original Persian spelling. However, for words like жұрт that don't have Perso-Arabic origins, I thought the pre-reform spellings would be unknown since there aren't many resources from that era and writing system. I'd appreciate it if you could share how or where you learned about these Perso-Arabic spellings. I've had trouble finding manuals on these early "Turanic" writing schemes like Kazakh, Bolgar, Kypchak, and Karakhanid. Thank you in advance! ThatDohDude (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! One of the references I found was Pantusov’s «Матеріалы къ изучениію казакъ-киргизскаго нарѣчія», as there are also other (sometimes paid) resources on twirpx.com. And a realistic experience of mine was in Kazakhstan, where I saw manuscripts with attested obsolete spellings displayed in museums. The written language seems not to be Chagatai, due to initial جـ and possibly other features, it’s should be Kazakh. LibCae (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Mongolian dative-lative-locative

Hello - do you have a source for "dative-lative-locative" being used in Mongolian? I haven't seen it anywhere, and it doesn't match the declension template we have. I'm not really sure why you're changing all these case forms manually, because unless you're going to do thousands of them it just means we're inconsistent between entries. The accelerated entry creation also doesn't match your new style, either.

I'm totally fine with adding things like "at home; to home" (like you did at гэртээ (gertee)), but the changes to the inflection template don't make much sense to me. Theknightwho (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. There is a similar case in Yakut, called ‘dative’, which was once treated by Platon Oyunsky as three separate cases (дательный, направительный, и местный падежи, «Якутский язык и пути его развития», 1935). He also suggested there should be even totally 12 cases in Yakut, however, personally I prefer to merge such multifunctional cases with dashes, so we can reduce the number of Yakut/Mongolian cases while their terminological system still stays accurate. LibCae (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but Mongolian and Yakut aren't even in the same language-family. Including "lative" for Mongolian feels like original research. Theknightwho (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Old Polish

Hey! I was curious where you were getting those Old/Middle Polish etymologies. It's something I would like to be aware of so I can update WT:About Old Polish and WT:About Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I’m very glad to discuss! So far we can find obvious markings of formerly long vowels in Middle Polish texts (from digital collections of Wielkopolska Biblioteka Cyfrowa, Музей книги і друкарства України, etc.), both their orphographic and phonological uniqueness made historical development of the language more visible & clear, especially for those words who could not be further attested/reconstructed before Old Polish, e.g. Gdáńsk. Also there were compensatory & irregular lengthenings which were absent in Proto-Slavic. They were all essential parts of Polish etymologies.

By the way, we can also talk about inputting Medieval Fraktur letters a, d, g, s, z… LibCae (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea to have them as part of the title, to be honest, because orthography at the time was very irregular, and it's better to normalize, see History of Polish orthography (rewritten by yours truly :P). Also note they were only long in Old Polish, already by the end of the Old Polish era they were different value and all long high vowels merged with short high vowel equivalents. The only vowel that should get the acute in the title is ó. I do think it can be a good idea to mark the pochylone vowels á/é like in bakalôrz or procynt, using an alt. Vininn126 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Kalmyk IPA

I saw you editing IPA at толь, and I have a few problems about that. 1) Although quite amateur, I once attempted to map out Kalmyk vowels from some Kalmyk recordings I found in VK audio in open access. (These were conducted around 1950-1960s, so it depicts a generation of speakers who acquired the language around late 19th century). https://imgur.com/a/Jd80h2Y The design of the table is not perfect, but Praat clearly showed that neither o or ö are middle vowels, they are close-mid vowels, despite what the 1983 book says. I'm sure you'll get the same results if you analyze other recordings. Also despite what Kalmyk phonologists say, I did not notice that the quality of the schwa phoneme changed depending on the frontness/backness of the word harmony. Schwa was pretty consistently the central mid vowel.

Now, back to the толь. This word, although two-syllable etymologically, has long become one-syllable. All my Kalmyk informants pronounce it that way, and there is also morphological evidence to support that it's not just a feature of quick speech anymore. The plural particle [-с] is attached to words ending in schwa, like туульс "fairytales", бөкүнс "mosquitoes". But for толь, I could only find (through Google, yes) the plural form тольмуд, which suggests its basal form ends in no schwa.

Other issue is aspiration. It is not used in TV reports, and there is no phomenic distinction between aspirated and non-aspirated stops. From what I have listened to, empasizing the word is probably the reason why aspiration is added sometimes, even in older people's speech. Oirats outside of Kalmykia have more aspiration, but there's two suspects: either Russian/Turkic langauges influenced Kalmyk into having no phonemic aspiration, or it's Chakar and other Mongolian dialects that influenced Oirat dialects outside of Kalmykia into having aspiration as the main dichotomy.

This, and the palatal affricates (IDK how to decide whether җ is [dʑ] or [dʒ] based on spectrogram, and I am not sure this question is even valid because IPA is a mess) and some other things is the reason why I think we should abstain from using phonetic [] and stick to phonemic // instead. Phonemes can be ambiguous, but at least they can be strictly decided, while with [] there's no limit as to how narrow the transcription can be. Nominkhana arslang (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the materials you provided, as they will be very helpful. There’re also some other problems confusing me. Firstly I’m trying to focus on this single word.

I still expect more proof of the relation you mentioned between suffixation and vowel reduction in the language/dialect. Since Middle Mongol plural -s after open syllables had become afterwards limited, -nuγud/-nügüd had been adopted as a common alternative (toli-nuγud толиуд/толинууд/тольмуд, boti-nuγud ботиуд/ботинууд/ботьмуд, gärüdi-nügüd гэрдиуд/?/?, surγaγuli-nuγud сургуулиуд/һургуулинууд/сурһульмуд). In modern Khalkha and Buryat, rule of plural suffixation are no longer able to be assured by syllable structures. Khalkha forms like амьтас and амьтад are even interchangeable.

Another interesting fact is that in this YouTube video, at 1:39, I saw/heard a rare plural form тольс (nonstandard?), pronounced as two syllables with beginning (somewhat) aspirated t-. There are audio sources сурһуль, толь; тууль proving unelided -ь exist, at least in some situations. I’m not sure about whether they’re only slow speeches for teaching; maybe I should try to ask my few Kalmyk friends, who provided me valuable pronunciations of even e.g. государтвенн. LibCae (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I know the people who recorded the video. They are working at the Centre of Kalmyk Language Development. In most of their speeches they make it sound that Todo spelling is the ultimate source of any correct pronunciation (I wonder what they think when the consonant is different?). Anyhow, this is a spelling-influenced pronunciation. But I may be proven wrong. By the way, тууль does have a schwa, because double vowel always indicates that the word is at least 2-syllable (the only exception is каа as far as I remember)

The relation I want to propose is not two-way. I can't come up with any example where a plural of a word ending in -с would not have schwa in the end. having әмтс is no wonder either, the word has schwa (which I believe to be phonemic) before the -n. So not having a form in -s is what I believe to be an indicator of no final vowel. тольс is very rare and probably influenced by learned pronunciation.

The person in the video aspirates his stops differently from phrase to phrase. This is very characteristic for speakers where the difference is not phonemic. There are Russian speakers who aspirate every single voiceless stop. Nominkhana arslang (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang Менд! I must appreciate you as I already heard the first answer from people I know. You description was right. I was surprised. And after accepting your transcription maybe we can find out the cause of those pronunciations ending in [ɪ]. Thank you so much! LibCae (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ornative forms

Hi - could you please provide me with some academic literature that supports the use of the term "ornative" in Mongolian? Thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/23630/1/Narmandakh_Enkhmaa.pdf, p. 150, ‘Comitative and Ornative actually belong to the same category, but some regular differences can be observed so that they can be considered separate due to their functionality. The functionality of ORN is closer to the ADJ, while COM is counted as a registered case in the Middle Mongolian case system. The Comitative markers are -lü’e/-lu’a and the Ornative markers are -tai/-tei, tan/-ten -tu/-tü.’ It’s about Middle Mongol. We all know that Turkic -lig, Manchu -ngga are semantically equivalents to Hungarian ornative -s, but scholars rarely use the term and so far there is even no alternative choice. LibCae (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Sorry, it’s actually p. 128. LibCae (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@LibCae But that is in reference to Middle Mongol, not Mongolian. The literary comitative (which they call the comitative) is no longer present in modern Mongolian. Theknightwho (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho Do you agree the fuctionalities of the terms explained in the thesis? Personally I would like to call it an ‘extended case’. I used ‘ornative’, rather than ‘ornative case’, because it’s just the real function of the case (regardless its naming). You can see that the comparative form of nouns is a usage registered under the ablative case, and the diminutive suffix is functionally both affectionate, moderative, or orintensive. The ornative function of -тай in 'Тэр гавьяатай', 'Энд малтай' never changed in hundred years, afterwards the comitative function bacame an modern extension. The development of the suffix was different from Western 'with' or 'с'. LibCae (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Nominkhana arslang for input. Theknightwho (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also compare the 14 types of comitative constructions listed including ornative of German mit in this work:

• Stolz T., Stroh C., Urdze A. On comitatives and related categories: A typological study with special focus on the languages of Europe. Berlin. Walter de Gruyter, 2006.

LibCae (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@LibCae I'm not disputing that the ornative exists as a concept. I'm objecting to using terminology which isn't usually used in Mongolian studies. Theknightwho (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s used (although rarely) in works about Middle Mongol, the direct ancestor of the modern language. Uralicists are lucky that they have plentiful materials on cases. Mongolists are really good at verbs, although von Gabain disagreed their work. LibCae (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho @LibCae I cannot see how separation of the ornative from the comitative would positively impact the dictionary. Occam's razor is a thing, and separating the ornative, a term which 1) is rarely used in papers 2) has a negligible semantic difference from the comitative, seems superfluous. Not to mention it could make parsing grammar more difficult (from the top of the head: ene maltai yabuqu - "he will go with the livestock" - which -tai is used here? is "lifestockiness" adjectivized? — and how exactly do you tell?)

From reader's perspective, just keeping the comitative would suffice. "ornative" is pretty obscure.

Nominkhana arslang (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang I agree. In situations where the comitative has lexicalised into an adjective, then it makes more sense to simply say so, rather than calling it the "ornative" (which is not a term usually used for this phenomenon). I don't think the existence of two different comitative cases is particularly relevant, either. Theknightwho (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang @Theknightwho How can we explain -т and -лаг? Comitative? Adjectival? Relational? In Mongol Toli ёстой is defined as ёс бүхий, where бүхий means ‘having’. It’s absolutely not real comitative. LibCae (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@LibCae Not every single adjectivizing suffix has to be named, especially if it isn't as productive as a case. Nominkhana arslang (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang Someone already named them and it’s accurate. Especially when -т and -тай bacame the same, we can’t just leave ёст and ёстой as unrelated lemmas in the dictionary without notes. The point is: 1. -т didn't become comitative; 2. -тай became comitative but still kept the original usage (like in Middle Mongol). Now we have a word in -тай, with its unchanged Middle Mongol function. Mongolian is an oriental language, and it’s neither English nor Russian. LibCae (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang Is -ан in пацан productive? Why it’s labelled as 'expressive'? LibCae (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@LibCae -ан is an expressive, along with a ton of other word-forming suffixes with ranging degrees of productivity. Is it reasonable to introduce a very obscure term, only for it to be used in two suffixes that can be explained as a special case of a case usage?

It is not that I cannot see different grammatical usages, the devil is in the name.

please don't accuse of me being eurocentrist. Nominkhana arslang (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang It’s about accuracy of description, and we aren’t naming cases: ᠶᠣᠰᠣᠲᠠᠢ (adjective and modal) and ᠶᠣᠰᠣ ᠲᠠᠢ (comitative case, also for predicative existence) are treated differently in modern orthography. Now ᠊ᠲᠤ is no more separately written. LibCae (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nominkhana arslang @Theknightwho Poppe’s Grammar of the Written Mongolian Language listed -tai in a separate section together with -tu, namely «имена обладания». He defined the suffix as «обладание тем, что выражается основой; соединенность или совместность с чем-либо; от основ числительных образует обозначения возвраста; имена, образованные при помощи этого суффикса, показывают также нахождение в чем-либо. Встречается очень часто». In the another hand, both luγ-a and tai were included under the case section. Nicolas Poppe specified the suffixes in Russian. He distinguished tai and -tai. LibCae (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You guys are all von Gabain (I’m joking). @Nominkhana arslang There are companions in your sentence. But in 'Энд модтой' — it’s impersonal and impossible to be accompanied. LibCae (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

эрэг in Mongolian script

Hi,

Bolor-toli shows эрэг (ereg) as ᠡᠷᢉᠢ, which can't even be handled by our module because of the symbol ᢉ. There are only three Google hits, so it may be wrong. Do you have a way of finding the Mongolian spelling for this word? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev It's because they've written it using a Galik (Ali Gali) letter for some reason. Theknightwho (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: That's what I said. Should be with ᠺ (k): ᠡᠷᠺᠢ (erki)? No Google hits. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Atitarev Spelling ⟨ʾrky⟩ is transcribed as /ärgi/ (ᡝᡵᡤᡳ / 額爾基) in 御製滿洲蒙古漢字三合切音清文鑑, so it should be ᠡᠷᠭᠢ (ergi). -g- also appeared in Middle Mongol 額兒吉. LibCae (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@LibCae, @Theknightwho: Thanks. I have updated the entry. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)