User talk:Rua

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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Edits to Appendix:Lojban/denpa bu019:19, 24 May 2019
Greek passive forms107:35, 20 May 2019
Deletions113:12, 16 May 2019
coicio revert reason320:14, 15 May 2019
winkelhaec211:49, 15 May 2019
A few cognates in etymologies110:07, 13 May 2019
Confused about "lintrum"317:42, 9 May 2019
Representation of W Frisian <tsj>110:04, 9 May 2019
"Solution not allowed"114:53, 7 May 2019
Old East Slavic223:29, 3 May 2019
gender and sex121:08, 3 May 2019
{{bor=1}} vs {{bor}}119:59, 2 May 2019
Closing RFDs620:26, 1 May 2019
Unprotecting buřt412:25, 1 May 2019
about "Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeyd-"617:00, 28 April 2019
anivoq1012:51, 28 April 2019
MewBot verb form categorisation109:52, 25 April 2019
*buþlijaną and *bōþlą219:37, 18 April 2019
Dulle115:09, 17 April 2019
Origin of *strowéyeti?410:48, 16 April 2019
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

I apologize for the undo; I wasn't aware of your motivations for rolling back to my previous edit. It looks like Lojban editors have moved on from the letteral macro I once observed them to use, and in fact most other letterals are now using, e.g., {{jbo-cmavo|selma'o=BY2}}. Appendix:Lojban/slaka bu needs some manner of update as well, given that it's using direct formatting rather than a macro for its headword line, and a number of the other letter names are not consistently formatted. Regardless, the entries are functional as they are.

Rriegs (talk)19:19, 24 May 2019

Greek passive forms

Hi - ((Notifying Sarri.greek, Rossyxan): ) - I just reverted your recent edits to λύνομαι. Some Greek passive forms have different meanings to that which usually expected from the active form. Therefore they should properly (I think) be considered a lemma. At present all the passive forms remain categorised as lemmas. Sarri.greek and I had put off (some time ago) reviewing what we should do about passive forms which should probably be considered non-lemma.

Saltmarsh.04:54, 20 May 2019

The reason I did it was that there's a non-lemma definition on the page, and it's also formatted wrong. I'm ok with it being treated as a lemma, as long as the formatting can be fixed somehow...

Rua (mew)07:35, 20 May 2019
Edited by author.
Last edit: 13:12, 16 May 2019

Why did you want to delete my page Rhymes:English/mən? Please leave a reasonable comment on my talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk)13:09, 16 May 2019


Rua (mew)13:10, 16 May 2019

coicio revert reason

I'd like to know the reason for the latest revert. In the future, perhaps you would consider first leaving a comment on my talk page if you need clarification on some of my edits, or after reverting to explain the reason.

Brutal Russian (talk)19:18, 13 May 2019

Your edit left the entry with two contradictory pronunciations, and yours were the incorrect ones. In the future, you should discuss problems you have with the templates so that they can be fixed.

Rua (mew)19:20, 13 May 2019

The pronunciations were not contradictory - it's impossible to determine which one is correct. -N- before fricatives is often omitted in Latin orthography, and there's no consensus on what exactly this testifies to. This webiste assumes this means a nasalised vowel, but the -N- could just as well have been pronounced fully or not at all - I left the other pronunciation as a possible spelling pronunciation. This is not a seprate word from conicio, but an alternative spelling of the same word - at the very least they have to share one identical pronunciation in addition to the spelling one. This is not a problem of the template because the a template doesn't know when an -N- is omitted and when it isn't. The -NI- spelling might be problematic for the template to nasalise because of the J/I issue - I will probably ask about that. In either case there's no reason I cannot add an explicit IPA pronunciation in the meantime. I don't see your reversals as justified.

Brutal Russian (talk)19:56, 15 May 2019

Have you discussed this with other editors? Are they ok with your additions?

Rua (mew)20:14, 15 May 2019


The MNW actually includes a 15th century mention (Teutonista), the same source cited by Van Veen & Van der Sijs, so there is basis for a Middle Dutch stage.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)11:01, 15 May 2019

Given that we already have hake, should we be also using winkelhake? The form without schwa is a late form, and not all descendants of Middle Dutch actually lost the schwa. West Flemish and Zeelandic still have all the schwas, for example, including presumably in this word.

Rua (mew)11:38, 15 May 2019

Fine with me, it's more consistent. The MNW also uses the normalisation hake for the simplex.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)11:49, 15 May 2019

A few cognates in etymologies


You're welcome to modify the etymologies in Slavic entries per agreed format but please don't remove selected cognates in other languages, that wasn't agreed on.

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)02:48, 13 May 2019

I always remove cognates when they are already listed as descendants on another page.

Rua (mew)10:07, 13 May 2019

Confused about "lintrum"

Hi! I don't understand why my edits to the entry lintrum were reverted. If I've understood the linked du Cange page correctly, it doesn't provide any support for this as a genitive plural form. It seems to be giving it as a nominative singular form of some word, which I think would have to be second-declension neuter; but if that's too much of an assumption, I guess the page should be deleted altogether (unless you know of an alternative source that supports its existence as a genitive plural form).

Urszag (talk)17:20, 9 May 2019

It was badly formatted, there wasn't even a definition on the page, and that's the most important thing in any Wiktionary entry!

Rua (mew)17:34, 9 May 2019

OK, got it. I will improve it.

Urszag (talk)17:40, 9 May 2019

I don't know exactly how to define it in English, since du Cange defines it as "σϰαφή, Alveum, scafa" (without saying exactly which meanings are applicable). Am I allowed to give a non-English definition? If not, any advice?

Urszag (talk)17:42, 9 May 2019

Representation of W Frisian <tsj>

Do you have any views on what the phonemic representation of West Frisian <tsj> should be? West Frisian phonology doesn't include it but would suggest /tɕ/ (as <t> + <sj>) whereas the WFT and a few papers I ran across on Google use /tsj/.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)08:04, 9 May 2019

So far I've just used /tsj/. [tɕ] is not a phoneme for the same reason as its Dutch equivalent: the change from /t(s)j/ to [tɕ] is automatic and happens not only across morpheme boundaries, but across word boundaries.

Rua (mew)10:04, 9 May 2019

"Solution not allowed"

Hey, could you explain why supplying forms to declension/conjugation templates is not allowed, if anything is allowed to circumvent having to spell out notes (editing templates directly I assume?) and where can I read more about things like that? Thanks.

Brutal Russian (talk)14:45, 7 May 2019

You should never provide multiple forms as a single argument to a template. That's not just something for this particular template, but for all templates across Wiktionary. The right solution is to provide each form with its own parameter. If the Latin templates don't have a parameter to specify a second form, which appears to be the case, then that's a shortcoming in the template and you need to take it up with the author, User:JohnC5.

Rua (mew)14:53, 7 May 2019

Old East Slavic

Sorry about that, I'm a bit of a dunce regarding Wikipedia format. Anyway: why did you revert my Old East Slavic native script additions? As far as I'm aware, everything was spelled correctly.

Throughcracker (talk)23:22, 3 May 2019

But they were not spelled correctly, because they were written in all uppercase letters.

Rua (mew)23:23, 3 May 2019

Ah, that's a good point. I'll fix them all.

Throughcracker (talk)23:29, 3 May 2019

gender and sex

Please notice that there is a difference between grammatical gender or simply gender and natural gender, biological gender or sex.
A word can have masculine, feminine or neuter gender (e.g. Mensch m., Person f., Kind n.) and still can refer to beings of either sex. A word can also have a gender and refer to a sexless thing (e.g. Löffel m., Gabel f., Messer n.).
Words suffixed with -er m. and -in f. have a grammatical gender, but do not even necessarily denote things with a natural gender. Both can refer to organisations, companies, governments without a natural gender, for example Anklägerin f. refering to a sexless Regierung f., Sammlerin refering to a sexless Gesellschaft f., Hersteller & Herstellerin refering to sexless companies. Additionally, terms in -er m. can also refer to male and female creatures regardless of sex and even to female creatures all alone, as in the case of Ankläger.
While Ankläger & Anklägerin, Hersteller & Herstellerin, Sammler & Sammlerin do not necessarily differ depending on the natural gender of the referent, they both obviously have a different gender and that's why they are f= and m= of each other. --Majbef (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

20:53, 3 May 2019

I understand the difference between grammatical gender and natural gender very well. The parameters m= and f= are intended for equivalent natural genders, i.e. based on the gender of the referent and not whatever grammatical gender the noun happens to have. Such parameters are also used in languages that don't even have grammatical gender, after all.

Rua (mew)21:08, 3 May 2019

{{bor=1}} vs {{bor}}

Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 19:57, 2 May 2019

You added {{bor}}=1 to each of the descendants I listed for a Latin word, when those pages themselves use {{der}}, given that they are/were spoken after Latin became a dead language.

Does this mean that {{bor}}=1 should be used for borrowings for descendants lists, even if {{der}} should used on their pages?

Thanks, and sorry for the misclick.

GabeMoore (talk)19:52, 2 May 2019

The proper format would be to list the language from which they actually borrowed the term, as their parent in the descendants list. But listing the descendants without any bor=1 or der=1 is incorrect, as this implies {{inh}}, which is not correct of course.

Rua (mew)19:59, 2 May 2019

Closing RFDs

I appreciate you closing RFDs, like for those redundant Vulgar Latin reconstructions, but you need to remove all links to them as well. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/essere, for example, which still has a bunch of links.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:13, 16 April 2019

Ok, done. Keep in mind, though, that there is no problem with having red links in entries, they're obviously all over the place. So there is no urgent need to remove such links. Of course, there is the principle that if an entry should not/never exist, links to it shouldn't either, but we don't have a concerted effort to remove invalid links all over Wiktionary yet. Maybe something we should get started sometime?

Rua (mew)21:28, 16 April 2019

Most red links go point to pages that should exist. It's worth the effort to remove those that don't. As for a concerted effort, I'd support it, but it sounds challenging given all the kinds of entries that shouldn't exist (failed RFD/RFV should be findable, but most such links point to entries that were never created).

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:32, 16 April 2019

It is probably very hard to do in general for all languages, but it may be easier to do for something like Proto-Indo-European. I've noticed a lot of entries linking to PIE reconstructions that are obvious rubbish/outdated. It may also be easier to weed out incorrect links to English, given that our coverage of English is huge and not a lot of red links will be left. Though I may be wrong on that.

Rua (mew)21:36, 16 April 2019

I appreciate you closing all those RFDs, but once again, you are forgetting to check whether there are links to the Latin reconstructions that ought to be dealt with, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/circlus. Can you please deal with those, and check the other ones as well?

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:06, 1 May 2019

I did check and fix links, I must have missed that particular one.

Rua (mew)10:02, 1 May 2019

Unprotecting buřt

Please unprotect entry buřt. I recognize your military superiority (adminship) and will not readd the → arrow unless and until consensus shows support for it. A discussion in Beer parlour is ongoing. I may need to make other changes to buřt in future, which the protection would prevent.

Dan Polansky (talk)11:51, 1 May 2019

The protection was only for a day, to stop the immediate edit warring. I've unprotected it now.

Rua (mew)11:56, 1 May 2019

Thanks. Does Wiktionary have the concept of using admin tools in one's own dispute?

Dan Polansky (talk)12:03, 1 May 2019

I'm not aware of any rules regarding that. I do think that stopping an edit war is in the larger interests of Wiktionary though.

Rua (mew)12:13, 1 May 2019

Sure, but why do you insist on the revert war in the first place rather than starting a discussion without a revert war?

Dan Polansky (talk)12:25, 1 May 2019

about "Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰeyd-"

according to "Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb" PP: 2 - 3; these Iranian words and verbs are from this root: •AVESTAN: YAv. astō.biδ- ‘who breaks a bone’ (V 4.37, V 4.39) Liste: 38 •MIDDLE PERSIAN: (+ *pari-) MMP frbys- (inch.) ‘to be afflicted, suffer’ (Sundermann 1985: 291, fn. 19) DMMPP: 277b Inch./Pass.: pres. SUBJ. 3pl. MMP frbys’nd •NEIR: ◊ On Wax. zübüt- ‘to break’. Ariamihr (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ariamihr (talk)11:31, 28 April 2019

The probably are from that root, but you added them under *bʰéyd, which is not a word in Proto-Indo-European.

Rua (mew)11:33, 28 April 2019

so how can i write ? Ariamihr (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Ariamihr (talk)16:46, 28 April 2019

What PIE formation does the verb come from?

Rua (mew)16:47, 28 April 2019

i don't know, because they are thematic forms (Avestan (biδ-) and Sanskrit (bhed-) and Middle Saka (bid) ) but i couldn't find similar forms from another indo-european languages

Ariamihr (talk)16:53, 28 April 2019

We also show forms that cannot be reconstructed for other languages. In that case, the term is not linked, so only the third parameter of {{l}} is used and not the second. Sometimes, further descendants of such a form are found later, and when there are enough, we make them into proper PIE words.

So, if I understand correctly, they are descendants of a hypothetical *bʰéyd-e-ti?

Rua (mew)16:55, 28 April 2019

Don't just revert it, fix it if you can. I want to do the etyl cleanup on kl.

DonnanZ (talk)11:16, 28 April 2019

You are not doing the cleanup, you are just replacing everything with {{der}}. Cleanup would involve using the appropriate template, {{der}}, {{inh}} or {{bor}}, which you're not doing.

Rua (mew)11:20, 28 April 2019

It has to be done one way or another. The ball is in your court.

DonnanZ (talk)11:31, 28 April 2019

You shouldn't be replacing {{etyl}} with {{der}} indiscriminately. The whole reason we're doing it manually is so that each etymology can be examined individually. With what you're doing, you're not only giving other editors more work, but making it harder for them to find the entries that need that work. For that reason, it's better if entries have {{etyl}} than if they incorrectly have {{der}}. Your replacements are detrimental to Wiktionary, and should be undone.

Rua (mew)11:36, 28 April 2019

I don't believe in using {{inh}} or {{bor}}, so if you disagree with my use of {{der}} all you have to do is revise, not revert. Don't be so bloody negative.

DonnanZ (talk)11:55, 28 April 2019

What you believe in is irrelevant. Do not give other editors more work because of your beliefs.

Rua (mew)11:56, 28 April 2019

MewBot verb form categorisation

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 01:41, 25 April 2019

Why is User:MewBot removing templates which encode English conjugational categories (e.g. Category:English past participles)? While there are some flaws with the categorisation system for English verb forms, I think removing all the categories and plonking everything in Category:English verb forms is tantamount to the deletion of information that could be potentially very useful for some Wiktionary users.

Hazarasp (talk · contributions)00:24, 25 April 2019

They were voted for deletion.

Rua (mew)09:52, 25 April 2019

*buþlijaną and *bōþlą

What exactly was incorrect about my latest edits to those entries? You don't seem to have a problem with the already existing part of "From *buþlą, *bōþlą (house, dwelling, farm)", and *buþlijaną is derived from *buþlą and *-(i)janą, is it not?

As for the *bōþlą entry, it is not the only entry to have a Related words section. See *agaz, it has a related words section that you've apparently deemed allowable.

Lowena (talk)19:26, 18 April 2019

You shouldn't remove request templates until the request has been resolved. Doing is very bad form and is considered an obstruction of the normal working process of Wiktionary.

Rua (mew)19:27, 18 April 2019

Alright, I'll leave it. You didn't have a problem with it till I made edits though, and the etymology without references was added in May 2014. Also, removing the template was a separate edit, so you could've just undid that instead of my correct edits too.

Lowena (talk)19:36, 18 April 2019

What's with your revert of dulle? Do you want me to supply a source or more to Danish dictionary recordings of the term? dulle sig op even links to the page.

Luka1184 (talk)14:26, 17 April 2019

I removed it because it didn't look like a normal dictionary entry. Instead there was a big block of text below the definition that shouldn't be there, and the headword line was also missing (which our edit filters tagged as an error).

Rua (mew)15:09, 17 April 2019

Origin of *strowéyeti?

Hi, Rua. I saw your remark about the translation of *strowéyeti. Indeed, I botched it up.

What I'm writing for is in regard to the origin of *strowéyeti. Given that it is reconstructed only on basis of Germanic and Slavic, we cannot safely deduce that it originates from *strew- (to construct). It could easily be from *srew- with an emphatic -t- added to the cluster *sr-. This seems to be the case at least for Slavic *strujiti (to gush, to generate flowth, to scatter (liquid)) and its derivatives. I see that Kroonen derives Germanic *strawjaną (to strew) from *streh₃- (to spread, to stretch), however, in this case it is not really a cognate with the Slavic data. Do you think it's OK to leave the current reconstruction as it is?

Bezimenen (talk)19:38, 15 April 2019

PS I see that ЭССЯ /Trubačóv, Oleg, editor (2003), “*obstrujiti”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ slavjanskix jazykov [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), volume 30, Moscow: Nauka, page 84/ considers both possibilities, i.e. both from *strew- and from *srew-, so there may be some basis for reconstructing pre-Slavic *str-... In any case, this reconstruction is not 100% certain.

Bezimenen (talk)19:51, 15 April 2019

*strawjaną is reconstructed from *strew-, per the sourcing on the former page. I'm not sure where you got *streh₃- from.

You're right that *srew- is possible as well, in terms of shape. However, the meaning of the words doesn't match: *strew- is given here with the meaning "spread", which perfectly matches *strawjaną, while *srew- means "flow", which does not match the meaning.

Rua (mew)20:12, 15 April 2019

Sorry, I meant *sterh₃-. I found it in Kroonen's proto-Germanic dictionary [p. 483]. He explains *strawjaną and its PIE origin *strew- as a "back-formation" of forms of the root *stṛh₃-. My point was that the Germanic term is indeed reconstructed as proper *str-, not as *sr- with emphatic -t-.

My concern, though, is more about the Slavic data. All forms of *strujiti > *ostrujiti (to liquidate), *nastrujiti (to adjust flowth), *zastrujiti (to initiate flowth), etc. are (probably) from *srew- (to stream, to flow), not from *strew- (to strew). Of course, as I pointed in a post-scriptum, ЭССЯ does not rule out a possible influence of *strew- on some meanings of *strujiti. If you don't find a problem, I'll just add (probably) comment next to the Slavic data in *strowéyeti. Also, I'm going to create the page of *strujiti and will explain the two possible etymologies there. This should suffice to address any concerns like mine.

Bezimenen (talk)10:31, 16 April 2019

I think you're better off taking it to WT:ES if you want more input. I can't really say much useful on the matter at the moment.

Rua (mew)10:48, 16 April 2019
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page