User talk:Lisztrachmaninovfan

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 explained (ELE) 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 to 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! —Angr 07:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

lobogó

Hi, my ety dictionary says it's from the verb lobog (to wave, flutter). Where did you get your information? Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice the -ó ending, as I was taking this etymology from a certain web source, which listed this word as the root word. However, that etymology would work for lobog instead, as the -ó ending obviously forms the present participle. In any case, lob- must be the root; -og is most likely a repetitive suffix; I should've noticed that earlier. Here's the source: [1]. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the Hungarian entry. You may want to correct the other two entries (lipp and lippu) where you referred to lobogó. I don't think they are related. --Panda10 (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I did correct the Finnish and Estonian entries (I'm assuming that they're both alone onomatopoeic and formed from the same stem, as they're both strikingly similar). It appears that the supposed Sami cognate word is probably onomatopoeic but formed seperately, unless if an abstract sound change occured (so I corrected that also). --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

szak

The word éjszaka does not contain a diminutive suffix -ka. Please check the ety there. I'm not sure where you are getting this information but I am getting a little concerned because you are not providing references. My ety source is Gábor Zaicz, Etimológiai szótár: Magyar szavak és toldalékok eredete, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2006, →ISBN. It describes the ety of szak differently.

What etymology does Zaicz provide? There was no etymology concerning the "-a" when I first checked it...But considering how late you're resource was published, it's probably more likely. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to add references from now. I'm used to editing on IMSLP, where references aren't required. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proto-Uralic

Hi, thank you for your work on Proto-Uralic. I fixed your entry *warᴈ, you can see here what I changed: diff. I hope that helps you. Could you please fix the other entries similarly if you have the time? —CodeCat 01:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course! I apologize for not formatting these things correctly; I had copied these templates from other people who used them. Oh well... --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I had another question: none of my sources list which dialect of Komi the entries are taken from, so what category would I use? Thank you. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Same thing with Enets, as some of my sources did not differentiate between Forest and Tundra.--Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This problem does occasionally crop up when the sources are not as specific as the language codes we use. We had it some time ago for Gaulish as well. Gaulish has two ISO codes, for cisalpine and transalpine Gaulish. But that didn't work for us so we decided to make our own code for general Gaulish. Maybe the same could be done for these languages as well, but I don't know enough about them to say for sure. Maybe you could ask at the Beer Parlour? —CodeCat 11:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the character ᴕ that you added into the title of Appendix:Proto-Uralic/mᴕnᴈ-? Unicode says it's an o-u ligature, so is this really "mounᴈ-"? —CodeCat 12:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no clue, and considering that most linguists agree that Proto-Uralic had no dipthongs, I doubt that it really is meant to be taken as an o-u ligature. This entry was taken from a database which simply sourced the books in which these reconstructions and words were listed, so I have no way of knowing what was it really means. One publication online that I've found sources that symbol as used for an unknown vowel, but I'm not sure if the linguists who reconstructed this word meant it in that way. Perhaps it's a ligature referring to a vowel varying freely between o and u?--Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an IPA vowel symbol ɤ, and a consonant symbol ɣ. But I wonder if you're not familiar enough with the conventions of Proto-Uralic, should you really be creating these entries? —CodeCat 23:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that an o-u ligature is definitely not a conventional usage in reconstructed Proto-Uralic forms. It appears to be a mystery that any reputable source would use a character like this, unless if it's being used in a special way by this one linguist. Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the actual book which listed this reconstruction. Either way, what makes you think that I'm not aware of Proto-Uralic conventions? I simply copy and pasted this entry from the database to make things easier (typing out so many entries on your own is a complete waste of time). It is most likely a close-mid back unrounded vowel (ɤ) based off of the descendant word forms; I just didn't want to type it out this way, as I can't confirm it on my own. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

What I think happened is that they used the wrong character, which visually resembles the character that is actually intended, but isn't the real one. It could also be a scanno. It seems more likely that ɤ or ɣ was intended. Wikipedia uses ɤ as a synonym of ë/ï, but makes no mention of ᴈ either. I think that it would be useful to establish a standard spelling convention for Proto-Uralic words, and detail it and the varieties found in sources on Wiktionary:About Proto-Uralic. We already have similar conventions for other languages, see WT:AINE, WT:AGEM, WT:ASLA. —CodeCat 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll see about starting one; I'm not a very active editor on Wiktionary, but I'll see if I can devote some time to creating one. I do agree that it was a scanno, however. For now, I'll move the page and replace the o-u ligature with a close-mid back unrounded vowel. It may need to be changed to an ë once a standard spelling convention is established. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The symbol ᴕ is traditional UPA notation for "back vowel of uncertain quality". Similarly, ɜ is "any vowel of uncertain quantity". These probably shouldn't be used though, they're mainly used in old sources from before Proto-Uralic had been reconstructed in detail. Reliably constructed roots can usually be found in literature down to a specific shape.

Also can we please not add phonetic transcription of languages as entries? There are by now e.g. literary standards for all the Ob-Ugric and Samoyedic languages, and they're in Cyrillic. These are what should be linked as entries (e.g. Tundra Nenets варӈэ, Northern Mansi урин), not phonetic transcriptions (such as βa̭rŋä̆è͔, ūrin). --Tropylium (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Hungarian etymologies

Hi, I went through your recent Hungarian etymology changes and had to correct most of them. It seems that your resource is not reliable. Please stop working from unreliable websites. Only good etymology books should be used. --Panda10 (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since this is the second time this has happened, I think I'll just stop adding etymology for now. Probably a smarter idea at this point, especially considering that some the sources I've been using have already angered a few editors... --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I will be more cautious with my etymologies. --Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I just zapped your etymology for por, which was frankly quite substandard (there are no Hungarian words beginning with p- of Finno-Ugric origin; Northern Sami bulvvar is clearly a recent loan akin to German Pulver). May I ask what is the source you've previously been using?

Also if you wish to double-check your etymologies, there are some more reliable web resources available, e.g.

• Johanna Laakso's list of Finnish-Hungarian etymologies; any F-H comparision out there that doesn't appear here or in a more detailed scholarly source should be taken with a large grain of salt.
• the Álgu etymological database: lists numerous common Uralic etymologies with detailed literature, though for the most part only for words found in the Samic languages.
• the Tower of Babel etymological database: basically the Uralic Etymological Dictionary (UEW) digitized, so somewhat unreliable by this day, but handy for checking cognates etc.

Still, it's nice to see more people working on Uralic etymology on WT. Remind me to ask you and a few other people to have a discussion at some point on some ground rules on what Proto-Uralic transcription scheme to use, how appendix pages should be formatted, etc. :) --Tropylium (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For that source, I used a website created by a math professor on Magyar cognates (obviously not the best source); I can't even recall the web address. After Panda10 made several corrections and comments on my etymologies, I went around, fixing and replacing a lot of my incorrect etymologies with correct ones. If you look at the time I made that edit (which you must have not), I made it quite a long time ago and seem to have overlooked it since. My mistake. Now, pretty much the only sources that I use are the ones you have listed above. To confirm it, all of my recent edits are sourced with either the sources listed above, or use a source which one of the above sources use. Nevertheless, thanks for your insight on the UEW, which does use old entries, most being the outdated, 1898 reconstructions. I only wish there was a more updated database like it. I guess Álgu does satisfy my needs for this, but the problem with it is that it only lists Proto-Uralic reconstructions that have descendants in the Sami languages, as you have already mentioned.--Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Uralic transcription scheme, if you look at one of the earlier sections of my talk page, you will see that CodeCat has already talked to me concerning its creation. I think that it would be in our best interests to start one ASAP, and to also make more pages for FU and U reconstructions.--Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for Proto-Uralic

Hi,

I've created Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Uralic for putting together guidelines on the topic. I'm CC'ing a bunch of users I know to have done work related to Uralic etymology. Feel free to pass this message further along too. --Tropylium (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Etymologies

You're editing many etymology sections of Hungarian words, which is great, we still have a lot of entries without etymology sections, thanks for your work. However, I think future readers would appreciate to know the source of all this information so they can judge its reliability based on the date of the source, the authors and so on. Etymology is a much deeper and "scholarly" field than just providing definitions and inflections, so I think references are quite important here. You can create a reference templates similar to {{R:Zaicz 2006}} and include them in the etymology section, like

<ref>{{R:Your template name}}</ref>

Then insert a References section at the bottom of the Hungarian section containing <references/>. Thanks! Qorilla (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and I have been adding references where I can. Ignore that last, false edit.--Lisztrachmaninovfan (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not just that, you've been adding many things, e.g. at magyar. It's really easy to create these reference templates and you probably don't have so many sources anyway, so it doesn't take long at all. Then when you edit an etymology, you just insert this small snippet there. It really helps with traceability. Qorilla (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

PGmc knabô; knappô

Hi ! I reverted your edits to these pages after i went back and confirmed what those reconstructions are affirmed to mean. Even though they are not direct in line of the etymology of English knob, those words are still believed to have carried that sense, and this is why we do not show knob in the Descendants. Leasnam (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)