User talk:Rua

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
(Redirected from User talk:MewBot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Parameters question100:42, 16 December 2017
smaak323:54, 14 December 2017
Borstelig523:23, 14 December 2017
Request222:55, 12 December 2017
Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme1414:53, 12 December 2017
Rollbacks to list of English words ending in "-sis118:47, 11 December 2017
Format of entries016:16, 10 December 2017
rhymes on -ɛi̯ɣən722:31, 9 December 2017
northern sami122:24, 6 December 2017
template:affix214:20, 6 December 2017
beperken220:53, 3 December 2017
Russian sorok & Armenian čork217:00, 1 December 2017
vroom (nl)614:19, 1 December 2017
rollback of "likker" is an error(seriously, I think a bot must be reverting all edits that have formatting mistakes)313:23, 1 December 2017
Request223:49, 30 November 2017
Deletion of Category:User enm-N515:21, 29 November 2017
Extrinsic value416:17, 28 November 2017
Bad, but how bad?112:09, 26 November 2017
Moves done by MewBot217:50, 23 November 2017
Arabic etyl cleanup completed120:50, 22 November 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Parameters question

What's the point of having default values for required arguments?

00:41, 16 December 2017

The default value is used on template pages, where the requirement check is bypassed.

Rua (mew)

00:42, 16 December 2017
 

Also, in smaak, are you saying I am using {{inh}} incorrectly, or instead or additionally, that the derivation is not from *smakkuz? I was hesitant to work on the verbs (smaken, schmecken) because they have complexities which I thought nouns did not. If the problem is only the template, please tell me if my current understanding is correct: I should only use {{inh}} once per etymology section, for the most recent inheritance in the current chain. Thanks for helping me with these; it took you and JohnC5 a while to get my Latin etymologies to look right, an I'm afraid Germanic is more complicated.

23:12, 14 December 2017

{{inh}} was fine, it was *smakkuz. Modern long vowels come from either Proto-Germanic long vowels/diphthongs, or from short vowels in an open syllable. In Middle Dutch, these two types of long vowels are still different (we write the former as â ê ô and the latter as ā ē ō) and some dialects such as Limburgish still keep them apart. From a Proto-Germanic short vowel + geminate consonant you'd expect a short vowel in modern Dutch.

Since the modern word has a long vowel, it can't come from *smakkuz but must come from a form that satisfies either of the long-vowel criteria. Sadly, Limburgish has lost the word, and has borrowed smaak from Dutch, so it's no help here.

As for schmecken, it's from Proto-Germanic *smakjaną, a class 1 weak denominative verb.

Rua (mew)

23:19, 14 December 2017

@Isomorphyc, FWIW, the *smakkuz entry suggests this became Old Dutch smak, matching the closed-syllable pattern of a short vowel, and this then turned into Middle Dutch smake. That -e on the end suggests that the term might be parsed as sma + ke phonologically, making the a now an open syllable.

@Rua, am I parsing that correctly? And is the Descendants list correct as shown in the *smakkuz entry?

23:53, 14 December 2017

But then the question is where the extra vowel came from, and why the k was degeminated.

Rua (mew)

23:54, 14 December 2017
 
 
 

Are you sure {{affix|borstel|-ig}} is an etymology, not a surface analysis? This is why I used the form I used.

22:49, 14 December 2017

I don't see how it could have been formed any other way.

Rua (mew)

22:52, 14 December 2017

Does using the affix in the modern language preclude Middle Dutch borstelich, for example (excuse the likely random spelling)? I am always reticent to use {{affix}} without a corpus or a reference because of this problem.

23:03, 14 December 2017

Borstelich was formed from borstel + -ich, of which the modern descendants are borstel + -ig. Since the original formation of the word is still clearly analysable, it's given in its modern Dutch form.

Rua (mew)

23:07, 14 December 2017

So basically I can be relatively cavalier about surface analysis for highly generative affixes in both modern and middle Dutch, when my main aim is to provide a hyperlink to more information. I appreciate this, thank you.

23:15, 14 December 2017

Basically, if the word was formed in Middle Dutch or earlier using a derivational process that is still recognisable in modern Dutch, then use the modern Dutch forms to indicate the morphology. If the form is opaque in modern Dutch, then use the morphology of the language in which it was formed.

Rua (mew)

23:23, 14 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 

Could you please verify if this conjugation is correct? -

21:23, 12 December 2017

Fixed.

Rua (mew)

22:25, 12 December 2017

Thank you.

22:55, 12 December 2017
 
 

Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme

The purpose of including reconstructions in Wiktionary is not to posit them with some claim of certainty, nor is it to say “here is a theory the details of which are unilaterally agreed upon,” but rather more along the lines of “there is evidence for the existence of this, though as a reconstruction it is by nature hypothetical,” as disclaimers such as {{reconstruction}} are clear about.

I fear that you are letting your personal range of experience and particular set of opinions get in the way of constructive discussion. The theory of Altaic for one is certainly not unilaterally accepted either, nor are the particulars of the phonetics of Proto-Sino-Tibetan or Proto-Afro-Asiatic, or even Old Chinese—hell, there is still much disagreement about PIE—but in the same sense that settling on a particular phonological model for the time being shouldn't prevent Wiktionary entries for these languages from existing, neither should disagreement about families like Altaic prevent there from being any inclusion of them, as is evident already. If the assumption is that there is something inherently wrong in describing such hypotheses, what is it that is wrong? This is not a matter of whether a scholarly interest exists (it most certainly does) nor a matter of whether there is consensus among any subset of scholars working on the areas in question (there is); instead, you are in danger of now turning it into an issue of neutrality. You did not provide any rationale for the deletions either in prior discussion or retroactively (and I can only guess that your expectation was that I come to you). Other than useless deletionism I do not see any grounds for it. It is not in the same ballpark as modifying or deleting PIE paradigms in favor of alternative models: in this case your choice has been to wipe the (only) information out of existence without hesitation. Regardless, I can only hope that future incidents of this form do not take this path.

 — J​as​p​e​t

01:51, 7 December 2017

I suppose the reason for deleting them is that the reconstructions are founded on poor scholarship using questionable methods which very few people believe. Other than that, the entries are fine, I guess...

04:41, 7 December 2017

“poor scholarship”

Such as what? And in what sense? Quality? (If so, what specifically?) Quantity? (If so, I agree that it is lacking. But there has been a considerable amount of work done since over century ago.)


“questionable methods”

Again, such as what?


“very few people believe”

That may be so. Sadly very few people, relatively speaking, have any knowledge of or interest in comparative linguistics. But, assuming you are referring exclusively to comparative linguists, I would like to know what counts as “very few”. Not that I am contesting that there are few: I would simply like a genuine reference point on which to base the observation of how many of the whole agree with the methodology used and conclusions drawn, and which whole. I don't expect that there have been many surveys on comparative linguists' opinions at large; however, as for the number of linguists who have worked on the areas in question, is it any less than for protolanguages such as those of Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian or “Altaic”? In each case the picture is overall the same: two, maybe three, large works which are regarded as the standard, separate and collaborative efforts among a handful of well-known names, and other small contributions by a larger number of lesser-known names. (Of course this description then also leads to the issue of defining “well known”: how much?, and, more importantly, by whom?) Whether the opinions of those who do not study these areas is just as relevant as the opinions of those who do is another question, though perhaps more relevant to the philosophy of ways of knowing. Both you and Rua are evidently very experienced, in the areas relevant to what you have studied, but there seems to be no objective manner in which to discern whose beliefs matter to what—other than the principle that Wikimedia administrators are granted the unquestioned last word!

I would be delighted, anyway, if Rua has any input to add.

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:26, 7 December 2017

If the community approves of the addition of those languages, and assigns them a language code, then you are free to add entries.

Rua (mew)

19:35, 7 December 2017

Ah, thank you!

I understand the issue now: One must first request a code, and hope the dice roll in their favor.

Hopefully the opposite logic won't then be invoked, i.e. “Why create a language code for something with no entries?”

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:40, 7 December 2017
 

I don't know a single linguist who regards Nostratic as anything more than a bad joke. I think you're aware that there might be a reason almost nobody takes it seriously. But yes, it's definitely the work of a shady cabal of Wiktionary administrators trying to keep the truth locked away...

19:42, 7 December 2017

Well, it sounds like you might benefit from expanding your knowledge of linguists then. :)

As for your implication that I regard this as some sort of conspiracy, thanks for the laugh! In reality, though, work on the theories of such families as Nostratic and Indo-Uralic continue regardless of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia have to say on them (which are, respectively, nothing and almost nothing).

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:47, 7 December 2017

People working on these theories is not the same as these theories being accepted as mainstream. I've seen enough hooey from the Nostratic camp to make me quite leary of anything coming from there.

00:17, 8 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 

Rollbacks to list of English words ending in "-sis

What was wrong with my additions to the list of English words ending in "-sis"? Instead of rolling back all the changes, why not just correct them? However, I don't see anything incorrect with adding to the list. The list was small and very incomplete.

--RSvK

18:43, 11 December 2017

It's not a list of words ending in "-sis", but a list of words suffixed with "-sis". The difference is that the former is merely a surface feature of a word, while the latter is about the origin of the word. Such categories should never be added by hand, but always by an etymology template such as {{affix}}.

Rua (mew)

18:47, 11 December 2017
 

Format of entries

You used to have a userpage with an example of your ideal formatting (i.e. without numbering of etymologies, etc.) Where is it?

16:16, 10 December 2017

rhymes on -ɛi̯ɣən

bedreigen, bestijgen, verkrijgen and verzwijgen do rhyme with -ɛi̯ɣən. I'm not sure why you removed them?

19:48, 9 December 2017

The edit summary did not say that you added those rhymes.

Rua (mew)

20:07, 9 December 2017

No I was mistaken about that. I assumed you removed those as well. You did remove aantijgen and opstijgen. They obviously rhyme.

20:39, 9 December 2017

No they don't.

Rua (mew)

20:44, 9 December 2017

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

tijgen and stijgen are both listed as rhymes. I simply added those two with a prefix.

Why would they not rhyme?

20:50, 9 December 2017

Because the stress is on the prefix. If you don't know Dutch, why are you adding rhymes?

Rua (mew)

21:50, 9 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 

northern sami

hello. do you collaborate with User:Unsui of fr.wiktionary? he's doing a lot of work with northern sami there.

22:24, 6 December 2017

I'm not familiar with them.

Rua (mew)

22:24, 6 December 2017
 

template:affix

Hello. Is there a plan to deprecate {{suffix}}, {{prefix}} and {{compound}} in favour of {{affix}}?

13:01, 6 December 2017

Not in the immediate future. There are some cases where {{affix}} doesn't work.

Rua (mew)

13:18, 6 December 2017

Ok, thanks!

14:20, 6 December 2017
 
 

Hi Rua, I noticed you analysed beperken (in nl.) as a circumfix construction. I have don't quite see it this way, as the prefix and suffix seem independent (we have beperking and perken, for instance). I would feel uncomfortable writing an entry for this red-link. Would I be quite wrong to rewrite the etymology as {{affix|be-|perk|-en}}?

19:39, 3 December 2017

It is a circumfix because both the prefix and the suffix are added as a single unit. be- is only added to verbs, but beperken is not derived from perken.

Rua (mew)

19:42, 3 December 2017

By using the double-affix notation, it is clear one is not deriving beperken from perken, but from perk. For the two circumfixes, ge- -te and aller- -st, the semantics are not very obviously additive. But for the three verb-forming circufixes, ver- -en, be- -en, and ont- -en, the semantics are additive, even if the additions are only possible in a particular order. This is similar to Latin ēlīminō, which is analysed as a double-affix, not a circumfix. It ought not be necessary to require this to be a circumfix if **līminō existed, despite that ex- is only added to verbs.

I'm half-convinced by a slightly different argument: that this is the circumfix to form transitive verbs from nouns. I appreciate your explanation, though, even though the power of the construct for the application surprises me.

20:53, 3 December 2017
 
 

Russian sorok & Armenian čork

It dates back to the Median times. see -> собака#Etymology --2A02:908:B36:A1C0:0:0:0:1 13:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

13:51, 1 December 2017

I find it very doubtful that Armenian would have borrowed something as basic as a number. Core grammatical vocabulary is very rarely borrowed. If you still want to press your claim, you should probably do so at WT:ES.

Rua (mew)

14:03, 1 December 2017

Thank you for the redirection, I will tackle the topic there. You can also leave a comment there. Cheers.

17:00, 1 December 2017
 
 

vroom (nl)

Greetings. Would I be right to add OE fruma (prince, beginning) to P-Germ. *frumô alongside OE first? I added fruma to vroom because it wasn't in the P-Germ. list, and I'm not quite comfortable enough with the P-Germ. derivational morphology to want to edit the reconstruction pages. Thanks for your help on my recent edits.

13:39, 1 December 2017

Somehow my text was garbled. That should be `alongside OE forma.

13:42, 1 December 2017
 

As far as I can tell, the noun fruma is the same as the adjective, it's just a substantivised form of it. Kinda like how Dutch has oudere or gevangene. The question is mainly whether this substantivised form can be reconstructed for Proto-Germanic already, or whether it was a purely Old English invention. I think it's the latter.

Rua (mew)

13:42, 1 December 2017

I'm not sure how to include an intra-OE derivation in the P-Germ. reconstruction page tree; is the sensible thing to omit it?

13:49, 1 December 2017

With descendants we mostly care about the form of the word, and less about the meaning. fruma is without a doubt descended in form from *frumô. So it can be listed, but with a gloss that gives the changed meaning.

Rua (mew)

14:01, 1 December 2017

Thanks. I also noticed you deleted the category Dutch Terms Borrowed from Old French, but you did not alter my {{bor}} template in singel. Would I be more correct to use the {{bor}} in a dum entry, but to use a more general {{der}} template in the nl entry? Finally, is there a preferred source or normalisation scheme for Middle Dutch spellings?

14:08, 1 December 2017

{{bor|xx}} means that the term was borrowed into language xx. If the word was borrowed into Middle Dutch, then {{bor|dum}} would be ok. But of course it can only be borrowed once in a language's history, so any subsequent languages would use {{der}}.

Yes, there is a normalisation scheme for Middle Dutch, it's at WT:ADUM. In general, you can find a lot of information on practices and rules for individual languages on these "About..." pages.

Rua (mew)

14:19, 1 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 

rollback of "likker" is an error(seriously, I think a bot must be reverting all edits that have formatting mistakes)

It's a variant spelling of licker, especially the eye dialect(definition 2). Note that the "eye dialect" definition of licker has not been deleted. JustinCB (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

13:04, 1 December 2017

It wasn't formatted right, and I didn't have the time/energy to fix it.

Rua (mew)

13:05, 1 December 2017

You didn't think that *someone else* might fix it? Can you point me to a resource that would shew me what I'm a-doin' wrong. JustinCB (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

13:22, 1 December 2017

Did you not look at how existing entries are formatted?

Rua (mew)

13:23, 1 December 2017
 
 
 

Can you verify if this etymology is correct? -

23:16, 30 November 2017

I cleared it up.

Rua (mew)

23:43, 30 November 2017

Thanks.

23:49, 30 November 2017
 
 

Deletion of Category:User enm-N

I know that nobody speaks Middle English natively, but it isn't the only extinct language to have a native speaker category. As for the code, it's the same as the template for native speaker categories. I only copied the code because it doesn't allow an alternate message in (Modern) English, which I wanted. The way I set up the enm-N category was to explicitly state that its use is either an error or lie(which is why I used a custom message[the Modern English translation of the Middle English message that states that anybody in that category has made an error or lie]). I hope you'll reconsider the deletion of this category based on its message(error/lie) and other extinct languages that have a native speaker category(ex. Latin, Old English).

13:41, 29 November 2017

Those other categories shouldn't exist either. You can create this category if you find a user that actually belongs in it. Otherwise it's just a pointless empty category.

Rua (mew)

13:52, 29 November 2017

Not much hope of finding a user, unless you have a time machine. DonnanZ (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

14:00, 29 November 2017
 

The other categories have a user or 2(I'm pretty sure they're lairs or making mistakes). This one is the only one that actually says the users are liars or making mistakes(and it's not really pointless: its point is to point out users that have made mistakes or lied in their babel boxes).

14:01, 29 November 2017

At best a user (on here) can have a knowledge of a dead language, but they can't call themselves native speakers. DonnanZ (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

14:39, 29 November 2017

They can call themselves native speakers, but it would be dishonest or a mistake(which is what the category stated in the first place): it begun, "Þes vſeris maad leeſingis either errouris", which is translated, "These users made lies or errors".

15:21, 29 November 2017
 
 
 
 

Extrinsic value

Can you fix the case on my page? I screwed up creating it in upper case. Tjanks for your edits.

15:57, 28 November 2017

You can just move the page.

Rua (mew)

16:05, 28 November 2017

Can you direct me to information on how to do so? I al a new user at this project, though I did make 1-2 edits a few years ago.

16:07, 28 November 2017

At the top right, there is a button that says "More", it's under that.

Rua (mew)

16:14, 28 November 2017

Thanks. Found it, and the page has been fixed.

16:16, 28 November 2017
 
 
 
 

Bad, but how bad?

See 177.67.96.78 (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks). This Brazilian IP has been copypasting {{wikipedia|lang=nl}}===Etymology==={{PIE root|nl|(s)tewp}}{{rfe|nl}} into all of their Dutch edits for days, now, as well as misusing the "Related terms" header. They also have been adding hyphenation and pronunciation (including separate Netherlands and Belgium IPA). I'm tempted to just revert everything, but I have no clue whether the pronunciation and hyphenation is worth saving. I've left a note on their talk page and reverted some of their simpler edits, but I really need a reality check before I do anything systematic. Thanks!

01:05, 26 November 2017

The etymologies can definitely go. The separate NL and BE IPA can go too, our practice is to use diaphonemic representations for Dutch.

Rua (mew)

12:09, 26 November 2017
 

Moves done by MewBot

Hello,
During User talk:Wyang/Archive7#Deleting maintenance categories is a stupid idea, I was surprised that the moves done by MewBot were not automatically applied into Wikidata. I said "Perhaps it was not applied because the account MewBot has never logged into Wikidata. The consequence is that each move (followed by a deletion here) will lead the category with the new name to become isolated here, without its interlanguage and interproject links."
In the discussion, an example was the move from Category:Hawaii to Category:Hawaii, USA, where I have been forced to correct the sitelink in Wikidata.
Could you use your account MewBot and open one page of Wikidata ? If you do that, I suppose that wikidata will appear in meta:Special:CentralAuth/MewBot and I suppose that the next moves will be automatically applied into Wikidata.
Regards

17:41, 23 November 2017

Done.

Rua (mew)

17:47, 23 November 2017

Great. Thank you!

17:50, 23 November 2017
 
 

Arabic etyl cleanup completed

I have just completed the cleanup of the Arabic lemmas from the {{etyl}} and write to you so you change it to reflect it in that template (and else if it is necessary; also there is the empty category of course) as I can’t – I have understood that that addition to the list of completed languages blocks the addition of further instances of the deprecated template? acw (Hijazi Arabic) and arz (Egyptian Arabic) should be added for cleanup as they contain a considerable number of entries. Also sem-pro which can be done fast.

20:49, 22 November 2017

Done.

Rua (mew)

20:50, 22 November 2017
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page