User talk:Mnemosientje

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Sokkjo in topic PG *ōe in ON
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive – 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021-2023


problem with ongean edits

[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there's something wrong with the etymological edits you made to the word ongean and a few of its cognates. I'm not sure what the exact problem is, but the symptom is that the Proto-Germanic ancestor word is messed up. For now I'm going to slap a band-aid on it, but I'm not very experienced with Wiktionary and I'd appreciate it if you could come and revise the page at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Byrhtnoð (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Byrhtnoð Hey, it seems there was nothing wrong with it in particular; the etymon was not messed up: it was simply not provided by me in the template as I am not sure of the exact form. If you leave that field empty it causes the text [Term?] to show up and the page to be categorized in Category:Proto-West Germanic term requests, which is what happened here. This is intended behavior, so I have restored the page as it was. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I understand. It seems to me the ancestor word was *andigagin. Are you opposed to suggesting that as an ancestor word? Byrhtnoð (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Byrhtnoð I lack the knowledge to judge whether the prefix would have been *andi- or *anda- in Proto-West Germanic. We have words with both in Category:Proto-West Germanic lemmas, but I don't know for sure which applies here based on the descendants we know. As far as I'm concerned you could just go for it, but if you are not certain yourself, you could consider asking if someone over at WT:Etymology scriptorium has any thoughts on the matter. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your thanks (haha) and your help

[edit]

In case you need more of my assistance with other Old Germanic related topics, feel free to get in touch, I saw that you thanked my edit and I ended up checking your profile, apparently we both are interested in Old Germanic languages. I have an acceptable knowledge regarding Gothic and Old Norse, I've been also trying to fix all the Crimean Gothic entries (they lack the book citation [1562, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Legationis Turcicae Epistolae Quatuor], other citations as well [Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum, University of Texas, have some interesting sources] and translations), however I'm quite busy to finish this job, so I've been just checking some small and quicker to fix entries. Have a nice one. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia Hey, welcome to Wiktionary and thank you for the kind message, it is always good to see more people interested in older Germanic languages. Gothic is pretty far along by this point with virtually every attested lemma and inflected form added on English Wiktionary (although there are still a lot of etymologies incomplete and such; see Category:Gothic entry maintenance, Category:Requests concerning Gothic), but Crimean Gothic could definitely use some love and Old Norse has quite a large corpus which is still inadequately represented on Wiktionary. So your interest in those languages is very welcome. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see, thank you! I'll keep an eye on the entry maintenance, and whenever I have a bit of freetime I'll colaborate. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gothic

[edit]

Do you have any source where PGmc *harjaz > Gothic harjis transformation is mentioned?
Is Gothic ji from PGmc j and thematic a is dropped or
Is Gothic ji from PGmc ja ПростаРечь (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ПростаРечь: Good morning. Ringe says in From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (p. 130) that the Gothic -jis in the nominative arises from *-jaz through analogical leveling with oblique forms, following a situation where the ending *-jaz would have regularly developed into *-is (i.e. *haris not harjis), like how *-az becomes -s. Thematic a is certainly dropped in any case, yes.
The above seems to explain a lot of similar words, not just harjis but also niujis, midjis, niþjis, hwarjis, þēwis and probably others, but contrast andeis (*-ijaz -> -eis). Similar leveling may also be at work in *agaz (consonant stem!) -> agis, I suppose. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you,
The "similar" output takes place in Proto-Slavic:
PIE *gʷoyh₃-o-s > Proto-Slavic *go
PIE *h₃royH-o-s Proto-Slavi *ro
But the thematic o is tranformed in Proto-Slavic ь
Thus it seems that Proto-Slavic output is an unrelated thing
But
The "similar" output takes place in Lithuanian:
PIE *koryos Lithuanian karys where we don't have the Proto-Slavic vowel fronting
Note:
PIE *-os Lithuanian -as but PIE *-ós Lithuanian -us
PIE *-yos Lithuanian -ias but PIE *-yós Lithuanian -ys
ПростаРечь (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hebrew dictionaries

[edit]

May I, for my and my editing’s sake, enquire about your experience with and thoughts on Modern Hebrew dictionaries? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biolongvistul: My experience with Hebrew dictionaries is limited to Even Shoshan, pretty much the "standard" Hebrew dictionary, which I recommend warmly. But beyond that I'm afraid I cannot give a very erudite opinion on the merits of various Hebrew dictionaries. I learned Hebrew mostly by speaking, not really through a bookish route, so I have no deep knowledge of the literature on Modern Hebrew. If you have other questions regarding Modern Hebrew you are in any case most welcome to ask at any time, perhaps I could be of some help anyhow.
If you're still curious about dictionaries, the WT:Discord server may also be a good place to ask. There's a channel called Semitic or Afroasiatic (I forget) where there will no doubt be people with opinions on the matter. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

qinono

[edit]

Good morning. Why is qinono plural?
"jah qinono suma wisandei in runa bloþis jera twalif" Mark 5:25 ПростаРечь (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a partitive genitive. "Suma qinono" here literally translates as "someone of the women", but what is intended is simply "some woman", "a certain woman" (the latter is the phrase found in the King James Bible). The Greek text simply has an unqualified γυνή (gunḗ) ("a woman"), for what it's worth.— Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
thx ПростаРечь (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Image of Lord Woden

[edit]

Hello Mnemosientje,

I hope you are doing well.

I would like to know as to why you have removed the image of Lord Woden on the Woden Old English entry? There is currently an image for deofol and no one bats an eye.


I added that image of Lord Woden to the page to make wiktionary to not be one-dimensional. It also is correct to say Lord, as well, because he's attested in the Anglo-Saxon genealogies as he who is the progenitor of the Anglo-Saxon kings.


The removal of this image clearly shows a double-standard and an example of religious intolerance because there are sincere followers of Lord Woden and those deities under him and follow a legitimate religion.


Thank you,

Leornende Eald Englisc Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a dictionary entry for the Old English theonym Woden. A nineteenth-century romanticized depiction of the Old Norse deity Odin adds literally nothing of lexicographical value. Truthfully we know very little about how pagan Anglo-Saxons visualized Woden, but this in any case ain't it and won't help people looking this word up in the dictionary one bit. It's clutter. (Imo so is the image + its associated Old English creative writing exercise at deofol, fwiw, but that's for another day.)
As for the persecution complex and the "Lord Woden" stuff - quit larping. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

PG *ōe in ON

[edit]

If you were to make an educated guess, what do you think the outcome of Proto-Germanic *ōe in Old Norse would be? I'm kinda thinking either -ey- or -œ-, but I can't find any parallels. @Mårtensås -- Sokkjō 22:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the most likely outcome is ó, with the e simply being lost. ęy is unlikely since that is from au + i-mutation. ǿ is from ō + i-mutation, which could maybe happen if *ōe became something like *ōji. But I would really not count on it. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌProto-NorsingAsk me anything 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mårtensås: Thanks. By what mechanism would the *e be lost? In WG, *ōe would in all likelihood become *ōwe, with a glide inserted for better vowel movement. -- Sokkjō 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply