User talk:Mahagaja

• /Archive 1 (January 2007 to January 2012)
• /Archive 2 (February 2012 to May 2012)
• /Archive 3 (June 2012 to May 2013)
• /Archive 4 (June to August 2013)
• /Archive 5 (September 2013 to February 2014)
• /Archive 6 (March to July 2014)
• /Archive 7 (August to September 2014)
• /Archive 8 (October 2014 to April 2015)
• /Archive 9 (May to November 2015)
• /Archive 10 (December 2015 to March 2016)
• /Archive 11 (April to August 2016)
• /Archive 12 (September 2016)
• /Archive 13 (October to November 2016)
• /Archive 14 (December 2016)
• /Archive 15 (January to April 2017)
• /Archive 16 (May to September 2017)
• /Archive 17 (October to December 2017)
• /Archive 18 (January to March 2018)
• /Archive 19 (April 2018 to February 2019)
• /Archive 20 (March to December 2019)
• /Archive 21 (January to February 2020)
• /Archive 22 (March to July 2020)
• /Archive 23 (August to September 2020)
• /Archive 24 (October 2020 to March 2021)
• /Archive 25 (April 2021 to January 2022)
• /Archive 26 (February 2022 to January 2023)
• /Archive 27 (February to November 2023)
• /Archive 28 (December 2023 to February 2024)
• /Archive 29 (March to November 2024)

BP talk-page redirects

Hi Mahāgaja. Thanks for deleting those five BP talk pages I tagged. 0DF (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

-aí

I get that pos=adjective is to categorise it correctly. But I also want the link to lead to the correct suffix via etymid. Does id=adjective interfere with pos=adjective? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: Having both |id=adjective and |pos=adjective puts the entries in the redundantly named CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -aí (adjective). The only reason I prefer using |pos=adjective is that CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -aí already exists and has 20 entries in it. If we want to use |id= to link to the right suffix, that's fine, but then all 20 adjectives need to use it. And then they shouldn't use |pos=adjective, because the category should be named CAT:Irish terms suffixed with -aí (adjective). Once all the terms are switched over, we can delete (or rename) the existing category. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. I'm just looking at how it's done here Category:English_terms_suffixed_with_-er. Are the Irish categories currently set up consistently using the pos-parameter? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I think the only other one that uses it is -ach, which is divided by part of speech into CAT:Irish nouns suffixed with -ach and CAT:Irish adjectives suffixed with -ach. The difference there is that the noun-forming -ach and the adjective-forming -ach are etymologically the same suffix, so I didn't make separate {{etymid}}s for them. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

bandle

Hi. Can you check the etymology for bandle? I don't think the Irish is right. 2A02:C7E:2069:C800:742A:66C8:9B14:8272 08:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Guaraní

Hello, I'm not quite sure where to ask about this, so I ended up coming to your talk page. I have two questions, if you don't mind: 1) Is there a way to automatically move all Guaraní entries to Paraguayan Guaraní, or is some kind of consensus needed for that? There aren't many editors, but I can assure you that most, if not all, Guaraní language entries are verifiable in Estigarribia's grammar or Krivoshein's dictionary for instance. I created some of them—certainly not the majority, but a considerable number—and if I could, I would have created them under "Paraguayan Guaraní". "Guaraní" is a generic term that includes more than one language, with different orthographies and varying degrees of mutual intelligibility (Classical Guaraní, Mbyá Guaraní, Paraguayan Guaraní itself, Kaiwá (Guaraní)...). And 2) It seems to me that the diacritic in "Guaraní" is entirely unnecessary. In Guaraní itself (Paraguayan), it isn't used. I imagine this would require consensus, but where should I seek it? Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: Hi, for your first request I would ask at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits and for your second request at Wiktionary:Language treatment requests. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Aberdyfi

Please be advised that “Aberdovey” is superseded and considered obsolete. “Aberdyfi” is used in all official contexts (see Wiki page, and the long discussion there) 2A00:23C7:21B4:FD01:E579:F9E1:D2B6:1190 12:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

me daza

As the resident Irish expert, can you shed a light on this phrase's origins? Jin and Tonik (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like anything I know in Irish. The Dictionary of Cork Slang thinks it might be from deas (“nice”), but that doesn't explain the me part. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Rómáinis

How is the Irish term Rómáinis pronounced? -- Apisite (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added my best guess. I've never heard the word pronounced, and it's not included in {{R:ga:IPD}}, but it's probably pronounced the way it's spelled, modulo the various dialects. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Your reverts on 𐰾𐰋 and 𐰢𐰭𐰃

Neither seb- nor meŋi is attested anywhere. I don't mean that they are not attested in one particular source, they just simply do not exist. Why wouldn't this be "not a reason for speedy deletion"?

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

^ I should make it clear that that is the case for Old Turkic, not Old Uyghur. Both of them are attested in oui, but not in otk. Quotes there are not in otk. It's comparable to using Shakespeare for Old English, if that makes sense.

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@AmaçsızBirKişi: See WT:DELETE. "Neither of these terms is attested anywhere" is a reason to take something to WT:RFV, not a reason to delete it without discussion. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There're not many Old Turkic editors (nowadays), in fact, you can only see my name in the edits in the last 30 days section. Who am I going to discuss this with?

And there's nothing to discuss, really. Someone just created these entries a priori, and since they just don't exist, what can I do except just tag it for delete?

I'll create both of those entries for Old Uyghur namespace where they belong, or should I just move those entries?

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Changing them to Old Uyghur (by page move if the orthography is different, otherwise simply by rewriting the content) seems like a good idea and neatly sidesteps the issue of deletion. If a page move is involved, you can then tag the redirect for speedy deletion as an unwanted redirect (which is a valid reason for speedy deletion). —Mahāgaja · talk 16:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

OK, got it. Thanks for the heads up!

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Choctaw

Hey, I've seen some of your edits in Choctaw and hope you keep it up. There are some important considerations that I think you should be aware of.

Line Below Diacritics

I see you moved entries using underline formatting to respective entries with a̱, i̱, o̱, u̱. I support replacing the formatting with the line below diacritic. However, I have concerns about using the line below in the entry. My original approach was to emulate the way Latin entries handle macrons. The macrons are not part of the entry but only the headword. You can see an example here: locutor. This is how all Latin entries are handled.

The reason is technological limitations. iOS and Android have Choctaw keyboards, but Android's keyboard is missing u̱. I'm not sure about iPhone. Microsoft does not have a Choctaw keyboard layout. These particular letters aren't available on any keyboard layouts.

Another consideration is that formatting is often used for the line below (for example, the Choctaw translations on Choctaw Nation's Chief's Blog https://www.choctawnation.com/news/chiefs-blog/encouraging-the-use-of-the-chahta-language/). So if you copy and paste directly from the blog, you may not be able to find the entry.

A lot of entries that you moved that don't automatically redirect are impossible to access without special effort. To make these entries accessible, I see only three options:

1. Take the Latin approach
2. Add "see also" links
3. Add "see also" links as well as create entries with text to the effect of "Missing line below spelling of X"

I feel like #2 is too subtle and shouldn't be the only way to access Choctaw entries with diacritics. This approach is mostly used with languages that have more accessible inputs. This should be a secondary way to access the entry, not the primary way. To be clear, I'm largely concerned with accessibility of Choctaw themselves. It is not common for Choctaw to use non-English keyboards. Hence even the Chief's blog uses formatting and v's instead of diacritics and ʋ.

Spelling Variation

This edit where you moved howa to hu̱wa based on Choctaw Nation's dictionary. This was not necessary. Choctaw has several active orthographies. I made this appendix comparing them: Appendix:Choctaw orthography. The ho̱wa spelling is what's labeled as "CBTC" which is the predominant orthography used by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw today. The orthography labeled "Mississippi" is still in use, but mostly in school materials on the Mississippi reservation. The CBTC orthography is most commonly used officially and informally. You can see the orthography in use here: https://choctawculturallegacy.com/childrens-stories/ There is unfortunately not yet any publicly available Mississippi Choctaw dictionary on the internet. Choctaw Nation in Oklahoma uses the traditional spelling.

Choctaw's various spelling systems as well as the spelling variations within these systems has been one my biggest challenges with incorporating more Choctaw vocabulary onto Wiktionary. A lot of entries have to be duplicated. Kmack (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kmack: I almost never edit Choctaw; I did some page moves back in 2023 because I encountered this entry in this condition in which the underline diacritic was realized by formatting a letter as underlined using <u> </u>, which is absolutely not acceptable. If you want the underline diacritic in Choctaw to work like the macron in Latin, then you still have to use the "combining macron below" (U+0331) in displays but not in page names, so that {{l|cho|aka̱ka}} points to [[akaka]] because the language module has provided diacritic stripping. However, the reason for diacritic stripping in Latin, Old English, and other languages is not because of technical limitations, but because the diacritics are generally used only in scholarly and pedagogical material, and not in regular text intended for native or fluent readers. So the question for Choctaw is, is the underline diacritic used only in dictionaries, language-learning materials, etc., or is it also used in books and newspapers and websites intended for people who already know the language and are simply reading content in it? —Mahāgaja · talk 06:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Mountain Jew

Hey. Please add Mountain Jew to the Derived terms of Jew. It is protected against non-admins like me Vilipender (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done —Mahāgaja · talk 08:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Question about Lower Sorbian IPA edits

Hi, thank you for catching and correcting my editing error on ketšup yesterday, I really appreciate the quick fix!

I have a question about a couple of edits I made today. For wołojnik, I used the default template settings without any additional parameters, but the resulting IPA looks somewhat different from what was there before. For wogeń, I manually specified the pronunciation spelling to match the original transcription more closely, though I'm not entirely certain whether that's how this word should actually be pronounced.

Could you let me know if these look correct? Thanks again for your help! TongcyDai (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@TongcyDai: I think they're both right. ⟨w⟩ is generally silent before ⟨o⟩ and ⟨u⟩ (but not ⟨ó⟩!) in dsb. The pronunciation of wołojnik was given as [ˈowɔjnʲik] until an anon "fixed" it in this edit. As for ketšup and wogeń, maybe the module needs to be updated to always indicate /kʲ ɡʲ/ before /ɛ/, because I'm pretty sure that palatalization always happens there in dsb (unlike Polish). —Mahāgaja · talk 12:26, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that! TongcyDai (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction

What you corrected here was clearly a brainfart of mine, suddenly switching to Old Irish sound laws, probably because I was half still mentally at adaig (and was perhaps reminded of ech), making the earlier Celtic reconstructions more similar than they warranted ... Of course it should be *ekkēdos, whatever the hell that is, and along with that *adek(ʷ)ī, it may represent one of very few lexical survivals from pre-Celtic in the British Isles. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

SEG

It is the Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. The specific inscription containing δυωδεκάπλοα (duōdekáploa) can be found on PHI inscriptions and a translation can be found on Attalus. Graearms (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Your question:

You asked me what those abbreviations in Pumpokol entries mean, [1], well, in almost every etymological/historical work on Yeniseian languages, you'll see those same abbreviations (like Ad., M., VW., W., Kl., etc.) These denote which compilation/dictionary/wordlist did the recorded forms of those other exticnt Yeniseian languages (like Pumpokol) is attested in. Pumpokol is attested in these four: M. (Wordlist rec. by G. F. Müller), Kl. (WL rec. by J. V. Klaproth), VW. (Found in 'Vergleischende Wörterbücher von P. S. Pallas') and W. (Found in 'Wörterbücher der fünf arinischen Sprachen'). These abbreviations are standardised across each and every work on Yeniseian you'll ever see (except pre-1960s publications, of which there aren't that many.)
I'm including these, because other dictionaries do, and to know which words are widely attested and which are attested only once, plus the varying transcriptions between those dictionaries are interesting enough, in my opinion. Hope it clears it all.
AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@AmaçsızBirKişi: Thanks! Many languages have a bibliography appendix listing sources that are commonly used for that language. Maybe you could make a Yeniseian bibliography appendix listing all of those, and then have the abbreviations link back to it. People with a casual interest can't be expected to recognize the abbreviations. Alternatively, you could even make reference templates for each one, giving them names like {{R:qfa-yen:Ad}}, {{R:qfa-yen:M}} and so on, and then list them in the References section of each entry. That would be especially helpful if you have the page numbers for each entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd, if these particular recordings were readily available. Turns out, these recordings and wordlists are kept in Russian/German state archives and I usually source them from this book, Werner, Heinrich (2005), Die Jenissej-Sprachen des 18. Jahrhunderts, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, →ISBN, instead of combing through 18th century papers. I think adding these abbreviations on the 'About X language' pages instead of creating bibliographies is better suited for this case. See *xuɬ for example, where I recently added those abbreviations. Listing each and every of them one by one by hand seems very cumbersome, though if you could manage to make them blue links for their respective books, that'd be pretty cool. So, yeah.

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@AmaçsızBirKişi: sure, if you want to put them at WT:Proto-Yeniseian entry guidelines, that's fine too. For me, the important thing is not to just leave the abbreviations unexplained in entries, because that will confuse readers. Since we are not paper, we (1) don't have to abbreviate in order to save space, (2) can make use of hyperlinks to take readers to an explanation, and (3) can make use of templates to standardize presentation. At the very least, there could be a template in the References section saying something like "See Appendix:Yeniseian bibliography appendix" (or WT:Proto-Yeniseian entry guidelines § Bibliography or wherever you put it) "for an explanation of the abbreviations used on this page." —Mahāgaja · talk 19:00, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I've implemented what you said, and deployed it here just to see if it's working here. What do you think? I've also revamped the sources section and added some dictionaries to use for any potential newcomers (not that I think there will be many.)

AmaçsızBirKişi (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@AmaçsızBirKişi: Looks good! And you might be surprised. I think the Dené-Yeniseian connection will probably increase interest in the Yeniseian languages. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ord na gcanúintí

An féidir leat an loighic sin a mhíniú dhom nó an bhfuil aon díospóireacht nó polasaí faoi ar fáil? ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 07:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There's no policy and I don't think it was ever discussed, but I've been adding pronunciations to Irish entries at Wiktionary for 20 years now, and I've always listed the dialects from south to north, or more specifically, starting at Waterford and curling around clockwise to Donegal. There's no particular reason it has to be this way, but virtually all Irish pronunciation sections that list multiple dialects do it in that order, so why change it? Especially for just one entry – if it's that important to you to have them listed north to south, go ahead, but then fix all 10,000 entries, not just one. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:07, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Not so much a matter of “why change it?”; more “why would anyone expect this?” and “how would they know?”. If you’re happy policing it, it will stay as is I suppose. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 05:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Welsh mass nouns (and erroneous denotation of gendered forms)

Hello - there is an issue with the way that Welsh mass nouns (which are then used in their singulative forms to denote singular nouns) are presented on Wiktionary. Take helyg for example: the inherently plural/mass form 'helyg' is shown as feminine, but plurals are not gendered in Welsh; only singular nouns can have gendered forms. It is correct, of course, that the singulative helygen is feminine, but helyg is not and cannot be femenine. This issue would seemingly affect the template for these sorts of nouns in Welsh. Is this something that could be adjusted? 2A00:23C7:21B4:FD01:F502:19FD:627D:BDAF 13:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

It would need to be fixed at Module:cy-headword, which Benwing2 designed, not me. I'm not sure I'd call endingless plurals like helyg "collective" in the first place. It might make more sense for the headword line to say something like: "helyg pl (singulative helygen f, not mutable)" to show that only the singular is identifiably feminine, while the plural (like all Welsh plurals) is unmarked for gender. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Should be done. Benwing2 (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2: It still says collective rather than plural. I'm pretty sure a word like helyg is truly felt as a plural in Welsh; for example, the plural pronoun nhw would be used to refer back to it. If it were a true collective, it would presumably go with a singular pronoun. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mahagaja IMO if it says "singulative" it should say "collective". Conversely, if you want it to read "plural", the singular form should just say "singular". What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, pronouns aren't necessarily the best way of determining gender and number because they often reflect the semantic gender/number even when the grammatical gender/number is different. Does Welsh have singular/plural agreement in verbs or adjectives? If so, how do they function? Benwing2 (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Welsh does have plural agreement with some adjectives, but not all. Annoyingly, it uses singular verbs with plural nouns (plural verbs are used only with pronouns, thus siaradodd y benywod (“the women talked”) vs. siaradon nhw (“they talked”). And the Welsh grammar books I have all do say simply "plural" and "singular" for things like helyg/helygen and adar/aderyn. I'm really not sure what the motivation is for calling them collective/singulative, unless it's (1) just that linguists are reluctant to believe that the same language sometimes derives the singular from the plural and sometimes derives the plural from the singular, or (2) the fact that there are a handful of cases where an unmarked plural like dail (“leaves”) forms a singular like dalen (“leaf”), which in turn forms a plural like dalennau (“leaves”). Now we could say that dail really means 'foliage', but it does take a plural adjective form in dail crinion (“withered leaves”). —Mahāgaja · talk 07:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

OK, I changed "collective" to "plural" and made up the concept of "plural-basic nouns" to express nouns where the lemma is plural and the singular is a derived form. I have no idea if this term is used elsewhere and I'm happy to adopt a different term; I intentionally did not add the category Category:Welsh plural-basic nouns to the category tree pending resolution of the best name for it. Benwing2 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Benwing2 and @Mahagaja it was my suggestion to call these collective nouns here - they had previously been called pluralia tantum (not really correct when they do have derived singulatives) and it's pretty common in Welsh linguistics circles to refer to these types of nouns as collective/singulative, in opposition to singular/plural nouns. I don't think this implies that you wouldn't refer to helyg with nhw. If anything I find "plural-only noun" awkward, rather reminiscent of {{surf}} generating the term "surface analysis" that doesn't have much currency outside Wiktionary.

I also suggested there that true pluralia tantum should be stripped of gender information there and you were kind enough to do that @Benwing2. I can see the point of stripping gender from all plurals/collectives, but I think that if helyg gets stripped this way, so should cathod (“cats”), which we only call "feminine" because of the gender of singular cath. But I note that German Katzen is marked as a "feminine" plural based on its singular form, so I'd say if we do that for Welsh, we also should for German. The two languages are the same in this respect.

Incidentally, is there some way of making it possible to order derived singulatives so the feminine form goes before the masculine one?

Some terms like talch (“groats”) are unproblematic, as singulative telchyn m is more common than talchen f. But there are other nouns where the feminine singulative is more common and I haven't found a way of making sure the feminine form precedes the masculine one. Arafsymudwr (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Arafsymudwr "plural-only noun" has lots of currency outside of Wiktionary (although that may not be the case with "surface etymology"; the more usual term is "synchronic etymology" but that is more full of jargon). The thing about Katzen and cathod is that they're non-lemma forms, whereas helyg is a lemma. Personally I don't see the point of including gender information in non-lemma forms in general, but if we are to do this, I don't think it's problematic to inherit it from the singular. As for putting feminine singulatives/singulars before masculine ones, I'd have to add a flag for that, or change the parameter handling so that there's just one "singulative/singular" param where you mark the gender on it if you want. Honestly I think that would be better in general as it's weird to mark genders on plural lemmas that don't actually have gender. It would work like this: |sg=telchyn<g:m>,talchen<g:f> or similar. As for plural vs. collective, we need to resolve this one way or another (ping @Mahagaja) as we currently have a redlinked category Category:Welsh plural-basic nouns with 600+ terms in it that I haven't yet added category-tree support for, pending determination of the proper term for such nouns. Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2 apologies, I meant to say "plural basic" sounds off to me and not a suitable replacement for "collective nouns". Plural-only is fine but ofc doesn't apply to words like helyg. Arafsymudwr (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Arafsymudwr @Urszag OK, we need to do something about this category. How about "Welsh nouns whose lemma form is plural" or "Welsh nouns with a plural lemma form"? Benwing2 (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Welsh nouns whose lemma form is plural" seems to be technically accurate as a name, but is long and seems more like the kind of explanation that would go in the category description. I thought "plural-basic" fits pretty well as a label, but if Welsh editors don't find it intuitive, then something else is probably better. From what I can see, "collective" does seem to be a common term used when discussing nouns like this that are unsuffixed in the plural and form a suffixed singulative, so I think I would prefer that. E.g. there's Wikipedia, and this paper, which uses the phrases "morphological collective" and "lexical collective" to distinguish between cases like adar (“birds”) and gwerin (“people”). I realize that the "collective" category is part of the general category structure, but it might make sense to alter the names and introduce a split for Welsh because of this ambiguity: of the six words currently in Category:Welsh collective nouns, it looks like four are syntactically plural morphological collectives whereas only two (da and gogledd) seem to be syntactically singular lexical collectives. So maybe add two subcategories to Category:Welsh collective nouns: "Category:Welsh morphologically collective nouns" and "Category:Welsh lexically collective nouns".--Urszag (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

No objections on my part, although this would require someone picking out the "true" (i.e. lexical) collectives, since I assume there are many fewer of them than "morphological" collectives. @Arafsymudwr @Mahagaja what say you? Benwing2 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Benwing2 I see nothing has been done yet, so may I check what some native speaker friends think? @Mahagaja does actually raise a good point that these words basically are perceived as normal plurals, simply with something added to make a singular. My issue with the term "plural-basic" is more that it feels like an ad hoc formation than objecting to the idea that they can be called plurals. It may be that they think it's good or have an idea that's similar. Arafsymudwr (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Arafsymudwr That sounds like a great idea. I have left it as-is so far because there hasn't been consensus on what terminology to adopt, but I would like to resolve this fairly soon. Benwing2 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

As far as gender goes, even in cases where plural forms never trigger any gender-specific marking in the plural, in some languages the gender of the corresponding singular form can sometimes appear indirectly, e.g. in contexts like "One of the leaves is white". Does any of that kind of indirect gender agreement appear in Welsh?--Urszag (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Urszag in Literary Welsh feminine and plural adjectives can be found in predicative position. They don't do that in Colloquial Welsh. I don't think I've ever seen a specifically feminine adjective in predicative position to describe a plural noun - anyone going to the trouble trouble of inflecting their predicative adjectives is likely to use the plural form. Arafsymudwr (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking for input on someone who knows Ancient Greek...

You don’t know me, but I know you and appreciate your editing. You’re one of few prolific Ancient Greek editors, and you say on your talk page you’re open to discussion. I was wondering if you perhaps knew anything about Ancient Greek πυριλαμπής (purilampḗs) (accent maybe wrong?) as a common noun, i.e., not Πῠρῐλᾰ́μπης (Pŭrĭlắmpēs)? I’m looking into the etymology of the Portuguese word pirilampo, and although the first dictionary definition references λαμπυρίς (lampurís), modern dictionaries claim it’s directly from that word. I tried looking in some corpora and hits sprouted up in "Oppian of Apamaea – Cynegetica", "Nonnus – Dyonisiaca", and "Aratus – Phaenomena".

Good editing! — Polomo ⟨⁠ ⁠oi!⁠ ⁠⟩ · 22:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Polomo: πυριλαμπής (purilampḗs) is actually an adjective meaning 'bright with fire' [2]. It sure feels more likely to be the source of pirilampo than λαμπυρίς (lampurís) does. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Block evasion

The IP 2405:201:F005:A0FD:E506:EA10:12F2:564B is of the blocked user Aleksib 1945. 2405:201:F005:A0FD:E88C:7C73:A828:8F5C 16:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

2405:201:f005:a0fd:410:7c9b:67ba:8612 is another IP of Aleksi. 2405:201:F005:A0FD:410:7C9B:67BA:8612 16:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Pls ban the ban evader's IP ranges 2405:201:F005:A0FD:544C:C81B:54E:F641 09:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Is 𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬫𐬈𐬌𐬙𐬌 an incorrect form?

Hi, I've been clearing out Latin apō (since it failed RFV compared to the form apiō) and making sure that all of the information is retained. There was an invisible note giving "𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬫𐬈𐬌𐬙𐬌 (apayeⁱti)" as a possible cognate; I noticed that this form used to be listed in ἅπτω, but you changed it to "𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬌𐬌𐬈𐬌𐬙𐬌 (apaiieⁱti)". Is the first spelling just a typo, rather than a variant we should keep? Thanks! Urszag (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Urszag:: yes, 𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬫𐬈𐬌𐬙𐬌 (apayeⁱti) is a misspelling. The letter 𐬫 (y) is used only at the beginning of a word; in the middle of a word, 𐬌𐬌 (ii) is used instead. (Likewise, 𐬬 (v) is used only at the beginning and is replaced by 𐬎𐬎 (uu) in the middle.) But when Avestan is romanized, especially in older sources, they often write y and v word-internally; then when that gets re-transliterated back into the Avestan script, errors occur. —Mahāgaja · talk 06:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

pls ban me 2405:201:F005:A0FD:E506:EA10:12F2:564B 2405:201:F005:A0FD:9485:F960:A755:5BB0 2405:201:f005:a0fd:410:7c9b:67ba:8612 2405:201:F005:A0FD:5CA7:F174:279E:9F0C 11:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Unsourced Kolami, Old Kolami and Naiki entries

User:Ganesudu and his IP's like 2409:40c2:1224:da99:658e:28ca:6eac:307e, 2409:4081:1C05:24F0:8E30:B086:80D1:5E9D, 2409:4081:603:7d06:3f07:34b8:6de7:87f3 have been making unsourced Kolami, Naiki and even Old Kolami entries for years now with his own devanagari orthography [पिळ्ळु], ऎरण्डि, ऎनुंदि, ऒक्कॆद्, कण्, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ఆఱ్&oldid=78026039, Old Kolami: साऱि (sāṟi) Old Kolami: एऴ् (ēḻ) 2405:201:F005:A0FD:544C:C81B:54E:F641 09:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

deliquesce

People come to a dictionary wanting to know how to pronounce a word. Most of them know whether they are interested in a US, UK or other regional pronunciation of a word. Most, including myself, will not have heard of "weak vowel merger" before and not find that information helpful. What would be helpful is to see different pronunciations associated with regions in which they are used. This may involve including the same pronunciation multiple times. That will not be an impediment to people getting the information they need.

If you feel that it is useful to associate the designation of "weak vowel merger" with a pronunciation, I do not challenge that. Do you beleive that it is not helpful to have pronunciations associated with regions as is the case for many entries in Wiktionary? If so, please explain why. In the mean time, I will supply a US pronunciation. Mgrand (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mgrand: But any pronunciation labeled "US" will be redundant to what's already there, because both /dɛlɪˈkwɛs/ and /dɛləˈkwɛs/ are found in the U.S. Not all U.S. accents have the weak vowel merger (especially not before a velar consonant like /k/), so it's sufficient to say that both pronunciations /dɛlɪˈkwɛs/ and /dɛləˈkwɛs/ exist in English. The U.S. pronunciation is not distinct. The label "weak vowel merger" is linked to a Wikipedia article, so anyone unfamiliar with the term can easily find out what it means. —Mahāgaja · talk 23:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)