User talk:CodeCat

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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
burrow, barrow, bury, burgundy bergaz burgz, bergana birgijana, bhergh and bherg'h104:04, 25 May 2016
irascor022:52, 24 May 2016
{{m|la|adesurio}} and {{m|la|abligurrio}}1021:44, 23 May 2016
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/h₁eyH-722:53, 20 May 2016
Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/gerh₂ōws010:45, 20 May 2016
Template:got-decl-ppron and 𐌾𐌿𐍄117:03, 19 May 2016
PIE root cat organization219:25, 17 May 2016
PIE gen. pl.314:12, 15 May 2016
𐌱𐍂𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌰𐌽921:16, 12 May 2016
Rhymes on -omen and -open1114:34, 12 May 2016
*gʰeud-1703:39, 12 May 2016
etymtree for dwóh₁401:34, 11 May 2016
Catalan verbs208:01, 9 May 2016
Question re: unattested forms of determiners201:34, 8 May 2016
Relation: roof строп120:51, 5 May 2016
Glyph origin --> Etymology1800:11, 5 May 2016
Etymtree deletions422:22, 4 May 2016
PIE Adj tables214:32, 2 May 2016
Help 218:04, 30 April 2016
Inappropriate use of mul for vernacular names in Translingual entries313:02, 30 April 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

burrow, barrow, bury, burgundy bergaz burgz, bergana birgijana, bhergh and bherg'h

I saw the reversion. Is there a policy for loanwords? Now I know someone on gem-pro, I will check sometimes my boldness on you. Thanx. Sobreira (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sobreira (talk)22:50, 24 May 2016

It seems like if you indented it another level and indicated that it was a loan (for instance, by using an arrow, as in Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/tvarogъ), it'd be OK.

- -sche (discuss)04:04, 25 May 2016

The new irascor etymology is a big improvement.

Isomorphyc (talk)22:52, 24 May 2016

{{m|la|adesurio}} and {{m|la|abligurrio}}

Hi CodeCat -- thank you for cleaning up some of my recent entries. The reason I added the redundant etymological stage of information to adesurio and to abligurrio was for the template to place them in the category of words suffixed with -turio. Is there a way to accomplish this without creating unnecessarily verbose etymologies? Thanks! Isomorphyc (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Isomorphyc (talk)18:30, 23 May 2016

I removed them because of those categories. They are not suffixed with -turio after all, but prefixed with ad-. The affixation categories concern the process of word formation, not just the presence of a suffix.

CodeCat18:33, 23 May 2016

That's a subtle point. Desiderativeness is associative with respect to order of affixation whereas most-recently-affixedness is not. I was assuming the goal of the categories was sematic rather than etymological. Both are reasonable if conflicting aims, but since all affixes are not in general associative with respect to order, it makes sense that only most-recently-affixedness is universally useful for all affixes.

Isomorphyc (talk)18:48, 23 May 2016

The categories are purely etymological, that's why they're placed in the etymology category. If you want to create categories of desiderative verbs, that's fine of course, but desiderativity is semantic and doesn't necessarily have to imply the use of a particular suffix. For example vīsō.

CodeCat18:50, 23 May 2016

Sematics is too hard for me. That is why I like etymology; so I am happy to keep things as they are.

Isomorphyc (talk)18:58, 23 May 2016

Sorry to keep asking you template questions, but does this mean the affix template should almost never be used for etymology notes that go farther than the nearest attested form to avoid spuriously filling the etymological category lists?

Isomorphyc (talk)19:31, 23 May 2016

Creating categories isn't my area of interest, but until that category is created, there's no point in putting that template there. If you're trying to encourage page creation, create a category like Category:Latin nouns with red links in their declension tables.

Esszet (talk)17:14, 17 May 2016

Do you think that whoever will create the category will think to add the template back in?

CodeCat17:15, 17 May 2016

Can't you get a bot to do that?

Esszet (talk)14:01, 18 May 2016

For future reference, can you?

Esszet (talk)10:54, 20 May 2016

No. All root pages should have {{PIE root see}} even if the category doesn't exist, just as all suffixes should have {{suffixsee}}.

CodeCat12:19, 20 May 2016

That seems odd to me, but if that is the case, would you be opposed to having the module hide the "category not found" message if it doesn't exist?

Esszet (talk)17:56, 20 May 2016

Hello CodeCat, I first placed the asterisk inside the link, but there is no entry Reconstruction:Gothic/𐌾𐌿𐍄 but an entry 𐌾𐌿𐍄 (and jut). So when the asterisk is placed inside the link, the entry 𐌾𐌿𐍄 (which you created with the usage note BTW) has to be moved. Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

16:42, 19 May 2016

It probably should be moved, if it's not attested.

CodeCat17:03, 19 May 2016

PIE root cat organization

Would it makes sense to have descendant languages be nested? The drop down can get very cluttered and it might make sense to have all the Romance languages be under Latin, which would, in turn, be under PI. Of course, it would have to determine whether there were any ancestor languages before nesting (i.e. if English were the only Germanic language to have a category it would be top level until an ancestor is added). I'm not sure whether this idea makes any sense--I just thought I'd suggest it in case it hadn't occurred to you.

JohnC519:17, 17 May 2016

Not all Romance languages having a term derived from a particular root inherited that term from Latin, though. Old French has many Germanic terms for example.

CodeCat19:21, 17 May 2016

I was aware of that, and you are correct that it might be misleading. I just wish there were to prevent ugly lists like in *ters-.

JohnC519:25, 17 May 2016

PIE gen. pl.

Thanks for the new tables! The bring up a question I've wondered before: why does the *-óoHom not become *-ṓHom the same way * -o-o- becomes *-ō- in thematic subjunctives?

JohnC514:03, 15 May 2016

I don't know.

CodeCat14:03, 15 May 2016

Is there any reason we should think that is doesn't (besides that Ringe lists it that way)?

JohnC514:10, 15 May 2016

The reconstruction of the genitive plural isn't so settled anyway. Different sources have different ideas. Look at w:PIE nominals for example.

CodeCat14:12, 15 May 2016


Streitberg (1910) has 𐌱𐍂𐌹𐌲𐌲𐌰𐌽 ‎(briggan) as a strong verb. — Kleio (t · c)

Kleio (t · c)18:03, 12 May 2016

Here's a more recent citation confirming the same. The paradigm fits, too.

Kleio (t · c)18:10, 12 May 2016

Which I admit is sorta weird considering it is weak in Pgmc., but I think these people know what they're on about.

Kleio (t · c)18:23, 12 May 2016

It has a weak past tense. So they don't know what they're on about.

CodeCat18:31, 12 May 2016

Fair enough, but then how do we add the conjugation?

Kleio (t · c)18:31, 12 May 2016

There would have to be a unique conjugation type just for this verb, much like we have for Germanic.

CodeCat18:32, 12 May 2016

Rhymes on -omen and -open

I saw that you reverted several of my additions to Rhymes:Dutch/oːmən and Rhymes:Dutch/oːpən: opgenomen, overgelopen, etc. I maintain that they do belong there. I understand that, unlike the other rhymes on these pages, they don't have the primary stress on the /oː/, but they do have secondary stress on it (/ˈɔp.ɣəˌnoː.mən/, /ˈoː.vər.ɣəˌloː.pən/, etc.), which is enough to make them rhyme. I purposefully left out word forms such as opkomen, which, although secondary stress may be present, will still form a trisyllable (specifically, an antibacchius or a dactyl) with the heavier stress on the previous syllable.

Krun (talk)02:13, 10 May 2016

The point is whether they rhyme. And they don't.

CodeCat18:14, 10 May 2016

That's what I just said, and they do rhyme.

Krun (talk)18:23, 10 May 2016

These people: seem to agree with me, at least.

Krun (talk)18:36, 10 May 2016

Ok, but I don't agree.

CodeCat18:37, 10 May 2016

And why exactly don't they rhyme, in your opinion?

Krun (talk)23:07, 10 May 2016

Because they are not stressed on the same syllable.

CodeCat00:35, 11 May 2016


Hello, would you consider making an entry for *gʰeud-? Many thanks., 11 May 2016

What descendants are there?

CodeCat23:18, 11 May 2016

English gut. There seem to be multiple variant forms of this PIE term here., 11 May 2016

The proper entry is at *ǵʰewd-, links to the form *gʰewd- should be edited.

CodeCat23:23, 11 May 2016

Thank you; one further question: Whereas *ǵʰewd- (to pour) is supposedly the root of English gut, "The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World" gives *gudóm as "intestines," apparently the root of Sanskrit गुद. Unfortunately we don't have entries for either of these. Can you help? 23:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC), 11 May 2016

We have *ǵʰuto-, though.

CodeCat23:30, 11 May 2016

Is there anything wrong with it?

P/s: Okay so it's horrible and unworkable and whatnot. But how about some warning right at the template page? That'd be so freakin helpful. Seriously!

13:46, 10 May 2016

Hi, I'm sorry if I upset you. I was on mobile so I was a bit handicapped in how much explanation I could give. Your edits essentially undid what I did a week or two ago.

CodeCat18:11, 10 May 2016

Don't you find reverting others' edits is somewhat of a nuisance? Then why don't you warn them not to do it in the first place? I'm not pissed because my edits were reverted, I'm pissed because there's no freaking warning about not doing them in the first place! How about something like "This template is f**king horrible and unworkable, I'm tired of reverting all your kids' messing around, so don't f**king use it, or else you'll be wasting your time and I'll just revert it all!"?

00:35, 11 May 2016

Well, you could have looked at the edit histories of these pages and noticed that I had removed {{etymtree}} two weeks ago, or notice that Template:etymtree/ine-pro/*dwóh₁ had been deleted two weeks ago when you recreated it. That notice of prior deletion should have been ample notice that something was up.

CodeCat00:38, 11 May 2016

Dude, I'm not some kind of administrator. I just create entries or edit existing ones, which means checking the history before doing something is the last thing I do. I don't recall seeing any notice. And that's just one case you're talking about. I've created a bunch of other etymtrees without knowing they'll simply be deleted. Is it too much to be able to know specifically what I'm not supposed to do instead of just guessing "something was up"? This is not rocket science!

01:25, 11 May 2016

Catalan verbs

Hey. Don't suppose you're gonna be running any Catalan bots soon, are you?

J19idf (talk)16:56, 8 May 2016

I have no plans.

CodeCat18:35, 8 May 2016

Could you send me the bot code?

J19idf (talk)08:01, 9 May 2016

Question re: unattested forms of determiners

Hey! Sorry about that little fail you cleaned up after me with the forms of sa ‎(sa), I took the hint and did the sah ‎(sah) forms right :) Was wondering though, I accidentally created an entry for 𐌸𐍉𐌶𐌿𐌷 ‎(þōzuh) which, judging by the lack of a romanization, is probably unattested - should entries like that be created? (If not, feel free to delete it.)

Kleio (t · c)01:25, 8 May 2016

Adding to that, should 𐌹𐍄𐌰 ‎(ita) (it) and 𐍃𐌹 ‎(si) be their own lemmata or link as forms to 𐌹𐍃 ‎(is)?

Kleio (t · c)01:30, 8 May 2016

The feminine and neuter forms should probably link to the masculine form, as they form a single paradigm that is clearly similar to that of adjectives. I think the first and second person pronouns should be kept separate though. Some people treat the singular (I) and plural (we) as part of one lemma, but I don't know if that makes sense.

We shouldn't have entries for unattested forms, at least that's the norm we've stuck with for Gothic. I deleted the entry.

CodeCat01:34, 8 May 2016

Relation: roof строп

You mean PS *stropъ < PIE *ḱrapo- is not possible? Or English roof simply from another root? In entry *hrōfą are listed *krāpo-, *ḱrapo-. And ESSJa mentions English roof for Proto-Slavic *stropъ: "упомянутые герм. слова связываются со слав. *stropъ из и.-е. *ḱrapo-".

Игорь Тълкачь (talk)20:43, 5 May 2016

I think I see now. I hadn't considered the possibility of a palatovelar. However, the -a- is suspect.

CodeCat20:51, 5 May 2016

Glyph origin --> Etymology

Hi, I noticed that MewBot is converting Glyph origin to Etymology. I don't think this is right since glyph origins for Chinese characters now go under the Chinese header, which would mean there will be two etymology sections under Chinese for some entries.

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› }21:41, 4 May 2016

Well, the "Glyph origin" header hasn't been agreed upon, so it should be discussed before using it.

CodeCat21:44, 4 May 2016

But I still don't think it should be converted to Etymology yet, since there are a few entries that would result in having two etymology headers under Chinese, but not really due to different etymologies but different uses of the word etymology.

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› }21:48, 4 May 2016

Is that such an issue? We have multiple etymology sections in lots of entries.

CodeCat21:49, 4 May 2016

Multiple etymology sections are only appropriate if they have different definitions/pronunciations for them, but glyph origin is for the symbol. See , where it looks completely out of place.

— justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› }21:54, 4 May 2016

They're not the same concept; glyph origin describes why the character looks the way it does and etymology represents the sound associated with the character.

suzukaze (tc)21:55, 4 May 2016

The point is still that new headers must be discussed and have consensus, you can't just use anything you like. And we use "Etymology" for characters in other scripts already, so using it for Chinese too was the option that agreed most with existing practice.

CodeCat21:57, 4 May 2016

Etymtree deletions

I notice that you recently mass-removed {{etymtree}} uses from pages, and then deleted ten {{etymtree}} pages. Some of these were replaced with {{desctree}}, which may or may not be completely unsustainable. I have not found any discussion or consensus for any of this. Or RFDOs for the template subpages, for that matter.

Care to explain?

Yair rand (talk)20:36, 1 May 2016

...Is that a "No"?

Yair rand (talk)19:11, 2 May 2016

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain.

CodeCat19:13, 2 May 2016

I would like you to explain what you hoped to achieve by removing {{etymtree}}, and why you deleted the pages, and further why you did this all without any discussion (if that is indeed the case).

Yair rand (talk)22:20, 4 May 2016

The etymtree is horrible and unworkable. When I watch pages, I don't want to have to check for the presence of an etymtree template and watch it, just so I can keep track of edits to descendants. The new system I made doesn't have that issue. Why do you think {{etymtree}} is better?

CodeCat22:22, 4 May 2016

PIE Adj tables

Are these in the works? I'd love to work more on *h₂yuh₁en-.

JohnC504:29, 2 May 2016

Not at the moment, but I will do it eventually.

CodeCat14:27, 2 May 2016

:) Thanks! And if there is anything I can do to help, just let me know.

JohnC514:32, 2 May 2016

Quite a while ago I made some changes to this page. Which were revert and then I was informed that wiktionary wasn't like wikipedia in that I can't just change the page but have to talk about it first? I don't know how I should go about suggesting/doing the changes that I believe should be on the page. Any help would be appreciated.

Blackash (talk)12:33, 30 April 2016

Can you show me where you were told that?

CodeCat13:01, 30 April 2016

It looks to me like it was the content of the edits that was too much like Wikipedia, not the way they were made. Wiktionary is focused on succinctly describing the way language is used, not on explaining the facts that language is used to explain. We don't use references to authoritative sources to verify that our definitions are correct, and if people use terms with meanings that don't match what authoritative sources say, we go with the usage, not the authoritative sources.

Chuck Entz (talk)18:04, 30 April 2016

Inappropriate use of mul for vernacular names in Translingual entries

Vernacular names can be in any language, though usually they are English. They are never "mul".

DCDuring TALK12:48, 29 April 2016

What do you mean?

CodeCat16:16, 29 April 2016

What I said, though I'm not surprised that you are not aware of the consequences of Mewbot actions. Mewbot inappropriately imposes {{l|mul}} on vernacular names in Translingual L2 sections. It is tedious to have to review and selectively revert Mewbot actions. Please stop.

DCDuring TALK12:45, 30 April 2016

Please give an example.

CodeCat13:02, 30 April 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page