User talk:Nicodene

Archives: 2024 – 2023 – 2022 – 2021

ladin question

I've seen you've based yourself on Hull's thesis in fusing rhaeto-romance and gallo-italic (as well as istriot) on most wiktionary pages. Is it actually consensual? Checking on google scholar only brings up 23 citations, which isn't a lot for a 40 years old thesis. 92.88.170.251 92.88.170.251 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) just to be clear, i wasn't signed in when writing thatΟυώρντΑρτ (talk)

Separating them isn’t a matter of consensus either (see: Questione Ladina). As far as I am aware, there are zero innovations that unite Romansh, Friulian, and Ladin which are not also attested in neighbouring Gallo-Italic. Nicodene (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: *dunquam < **dumquam

It would not be a second independent episode. My use of "also" meant as an alternative, roughly equally likely and equally un(dis)provable scenario, not as an addition to the same scenario. — 2600:4808:9C31:4800:7CF5:7CB:5C36:C8C0 00:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

If it is not independent of dunc, then one has to account for dunc as some kind of secondary development from *dunquam. The problem is that dunc is attested no less than eight times („achtmal“) in Roman inscriptions, and *dunquam zero times. Nicodene (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Sută/sutã in Romanian and Aromanian

• (discussion moved to here)

Module:an-pron

Just a gentle reminder to check CAT:E: there are 12 Aragonese entries there because of your edit to this module. It looks like you eliminated a subroutine without removing the references to it elsewhere in the code. My Lua skills aren't enough to fix this myself even if I knew what you were trying to do. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Thanks for telling me. I've cleaned up the 12 entries in question. Nicodene (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

MLE Pronunciations

I see you've removed the MLE IPA descriptions for garms and call. I shan't bother re-adding them as I don't think the MLE pronunciation of vowels in the START lexical set is particularly distictive compared to general British English and the same is true for the CAUGHT lexical set, with l-vocalisation happening elsewhere in London and Scotland and to an limited extent throughout Britain, but I hope you don't make a habit of such deletions, especially with no edit summary. I'm not aware or a policy that all MLE pronunciations should be removed. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed the transcriptions out of doubt about their accuracy, not out of an objection to MLE itself. Nicodene (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, that’s fair. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

vérbene

Both DGLA and DALLA point to the form viérbene. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I see. We can set the lemma back to viérbene then and have vérbene as an altform - unless there is good reason to believe that Von Wartburg made a mistake there. Nicodene (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Lets ask @Fueyo221. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

In the DGLA you can see "vérbenes" and "vérbene" recorded in Arbón (which speaks Galician-Asturian) and Cuideiru (Cudillero), that speaks the Pixuetu dialect of Western Asturian, this last dialect is influenced by Galician. So I think it should be an alternative form from Cuideiru. Fueyo221 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oops my bad I read it wrong, it says Cu(Eo) not just Cu, so it's from Cuaña, not Cuideiru, sorry. Then it seems like the Galician-Asturian version. It should be included as a Galician form then. Fueyo221 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Romance etymology guidelines

You seem to have written a useful policy draft concerning etymology formatting norms in Romance languages. I am unable to find it again, could you please link to it in your user page? ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ktom. I suppose you mean the draft I put at the end of this discussion?

In the years since then I've come to be much more skeptical of the validity of most classifications of Romance, beyond a basic Italo-Western/Sardinian/Balkan Romance split. (Even that is not without its complications, however, such as the Dalmatian question.)

That said, you are certainly free to use or modify the above draft as you see fit.

As I've mentioned on a few other occasions, the recently-published Manual of classification and typology of the Romance languages would likely be a suitable source for a relatively 'definitive' classification, for practical purposes on Wiktionary (and, for that matter, Wikipedia). Nicodene (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2026 (UTC)