User talk:Panda10/archive2023

úszóhártya

Hello, I have a question for you: what is the declension of úszóhártya? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the declension table. :) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --Panda10 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I came across that term and hógömb at the page "Short Pages," which can be found at the Community Portal (mind the Simplified Chinese entries, I think). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

One example I found at Short Pages is the Hungarian verb variál. Would you like to conjugate that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish the short pages were separated by language. I expanded variál. --Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the least I could do to help you expand the Hungarian short pages is to look for them; and I'm patient with that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be very helpful. Thank you. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to have a look at my list of contributions for any Hungarian terms to which I added hu-IPA. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Hungarian language former Short Pages

Is it okay if I place a list of Hungarian language former short pages (you know, the ones I added hu-IPA to) on your user page or my user page? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked your contributions for Hungarian entries as we agreed previously and I saved over 230 items in a text file for future work. I have already corrected those where hu-IPA needed a phonetical respelling. I see that you cleaned up the short list pretty well. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian non-attributive possessive

I came across the entries in Category:hu-inflection of with unsupported tag/nonattr, which are for the "non-attributive possessive". As there are only three of these entries, I wonder if this is a normal form that all nouns have. The Hungarian noun inflection table doesn't list them.

Another thing I wonder is whether possessives can be stacked on top of case forms. That is, can you use one word to say "in my house"? In Finnish you can, so I wonder if it's the same in Hungarian. —CodeCat 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The non-attributive possessive forms were originally part of {{hu-decl}}, rows 7 and 8. If you notice those are missing from the sequence. They were deleted by Qorilla. I think they should be part of the declension table since all nouns can have them.

Possessive forms can be declined. In my house is one word in Hungarian: házamban: ház (house) -am (mine) -ban (in). Years ago I created {{hu-possessive-ak}} as an experiment but other did not like it at the time, so we went with the two-table format (a separate possessive). This also meant that I have to add a declension table to each possessive form (see házam - my house). --Panda10 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I do like the approach of treating possessives as sublemmas, as otherwise we would end up with noun entries with 13 inflection tables each. I notice that the ordering of the suffixes is the opposite from Finnish, where the order is plural-case-possessive. In Hungarian it's plural-possessive-case, I think?

I think that the non-attributive possessives should be re-added to the table. If they are forms that nouns normally have, then they belong there and should have entries. But I wonder if there isn't a less awkward term for it than "non-attributive", unless that's a standard term that English-language grammars of Hungarian always use. Can you describe under what circumstances the non-attributive form is used? Is it ever inflected like the other possessives? If I recall, Hungarian adjectives are not inflected when they are attributive, so is it related to that? —CodeCat 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would end up with 13 inflection tables for each noun. I was thinking about one larger table containing all noun forms instead of the current two smaller tables with missing forms plus another declension table in each possessive form entry. But I have no problem with the current arrangement. A larger table might be too confusing.

Unfortunately, I don't speak Finnish. In Hungarian, the order is either lemma+case (ház+-ban = in the house) or lemma+plural+case (ház+-ak+-ban = in the houses) or lemma+possessive+case (ház+-am+-ban = in my house, ház+-aim+-ban = in my houses).

I agree, the term non-attributive possessive is weird, I've seen it in a language article and decided to use it because I did not know what else to use. Basically, it expresses possession without an object. The standard term in Hungarian is birtokjel (possessive marker) which is the name of the suffix and not the case.

Usage examples:

• Ez a garázs ablaka, nem a házé. = This is the window of the garage, not that of the house.
• Ez kinek a háza? A lányodé? (lány daughter +-od your +-é 's) = Whose house is this? Your daughter's?

A noun with this marker can be inflected. Take a look at this URL [1]. You will see how the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences handles declension of the noun ház. Each > sign in the main table will open a subtable with further declension. --Panda10 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on Finnish, I would say that the -i- in the possessives is a plural marker. This plural marker is historically reconstructed back to Proto-Uralic, so its appearance in the possessives is an archaism. So házaimban would be háza- (stem) -i- (plural) -m- (possessive) -ban (case). Finnish possessives are structured the same, just with a different order of suffixes: talo-i-ssa-ni, or if you were to use the actual cognate of the Hungarian word, kod-i-ssa-ni.

Normally, the opposite of attributive is predicative. So could it be called predicative instead of non-attributive? I also see similarities with English, where the possessive determiners have special pronoun forms that are used predicatively. It seems that házé is similar to mine in how it's used (the meaning is different of course).

I've also been thinking about the definition lines for possessives that {{hu-inflection of}} currently shows. They are a bit clunky. The difficulty is that there are both the number of the noun and the number of the possessor to account for. What do you think of phrasing it like this? For házam, it would be "first-person singular possessive of ház", and for házaim it would be "nominative plural of házam, the first-person singular possessive of ház". —CodeCat 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition line

My preference would be:

• házam - "first-person singular possessive of ház (single possession)"
• házaim - "first-person singular possessive of ház (multiple possessions)"

English name for the -é suffix

As I mentioned before, originally the -é suffix was listed in the case table and was called the genitive case. Mate Juhasz (and not Qorilla) removed it in 2008 saying "There is no genetive case in Hungarian, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_noun_phrases#Case_endings". Linguists are arguing about this, but I've found a recent work that argues for it. Here are some of the other variants:

• Genitive case; Anaphoric possessive; -é (morpheme/suffix); -é possessives: Éva Dékány: The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian, March 2014
• Non-attributive possession: Carol H. Rounds: Hungarian: An Essential Grammar
• Non-attributive possessive suffix: Dennica Fotinova Peneva: Types of Agreement in Finno-Ugrian Languages (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Northern Sami), a PhD dissertation
• suffixes -é/-é: Wikipedia: Hungarian noun phrase, section -é/-éi to replace possessed noun

Location of the -é suffix

If we put it back to the case table, we will have to add a new parameter to allow hiding these two rows. Since the same declension table is used for sublemmas, adjectives, numerals, and pronouns, it is not always appropriate. For example, see the declension of házé. If the -é suffix is not hidden, it would display *házéé. --Panda10 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The way I see it, házam is kind of a noun of its own, and it has a full declension including its own case forms and plural form. So to me it makes sense to see házaim as the plural of házam. Is there a reason why you disagree with this approach?

As for the genitive, it's not common for genitives to be limited to predicate only. So this may be why there is disagreement over that. How would you say "the man's house" or "my friend's house"? Is the genitive not used for that? —CodeCat 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between the plural suffix (-k) and the possessive plural (-i). So házaim cannot be the "nominative plural of házam" because the nominative plural of házam would be *házamak, a non-existent word. We cannot just come up with our own naming conventions for things. I always search for references written by professionals to see their terminology.

I am not attached to the name "genitive" for the -é suffix. I described what was previously and listed some of the references I've found. I'd be happy with any of them. "the man's house" - a férfi háza; "my friend's house" - a barátom háza. --Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The normal plural and possessive plural have different suffixes, yes. But in both cases, they refer to a plural object, so they are plural. Consider it this way: my ház is házam, my házak are házaim. Multiple ház are házak, multiple házam are házaim. That clearly shows that while there are different plural formations, they still belong to the same semantic pattern. —CodeCat 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The personal interpretation of foreign language grammar rules can be very useful when we try to understand and memorize them. So if it makes sense to you to see házaim as the plural of házam, that's your personal view. But I don't think we should explain grammar rules here in wiktionary based on personal views. The word házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. It is formed from the lemma ház + -ai (possessive plural marker, one of -i, -ai, -ei, -jai, -jei) + -m (first-person possessive suffix). My preference for the definition line is still what I listed above. --Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article w:Hungarian noun phrase also describes things as I did. It even says "Before possessive suffixes, the plural k appears as ai or ei", which would imply that they are analysed as one and the same. Further down, it also says "The following suffixes are used for plural nouns:", which again clearly treats them as plurals. —CodeCat 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we all agree that -i is the possessive plural marker. However, what you stated was that házaim is the nominative plural of házam. And that is not a correct statement because házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. --Panda10 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

From a morphological point of view that's true. házaim is not derived from házam by suffixation. But from a semantic point of view, one is definitely the plural of the other. And we normally consider the semantic inflections on Wiktionary, not the morphology. For example, better can't possibly be called a comparative of good in a morphological sense, but it clearly is semantically. children is formed irregularly from child. Similarly, in Slovene, ljudje is the plural of človek even though they are nothing alike. And in Finnish, the pronouns hän and tuo have the plurals he and nuo even though the Finnish plural is normally created with -t. So in light of all these examples, I don't understand what the objection is to treating házaim as the plural of házam. Yes, the Hungarian plural is normally created with -k, but that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions. If "my houses" is not semantically the plural of "my house", then how would you describe the relationship between them? —CodeCat 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which words decline in Hungarian?

I'm guessing nouns and pronouns do, but what about adjectives? Do they have cases? —CodeCat 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjectives and numerals are also declined. I use the same declension templates for all. See informális and három. What is the goal of the changes you are making in the Hungarian declension templates? --Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

They are internal changes, to make them easier to manage. —CodeCat 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Essive-modal case

I've come across some nouns which do have an essive-modal singular form, but no essive-modal plural. I'm not sure if this is an error or not, so I'd like to make sure. And if this is not a mistake, then are there also nouns that have the plural but not the singular (other than plural-only nouns)? —CodeCat 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Technically, all nouns could have the essive-modal suffix, but most will not make sense and are not used at all. That's why this should be optional. --Panda10 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

krinolin and varrónő

These entries have module errors due to missing parameters, and I have no clue how to fix them, since I know next to nothing about Hungarian. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New Hungarian nominal inflection template

After some work I was able to create a single template that neatly handles the functions of most of the existing templates. It's called {{hu-infl-nom}} (nom stands for "nominal" since it covers adjectives too) and is fully documented with many examples. Because it uses Lua, it's able to be a lot "smarter" and can do things like detecting what the final vowel or consonant is automatically. I hope you see it as an improvement. Is it ok if I replace the old deprecated templates with this new one? This should be easily doable with a bot. —CodeCat 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you wait with the bot? I'd like to take a look and do some testing. --Panda10 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

vegyesúszás

Szia! Az akadémiai helyesírási szabályzat szótári része szerint a fenti szószerkezet különírandó: vegyes úszás. Tudnád javítani? Köszönettel, Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Kijavítottam. Köszönöm, hogy szóltál. --Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conjugation of átfésül

Is the verb átfésül conjugated like fésül? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks in advance. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --Panda10 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I also gave the template hu-IPA to a few verbs as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Now what about the verbs nyű and operál? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Panda10 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Three more verbs to conjugate, all ready for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

kurtizán

In case of pages such as kurtizán, I created Category:Hungarian nouns needing inflection. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. --Panda10 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The entry piton has been added to the list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hungarian words" appendices

Is there any particular reason you have been maintaining Appendix:Hungarian words A thru Appendix:Hungarian words Zs? They don't seem to do anything that Index:Hungarian doesn't. --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I correct typos in both, but otherwise I don't maintain them. The appendix contains a lot more words than the index (a good reminder of what needs to be added). The index contains only words mentioned in this wiki but shows more information about them. Unfortunately, the index has not been updated since April 2012 and it seems that it will stay that way. What is the reason you are asking? --Panda10 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek letter mű

Since you made an entry for Greek letter ró, I thought to myself "Why not add the category Category:hu:Greek letter names to the page for mű?" --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

furcsáll

Hi, is there a way to show the alternative forms in the conjugation table (furcsállsz/furcsállasz, furcsálltok/furcsállotok, furcsálltam/furcsállottam, furcsállnék/furcsállanék etc.)—as here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein2 The only way is to add a second conjugation table with different parameters. The current template does not allow variant forms within the same table. --Panda10 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it. Einstein2 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

tory

I wanted to add a declension table to the entry but I couldn't because y is not a vowel. How can this be corrected? Einstein2 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily, use the old declension template {{hu-decl-k-back}}. For the long term, the module will have to be updated. We'll have to find out if this is feasible. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

elvész and other ingadozó álikes igék

I was editing Wiktionary a few hours ago when I realized that the current conjugation template cannot deal with the concept of verbs that are regular but have an additional 3rd person singular form using the -ik conjugation (egerész(ik), heverész(ik), akadoz(ik), bomol/bomlik, tündököl/tündöklik, elvész/elveszik, hull/hullik, etc.).

Also, I left out the conjugation table for elvész because I couldn't find one that works in all moods and tenses and I couldn't find verbs that are conjugated similarly either. I think it's simply an irregular verb that should get its own template but I'm not entirely sure. 89.134.45.189 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are actually three distinct verbs (three lemma entries in dictionaries: elvész, elveszik, elvesz) that have similar conjugations differing only in 3rd person present. For the álikes igék, the lemma is e.g. akadozik, not *akadoz, so the 3rd person present form will appear as akadozik in the conjugation table. There is an article in e-nyelv.hu: ikes igék helyes használata. --Panda10 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You do have a point, however, these are not regular álikes igék, they belong to a sub-category of álikes igék that have two possible 3rd person singular conjugations (while I agree that akadoz, heverész and egerész are indeed weird, they are found in older texts along with gitároz and other such verbs, and I don't think that there are any real differences between tündököl/tündöklik and bomol/bomlik).

I think we can all agree that elvesz and elvész have very different meanings and can't be used interchangeably. For example, while one can say Elveszem a telefonodat, the verb elvész is strictly intransitive, which also probably explains why the form elveszik is gaining popularity as alternative form.

The websites I've visited and the articles I've read seem to suggest that elveszik is simply an irregular/alternative form of elvész in the 3rd person singular rather than a separate lemma because the conjugations of the two verb forms are otherwise equivalent. It doesn't really matter in the end but now I'm really curious about what an actual linguist would say.

Thanks for finding the template as well, for some reason I confused elvész with elveszt and I thought that the existing table wasn't appropriate. 89.134.45.189 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. The solution for the ingadozó álikes verbs could be two separate entries, where the -ik verb would be the main entry and the other would be the "alternative of" entry (each with its own conjugation table, pronunciation, etc.). The variant without -ik is the older one, to prove its validity, I'm sure we can find quotations in older literature. For other references by linguists, here is a link to the downloadable PDF version of Grétsy-Kemény: Nyelvművelő kéziszótár. It contains two entries related to the above discussion (elvesz(ik)-elvész and vesz-vész-veszik). Questions on the e-nyelv.hu site are also answered by linguists. I've found another article, although you might have seen all of these already: Ikes kétségek --Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

kitartás

An I.P. address added kitartás. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will fix it. --Panda10 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian length contrast, take two

Earlier this year you mentioned at BP that you will no longer insist on including information about minimal pairs distinguished by length on Hungarian entries. On the other hand, upon further consideration this still seems to me like handy information to have somewhere, so I've started a collection: User:Tropylium/Hungarian minimal pairs by length. Feel free to add more if you see it fit. (For now I've been leaving out inflected forms though.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I started a list a few years ago in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation pairs. I no longer add this information to the pronunciation section, but occasionally I still add a comment under Usage notes. But the Appendix is the place to collect them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, right, I should have checked if an appendix already exists :) --Tropylium (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated question on reversion

In 2014(!) you reverted the etymology I put in for Hu. telek, but I'm not sure why. I do see the new etymology, but it seems that the information I added should be there as an alternative, since I got it from an academic publication. Mind you, I'm no expert on Hungarian by any means, but I took the info I added from here: András Róna-Tas, Árpád Berta, László Károly. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (2011). Mellsworthy (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I should add "IIRC" to the above. It has been two years. However, dern it, I am certain I was quoting a source. Why Oh Why didn't I cite!! Mellsworthy (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because you did not provide any resources. I have two printed etymology dictionaries and they don't say anything about a West Old Turkic origin. I don't have András Róna's book and I am not able to search in it online to double check what it says about this word. --Panda10 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I finally tracked down an oblique reference I could find online, on page 136 of an article based on Róna-Tas et al's work, here. Unfortunately, this reference does not gloss the West Old Turkish word or the Hungarian word, but it does make clear that sense 1 and sense 2 of the Hungarian noun (wiktionary only has one of these senses; they're not talking about telek 'winters') correspond to sense 1 and sense 2 of the WOT word, both based on the Turkic base-word til-, which I had to figure out means 'cut'. (See dilmek, which disagrees about the proto-form, but is talking about the same forms in the same languages; it seems there is disagreement in Turkic historical linguistics about how to interpret the voiced initials that occur specifically in Turkish and Turkmen.) The WOT derivative tilök thus means, '(thing) resulting from cutting', a normal semantic source for parcels of land. On page 163 of this pdf of Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2, it says that the reference for the chain WOT *tilök borrowed into Old Hungarian telük > Mod. Hu. telek is page 884 of Róna-Tas et al. I'm not at a university anymore, so I can't check Róna-Tas et al, but I think the forms I found online at least show that I'm not completely misremembering, and even tell me a page to cite. I hope you don't mind if I revert your reversion, with the addition of a reference to Róna-Tas et al. Not doing it today because I wanna make sure we're all on the same page. --Mellsworthy (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It's fine if you add the information with the appropriate references. --Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Hungarian

Hi Panda. I have a list of words used by Hungarian Jews, and I was wondering if you'd be able to verify their use and enter them into Wiktionary. I'd provide you with the given definitions and etymologies. Are you interested? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Metaknowledge. I'm swamped with multiple different projects at this moment and I'm afraid I won't be able to start a new one for a while. But I think it would be a good idea to add your list of words and the other information you have about them to an appendix, so it would be available for future work. --Panda10 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's okay. I'll try to do that; I hope you make progress on your projects for the time being. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

borjú

Hello Panda10, You have reverted my edits at borjú and nyár. I just wanted to find out which part of my edit you thought was wrong. Regards,Borovi4ok (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: Hi, when you modify an etymology, please provide a valid source. For borjú, your change did not match the Hungarian etymology dictionary, for nyár, you modified a sourced etymology and added your own. If you have a source and it does not match the currently listed ety, the best would be to add a new section saying that this different source says something else. --Panda10 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Panda10,

thank you for your answer.

first of all, I provided the Chuvash term for "calf", in proper modern spelling. You can check it in any Chuvash dictionary available to you. What was the reason to delete that edit of mine? Borovi4ok (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: I added the Chuvash term back. Sorry about that part. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

OK Panda10. In both edits, I did not delete any of the existing date, but only changed the representation to better convey the nature of these Turkic borrowings. Your etymology dictionary seems to put all turkic terms in one messy mixture, without explanations.

Also, I hope you are aware that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic".

Good luck with your etymologies!Borovi4ok (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: I did not know that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic". I briefly searched the internet, but I could not find anything that would state this equality clearly. The ety dictionary has a lengthier explanation than what I provided at the entry, but it was too complex for me at the time to translate, not to mention the unusual characters that are in the Proto-language examples. I will try to add some more information. Thanks for bringing this up. --Panda10 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Panda10,

"Bulgar Turkic" is term I'm used to in modern Russian-language Turkology. However, I've just found out that Wikipedia uses Oghur languages (which also looks fine to me). See for yourself, which term looks best to you. Borovi4ok (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

pos= on affixes

Is there a particular reason why you're categorising all the affixes by part of speech? Hungarian is the only language where I've seen this done, so it's rather different from the common practice. —CodeCat 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the prefixes can be used to form both verbs and nouns or adjectives. It is best to keep the categories clean and not as a dump of different types of words. This may not be a common practice today, but could be tomorrow. --Panda10 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

But if the affixes are the same, why distinguish them by part of speech? The -s in backwards (adverb) is not different from the suffix in backwards (adjective). Why is it better to keep them separate, as you say? —CodeCat 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The prefixes may look the same, but they may not have the same meaning. Not to mention, that we are categorizing the entries, not the affixes. --Panda10 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To disambiguate the affixes, you can use idN=. See for example -o and in- and their categories. —CodeCat 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer to stay with the part of speech categorization. The idN system is much more complicated and less standardized. The category names may contain either a meaning or a part of speech:

• Category:Latin words prefixed with in- (in)
• Category:Latin words prefixed with in- (not)
• Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (adverb)‎
• Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (agent noun)‎
• Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (compound verb)‎
• Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (denominative)‎
• Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (name)‎

The part of speech categorization is not as uncommon as you think:

• Category:Dutch adjectives suffixed with -en
• Category:English adjectives suffixed with -en
• Category:English verbs suffixed with -en
• Category:German adjectives suffixed with -en
• Category:German verbs suffixed with -en
• Category:Hindi nouns suffixed with -ई
• Category:Hindi adjectives suffixed with -ई
• Category:Hindi adverbs suffixed with -ई
• Category:Indonesian nouns suffixed with -an
• Category:Latin adverbs suffixed with -a
• Category:Latin nouns suffixed with -a
• Category:Latin adverbs suffixed with -ter
• Category:Lithuanian nouns suffixed with -inas
• Category:Portuguese adjectives suffixed with -aço
• Category:Portuguese nouns suffixed with -aço
• Category:Portuguese adjectives suffixed with -ado
• Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-teros
• Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-yōs
• Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-wós
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mḗn
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mos
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mós
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-tḗr
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mn̥
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-teh₂ts
• Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-tōr
• Category:Slovak nouns suffixed with -izmus
• Category:Irish nouns prefixed with mór-
• Category:Proto-Germanic nouns prefixed with *andi-
• Category:Italian nouns prefixed with mio-
• Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *bi-
• Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *fra-
• Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *uz-
• Category:English verbs prefixed with trans-
• Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *ga-
• Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with i-
• Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with des-
• Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with semi-

--Panda10 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

American learning Hungarian

Hello! I am an American learning Hungarian :) I am new to editing, and was wondering if I could give you Hungarian words here so that you can add them if you like :)

Colbertadam (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I can help. If you'd like to learn how to edit, you could add a word, I would review it and correct it if needed, then you could learn from the corrections. If you are not interested in editing, you could just add the words to this list: Wiktionary:Requested entries (Hungarian). --Panda10 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information :) Making a "note to self" here, the words (so far) are "gondoskodás" which comes from "gondoskodik", and "törődés" which comes from "törődik". The English equivalent for both nouns would be care, concern, care taking, looking after, etc. Also, I notice that "érdekel" means "I care (about it)" much like "tetszik" is "I like (it)" ...the subject of the verb being the object/person receiving the action, not the actual "doer" of the action... rather than "érdeklem/érdekelem" and "tetszem" for "I...". Is this correct for the use of "érdekel"? Thank you. Colbertadam (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

érdekel is to be interested in someone or something, tetszik is to like someone or something. Examples:

• Érdekel ez a téma./Engem érdekel ez a téma. - This subject interests me.
• Tetszik ez a kép./Nekem tetszik ez a kép. - I like this picture; this picture pleases me.

Hope I understood your question correctly. --Panda10 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant to you (a post from elsewhere)

As you also edited my entries, I'd appreciate it if you took a quick look here and responded when possible. Thanks! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

See my reply there. --Panda10 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for being so quick! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I recently saw a discussion on the request for deletion page for the {{hu-suffix}} template where you said this:

"Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using {{af}}. This may take some time, though. {{hu-prefix}} has about 900 entries, {{hu-suffix}} has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using {{affix}}, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)"

Has this changed? I see that you are changing my {{af}} templates to {{hu-suffix}} ones. Thanks for your response --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read the entire conversation, you will see that {{hu-suffix}} has functionality that {{af}} does not, so we will keep it. However, {{hu-prefix}} will be deleted after I reworked all entries. I changed your edits to keep the entries consistent. You can look at existing entries to see how they are structured. --Panda10 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I must have missed that bit. Thanks for bearing with me as I figure this out --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi. I wanted to drop by and thank you for all of your very hard work in improving our coverage of Hungarian, especially for adding IPA and etymology to every entry that you create or modify, and for helping me out with mine. The Wiktionary project is definitely being bettered by your work in this language. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Inflection of words like Demszky

I have been updating inflection tables to the best of my ability, and I recognize that there are a few cases not covered by {{hu-infl-nom}}, which usually have their cases described in one of these templates' documentation pages. That said, this word, using {{hu-decl-k-front1}}, does not fall under the case described there (nouns ending in "ee"), yet {{hu-infl-nom}} cannot be used here. Would you mind adding a quick addition to one of the template documentation pages explaining how to treat cases like this? Sorry I'm so wordy, and thanks a ton (also for going over all my edits - I'm making an increased effort to be meticulously careful with them) :) --AtalinaDove (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

At this moment, the only template that will work for this word is the one that it currently uses. I'd have to create a new template for these cases. The next several days will be hectic, so I won't have time to do it, but after next week I will take a look. I am way behind checking your edits, but eventually I get there... I saw that you started changing the inflection tables in the entries, that's very helpful, just make sure the old and new match exactly. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Good to know. I think I was recently added to the autopatrol group, so perhaps that will make things easier for you after you catch up. --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation request

From pizza nigger. en->hu. This will go on the Hungarian Wiktionary.

"(offensive, slang) a person of Italian descent" Philmonte101 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding declensions

Hi again!

I've been noting with a request most entries that don't have a declension table yet (as you've probably noticed). Since there are so many, and it must take up quite a bit of your time, I was wondering if you knew of any reliable resources I could use to search and verify declensions so that I could possibly add them myself. I would love to help out in this way if possible, but if it's something that should really be left to someone who speaks the language, then that's fine. Also, if you'd like me to stop adding so many requests, just let me know. --AtalinaDove (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the requests. It's always very helpful when you mark the entries because it's easy to locate them in one place. I'd like to keep adding the declensions. But if you are interested in Hungarian declensions, there is a fairly reliable source (not 100% accurate, unfortunately): [2]. The case order is not exactly the same as ours. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the source, and for looking after my edits. I am really interested in Hungarian, but I'm just a beginner so far, so it's good to know where to look for things like declension (other than Wiktionary, of course). --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to ask - are the etymology requests also useful? I usually just add them to words I'm interested in knowing the etymology of, but I could start adding them to all the entries I see without them. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are also useful, but it will take more time to complete them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks again. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

fázik

Hello Panda10 --

I just added my first entry, magyarul.  :) I'm sure I've missed something, so I'd very much appreciate it if you could double-check the entry. For instance, I'm not sure if the second sense should be transitive instead.

Thank you,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Not too bad for a first entry. :) Both senses are intransitive. The etymology can be tricky, so if you are not sure, it's better to omit the section entirely. --Panda10 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you!

I've poked through the Etimologiai szótár entry a bit, thank you for the pointer. Would it be correct to add a ===Related terms=== section that includes fagy? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Based on their entry in Zaicz's Etimologiai szótár, I don't think they are related etymologically. If you'd like to mention fagy, it would be fine to include it in a ===See also=== section in fázik. --Panda10 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hungarian puska

Hey, do you have an etymology for this word? A Serbo-Croatian authority claims that the Slavic word is borrowed through Hungarian (ultimately from Old High German būhse/German Büchse), but our Hungarian entry says that it's the other way around. Normally I'd trust the first source, but the fact that the Hungarian word doesn't have a front vowel is fishy, and for all I know the metathesis might be a German dialect thing. Crom daba (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I updated it. --Panda10 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know anything about when the cheat sheet sense developed? Serbo-Croatian (or maybe just Serbian?) has puškica (diminutive of puška) with the same meaning. Crom daba (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I added ety 2. --Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes native speakers of Hungarian make

Szia Panda10, I have heard the Hungarian is a very hard language for foreigners to learn, due to the agglutination of the language. Would native Hungarian speakers make mistakes with things like these? Köszönöm – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, is the terms égnek áll syllabalised as [ˈeːɡ.nɛ.kaːlː] or [ˈeːɡ.nɛk.aːlː] – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there can be mistakes, some are considered worse than others. Mistakes in agglutination are present mostly in substandard speech and writing. The expression égnek áll contains two separate words, so they are syllabized separately: ég-nek áll. However, in continuous speech the expression is pronounced as one word, accent on the first syllable. --Panda10 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Can you learn other 'Uralic' languages easily? – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never tried, so I can't say. --Panda10 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etym at könyv

This is currently shown as deriving from a Slavic language, and suggests a comparison to Proto-Slavic *kъnjiga. However, the etym at *kъnjiga currently states that the Hungarian term cannot have come from Proto-Slavic, and suggests instead a derivation from a Turkic language, comparing it with Proto-Turkic *küiniŋ, with an ultimate origin in Middle Chinese 卷 (/kɣiuᴇn^X, kɣiuᴇn^H/, “scroll”).

I don't suppose you have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I updated the etymology the best I could. The "compare" section contains several languages and words, I copied them as they were in the reference, I don't know their original form. Let me know if you need more information. --Panda10 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names in Hungarian

Hey panda10, is it actually true that hungarian surnames go before first names? Quite bizarre, compared to other cultures around Hungary.

PS, is it actually true you live in the US (according to WT:Administrators)? I thought you lived in Hungary!! BTW I live in Australia – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes and yes. I think Eirikr's explanation below is very helpful. --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW, the Hungarian language itself is rather "bizarre", compared to the other mostly Indo-European languages of Europe. The difference in surname / given-name order seems fitting somehow, given the profound differences in vocabulary and grammar.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

szeg#Hungarian

I see that the Etimológiai Szótár breaks out three etyms for this term. However, the nook sense seems much more likely to have developed out of the angle, wedge senses rather than from nail, and one reading of . See also the development of English nook, which demonstrates a similar semantic development. As such, I'm not sure this really merits three etym sections; just two would seem to suffice. What do you think? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the three sections based on the references. I think it's best to stick to what the linguists say about this. Also, we have a different set of derived terms based on the different etymologies. There is another online etymological dictionary and it has also three entries: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár (Tótfalusi István) (szeg1, szeg2, szeg3). Maybe you can help to clarify ety3. It is a semantic variant of the noun szeg, specifically of its original Proto-Ugric meaning of "wedge" in the sense of a wedge-like projection, corner, wedge-shaped area. I am curious, though, and if you don't mind, I'd like to ask: What is the reason you study Hungarian? Not too many people are interested in etymologies when they learn a language. :) --Panda10 (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Re: keeping three, understood. I think etym 3 would make more sense to say that the nook sense came from wedge; from what I can tell, it seems the angle or wedge senses are older, while nail probably also arose as an extension of the wedge sense.
• Re: etym interest in general, I find that my own approach to language learning is very analytic -- if I can understand the pieces, and how they interrelate, I gain a better grasp of the language as a whole. It's how I learned English, for that matter, as a kid. In two words, I'm a "word nerd".  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I updated it, adding more information from Zaicz and Tótfalusi. As for etym learning: Good for you! --Panda10 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

malac vs. disznó

If you have the time and interest, I'd greatly appreciate etyms for these entries, and perhaps some information about how to distinguish these terms (usage, connotations, etc.).

Also, is the gloss for malac at tengerimalac correct? That says just "pig", while the full malac entry says "piglet".

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added more information to both. They can be interchangeable in many situations, although for a young piglet you would always use malac. As for the dirty meaning, disznó is very strong, malac can be playful. The gloss for tengerimalac is correct. --Panda10 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

bolondok vs bolondak

Hello / Szervusz,

You have reverted this edit - I would like to say that the current form is incorrect, i.e. "bolondat" or "bolondak" is incorrect, instead it should be "bolondot" and "bolondok" etc.

Best regards, Whitepixels (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Whitepixels: Hi, sorry I reverted it but my thought was that adjectives can have different declensions than nouns. See felelős (adjective and noun). There are adjectives that have both forms, such as boldogak-boldogok (adjective) - boldogok (noun) [3]. When I googled bolondat, there were only a few hits [4]. The Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelvtudományi Intézet webpage lists only bolondok-bolondot. [5]. I could add both saying that bolondak/bolondat is very rare. Unless you have a source that says bolondak/bolondat are incorrect forms. --Panda10 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

kellemes and kell

Thank you for updating the etymology at kellemes. The kell entry currently only has verb senses; presumably it also has adjective senses? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kell is a verb. No adjective senses. I was trying to translate the information for kellemes from Gabor Zaicz's dictionary. Maybe it's misleading?

• From Gabor Zaicz: kellemes [1270 tn. (?), 1533] Származékszó, a kell ’szükséges; kellemes’ ige -s melléknévképzővel ellátott alakja. A szó belseji m mozzanatos igeképző, vagy névszóképző.
• From Vilma Eőry: kellemes: A → kell ‘szükséges; tetszik’ ige származéka.
• For the senses (in Hungarian), see A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. --Panda10 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Given the examples, it seems like kell sense #2 describes the thing itself as to be needed, required; to be wanted, desired. If my understanding is accurate, I think the sense development went kell (“to be desired”) → kellem (“that which is desired → pleasure?”) → kellemes (“pleasant”). Is that correct? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

That would be the logical development. But according to Zaicz, the noun kellem is a back-formation from kellemes. --Panda10 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm curious if there are other cases where an expected intermediate form is actually a newer coinage. Are there other XXX terms that have XXX-emes derivatives, but no XXX-em derivative? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I searched Zaicz, but I could not find another example in that particular source. Sorry. --Panda10 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for looking! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The English gloss for Hungarian áll

Hello Panda10 --

I saw your recent change to the gloss of áll in the állomás entry. My edit was motivated by a mismatch in senses between the Hungarian verb and the English gloss.

The Hungarian verb áll includes a sense of motion that is entirely absent from the English verb stand. In English, stand only refers to “being in one location”. There might be limited movement, such as stand up or even stand down, but the verb describes action in that one location.

For instance, in Hungarian, you can say Én állok a szálloda mögött. (“I stand behind the hotel.”) In both the Hungarian and the English, the verb implies that "I" am not moving, that I am staying in one place.

However, in Hungarian, you can also say Állok a tükörhöz (“*I stand to the mirror”, bad English grammar). In Hungarian, the verb can include a sense of motion -- indicating instead that the subject of the verb is changing locations, and that the subject then stands at the destination. In English, the sentence doesn't make any sense with just the verb stand -- one cannot grammatically stand to anything as a direction or motion (physically; there are certain set phrases like stand to attention that refer to mental state). To make sense in English, we need to add another verb that expresses the sense of "changing location": I go to the mirror and stand.

Does that explanation make sense? Would you be open to expanding the gloss for áll? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Thank you for your analysis. I've found it very interesting. There is a difference between "valahol áll" and "valahová áll". The latter involves movement and it would not be translated with "stand". The entry áll contains only the most basic meaning. I double checked the verb áll in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára. It lists VIII major senses and 45 subsenses under them. Obviously, we can't include all of them in a gloss in állomás. Sense IV is "to take up a place somewhere", "to position oneself", meaning to step/go to a place and stay there. The expressions "a tükörhöz áll (to step to the mirror)", "a székre áll (to step onto the stool)", "a zuhany alá áll (to step under the shower)", "a testvére mellé áll (to come to stand beside one's sibling", "talpra áll (to get to one's feet)" belong to this sense. Another subsense within IV is that a vehicle moves somewhere and stays there for a certain time: "A kocsi a ház elé állt." To me, állomás is the place where the trains, buses stop and spend time waiting. You can expand the gloss if you wish. I removed "to go and stand" because it did not make sense to me phrased like that. Can you phrase it differently based on the above? --Panda10 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this! Upon reflection, I agree with your decision about vasutállomás. At the time of my edit, I was focused on the idea of the train moving into and then stopping at the station, but I think you're right that the stop sense is clearly the most salient part of the meaning here.  :)

8 major senses and 45 sub-senses is a *lot*. This is clearly an important verb in Hungarian, I suppose much like get in English. I'd be quite interested in expanding the current áll entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I will work on it. It might take some time. It would be helpful if you'd take a look at the growing definitions and examples from time to time just to make sure the English rendition is correct. By the way, áll has transitive senses, as well, so the conjugation will have to show the transitive forms. --Panda10 (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy to have a look from time to time.  :)

Re: transitivity, I'm surprised.  :) I haven't run into any transitive uses, and the entry at [[hu:áll]] prominently displays tárgyatlan (“intransitive”) at the top, so I went with that. Thank you for the clarification. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed it

Hello! Recently, seen your problem and I think Category:Hungarian general pronouns seems ok now. :) ~ Z (m) 13:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@HastaLaVi2: Thank you for fixing it! Sorry to cause the error. :( --Panda10 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I am not from this wiki. But I am writing modules on Turkish wiktionary, just seen your problem by accident. Anyways, if you have any problem you can just ping me, I always love to help. ~ Z (m) 13:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hungarian help: "csurog"

I see you are active here adding Hungarian words. Can you add the word "csurog" to Wiktionary? I don't speak Hungarian and I can't find out its exact meaning online. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 10:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet I added both csurog and csorog. They are alternative forms. --Panda10 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Verse

Szia, légyszi javítsd vissza a verzét. A definíció egyértelműen nem versekről beszél, hanem dalokról. Úgyismint a popzenék tipikus felépítése, ami angolban verse-chorus, magyarban verze-refrénnek hívják. Köszi!--94.21.111.61 17:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Értem. Visszajavítottam. --Panda10 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, közben gondolkodtam, és a versszak is jó. Mondjuk egy templomi ének esetében nyilván az utóbbi szót használnám. Bocs, ha hirtelen voltam.--94.21.111.61 17:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semmi baj. Most már mind a kettő ott van. :) --Panda10 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Füzek + fűzek?

Szia,

Ennek kapcsán kérdezem: a fűzek nem egyszerűen a füzek alak hibás (vagy ha úgy tetszik, szubsztandard) helyesírású változata? Nem világos számomra, hogy ezt miért (lenne) érdemes felvennünk. Következik-e ebből az, hogy pl. a mindig mellett a mindíg alakot is felvegyük, meg még kismillió más mindennapos tévesztést? Adam78 (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Azt hiszem, azért adtam hozzá ezeket, mert az MTA Nyelvtudományi Intézetének Alaktani táblázataiban is szerepelnek, bár zárójelben. Persze ők sem mindig tévedhetetlenek. Talán régies alakok? Nem ragaszkodom hozzájuk. Ha úgy gondolod, hogy nem helyesek, kiveszem őket. Egyébként szeretném megköszönöm a szerkesztéseidet. Nagyon sokat segítenek. --Panda10 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

-gráfus / -gráfia

Mindkét elválasztás helyes: 231. pont,  A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás (’The Rules of Hungarian Orthography, 12th edition’). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2015. →ISBN

Egyébként az AkH is fent van a neten, belinkeltem a template-be, remélem jó lett.--94.21.176.99 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Igen, jó. Köszi a javításokat. Panda10 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

diviz

Azért nem írtam etimológiát hozzá (a te javaslatod alapján), mert semmilyen nyomát nem találom, hogy létezne ilyen szó. Se internetes tipográfiai szótárakban, se az Eckhardt-féle francia nagyszótárban, de még a Larousse-ban se. Ugyanekkora méretű szótárak rendszerint már bőven tartalmaznak szakszavakat is. A Duden-ben pl. benne is van a Divis, és az orosz és az angol is átvette ezt a szót a németből. Mivel a nyomdai szavak egy jó nagy részét mi is a németből vettük át, el tudom képzelni, hogy ezt is. Felőlem bennmaradhat, csak mivel nagy hangsúlyt fektetsz a pontosságra, gondoltam, szeretnél tudni róla.--84.236.127.223 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A Tótfalusi Idegenszó-tárban benne van mint nyomdaipari szakszó. Panda10 (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Igen, éppen azt mondom, hogy láttam, és hogy miért nem adtam hozzá mégse.--84.236.127.223 22:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Sikerült megtalálnom a diviz szót két olyan korai nyomdászati könyvben, ahol még nem magyarosították, és mindkettőben német leírás szerint Divis-ként szerepel, nem divise-ként: az egyik 1897-ből van, 37. oldal, a másik 1905-ből, 13.oldal. A Wikiszótár szerint is német az etimológiája, ők ezekből a szótárakból dolgoztak. Összevetve ezt azzal, hogy a franciák nem tudnak róla, hogy létezne ilyen szavuk, szerintem itt a Tótfalusi téved. Főleg, mert a Wikiszótáras forrásmunkák között is szerepel az Idegenszó-tár, és mégse ezt az etimológiát hozták, ezek szerint találtak megbízhatóbb forrást. Átjavítottam a szócikket, de mivel nem tudom, hogy a forrásmunka listából melyik műben találták meg, legfeljebb a Wikiszótár linket tudom betenni referenciának.--84.236.127.223 08:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, leave it as from German. It's interesting that Wikiszótár uses the same Tótfalusi dictionaries (both the Idegenszó-tár and the Nagyszótár) and still marked it as from German. Since I researched it too, I want to leave this information here just for the record.

Printed dictionaries that say it's from French:

Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1989

diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel

Tótfalusi István: Idegenszó-tár, Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2005

diviz nyomd kötőjel, választójel

fr divise 'ua.'

Bakos Ferenc: Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006

diviz fr, nyomd kötőjel, választójel

Tolcsvai Nagy Gábor: Idegen szavak szótára, Osiris Kiadó, 2007

diviz [lat-fr] kötőjel, kiskötőjel, elválasztójel

Note: The two source languages connected with a hyphen in the above line mean borrowed from two languages; it is not using an arrow in this case which would mean that it went from one language to the other. This is an explanation from the book.

Online sources with etymology that say it's from French:

Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Szókincsháló

Tótfalusi István: Magyar etimológiai nagyszótár - Arcanum (different website, but same dictionary as above)

Büky László: Mínuszos hír, Édes anyanyelvünk, bottom of page 12.

Old dictionaries that contain the word with different spelling, no etymology:

Bíró Miklós: Nyomdászati Lexikon, 1936

The actual entry is Divíz with long í. It points to kötőjel, where it is listed as divis.

Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati encziklopédia, PALLAS IRODALMI ÉS NYOMDAI RÉSZVÉNYTÁRSASÁG, 1902

Divis, l. Kötőjel.

Pusztai Ferencz: Nyomdászati mesterszók, Pallas Részvénytársaság nyomdája, 1902

Spelled: divíz (it is not a headword, one has to search for it)

I also asked Lmaltier, a French Wiktionary editor with excellent English, you can see his reply below. There is a French word divisé which is some kind of participle of the French diviser that has a sense labeled typography. Did Tótfalusi and all the others left the accent off the letter e? Did they copy the same incorrect information from each other? I don't know and I don't want to guess and I don't know how to reach Sarkadi Zsolt, the Wikiszótár editor to find out which source he used for the German etymology. We both spent a lot of time time with research. :)

Panda10 (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort spent on researching this. There is an e-mail address listed on Wikiszótár (wikiszotar(kukac)wikiszotar.hu), however, I'm not sure it would reach the editor. It's probably used for website maintenance issues and such. To me, finding the word with the original German spelling in two different works is the most convincing, coupled with the fact that I couldn't find any trace of such a word in French dictionaries, or in actual usage. And I just wanted to make a note of it here, to avoid any misunderstanding about why I corrected the etymology, since all of this information does not fit in the article or the edit comment. I know none of this is absolute proof, but I suppose when it comes to the origin of words, sometimes the best we can do is make educated guesses. Thank you again and thank you Lmaltier as well, for clarifying the French part.--84.236.127.223 08:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

divise

Translation of the typographic definition of diviser: cut a word at the end of a line, according to some rules. For me, there is no French word divise meaning hyphen (nothing found about such a word). Nonetheless, diviz might be of French origin, I would not be surprised, but I have no idea... Lmaltier (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

hiányzó igealakok

Hiányoznak a következő igealakok a megfelelő táblázatokból:
eltör: eltörött
támad: támadt
Hozzá tudnád adni? Én nem találtam ilyen paramétert.--94.21.111.63 21:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hozzáadtam. Nézd meg, hogy így gondoltad-e. Panda10 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Köszi. Én úgy gondoltam, hogy mindkét alakjuk helyes (eltört/eltörött és támadt/támadott), múlt idejű alakként. Melléknévi igenévként ritkán hallani, ezért ott nem tudom, mi a jó. A támadt/támadott-ra találtam is egy cikket, ahol leírják, hogy jelentés-, illetve vonzatbeli különbség van köztük, pl.

"Támadt egy probléma." nem pedig *"Támadott egy probléma."

"Három kislányt támadott meg egy kutya." nem pedig *"Három kislányt támadt meg egy kutya."

Az eltört/eltörött-nek nem néztem utána, de meglepődnék, ha a kettőből valamelyik hibás lenne. (Bár ez nem jelent semmit, mert meglepődtem a könyörgöm-ön is, hogy helytelen.)

Viszont, ha már itt tartunk, hadd kérdezzek valamit, mert úgy tűnik, értesz ehhez, vagy tanultad. Nem tudod véletlenül, hogy magyar nyelvészeti terminológiában van-e az ilyen igékre valamilyen szó? Tehát ahol több változata is van ugyanannak az igealaknak. Angolul "abundant verb"-nek hívják, de magyarban csak rendhagyó igeként találkoztam vele (más nyelvekkel kapcsolatban), ami nyilván egy jóval tágabb fogalom.--94.21.111.63 23:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Melléknévi igenévként is helyes a hosszabb alak. Az eltörött inkább régies (az eltörött kancsó), a támadott viszont ma is használatos (a támadott jogszabály), de csak abban az egy értelemben, hogy valaki/valami ellen megy. A cikk érdekes volt. Sajnos a mi igeragozási sablonjainkba a kettős múlt idő nincs beleépítve. Itt van egy érdekes tanulmány: Jakab László: Tanulmányok az igeragozás köréből, 1999, a fejezet, ami ide vonatkozik: "A mai magyar köznyelv múlt idejű alakjai".

Lehetséges megoldások:

1. Egy megjegyzésben el lehet magyarázni a kettős alakot és az esetleges jelentésbeli eltérést. A megjegyzés lehet a Usage notes alatt vagy közvetlenül a megfelelő jelentés után.
2. Az igeragozási sablonokat User:Qorilla készítette. Utolsó szerkesztése 2016 júniusában volt. Talán lehetne neki üzenni, hogy volna-e ideje és kedve egy rövid időre visszatérni és ezt a jelenséget hozzáadni.
3. Meg lehet kérni valakit a Beer parlour üzenőfalán, hogy segítsen ebben. Egyszerűbb változtatásokat én is meg tudtam csinálni régebben, de ez egy kicsit bonyolult.

Az abundant verb jelentése eszerint a forrás szerint (a latin nyelvre vonatkozóan): "verbs having the same meaning expressed by different forms of conjugation". A mi esetünket egy kicsit másnak érzem, mert itt jelentéshasadás is van. Ezt a szót használja az általad talált cikk. Más magyar szakszót nem tudok erre. Talán User:Adam78 többet tud erről. Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sajnos nem tudok egyebet, csak a szabad váltakozás jut eszembe. Adam78 (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Igen, ez már akkor is felmerült, de végül csak a melléknévi igenévnél csináltam erre opciót. Hozzáadhatok egy újabb flaget, amivel mindkét alak megjelenik az E/3 múlt időnél is. Qorilla (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Qorilla: Köszönöm, hogy válaszoltál. Nagy segítség lenne, ha hozzáadnád az új flaget. A programozási szaktudásod nélkül elég nehezen mennek a változtatások. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Végül hozzáadtam egy új paramétert az olyan igék miatt, mint az ír, aminek különbözik a múlt ideje és a bef. mni. igeneve (legalábbis a mai magyar nyelvben). Beleírtam a dokumentációba is. Panda10 és @Adam78, köszönöm a válaszokat, nekem az is segítség, ha tudom, hogy nincs pontos magyar megfelelője.--94.21.49.185 18:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

ál: shouldn't it be ál- instead, for its Hungarian meaning?

Although it exists as a full-fledged adjective, it's rather peripheral (see also the reference I added). I wonder if it should be discussed under ál- instead, perhaps with a mere link from the current entry. Adam78 (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The prefix ál- existed before, however, in 2009 I changed it from prefix to adjective. But I agree that it makes sense to have both. The verb áltat is from the adjective ál, and probably not from the prefix ál-. I will rework it. Thanks for bringing it up. Panda10 (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Questionable comparisons of adjectives

I'd respectfully suggest that you delete both the entry of and the link to akkreditáltabb, akadálytalanabb, ajánlottabb, adósabb, and adminisztratívabb (maybe aggódóbb too). Just like one cannot be "a little pregnant" (as the joke goes), there are other adjectives as well that just don't make much sense in comparative and superlative forms. I wonder if you could flag these adjectives (and all the other similar ones) in their inflections as incomparable? Adam78 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

PS: legszándékosabban, legvádlóbban, legnyilvánosabban, legjogtalanabbul, legittasabban, legállandóbban, vádlóbban, and ideiglenesebben are also questionable in my opinion. Adam78 (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC) + algebraibb Adam78 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I deleted the first five, but then started checking in Google Books. All returned hits except akkreditáltabb and legittasabban. So shouldn't we leave them? Panda10 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's our task to invent dubious concepts just because they are grammatically possible. There may be a reference to practically everything (as there is a reference for "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" because someone invented it on one occasion), but we can just leave them as rare, occasional exceptions to the rule (or hapax legomena, nonce words). Please don't restore any, I'd say. Adam78 (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I do see your point but it's not about inventing dubious concepts. It's about recording usage. The form entries can be very useful to users who know nothing about Hungarian. For example, I don't know Latin, but when I need to look up inflected words in a sentence, the form entries are really useful to point to their corresponding lemma entries. If these forms are deleted everywhere (meaning they are not even in the inflection tables), the search engine will not recognize them and will not give a hint to the user where to find the lemma entry. So I'm not sure deleting them is the best way to handle this. Other options:

1. Keep the forms and add a recommendation in the Usage note section of the main entry about not using them.
2. Delete the forms, mark the main entry as "not comparable", but add the comparison forms in Usage notes as a grammatical possibility, but rare usage.
3. Delete the forms, but keep them in the main entry's headline and mark them rare.

What do you think? Panda10 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I prefer the second. On the other hand, I think there are many more noun forms with "-ul/-ül" which would be more important but which are systematically overlooked and dismissed at the moment. See specific examples (about a hundred in magnitude, only those that have already occurred in actual texts) under w:hu:Essivus-modalis. Adam78 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will use option 2 and I will add the "-ul/-ül" forms to the declension tables using the Wikipedia examples. Panda10 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) Adam78 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

tessék

"The book was translated to Hungarian and the quotation is from the translated work. I think this is permitted." Unfortunately the translation is by me, not from the "official" English translation. I couldn't possibly find the English full text online. :( Adam78 (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Here is what I meant: The book, A Living Lie, was written by Paul Bourget, a French novelist. This was translated to Hungarian by Tóth Béla and the quotation under tessék is from this translated book. It's okay that you translated the quoted sentence to English. What the Dynamic IP user said was that we can't use quotations from translated books. This is not how I interpret the rule "all quotations should be from works written in the language of the word in question." For example, I could quote from an English language book (never formally translated to Hungarian) that uses or explains the Hungarian word tessék in English. That would not be an appropriate quotation since the language of the quotation would be English. I hope this make sense. :) Panda10 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I have since found the English full text online, including this part and I've inserted it. Adam78 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

One more thing about tetszik. I suggest the conjugation chart should be expanded to include alternative forms of the subjunctive mood:

• tetsszek / tetsszem / tessek / tessem
• tetssz / tetsszél / tess / tessél
• tetsszen / tetsszék / tessen / tessék
• tetsszünk / tessünk
• tetsszetek / tessetek
• tetsszenek / tessenek

In terms of the tssz ~ ss alternation, these variants could be displayed at metsz as well (e.g. math books consistently use the Messük el… forms). Adam78 (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I created a custom template for tetszik. What should we do with megtetszik? Should we leave it as is? The custom template can handle verbal prefixes. I will create a custom template for metsz, as well. I've noticed that you are updating the Matthias Buchmeier pages. You may already know this, but those pages are generated (and re-generated from time to time) by a bot from the translation tables. Panda10 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I had a vague suspicion about the Buchmeier pages but I was far from sure. Thank you for the information.

Thanks a lot for the tetszik chart too! It looks very good. In fact, there is not only megtetszik, but also áttetszik, feltetszik, kitetszik, and visszatetszik (archaic or obsolete as they are). These all (and of course megtetszik) should ideally have the same forms. Adam78 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

ideig

Hi, how can we fix the declension for idő to include ideig as its irregular terminative form? (Időig can only be used in some very narrow and specialized sense.) Adam78 (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I added a note above the declension tables about the variant forms. Sometimes we apply this solution. Another option would be a custom template. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I think it would be better to have an option to overwrite manually any value that has been assigned automatically, or at least certain cases where some alternation is known to occur, like this one. In other words, a value should be displayed in the chart only if it hasn't been overwritten by a manually entered different value. Adam78 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: What if both values are correct? Panda10 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

In that case, both values could be given manually. :) Adam78 (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, that would be the ideal template. The current declension template situation is a little chaotic. The original script templates were re-written in Lua (which I don't know at all) with the goal of replacing the script templates. This goal was not accomplished because the Lua module is not updated with these little exceptions. I patch up the old script templates here and there with items that the Lua module can't handle. But what you are asking is really a major update that should be in the module. Panda10 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, at least the instances where there are manual additions, supplements, and/or remarks to the results of existing templates should be collected somewhere, maybe in some hidden maintenance category, so that once (if ever) these things become possible, we should be able to find them among the tens or hundreds of thousands of entries. Adam78 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The exceptions are all documented under the Usage section of the old templates. See: {{hu-decl-ak}}, {{hu-decl-ek}}, {{hu-decl-ek2}}, {{hu-decl-ök}}, {{hu-decl-ok}}, {{hu-decl-k-back}}, {{hu-decl-k-front1}}, {{hu-decl-k-front2}}. These are the templates that {{hu-infl-nom}} was supposed to replace. Maybe we could add a future improvements section to the documentation of {{hu-infl-nom}} and summarize these instances in one place. We just have to remember to keep all of these synchronized since it appears these exceptions are constantly growing. I will look into adding a new patch to cover ideig. Panda10 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'd really appreciate it! Adam78 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Category for mű- things (plus -tár, -szer too, probably)

Can we create a category for words prefixed with mű, such as {{af|hu|mű-|something}}? I suppose we could move most of the content of this entry to mű- because it seems more of a prefix than a full-fledged constituent in these words.

Actually, it's a question whether we should equally include, without any further distinction,

• words where mű- means ’artificial’ (műhold etc.)
• words where mű- means ’artistic’ (műbútor etc.)
• words where mű- is a genuine constituent (műelemzés, műbírálat, műgyűjtő, műértő, műkedvelő, műkereskedő etc.)
• words where mű- has a more complex meaning, as in műegyetem, művész, műtét, műszer.

In the same vein, I think we could create categories for words ending in -tár or -szer too, because there are loads of them. – I just noticed there is a category for -szer, but I mean words like gyógyszer, kötszer, kegyszer, vegyszer, óvszer, tanszer, tápszer, fűszer, élelmiszer etc. See many of them listed at the bottom of this page

That reminds me, I am still in doubt whether a separate treatment of words with -szor, -szer, and -ször is a good idea, and all suffixes (like -alom/-elem) that have more than one variant depending on vowel harmony. After all, these are the same suffixes, with exactly the same meaning…

Adam78 (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: It's probably fine to create mű-, but I'm not sure about -tár and -szer. Perhaps I don't see the improvement factor. As for the suffixes, I restructured -szor, -szer-, -ször just for testing the idea, and here too, I'm uncertain if this is so much better. Users will have to do one more click to get to the information. A separate entry is needed for each variant of the -alom/-elem type suffix, since the pronunciation, declension and derived terms category are different and when writing etymology for words with these suffixes, e.g. {af|küzd|-elem}, the {af} template needs to point to something. Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've created mű-, please take a look and let me know if this is what you wanted. Also I'd like to know your thoughts on the current restructuring of -szor/-szer/-ször. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Mű- looks great, thanks a lot! At least for the moment I think it will be fine with the category, as well, I mean without any further division. For -szor/-szer/-ször, they look good to me, although I think we should clarify that this suffix has two different meanings depending on whether it derives from an ordinal or a cardinal numeral stem, e.g. egyszer vs. először, kétszer vs. másodszor etc. It's not quite obvious even for native speakers; and it can cause even more confusion for non-Hungarian speakers. For -tár and -szer as compound suffixes, if we don't create a category for these words, it's fine with me, but in that case they should be available together in some other way, whether within the entry of the given suffix or in a separate appendix. Adam78 (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I updated -szor to the best of my knowledge to separate the two meanings. Sorry, if I still don't grasp the difference between the list of compound words under tár in the Derived terms section and the list of words in -tár as a suffix category. I'd truly would like to understand why the the latter is better. After all, they would contain the same list of words, just categorized differently (compound words vs. suffixed words). Panda10 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think they will be fine in the Derived terms section, at least for the time being. Honestly, I'm still relatively a novice at Wiktionary and all I see is that there is an immense number of categories (maybe hundreds only among affixes in Hungarian), while certain related words are still connected only (more or less) randomly. It's not completely clear for me why certain categories are created and others are not, but as I delve into this project more and more, it'll hopefully become more and more clear. Adam78 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The affix categories are created for users to see the list of words with the same affix for comparison and learning. The high number of affix categories are a natural consequence of the high number of affixes in Hungarian. Categories are only for lemmas. We don't create categories for words with case suffixes since they are non-lemma entries. What are the categories that are missing in your view? Can you give me examples for related words that should be connected but aren't? It's entirely possible that the missing things are missing because of the huge amount of work and the small number of editors who work on them. :) Panda10 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Connecting categories with related suffixes

What do you think could be inserted to categories that contain the same suffix, except for differences due to vowel harmony? For example, what could we insert at the top of category:Hungarian adverbs suffixed with -ente, maybe something like this?

See also -anta, -onta, -önte.

I'm not really happy with it; I think it should be made to look more professional and more uniform. I think it's indefensible that now it seems as if -anta and -onta were just as far from each other as -ás and -ok. Adam78 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a slash (/) instead of the comma? See these for methods I've used before: Category:Hungarian verbs suffixed with -ik or Category:Hungarian nouns suffixed with -adalom. Panda10 (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they look all right, although I'm not convinced if it's the best solution possible. At least there should be a template to link mutually related categories together, just like you created templates for some related pronoun forms. This template could also make it possible to change the appearance of these links at the same time. (This individual linking is not so cool.) Adam78 (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The template I created for the related pronouns was a usage template, with everything hard-coded. They don't contain any intelligent mechanisms. "This individual linking is not so cool" - you mean for the user or for the editor? All the templates that you suggested so far are great, but there are not enough Hungarian editors to implement all of the ideas. Since we all have only a certain amount of time we can spend here, I'd like to make sure that the important tasks get first priority. For example: Creating new entries; adding more senses to existing entries; adding gloss definitions to clarify the English meaning of each sense; correcting mistakes; etc. Panda10 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

etymology of simogat

Are you sure that in this case the sources claim that the frequentative suffix -ogat is added to the adjective sima, rather than the verb simít or its root sim-? Adam78 (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, this is how I understood it. But here's what the sources say exactly:

• Eőry: "A → sima melléknév származéka."
• Zaicz: "A sima számos további származék alapszava, vö. simít [1560 k.], simul [1604], simogat [1636]."

Let me know if you interpret them differently. Panda10 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, these sources don't mention if it's a direct or indirect derivative and – to my best knowledge – the frequentative suffix cannot be added to an adjective, so this derivation must be indirect, I suppose. Then again, these sources do not specifically substantiate this interpretation, while our current description doesn't make much sense. Maybe we should add some parenthetical remark about the missing link? Adam78 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Zaicz says the following about -gat/-get: "Az igés képzések analógiájára néhány esetben megtalálható névszói vagy egyéb szófajú alapszó mellett is, pl. édesget, igazgat, bizonygat, jajgat." I'm not sure what else to do or where to look for more detailed etymology. Panda10 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All right, I can accept it; we can leave it then. Thank you again. Adam78 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

plural forms of compass point names

I removed the plural forms of Hu. compass point names from the declension charts (except for dél, which has another meaning as well, and nyugat, at least for the time being, with respect to the former literary periodical). I checked E-Szókincs, which has no plural for this word: kelet, and even its possessive suffixed forms are given in parentheses, and Hungarian National Corpus with its 180 million words, which also doesn't have keletek except for typos. I also made a Google search and I only found typos for this form. I think we should find some reasonable and justifiable limit as to what we should include as possible and realistic. Adam78 (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the corrections and the research. I will correct the derived words similarly (e.g. északkelet). Panda10 (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and I think you could also delete nyugatok as an entry. (I only found one hit that mentions keletek and nyugatok, but it looks like an individual coinage, a hapax legomenon.) Adam78 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've partly reconsidered this issue as we've since created the option to have a hyphen and a pipe and then the plural suffix in {{hu-noun}}, so the description will be "usually uncountable, plural ……". For "északok", there is a geographical source that defines it very exactly (I inserted its link and the relevant passage in comments; maybe it should be added to the quotations). I think it's good to indicate the primary declension type in the header as long as we make it clear that the given form is not normally used (Osiris Helyesírás universally supplies plural forms for all nouns, no matter if they're meaningless). What's more, it puts the given entries in Category:Hungarian uncountable nouns, which is informative, even if it's somewhat inconsistent at the moment. (I hope you don't mind the red links that remained.) There are many other words (such as material names and abstract nouns) where the notice "usually uncountable" or "countable and uncountable" should be inserted with the hyphen or the tilde, respectively. Also, the template "hu-noun" with no parameters should be preferably avoided, I think. Adam78 (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK, thanks. Panda10 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Categorizing towns in Hungary

Could you help me categorize Mezőkövesd, Paks, Siófok, Szentes, Szentendre, Szekszárd, Tokaj, Villány, and Velence (and maybe some more) into Category:en:Towns in Hungary, included by Category:en:Towns, Category:en:Hungary, Category:en:List of sets and Category:Towns in Hungary, while the latter is included by Category:Towns, Category:Hungary, and Category:List of sets?

# {{place|en|town|c/[[Hungary]]}}

…should do this in the source of the given entries (as it works fine for cities in Hungary!), but it apparently won't. Originally I used {{auto cat}} in the newly created categories, but they didn't work, so I inserted their content manually, but it also didn't help. I suppose something else needs to be done in the code (?). Thank you in advance.

PS. In terms of the division between cities and towns, I basically used the arbitrary rule of thumb on whether the settlement comprises more or fewer than 50.000 inhabitants. On the other hand, if it's a county seat, I still categorized them as cities, no matter how many residents they have.

PS 2: I just noticed that Category:hu:Cities in Hungary is rather deficient. (I didn't want to start standardizing all the definitions in the articles because it would have involved loss of information.)

Adam78 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've spent some time looking into the structure, but so far I can't see what's missing to create these categories with the standard auto cat. Maybe it's something in Module:place/data. But besides that, I really don't think it's a good idea to divide Hungarian cities into cities and towns. The Hungarian language (and Wikipedia) uses város for both. We should go by the terms of the Hungarian public administration and not by the English. Also, who will remember that the difference between city and town is the arbitrary number of 50,000 inhabitants? Not to mention that the number of inhabitants can change over time. Please see Wiktionary:Place names - this is the page for listing the administrative terms for settlements by country. The section for Hungary is empty at this moment. As for adding {{place}} to existing Hungarian entries without the loss of information to fill up Category:hu:Cities in Hungary, please see Baja or the examples in the documentation of {{place}}. Panda10 (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the distinctions of the Hungarian language truly matter in the English-language Wiktionary. Just think of it: Whoever visits Wiktionary (or Wikipedia etc.) will expect to read texts in standard English. I doubt we have the right to redefine existing terms contrary to native speakers' normal and natural usage (let alone the one billion non-native English speakers), such as cities to include towns. It's an existing distinction in English so we'd better face it, I think. (If város were a widespread loan word in English, it would be a different case, but it is actually not.) Not mentioning the fact that it would be preposterous to categorize a town with 2.000 or 5.000 inhabitants as a city. These terms are somewhat flexible but definitely not to this extent. I admit the line is not clear but it doesn't mean that the majority couldn't be categorized just fine. I also admit that 50.000 is arbitrary, however, we can find a more objective criterion, such as megyei jogú város (plus Budapest), which includes all county seats and a few more. (I got the idea when I was reading the Hungary-related section of the article on "town" as such in Wikipedia, looking for some criterion or distinction.) Interestingly, the limit was originally also 50.000 inhabitants for them, but today they include five more cities/towns with a little smaller population. As a rule, I think it's quite normal that an existing division is reinterpreted when it's inserted into a new, larger system, like when Hungary joined the EU, its counties were reinterpreted as NUTS 3 level units (short for Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) in accordance with the other EU member states. In my opinion, the Hungary-related terms could be integrated into the English-language Wiktionary system with some similar adaptation. We can use "city" to include every megyei jogú város and "town" for all the rest, and the question is resolved. We could bring up this criterion on the Place names page, and I think people will accept it. How about that? Adam78 (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: This version sounds better than the previous one. I am still concerned about keeping the information up-to-date. When a village becomes a town and a town becomes a city, who will update this information? I've submitted a question to Grease pit about the category issue. Panda10 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• First of all, thank you for raising the issue at Grease pit. I do hope there will be some result.
• I think it's rare that the legal status of a village or town changes, maybe once in ten or twenty years. Nothing earth-shattering will happen if it remains without update for some while.
• I recommend that you check out the towns and cities in Hungary and sort the chart by population. You'll see that out of the 346 towns/cities listed, there are only 24 that would be categorized as cities (megyek jogú városok + Budapest) and the vast majority (322, i.e. 93% of them) would be towns. And most of them are towns indeed, without any doubt. You need to scroll down to half of the page to reach only 10,000 inhabitants! Megyei jogú város also correlates well with size: the only town with 40,000+ inhabitants will be Dunakeszi, so with this one exception the limit will be practically even lower (40,000, rather than 50,000). There are 12 towns with 30,000–40,000 inhabitants, 22 with 20,000–30,000 inhabitants, 85 with 10,000–20,000 inhabitants, and 202 with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Of course, many of them may not need to be included in the English-language Wiktionary but now I think it should be clear that this distinction can be useful and quite natural in terms of the actual meaning of the words. Adam78 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Thank you for the link to the list, the system as you've described will be fine. I'm glad the categories are now in place and the template is working as it should. Panda10 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it still doesn't work. One has to manually enter Category:en:Towns in Hungary and Category:hu:Towns in Hungary, see Baja or Esztergom for example. Adam78 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I removed the link from Hungary and it worked. Panda10 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

But your rollback is in error. I am not one of those crazies who take advantage of the fact that ANYONE can edit Wikipedia.

asking for help to overwrite a redirect

I wanted to move arm and a leg to an arm and a leg with the following reason:

• "cost/spend/charge arm an a leg" doesn't exist; the article is just as necessary before "arm" as it is before "leg"

However, I cannot, because there is already a reverse redirect there.

If you agree with the reason, please move it as an administrator. Adam78 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: There was a discussion and decision on this here. Panda10 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I see, the decision is not about omitting "an" but about omitting "cost" from the title. "An" is still indispensable nonetheless. Adam78 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I requested it here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#an_arm_and_a_leg Adam78 (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nagyszótár template

Hi, thank you for the template. I should mention, though, that a given year (like in this case 2013) only applies to one volume, occasionally two, so this date will have to be omitted from the general template, or modified like 2006–2031, or adapted to the particular initial letter/s (in this case, D). You can find the content of the individual volumes here: hu:w:A magyar nyelv nagyszótára#Eddig megjelent kötetei. I'm not sure which would be the most professional solution, maybe inserting 2006–2031. Adam78 (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I removed the year from the template name, updated the entries, and added 2006–2031 to the template text. Thank you for the information. Panda10 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Present participles becoming adjectives

Hi, what makes you think oszló exists as an adjective as well? I tried to look through all relevant instances of this word in Magyar Nemzeti Szövegtár, but I didn't really find any where this new function could have been grasped. It seems to mean everywhere something in the process of disintegrating, decomposing, dispersing etc., even though it has some syntactic criteria if a word gains a new function like this. For example, one of the reasons why we can know that menő exists as an adjective too is that you can say nagyon menő, which wouldn't be possible if it were a participle (cf. *nagyon iskolába menő). On the other hand, if it takes an adverb that expresses the manner, it has to be an adjective (e.g. lassan iskolába menő and lassan menő are possible but *lassan vagány are not, although the latter word is interchangeable with menő whenever it's in the adjectival meaning). I think there are other syntactic tests as well, probably described in Új magyar nyelvtan or Strukturális magyar nyelvtan / Mondattan among others (I don't remember exactly). There are similar tests to distinguish adjectives from nouns, like a word ending in -ó or -ő can only take -óak or -őek (e.g. láthatóak) if it's a true adjective, but *darálóak are not possible because it's a noun. In other words, just because a participle can theoretically become an adjective it doesn't mean that it will and just because a word could exist it doesn't imply that it actually does. So if you agree, please delete the adjective sense, or if you don't, please kindly provide some reference if you can. As a matter of fact, the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives should be provided only if we are positive that they do exist. There doesn't need to be a specific quotation but at least you should create an example in your mind where it sounds truly natural. For oszló, I didn't manage to come up with any example since whenever I tried it, I always tended to express this meaning in a way like könnyebben oszló and legkönnyebben oszló rather than *oszlóbb and *legoszlóbb, and this was what made me think about their existence in the first place. (Foszlósabb and legfoszlósabb (kalács) is another case, of course. I wonder if some seemingly similar analogy might have misled you or you mechanically created these forms.) I think we should be faithful to reality (the "hard facts") in this aspect as well, rather than hypothesizing forms without grounds. If someone should still need these forms, they can just deduce them from grammar rules (and there is not much irregularity about comparative and superlative forms anyway). Adam78 (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Here is some information I've found:

1. In Bárczi Géza–Országh László: A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959–1962, the entry oszló is both an adjective and a noun.
2. In Pusztai Ferenc: Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, Akadémiai Kiadó, 2003, the word oszló is a noun (oszlóban van) and a present participle (no example was given).
3. The E-Szókincs Alaktani táblázatok contains the entire declension for a noun.
4. I've found only two examples for comparative: Móricz Zsigmond: Az Bétsi Susánna: A zene egyre halkabb és oszlóbb lesz...; Presits Péter: Húsvéti tűzgömb: A harmadik perc után a kígyóból „kacskaringós” lett, amely függőleges irányban (elsősorban alulról felfelé) rövidült, oldalirányban szélesedett, a csík maga vastagabb és oszlóbb lett.
5. Only one example for superlative: "a legoszlóbb halott".
6. A melléknévi igenév szófajváltásáról a Magyar Grammatika 236. oldala három szempontot közöl: a) szerepelhet-e a mondatban állítmányként, b) határozóként és c) fokozható-e. Ha a három szempont mindegyike teljesül, valószínű, hogy az igenévi alak szófajt váltott: melléknév lett belőle.

The declension table in the entry was added by you in the original version, above the verb form, not below. I normally don't add declension tables to present participles. So should I revert my changes? Panda10 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking into the matter so exhaustively. (By the way, there is no question about the noun form with -ban, I've seen it too, it should be mentioned indeed. My only question concerned the adjectival function.) I think we should find a more general solution for extremely rare, untypical, peripheral cases that should not be taken as a model for language learners, at least adding an option "rare" or "rarely", otherwise it will look like some parts of these entries are automatically generated without human supervision, which would be awkward, needless to say. So we should apply this rare or untypical or similar label in this case as well. Perhaps there are some instances for such cases in English-language entries. Adam78 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I updated the entry. Panda10 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting an extra parameter in template:R:hu:AkH2015 for an optional link description

I'd like to link the section A különírás és az egybeírás in the linked document, but the name of the link is not a number but "F4", which doesn't look very meaningful. I wonder if we could have an extra parameter that provides an optional link description, such as [Writing as separate words or as one word] in A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás…. In fact, it should be embedded into (and made subordinate to) the condition of whether a section label is given, because otherwise no specific description is needed. This parameter would be employed in the articles egybeírás and különírás, among others. Thank you if you can help. Adam78 (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I added the "gloss" parameter. See különírás. Panda10 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it's great, except that "F4" shouldn't be visible in my opinion (it's completely irrelevant), so if there is a gloss, the value of the section parameter should not be displayed. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay, I updated the template. Panda10 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, now it looks perfect. :) Adam78 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This is completely off-topic, but...

You have a very pleasant voice. Just so you know. --84.236.127.70 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it sounds remarkably professional, which can't be said for all our audio. And thanks to you both, I've just set kocka as foreign word of the day. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both! :) Panda10 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

szükségek

As I went through the meanings of szükség in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára, I didn't really find anything that would make the plural form possible. If you agree, would you please delete it? I could then mark it as singular-only. Thanks. Adam78 (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe there are some very sporadic instances, though. Google found 38 hits for "ezek a szükségek". First it showed 1000+, but then it turned out it's much fewer. Anyway, we should mark it as rare, at least. Adam78 (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I entered "szükségek" in Google Books. There are 9580 hits, mostly from the 1800s or early 1900s. E.g.: "az emberi szükségek oly sokfélék és változatosak". Instead of rare, perhaps archaic? I think it was used in the sense of szükségletek. Panda10 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's fine, also because it doesn't preclude its occasional use today, but it expresses that it will sound strange nevertheless. Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:Hungarian adjective-verb phrases

(Moved discussion from Appendix talk:Hungarian adjective-verb phrases to here since that page will be deleted.)

@Panda10 Since there are so few phrases that remained here, and since there is such a vague and fine line between adjectives and nouns (as shown by nagy, nehéz, tiszta etc.), I suggest that we close down this page and move the remaining phrases back to the original list (perhaps with some slight mark showing that they contain genuine adjectives). What do you think?

At the same time, I think it should be renamed to show its broader scope, including definite or indefinite numerals (egy, sok e.g. in eggyé válik and sokra tart) and adverbials (listed at the bottom). Maybe the perspective could be slightly changed too, perhaps based on OH.'s term igei alaptagú állandósult szókapcsolat (p. 94), adding the word other (the verb being at the end), that is, possibly something like Hungarian verb-final collocations / set phrases / idioms (??). Adam78 (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The category name Hungarian verb-final set phrases does sound more professional but to list everything in one page creates its own problems. It might grow so large that it will be hard to navigate. Perhaps creating subpages for each title would be a future solution when this happens and the main page could be displaying only the subpage titles. What should happen to the current categories Category:Hungarian noun-verb phrases, Category:Hungarian adjective-verb phrases‎? What to do with noun-final phrases as in Category:Hungarian noun-verb-noun phrases‎, Category:Hungarian verb-noun phrases‎? Panda10 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the latter two questions are fairly easy to answer: they could be renamed (moved) to Hungarian verb-medial set phrases and Hungarian verb-initial set phrases. For the other part, I think it would be really good if these could be browsed on a single page, perhaps in collapsible boxes arranged by case. In my opinion, the formatting should be changed too into a more compact layout, not starting every phrase in a new line and in a little smaller (but still readable) font size. Adam78 (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay. Single page, words listed right next to each other and not in a new line. We'll see if a smaller font is necessary later. I'm not sure about collapsible boxes. I've tried it, you can see the different formats on the same page. The format of the box is changing and on mobile devices these boxes disappear and all items are listed in a single new line. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've reformatted half of it, take a look and see if it is better than the old layout. Might be a little less clear with all the words in one line. Panda10 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe some divisor character could be inserted between them but anyway, I think it's a lot better than the original. Thank you. (I hope you're using some search and replace command, such as the one in Word, otherwise it may take unnecessarily much work.) Adam78 (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

korább, legkorább

I just noticed the reference you inserted. If you add obsolete, archaic, rare or otherwise uncommon forms, please always mark them as such. It is really important for others to see at first glance if something is a mistake or it is just beyond current native speakers' linguistic competence. It is also important for non-native speakers (Hungarian language learners or anyone interested) to know if they should take some linguistic data at face value, as actually existing, valid, effective, useful pieces of information, or as purely historical or theoretical tidbits that sound outright impossible or outlandish to contemporary speakers, something that they should practically avoid in speech just like native speakers do. Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I added the label "archaic". When you changed the comparative to "korábbi" and the superlative to "legkorábbi", did you have any reference for that? How would a reader know the reason for the unusual derivation with an -i at the end? Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I “only” used my native language competence, knowing that I would never say korább nyár, but I might say korábbi nyár. I think a reader being confused about the irregularity is a smaller problem than indicating a form that a contemporary native speaker wouldn't use and perhaps wouldn't even understand. To my mind, usability and truthfulness are preferred to deducibility. After all, we all know very well that there are plenty of exceptions in all natural languages, so why couldn't there be one here. Adam78 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Feel free to change it anyway you want to. Panda10 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to be dismissive, though. I am sorry if it sounded like that. I only want to do my best so the information people get from Wiktionary should be as trustworthy and useful as possible (in terms of contemporary usage). At the same time, I believe we can find ways to reconcile this goal with historical accuracy and grammatical consistency. Hopefully all the discussions between us can and will further this cause. Adam78 (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Sure, no problem. Panda10 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

-sz/-d stem verbs like gazdagodik and gazdagszik

I think these verb pairs (all the verbs that belong to this type) should be consistently treated as each others' alternative forms (rather than synonyms). You can see my changes, linking one of them to the other (perhaps the -szik type is somewhat less used so it should redirect to the -odik/-edik form) with a template link "alternative form of". Their meaning is the same (we should possibly avoid redundance and inconsistent or diverging definitions), their conjugation is the same (both types merged as alternatives throughout) and, first of all, they constitute a verb type on its own (-sz/-d stem verbs).

Also, we should consider how to reflect their meanings, which are often not perfective without a prefix that expresses perfection (like meg-) so that's why I wrote get richer to gazdagodik, with a gloss as explanation. Nevertheless, there might be certain syntactic structures where even gazdagodik can take on the meaning of get rich, at the moment I'm unsure, but you probably agree that it primarily refers to a process, not a result.

Luckily this question only affects verbs that are translated into Hungarian with become/turn/go/get or make/render plus an adjective. Maybe we could create some template for these verbs and many others (like szélesít as opposed to kiszélesít).

I'm open to any and all kinds of suggestions from you. Adam78 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I like the changes and your recommendations. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I also changed Template:hu-conj-szom because a link was missing and because gazdagodom, vastagodom are completely possible forms and yet they were missing. I checked the verbs that currently link to this template and I think gyanakodom, mosakodom, csillapodom, and tolakodom are possible, probably nyugodom, megnyugodom too, whereas aludom, elaludom, kialudom, haragudom are not (at least not in the indefinite sense). In fact, aludok and haragudok aren't really possible, either, so I think the variation should be including both the -(o/u)dok/-(o/u)dom forms or excluding both of them, rather than dealing with the -(o/u)dom form only.

In terms of the front-vowel version, emlékezem, igyekezem, betegedem, dicsekedem are probably possible, verekedem, veszekedem, cselekedem, növekedem, törekedem, melegedem, öregedem may sound more or less unusual while hidegedem don't really sound possible. As a result, I'm afraid we cannot hardwire this option into the templates (neither can we exclude it altogether). In fact, I think these are not incorrect grammatically and even if they are uncommon, it's mostly due to the long form itself (-ede[m/k]) rather than the -m ending only. So maybe if some forms of certain verbs are disabled in the template (or in one of its parameters), it may be the long form rather than the -m ending.

I'm sorry, this question is not really simple. Would you like to add some parameter or do you have a better suggestion? Adam78 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I'm not sure how to resolve that issue, it will need more thinking. But let's complete the first task for all these verb pairs: to keep -odik as the base and connect -szik as the alternative form. We will need to keep their original conjugation, they are not identical. Check out the usage notes at gazdagodik. Is it general enough? Can it be used for other verbs? If yes, I can create a template. I wonder if the perfective prefix is always meg-, or can it be also el-. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you create this template with an optional parameter. If it is not given, the template text will include -meg, and if it's given, the text will include whatever is specified. The latter option will be needed for verbs like szélesít, which take ki- in the perfective sense, or adósodik is an example for el-, and lő is an example for le-, although in this case meg- forms the half-perfective variant. I also suggest inserting an automated link into this template so that readers can immediately check out this form, without having to scroll down and find the right form in the list below. I think it will be a widely used template. Adam78 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have an idea. I noticed that fekszik practically has its own (or at least, highly customized) conjugation template (({{hu-conj-szem-üd|fek|üd|t=y|intrans=y}}) while alszik and haragszik are treated together with many other verbs that have a different conjugation (such as {{hu-conj-szom|al|ud|t=y|vó-only=y}}). What if we just remove alszik and haragszik and treat them specifically (a bit like fekszik) and then the original template (linked above) will be able to generate correct and possible forms for all the remaining verbs even if we add the -(o/e)m alternative? I think it's the best solution. Adam78 (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding conjugated potential verbs form to the conjugation template?

I think it would be useful to add a compact extension to the bottom of the current conjugation templates, containing the conjugated potential verb forms, because some of their forms (namely, the subjunctive) are not transparent (e.g. it is not easy to derive ehessen from eszik for a non-native speaker). If someone looks up a subjunctive potential form, they should be able to find it at least in the search function of Wiktionary as a link, even if we never create those non-lemma pages.

I created an experimental alternative template for eszik:

What do you think?

What's more, I'm also thinking about using the empty space at the top of the box more usefully, especially because there are participle forms (evő, evett, and possibly eendő too) that can take case suffixes, and there is currently no reference whatsoever to these existing forms, either. What if someone wants to look up word forms like evőket or megevettnél? To make the appearance sleeker, we could just have the suffix in the link description, e.g. [[evőket|-ket]], for all the singular and plural endings, for both (or all the three) participle forms (present, past, and future) that can have declension in Hungarian.

The current list of forms (enni, evő, evett, éve, ehet) could be pushed to the left side and the remaining space could host these forms, especially if only the endings are provided (one row for the 16 suffixed singular form of the present participle, another row for the 16 plural forms of the same participle, then two more rows for the past participle, and two more rows for the future participle; this way we could fill up this void very nicely). Adam78 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've just created the entry for ehet. Will that work? I find the sample table a little too crowded and not as clear. Panda10 (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It could only work if the potential forms of all verbs were created. I think it would be immense extra work to create nézhet, láthat, olvashat etc. for thousands (!) of verbs, only to enable people to find their conjugated potential forms. Isn't it simpler if it's generated by the template? In terms of implementation, layout etc., I'm open to all other suggestions. Adam78 (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The potential forms cannot just stay on the bottom without labels. This would mean to append a second large table to the current one, using the same labels and structure. Have you ever used Wiktionary on a cell phone or another mobile device to look at these large conjugation tables? What about all the missing noun/adjective forms: asztalomat, legnagyobbnak, etc.? Why making an exception with verb forms? Panda10 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the table can (and should) be made more compact, first of all, by making the first verb form column wider, to make enough room for eszek or eszem or én téged/titeket eszlek. If we could reduce the description part on the far left side from three to two columns (I'm pretty sure it's possible), then we could gain a lot of space in height.

On the other hand, we wouldn't necessarily have to repeat all the labels for the potential verb forms as long as it's clear that we simply follow the order of the forms above. If necessary, tool tips could also help navigation (a description appearing when you hover the cursor over a link). I would prefer to make these potential forms look secondary in comparison with the primary verb forms.

In connection with asztalomat, legnagyobbnak etc., yes, I do absolutely and wholeheartedly support their linking (in a compact way); I just didn't want to overwhelm you with too many ideas at the same time. Adam78 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I have a feeling that this task is beyond my current coding abilities. Right now I need to work on two other things: 1) cleaning up the hu-suffix conversion - more than 200 entries; 2) finishing the -sz/-d verbs discussed above. Panda10 (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I suppose the goal is to change the layout for every verb, not just the special ones. I haven't tested any of the ideas below, so I'm not sure if they are technically feasible, but here is what I think:

• Potential table: I've looked at other foreign language verb conjugation templates. Examples:

A) A very large table in {{zu-infl-verb}}, look at the placement of the mood headers, this table is coded in Lua which means in mobile view it is open by default and cannot be closed.

B) Multiple dynamic tables below each other in {{tr-conj-head}}. This is a script, so in mobile view all the tables are closed by default, as they should be.

C) Multiple dynamic tables inside a single dynamic table in {{sw-conj}}, each with its own show/hide link. This is in Lua again, so in mobile view all the sub-tables are open.

Based on this, we could try to copy the potential table at the bottom of the regular conjugation table and if users want to look at it, they can click "show". The potential forms would be included in search. Externally, before opening the table, users would see one table. Same as the current situation. When they click "show", the regular table would open, at the bottom the unopened Potential table would be visible. The parameter numbers start with 1 in the potential table, so those would have to be renumbered.

• Infinitive row: This could be deleted from the top, the "Conjugated infinitive" label at the bottom could be changed to "Infinitive", the actual infinitive form moved to the beginning of the row: "Infinitive: enni | ennem | enned | ennie | ennünk | ennetek | enniük.
• Inflection of participles: By adding the inflected forms, we would mix conjugation with declension. Not sure if this is desirable. But the real complexity comes with the additional parameters that would have to be introduced to the conjugation table. This would mean modifying every single verb.
• Creating form entries with a bot: We could leave the current conjugation tables as they are and request a bot run to create the potential form entries for all existing verbs. I'm not sure how this would work since everybody is busy with their own projects.
• Possessive forms of nouns: Since we are talking about templates. A few years ago I created an experimental template to show all possessive forms: {{hu-possessive}}. I've never had the time to actually implement it. I was hesitant because it behaves and looks slightly differently than the current case table. Here is a comparison: {{hu-infl-pos-table-comparison}}. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to delve into the issue in detail. I will think it over, but now first I'd like to quote a current headline from a news portal: Jávor: Kifizettetheti a Roszatom, ha a magyarok hibájából csúszik a Paks 2. As a matter of fact, I think we should think about the combination of causative and potential forms, since this is visibly possible. Adam78 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: The -hat/-het verbs are treated as non-lemmas, potential forms, with custom conjugation tables, while the -tat/-tet verbs are lemmas with their own senses and regular conjugation table which does include their own potential form. If we append the potential table to the regular table, the -tat/-tet tables will automatically contain the -tathat/-tethet forms. See hibáztat. Panda10 (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

-vé

I thought it was intentional that suffixes are marked without quotes, so I'm confused about this edit: [6] Adam78 (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess it depends on whether it's a translation or a description/explanation/paraphrasing of the meaning. Adam78 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Panda10 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Improving Template:number box to include display of important forms of Hungarian numerals

Could you please help me improve this template or request it from the appropriate person or at the appropriate place, so that this module can be displayed with all its parameters (if given for a particular number), that is, 11 parameters for most numbers? At the moment, many of the additional parameters are not displayed at all; you can try {{number box|hu|2}}. By the way, the colon should be italicized after the name of the form or at least there should be a space after it; now it's pretty ugly. Adam78 (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I tested this with your example by adding {{number box|hu|2}} to kettő without removing the {{cardinalbox}}. The difference is interesting. There is no space before the colon and seven of the parameters are listed. Only two are missing: Nominal and Number of people. So what should be the question to be posted to Wiktionary:Grease_pit? Panda10 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I believe the extra parameters are not defined in Module:number_list. Only seven of them are listed at the beginning of the module code. So the parameter names you created will have to be added by someone and maybe explained what they are for. Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, would you like me to make this request there? I don't think I've done it before in Wiktionary. In fact, I think I'd like to ask for one more thing, that is, to be able to link both két and kettő from the box, as two items in the same field, separated by a comma, as well as the opportunity to modify the link description at the very bottom to display both terms when linking to "2 (szám)". Adam78 (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Yes, please add this request to Grease pit where the technical questions and requests are discussed. Just click the plus sign between the Edit and History tabs to add a new request. Your understanding of the new parameters are better than mine. I'd separate the specific new requirements with bullets or numbers to make them clearer. Just to clarify: You want to use the {{cardinalbox}} template and display all parameters the same way as the {{number box}} template? Or you want to add new functionality and new parameters to {{number box}}? The wplink parameter is available in {{cardinalbox}} only. The linking of két and kettő from {{number box}} is already available. Changing the description, I'm not sure if it makes sense. It is connected to the page name which is either kettő or két. Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

wplink only affects the destination of the link, but anyway, it's not so important. If we avoid ordinalbox and cardinalbox, and use only the number box, the link will work, so this problem can be avoided, yes. It's a pity we don't have a more professional name than number of people... Adam78 (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

szúnyog and irregular spelling

Hi, I'm sorry this isn't very timely, but about two months ago you reversed my edit on the page for szúnyog. I had read that although it is spelt with a long 'ú' it is pronounced with a short 'u' instead. Is that not true? On the Wikipedia page for Hungarian orthography Hungarian orthography, in the section 'four principles of spelling', in the second paragraph it says: "In some cases, however, vowel length or consonant length does not match between writing and pronunciation (e.g. szúnyog [suɲog] ‘mosquito’, küzd [kyːzd] ‘fight’, állat [aːlɒt] ‘animal’, egy [eɟː] ‘one’)." Is this incorrect? There is also a page on the Hungarian Wikipedia that lists all such spellings and includes these (see here). I'm very interested in these spellings and think that they should be reflected on Wiktionary if they are accurate, if they are not then maybe the Wikipedia page needs revising? Please let me know, I want to know what is correct. (Please ping me or else I won't see the reply, or you can continue this conversation on my talk page if you prefer) Thanks! 2WR1 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@2WR1: Hi, I reversed your edit because [ˈsuːɲoɡ] is the standard pronunciation and as such it has to be mentioned even if there are other dialectal variants. I'm not sure about the short u, maybe it's dialectal, or just rapid speech makes it sound short. I've never heard it pronounced that way and I grew up in Hungary. Same with küzd, never heard it with long ű. Not to mention állat [aːlɒt] which always sounded to me like uneducated speech. As for egy [eɟː], that's standard and this is how it's displayed here in this wiki. I went through the Hungarian Wikipedia list, some of the examples are puzzling. The article mixes the standard assimilation rules (listed in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation assimilation) with other types of pronunciation. I checked the history of the Wikipedia articles and noticed that User:Adam78 was among the editors. He might be able to give you a more up-to-date information about this subject. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer. Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Panda10 Thanks for your quick reply, that's very interesting. I had always read those things and assumed they were true so it's interesting to hear a native speaker say otherwise, it makes me question where this information was coming from in the first place. If it is dialectal I guess Wikipedia should reflect that, I don't know a ton about Hungarian but I'm interested in it's spelling. I knew about egy before, are there any other words that you know of that have something like this? An irregular spelling that is. Thanks again 2WR1 (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@2WR1 It seems that the Wikipedia lists are fine, the pronunciation of the listed words is not stable, some pronounce it long, others short, depending on which area of the country they grew up. Panda10 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I could write lots of things (I think I took note about six items to be expounded on) but for the moment, let this one be enough (written by him). First and foremost of all, however, let's avoid the fallacy of spelling (cf. also this), especially as far as the length of i/í, u/ú, ü/ű is concerned. Anyway, we can leave [szúnyog] as well as a pronunciation variant, with long a ú, if you're sure it sounds common for you, independently of its written form. Adam78 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Thanks for the links. I still think the regular long ú pronunciation should be kept, but I added the variant with short u and a link to pronunciation audio on forvo.com. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Panda10 @Adam78, interesting! So could I add in other such pronunciations as alternative pronunciations? If any of these are true, I think that Wiktionary should reflect that and list them for the entries. 2WR1 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@2WR1 Let's not rush into this. There is a lot to think about. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• In fact, there is a phonological rule in Hungarian that excludes the [aːlːɒt] pronunciation of állat, the one that forbids VVCC (the cluster of a long vowel followed by a long/geminate consonant, if within a single word, that is, not including long consonants from inflection, derivation, or compounding). (@2WR1, if you look up Google with keywords like VVCC Hungarian phonology, you can find sources about it in English as well. I'm sorry I couldn't provide English-language sources for my preceding post.) There is a nice introductory article about it in Hungarian too. This article is also relevant here because it mentions more cases where the spelling is misleading in terms of pronunciation in terms of the length of i/í, u/ú, ü/ű (e.g. gyújt, nyújt, sújt, múlt, all with a short [u] in pronunciation). The caveat for the word being uninflected and uncompounded is interesting because this is actually the only way we distinguish súlyt (with a long ú) and sújt (with a short u in pronunciation) or írt (the past tense of ír, with a long í) and irt (in the sense 'exterminate', no inflection). In short, the mechanical transcription by the IPA template can be nothing more than a starting point in terms of the length of these vowels.
• As a point of interest, Ádám Nádasdy, the author of many linguistic educational articles, some of which I linked above, aimed to follow pronunciation in his translations of Shakespeare's plays (e.g. writing sűrü instead of sűrű, as far as I recall), since its lines were supposed to be recited on stage by professional actors, and there's no use creating poetry that sound unnatural, even if they might look somewhat uncommon in writing.
• Most of the content of the Wikipedia article linked above is by me; I compiled the bulk of it from former spelling competition task sheets. Admittedly, it's only "indirect proof", but if a form is a worthy candidate of spelling competitions, one can suspect that these are tricky words; or if a particular word is not tricky (i.e., its pronunciation does match its spelling), there are many exceptions among representatives of this type (i/í, u/ú, ü/ű) so their spelling is not quite predictable.
• See also this post and this post (the reference at the latter is corrected here). The latter brings up a suggestion by the eminent linguist Loránd Benkő to abolish the length distinction of these three vowels pairs, because they often depend more on the dialectal region (basically Eastern or Western Hungary) than the word in question.
• I also recommend checking out the reference book Helyesírás, especially on page 50 and on pp. 56–57. What I mean from the former is mainly this paragraph:

  A magánhangzópárok közül az i : í, u : ú, ü : ű helyes kiejtésével van a legtöbb gond. Ennek oka az, hogy mivel a nyugat-magyarországi nyelvjárások lényegében a rövid változatokkal élnek, a kelet-magyarországiak pedig sokkal gyakrabban a hosszúakkal, a kiejtésben nagy az ingadozás, illetőleg esetenként a hosszú és a rövid kiejtésváltozatok is előfordulnak. A helyesírás ezzel szemben egyetlen alakváltozatot fogad el, vagyis sokszor meg kell tanulni, hogy egy-egy szó vagy szóalak milyen kiejtésváltozat vagy hagyomány alapján íródik. Ha például valaki a dicsér ige i-jét hosszan ejti, meg kell tanulnia a rövid i-s rögzítést.

  • The latter passage lists a couple of words whose pronunciation either varies or differs from the written form. The words with a short written i/u/ü or o/ö variant are the following: április, árboc (NB: its spelling was changed to long in 2015), bogáncs, bögöly, böjt, bura (NB: its spelling was also changed to long in 2015), csibor, csüd, dicsér, finom, ige, irigy, kiváló, körönd, körút, lakos, mindig, nyirbál, odáz, ördöngös, öv, papiros, posta, pöröly, regös, rökönyödik, sima, szerviz, szolid, Tibor. (Doubtlessly, some of them occur with a long vowel only in substandard speech.) The ones listed with a long written í/ú/ű or ó/ő are the following: alól, bíbic, bőrönd, búcsú, búza, csípő, csúnya, diszciplína, előtt, felől, gúnár, gúnya, gyűlöl, hínár, hiúz, hízeleg, ígér, immúnis (it was changed in the meantime, according to a later edition of the spelling dictionary, so it's immunis today), ítél, július, június, kandúr, kímél, kísér, kísért, kíván, kíváncsi, pandúr, papír, presztízs, rubeóla (already changed: rubeola), szelíd, szúnyog [!], tímár, túzok, zúzmara. (Again, some of them occur with a short vowel only in substandard speech.)
• (Actually, these words could be included in the Wikipedia article, too, and this reference above could be cited as a source. I admit Wikipedia is not a proper source on its own; instead, it should only summarize and/or rearrange other pieces of knowledge that are referenced below.) Anyway, we ought to consider the genuine pronunciation of these words carefully and mention explicitly and truthfully all those cases where they commonly differ from the written form. If Loránd Benkő claimed that it's one of the most confusing fields of Hungarian spelling (and these cases are ever so often tested at spelling competitions) then we'd better give credence to it.
• The best would be if we had a pronunciation dictionary so we could look up every single word in question. All I have is this one and it only lists foreign words. I don't have László Fekete's books →ISBN or →ISBN. Hopefully the reference book Helyesírás can substitute for them to an extent, with its explanatory first section. Adam78 (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 wow! Thanks for all the information, it's super interesting. As someone who doesn't know Hungarian but is really interested in it, adding this kind of information to the Wikipedia Hungarian orthography page, or a separate new page, would be a great resource. 2WR1 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, you mention some words whose standard spellings were changed, I think the old spelling should still be included as "superceded" variant spellings or something like that. 2WR1 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Thank you for the links and the outstanding, detailed analysis. Needles to say, I need some time to wrap my head around it. Eőry, Vilma. Értelmező szótár+ (“Explanatory Dictionary Plus”). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2007. →ISBN does contain pronunciation notes for some of the words. For example: [kíván] vagy [kiván]. A hosszú í-s ejtés választékosabb. If you download the PDF and search for "Kiejtés", you'll see them. We could start with that list, since it came from a dictionary. As for állat :) - okay, I understand, there is a rule. But who follows it? I don't and no one I know does. Listen to this forvo.com audio. Panda10 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Any more thoughts on this? Were you planning on adding the irregular pronunciations to the pages? If so, do you need any help? 2WR1 (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Panda10/archive2023,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Panda10/archive2023,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

számomra etc.

I changed their classification to adverbs (rather than postposition forms), based on your change on számára. I'm not sure if the category Hungarian postposition forms is justified at all (it could be deleted), the only remaining page being ellent, which must be some kind of lexicalization, since the postposition itself cannot be suffixed; only a noun (or another type of nominal) could take an accusative suffix. Please be so kind as to revise the entry for közöttünk, too. Adam78 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

PS: Since we are at Hungarian-related categories, you might want to delete Category:Hungarian words created during the language reform, since we have Category:Hungarian words originating from the language reform. Also, Category:Hungarian nouns with two ways to form the possessive could be populated automatically if you add a category inclusion to the optional -j parameter of the possessive (j=y). Adam78 (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I completed your requests. On and off, I keep working on the adverbs derived from postpositions. The standard I applied so far was two main adverbs (e.g. alatta, and also őalatta as its synonym), since these are the lemmas in printed dictionaries (although őalatta would not be a dictionary entry), the rest are adverb forms (alattam, alattad, etc.). To clarify the meanings, I used examples. I see you used a different method, making közöttünk an adverb instead of an adverb form. So would you accept the current system described above? Panda10 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I am sorry, it was indeed my mistake that I didn't realize they could be categorized as "adverb forms" or something like that. As a matter of fact, most adverbs cannot even be suffixed (except for comparative and superlative, occasionally) so it's no wonder that it didn't occur to me. In fact, categorization of benne, hozzá, tőle, nála, neki, róla etc. as adverbs may be outdated. When I checked Magyar grammatika →ISBN, I saw they are treated as forms of the personal pronoun. Yes, they are suppletive, as they do not look like normal personal pronouns and cannot be deduced from them etymologically (like me from I or us from we) but it's a matter of diachrony, historical linguistics, and may not be relevant from a contemporary classification of parts of speech. A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára was published 50+ years ago so we might not have to stick to it if more recent (authoritative) sources say something different. Do you think these words could be categorized as adverbial personal pronouns, adverb-suffixed personal pronouns, or something in this vein? There are so many of them: benne 6 forms, őbenne another 6 forms, so 12 persons multiplied by 13 suffixes: 156 entries, plus 12 forms multiplied by some 25 suffixed postpositions, altogether 300 entries as well as almost twenty of their variant forms – I believe these 470+ entries (pages) would be well worth their own category, separately from regular personal pronouns and regular adverbs. I don't know if we need to request another category. Adam78 (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: You're right. I've just checked the appropriate chapters of Magyar grammatika and the inflected forms of postpositions (alattam, alattad, etc.) are now personal pronouns. I think we should update the old system with the new one. The part of speech has to be ===Pronoun===, since we have to follow the rules of this wiki. For the headline, we have multiple choices depending on what we want to do. Do we want to treat all of them as lemma and categorize them in the same category? Or do we want to treat the dictionary entry (benne, alatta) as personal pronouns (a lemma) and the inflected forms (bennem, alattad) as pronoun forms (a non-lemma)? If we use {{hu-pron|personal}}, this will categorize them in Category:Hungarian personal pronouns, so én, te, engem, benned, alattunk, közöttetek will all be stored in a single category. If we use {{head|hu|pronoun form}}, this will categorize the inflected forms in Category:Hungarian pronoun forms. Panda10 (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If you do mean that there is no chance whatsoever to fine-tune the part of speech (what I meant by suggesting "I don't know if we need to request another category"), then I definitely suggest using Category:Hungarian personal pronouns, both because this is the way they are officially categorized, and both because the category of pronoun forms is already so diverse and so crowded that it wouldn't be user-friendly to add another big group, which mostly follows its own rules (case suffix or postposition + personal suffix), different from the rest (whatever pronoun + case suffix). Let's not put anything else in the category "pronoun forms". This functional kind of sorting should be more informative and more truthful anyway. Adam78 (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: We can certainly create an extra category for these pronouns and use {{head|hu|adverbial pronoun}} for the headline. This is just an example for the category name. But the header must be ===Pronoun===. Do you agree on the part of speech (pronoun)? Do you want to combine the lemma and non-lemma items as lemmas? Panda10 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, considering how few items there are currently in the category "personal pronouns", I don't think we need to put those few items separately from the rest. And considering how consistently Magyar grammatika calls these words personal pronouns, no matter their structure, maybe we don't need to devise a new term for them. (Btw, "adverbial personal pronouns" would be certainly more preferable to "Adverbial pronouns," but the former may be too long.) Whether to treat rajta and rajtam (etc.) as separate lemmas: I think we shouldn't, because it's better to have the option to see the latter two types together as well as representatives of different types (nekem vs neki rather than having *nekim or *neke, rám vs rá rather than *ra) together, side by side: they're not entirely regular, after all; they're not automatically generated from the base form or vice versa. So I suggest we should put them all in the same category, "personal pronouns" as such. Adam78 (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I modified alattam. Part of speech: Pronoun, category: Hungarian adverbial personal pronouns. Let me know if this is acceptable. Panda10 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

All right, thank you. I thought you could simply move them to "personal pronouns," without any qualifications, but I understand it has its advantages if we treat the "adverbial" forms separately. Maybe this is the best way; I'll leave that to you. Adam78 (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I modified it again. How about this version? Panda10 (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's good. First I didn't understand why you deleted # {{inflection of|alatta||1|s|lang=hu}} without inserting it anywhere else, but then I realized that it's actually an inflection of én, despite its form. Nevertheless, I think this derivation (from alatta, morphologically speaking) should be included at least in the etymology section, rather than deleting it altogether.

What's more, I think we should consistently add a link to the corresponding form of the demonstrative pronoun whenever a 3rd person derivative is concerned, so e.g. linking annak from neki and vice versa, because they're often synonymous (bízom benne, hogy ~ bízom abban, hogy).

For the long run, we should aim to avoid redundance, because it's bound to produce quite a few problems. That is, if we need to list five or six senses of alatta (see its entry in Nagyszótár), then usually the same senses should be listed at alattam, alattad, alattunk, alattatok and alattuk, only changing the person. I hardly think it's practical, and if I may open the can of worms I've been intending to open for a while, we should consider the same principle for suffix variants, whether with only two forms (etc. -ban/-ben), or three (-hoz/-hez/-höz), four (-n/-on/-en/-ön or -ú/-ű/-jú/-jű or -bb/-abb/-obb/-ebb), five (-t/-at/-ot/-et/-öt or -ik/-aik/-eik/-jaik/-jeik), or as many as fifty-four (-val/-vel and all its assimilated forms from -bal till -zsel). Remember that most suffixes have multiple senses (place, time, manner etc.). Just think of it if someone starts working on -ú while all the senses are already beautifully expounded at -jú, or if a reader finds totally different sets of senses given at different variants of the very same suffix. I believe we should do our best to avoid random bifurcations and "polifurcations" to ensure consistence and professionalism: things that are essentially the same should be described at only one place and all else should redirect there. The good thing is that I know I'm not inventing the wheel, but I still noticed that the current structure encourages editors to list senses again and again at different forms (I think I made this mistake myself at -a/-e/-ja/-je, which has more uses than the sole possessive, such as expressing time past, but at least it started to make me reconsider the system).

I have to admit that this aspect supports the case for having only one lemma for the 3rd person singular and the other persons should be categorized as its forms. Let's discuss it a bit more before you start changing dozens of entries. Adam78 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: In Eőry, Vilma. Értelmező szótár+ (“Explanatory Dictionary Plus”). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2007. →ISBN the word alatta is marked as személyragos határozószó and not personal pronoun. This dictionary was published 7 years after Magyar Grammatika. This is getting too confusing. Panda10 (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if I'm compelled to choose, I prefer Magyar grammatika. Btw, Nagyszótár also says személyes névmás for alatta. Adam78 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

See also -bel, I started using there "(case suffix) assimilated harmonic variant of -val." We could use something like that for suffix variants, but I'm open to all ideas. (It will have to be altered for -ú/-ű/-jú/-jű and -tt/-ott/-ett/-ött and some other variants, though.) Adam78 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay, Nagyszótár wins. For now I'd like to focus on correcting personal pronouns such as bennünk and alattunk before addressing the other issues. Those should be a discussion for another thread. I updated alattam again. Added an etymology, headline is personal pronoun forms (this will require a new category); since it's a non-lemma entry, I used {{inflection of|hu|alatta||1|s}} again instead of providing translations. The example sentence should clarify that. Please review each section of the entry and let me know if this format can be used for the others. Panda10 (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it will be fine; we (and other editors) should always pay attention never to link to the postposition (like alatt) but to the personal-suffixed pronoun form (alatta, like here). I hope the header will make it clear for future editors and readers alike that it's derived from the former (and ultimately the personal pronoun) rather than the postposition. I hope that the resulting categories will be useful, too. Thank you! May I see how you plan to handle alatta and form variants like őeléjük? I wonder if alatt will be indicated as a derivative of én and whether őeléjük will link to elé or eléjük. Adam78 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: But it does point to the postposition alatt in the etymology. I am not sure if the ety is correct. It's a little confusing, since it's an inflection of alatta but it originates from alatt +-am? I was hoping that you could shed some light on this. Panda10 (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest that we could write it's the "subessive" form of én, but it's not a serious option, of course (unfortunately). In fact, the etymology (historical derivation) and the functional or semantic classification don't need to match in every case; check out any other instance of suppletivism (like go vs. went). Let's give this matter a little time. I think it's quite normal that we can't find a quick fix for a case that outsmarted dozens of linguists for centuries. Adam78 (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: In Nagyszótár, előtte is marked as "szem hsz" and not personal pronoun. Hmm, a typo? Panda10 (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Let's see what we have:

• alá: névutó, határozószó és igekötő (?!)
• alája: személyes névmás (!)
• alatta: személyes névmás (as we've established)
• alóla: személyes névmás
• bele: személyes névmás és igekötő
• belőle: személyes névmás
• benne: személyes névmás
• elé: szem hsz és névutó (?!)
• elébe: szem hsz (?!)
• előle: szem hsz (?!)
• előtte: szem hsz (as we've established)

Well, it does seem a little inconsistent. All I can think of is that the authors have updated their system of classification in the process of editing (with the exception of alá, which is a complex case in itself). Maybe we should consult other recent authoritative sources as well, some background material of this work that might justify the system, or perhaps eventually the author/editor herself. Adam78 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: What are the other recent authoritative sources? And how to contact the editor? I don't see any contact information on the website. Will she even have time for such questions? If you'd have time for the inquiry, that would be great. I'm not sure if I want to continue with the changes. There are too many uncertainties. Panda10 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, it's not so difficult to find her email at the website of the Research Institute of Linguistics, but I only mentioned it as a very last resort, after checking out all else we can put our hands on (we need to look around a bit). What I can presently think of is the (relatively) new edition of Magyar értelmező kéziszótár (published in 2003). It is not freely available online, though you can have a trial of this package of Hungarian linguistics for free for 2 hours. Wherever I checked in it, I saw szjeles hsz (I checked about a score of them, both some derived from case suffixes and some derived from postpositions). However, I still have a hunch that this categorization is slightly outdated; there must be a reason why Magyar grammatika is so clear about this point. Nevertheless, I understand you're not convinced at the moment and you're somewhat tired of it. I'll see if I have the time (and—frankly—the mood) for this particular inquiry. There are lots of other things to do here. We can get back to this later. We don't need to solve everything right away. :) At least we can safely say that the current solution is not outright wrong. Adam78 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I have a printed copy of Magyar értelmező kéziszótár. It was one of my sources to establish the current system. How about e-nyelv? (They never replied to any of my e-mails.) Or www.nyest.hu? Panda10 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I think e-nyelv.hu primarily aims to advise people on matters that are already settled and Nyest.hu mainly intends to explore small areas of (popular) interest, rather than "dry" issues of definition or categorization. On the other hand, I guess nobody likes being a judge in ongoing debates, which this question appears to be. If there is a difference between solutions given in MÉKSz. and in MG. and even between different entries within Nszt. itself, then I tend to assume that this matter is not yet convincingly and ultimately settled. I suppose we need to find out the pros and cons in periodicals like Magyar Nyelv, Magyar Nyelvőr, or in academic articles published elsewhere. This looks like a "specialist" question so I think genuine scholars (like the authors of Magyar grammatika) may find it apposite to answer such questions, at least on where to look further. Adam78 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Here are some examples of how the terms (személyragos/személyjeles határozószó, személynévmási határozószó vs. személyes névmás) are used. I was leaning to change the Adverb PoS to Pronoun, but now it really bothers me that the Nagyszótár is not consistent in this respect. Especially, if you read their own rules of editing:

1. A magyar nyelv nagyszótára, a szótár szerkesztési elveiről:

   A magyar nyelv nagyszótárának grammatikai, ezen belül szófaji rendszere elsősorban a Keszler Borbála (szerk.): Magyar grammatika (Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó, Budapest, 2000; rövidítve: MGr.) kötethez igazodik, ugyanakkor nem követi minden vonatkozásban ennek megoldásait.

   Az új grammatika alapján személyes névmásnak minősítjük a hozzá, vele, utána típust.

   A személyes névmás személyjeles formában címszóvá váló rendhagyó határozói eseteinek, illetve a személyjeles határozószóknak azok az alakjai, amelyekben a személyes névmás mint nyomatékosító elem megjelenik (pl. énhozzám, illetve őutána), nem kerülnek bokrosított szócikkbe, vagyis nem kapnak kötőjeles én-, te- stb. címszót. Ezek a szavak a hozzá, utána stb. névmások példamondatai között szerepelnek (pl. a hozzá címszóban az énhozzám, tehozzád stb.).

2. Balogh Judit : A kereszteződő szófajúságról

   A korábbiakkal ellentétben ugyancsak nem tartjuk határozószóknak a személyes névmások határozóragos és névutós alakjait helyettesítő formákat, az úgynevezett személynévmási határozószókat sem, hanem ezeket is egyértelműen a névmások közé soroljuk, mivel a személyes névmás és a személynévmási határozószó együtt alkotja a személyes névmás paradigmáját, ragozási sorát, csakhogy a határozói eseteket (és a tárgyesetet is) ezek a névmások rendhagyó módon hozzák létre (én, engem, nekem, bennem, belőlem…, alattam, fölöttem, mellettem stb.). Mivel ezek is névmások, nem pedig határozószók, így tankönyvünkben a kereszteződő szófajúság esetükben nem merül fel.

3. Grétsy-Kemény: Nyelvművelő Kéziszótár , Tinta Könyvkiadó 2005

   hozzám, utánam - személyjeles határozószó

   felőlem - a felől névutó egyes szám 1. személyű birtokos személyjeles határozói alakja

   Az ő személyes névmás nélkül névutós alakja a köznyelvben: nélküle.

4. Sulinet - Személyragok egyéb szófajoknál

   Eredetileg a bennem, utánad, róla, melletünk stb. szavaknak az lehetett a szerepe, hogy a személyes névmásokat határozóragokkal alkalmassá tegyék a különféle mondatrészszerepekre (te+ben, én+től stb.). A nyelvszokásnak ezek az alakulatok nem felelhettek meg, ezért a szó végén újra megjelent a személy kifejezése ezúttal már személyrag formájában ugyanúgy, mint a főnév vagy a főnévi igenév végén. Mivel ez után a toldalék után már nem állhat más végződés, személyragnak nevezzük. Idővel ezekből a szavakból eltűnt a redundáns (feleslegesen ismétlődő, tartalommal rendelkező) szótő, a személyes névmás, és mára az a különleges eset állt elő, hogy két toldalék alkotja a szóalakot: től-em stb. A kivételes helyzet miatt ennek a szóalaktípusnak két neve is van: az eredeti állapotra utal a történeti jellegű határozóragos személyes névmás elnevezés, mai formájához jobban illik a személyragos határozószó (nem tökéletes, mert a határozószó a mai nyelvben nem toldalékolható).

Panda10 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disappeared; I needed a little time to think these things over. I think we can clearly see that the tendency goes towards treating these words as personal pronouns (as given in the aim of Nagyszótár, for example), even if it's not consistently followed. And if we just consider the fact that they are translated into other languages with a given form of the personal pronoun ("to me", "with me" etc.), and the fact that adverbs don't normally take personal suffixes, we arrive at the same conclusion. Also, engem, nekem and hozzám take the same place in Hungarian grammar: in Hungarian, all these suffixed forms seem to take part in the paradigmatic system, not only one form (as "me"), two forms (as "mich" and "mir" in German), or five forms (as in Russian). Furthermore, if we were to consider them as adverbs, then the place of these pronoun forms would be empty, which wouldn't make much sense. Of course, I don't mean to make a final judgement over centuries of linguistic research, but I'm more and more convinced that we take a good path if we follow this way.

I found one more source that may be of interest: Hegedűs Rita: Magyar nyelvtan. Formák, funkciók, összefüggések. Budapest: Tinta, 2005 →ISBN, namely page 105 and page 106 in it.

As a matter of fact, I wonder if we could put all these pronoun forms in their own category, named Category:Hungarian personal pronoun forms (as opposed to Category:Hungarian personal pronouns or Category:Hungarian pronoun forms). I mean, nekem, neki, engem, and őt together, the first person along with the third person, but all separate from abba or akárkik. There are some 500 of this type alone, and I'm afraid it's going to be a mess soon, while it will be clear for readers that there is a particular group among them which stands out from the rest. – I suppose you separated them because this is how you can keep neki as a lemma and nekem as a derived form of the latter, but who said that a form can be derived only one single time? Is it impossible that nekem is given as deriving from neki while neki is given as deriving from ő? Even if the category of personal pronouns will be populated with words like neki, benne, hozzá etc. (I can put up with it), I don't think we could dump their forms together with all the other pronouns just because they are not lemmas. Even the suffixes they take are entirely different (case suffixes of the other pronoun forms vs. personal suffixes of the personal pronoun forms). They are rather disparate, I'd say. I think creating and using this category would be really worthwhile and helpful. Adam78 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I came to the same conclusion that they should be treated as personal pronouns and they should be in their own form category. I started going that way but I couldn't make it work. The entries that went into the personal pronoun forms category were suddenly removed from the non-lemma category which is not good. I asked for help in Grease pit but maybe my question wasn't clear, the problem remained unsolved. So I reversed everything and now I'm using the pronoun form category. Panda10 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Then maybe we'll need to add them one by one to that category, like in the good ol' days. (If you don't want to do that, I'll understand it of course; maybe I'll do it by myself some day.) If the mountain won't come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain. Let's not give up. The interests of users (readers and editors) should precede over arbitrary software limitations. Adam78 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've just discovered that {{head|hu|personal pronoun}} will not place the word into Hungarian lemmas. So I had to change it to {{hu-pron|personal}}. As for the personal pronoun forms, I can live with Category:Hungarian pronoun forms. After all, we do have the appendices that list all of them in a table format. If you still want to group them in Category:Hungarian personal pronoun forms, that can be added manually, as you said.

To summarize:

• Personal pronouns (én, te, ...), their accusatives (engem, téged, ...), 3rd person singular suffixed postpositions (alatta, őalatta, mellette, őmellette, ...): Lemmas, they will go to Category:Hungarian pronouns and Category:Hungarian personal pronouns by using {{hu-pron|personal}}.
• Suffixed forms of personal pronouns (nekem, neked,...) and postpositions (alattam, alattad, ...): Non-lemmas, they will go to Category:Hungarian pronoun forms by using {{head|hu|pronoun form}}.

Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: This is completed. The only words in Category:Hungarian adverb forms are: legtöbbet, legtöbbször, mindenkorra, többet, többször. Are they correct? Or should they be recategorized, as well? Panda10 (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

encoding -lak/-lek/-alak/-elek

Currently álljalak and álljam are defined in exactly the same way ("first-person singular subjunctive present definite of áll"), látlak in the same way as látom ("first-person singular indicative present definite of lát"), etc., although (needless to say) the former forms refer to second-person objects in particular. How could we encode their distinction in the template {{inflection of}}? I suppose it should be a third option aside from definite and indefinite (there are other special options as well for other languages), but you may have come to a different agreement with Qorilla or someone else. (?) Adam78 (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: There was no special agreement with anyone about this. What definition would you like to see? The {{inflection of}} is able to handle plain text. Panda10 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

At least there should be opportunity to add an extra parameter in short, which could be something like sp, 2p, 2p, or 2po, displayed as 2nd-person object, so the result could go like "first-person singular indicative present 2nd-person object definite of lát". A Practical Hungarian Grammar by László Keresztes has "3rd person object" and "2nd person object" (page 40). There are already 100+ possible tags listed on the "inflection of" description page, so I suppose this could be added too, so that editors don't have to spell it out every time in full. Adam78 (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've changed látlak to {{inflection of|hu|lát||1|s|ind|pres|2|object|def}} by simply adding 2|object as shown in an explanation under {{inflection of}} usage. The result is exactly what you wrote above. Panda10 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

If you say this is the best option under the present circumstances, it's okay with me. Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: You can always request a new parameter in Grease pit if you'd prefer that solution. Panda10 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: Please take a look at the end of this discussion: Template talk:hu-conj-unified/doWork. Would you agree to formatting the text as second-person-object? If yes, would it be better as a new parameter which I can request or just adding text? The text will be built into the new acceleration code, we will not have to type it in. Panda10 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I replied it properly there: I agree and I think it would be good to have a parameter for this purpose. Adam78 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Panda10/archive2023,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian sárga -- why the need to distinguish citromsárga and narancssárga?

I've heard conflicting explanations for the term sárga. On the one hand, it's simply "yellow", as suggested also by the color boxes shown in {{table:colors/hu}}.

On the other hand, it's a broader spectrum, spanning "yellow" through "orange", and thus potentially ambiguous, and clarified with the longer and more specific forms citromsárga and narancssárga.

Is Hungarian sárga a wider range of color than English yellow?

If Hungarian sárga is a straightforward semantic match for English yellow, then why the need to distinguish between citromsárga and narancssárga?

Alternatively, if citromsárga and narancssárga are specific shades that equate more to a lighter "lemony yellow" and a darker "orangey yellow" that isn't really quite "orange", does that then mean that narancssárga and narancsszín aren't really quite the synonyms that the entry at [[hu:narancssárga]] indicates?

Curious about colors, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: The translation of sárga as yellow is correct. But there are many shades of yellow even in English (see Shades of yellow) that can be distinguished. There is an online color dictionary (színszótár.hu) in Hungarian. The list for sárga contains 158 entries. On the left side, there are links that start with Sárga. Click on them, there are nice pictures for each color. On the bottom of that page there is a comment: "This list contains all colors that mean yellow or that have the word sárga in it. In the latter case, if the color is not yellow, the actual color domain is listed in parentheses. For example, répasárga (carrot yellow) is in reality an orange color." So narancsárga is actually in the orange color domain. For synonyms, go to http://www.szintan.hu/keret.htm and click on N/NY on the left, then narancsárga. The synonyms are narancs, narancsszín(ű), narancslészín. Hope this helps. Panda10 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! That Szín Szótar site is super useful. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

template for Hungarian participles

Are we supposed to use {{hu-participle}} with the right ending or {{past participle of}}/{{present participle of}}/etc.? If one is better than the other, then the others should be replaced, at least in the most common verbs (e.g. lát, vár, néz, kér, jön) that may be used as samples for other verbs. Adam78 (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: Sorting still doesn't work properly in Category:Hungarian terms with homophones. Shall I ask people at the Grease pit? Adam78 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

PS.2: What is the point of having Category:Regional Hungarian when there is Category:Hungarian dialectal terms? What is the difference between them? (Are you sure they can be distinguised and if so, this distinction is relevant in Wiktionary?) Adam78 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78:

1. There are pros and cons for each. With {{hu-participle}} you have to remember only one template, words will be placed in appropriate participle categories. But it's an old template, the displayed definition (present participle of) is not linked. Not a huge disadvantage, though. The problem with old language-specific templates is that they are not maintained as well as the general templates. Wiktionary is constantly developing, new scripting languages are introduced, new categorization policies, etc. So I thought a general template might be better, but they no longer place words into participle categories. It was decided that those categories are not important, no one will look at them. Similar to inflected noun categories such as Hungarian words suffixed with -ban/-ben. So these are the points we have to consider to make a decision.
2. Sorting: Let's wait some more. I've just checked the lemma category and the list of ö/ü words after z is much smaller than before.
3. Category:Regional Hungarian should contain Hungarian words used in different regions of the world such as Transylvania. Category:Hungarian dialectal terms should contain Hungarian terms that are not used in standard language but only in dialects within Hungary.

Panda10 (talk) 14:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Ad 1: I only found higgadt and minősített that link to the past participle template and rovó that links to the present participle template (although I didn't go through the full list). I think we could just change them to the hu-participle version, as it doesn't make sense to have thousands of forms defined with one kind of template and barely a handful of others with another template. Or if we make sure that the reasons for the other template are compelling enough, then we could ask some bot to change them all without exception. Adam78 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ad 2: OK, let's wait some more.
• Ad 3: Thank you for the clarification. I have a suspicion that all entries that are currently in "Regional Hungarian" (except for those in "Transylvanian Hungarian") should be in "Hungarian dialectal terms". May I change these articles? Adam78 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Okay, let's use {{hu-participle}}. For regional vs. dialectal: Go ahead and make the changes. There is another similar label, though, not in any category: folksy (for népies). What should we do with those? Should we use this label at all? Panda10 (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Giving definitions for verb forms that only exist with a dangling verbal prefix nearby

I'm not quite satisfied with the current solution that we say in a label that a given form is rare without a verbal prefix (such as késted, késte, késtük, késtétek, késték). We could practically say that it's non-existent. However, these forms do occur whenever the verbal prefix is separated. And there are other cases as well, e.g. bízik cannot be transitive but all forms of megbízik can (in the sense of entrusting someone with something), and meg can get separated a couple of words away from bízik. As you know, it can happen whenever there is a focus, whenever there is negation or a similar restrictive sense, and whenever there is some imperative sense. Concerning Wiktionary, it means that we should create lots of entries that are non-existent by themselves but which are absolutely existent if there is a "stray" verbal prefix somewhere nearby that belongs to them. There must be some policy, some best practice for cases like this. We could say it's like a bound morpheme, a combining form. One option could be having a template for such cases under Usage notes, but it looks too much fuss for this matter; I'd prefer a little note like a gloss (with standardized wording), such as for bízd, there could be a template that gives this result:

1. second-person singular subjunctive present definite of bíz (occurring mostly as part of its prefixed forms, preceded or followed by its verbal prefix, see at elbíz, megbíz, or rábíz)

Or maybe without mentioning the particular prefixed forms (since their list may prove to be incomplete later):

1. second-person singular subjunctive present definite of bíz (occurring mostly as part of its prefixed forms, preceded or followed by its verbal prefix, see under its Derived terms)

It also means that we should think it over how we use the restriction "intransitive verb, definite forms are not used". I think we should still disable their transitive forms but we could add transitive senses (and even transitive entries whenever they are common) with a note similar to the one above.

What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact, we should add this template to all unprefixed verb forms that can occur with a prefix. Also, we should link to the possible forms where the reader can find the actual definition if the verb is just a part of a verb form, e.g. bízd should link to rábízd, megbízd and elbízd, using something like "such as" to express that the list may be incomplete. Prefixed verbs may be tricky for language learners; it would be a pity if they didn't find an existing article with all the definitions, examples, quotations, conjugation, usage notes, and everything else because of a nasty prefix.

1. second-person singular subjunctive present definite of bíz (occurring mostly as part of its prefixed forms, preceded or followed by its verbal prefix; see their entries at its full prefixed forms such as elbízd, megbízd, or rábízd)

Adam78 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 This is an interesting challenge. For example, if learners read the sentence "Miért késte le a vonatot?" and they try to search for késte (not knowing that the prefix is separated), currently, it is not returned. We want to make sure that the conjugated word is returned in search, then to give information to the user about where to go.

I've created some examples to help us to come up with the final solution:

1. bízd - it can occur independently or with separated verbal prefix, so I added two definitions with examples. I'd prefer a short comment, such as when separated from its verbal prefix, e.g. megbíz. I don't think we can list all prefixed verbs, some verbs have a long list of them, one example should be enough.
2. késted - it can occur only when it is separated from its prefix. I added the explanation in the etymology, just another option. Also, a short, simple example taken from common spoken language can clarify the explanation.
3. lekésted - I added a comment about the separated form and two examples.
4. About the conjugation table: Providing the definite forms where a verb is intransitive would resolve the search issue for many cases. This would be an easier solution than to start creating thousands of form entries. Maybe we should display the full table all the time, even for intransitive verbs with some kind of comment on the bottom that "intransitive verbs do not use the definite forms", or something like that. See also the conjugation tables in E-Szókincs: késik, all forms are listed, bízik only the the indefinite forms are listed. Panda10 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Take a look at the German verb eintreten and how it handles the separated verbal prefix. Is there something we can use? Panda10 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ad 1. Repeating the same definition ("second-person singular subjunctive present definite of bíz") doesn't really seem to be a good idea. I think "megbízd" (as well as "rábízd" and "elbízd") should be linked after the first occurrence. Also, the example sentence "Bízd meg Pétert a feladattal." belongs to the entry of "megbíz" and/or its suffixed form "megbízd", not to "bíz" or "bízd".

Ad 2. I think the example sentence "Miért késted le a koncertet?" should be given at "lekésted", even if its elements happen to be separated in certain syntactic situations.

• I think the information currently given at Etymology ("This form occurs only when a verbal prefix is separated from the base verb, see lekésik.") should be provided after the main definition ("second-person singular indicative past definite of késik").

I very much agree that "lekésted" should bring up the separate variant (and examples are welcome as ever).

Conjugation chart: just like we use different background colors for conditional, subjunctive, present and past, I think we could use different font (or background?) colors for transitive forms of intransitive verbs and we could add an appropriate note at the bottom of the chart. In this way, the distinction between the visual appearance of transitive and intransitive conjugation chart would be retained and the template references could be left intact, the command intrans=y would continue to make sense.

Indeed, it's a good idea to check how this matter is managed for German verbs, but I think the most important question for us at the moment is how we help non-native speakers avoid overlooking distant verbal prefixes, and I'm afraid this specific issue is not quite resolved there. For example, the form hängte does not mention that it may be part of "hängte ein" (which doesn't yet exist, nor its root, einhängen, in Wiktionary) or of "hängte auf" (which exists).

Luckily, literary texts rarely need to be rendered in another language simultaneously. Imagine the trouble an interpreter would have translating this sentence:
   Mit störrischem Trotz hängte sich die schöne Helene, als sie die Nachricht über die Untreue ihres Bräutigams erhielt,…
The sentence can have two kinds of endings. If the last words are “bei einem anderen Junge ein,” then the girl who learned about the unfaithfulness of her fiancé did nothing out of stubborn defiance except link arms with another young man. However, if it ends with “auf einen Baum” (on a tree), then the beautiful Helen actually hanged herself.

(Source)

In general, I like the efficiency with which Germans address problems they come across, but this issue apparently escaped them; we need to be the trailblazers ourselves. Nevertheless, maybe we could use something else from there that escaped me. Adam78 (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I've updated the three entries with some of your suggestions.

1. bízd - Removed the second definition, but added a usage notes because there are too many examples. Think about the verb megy and its numerous verbal prefixes. Those could not be listed in the definition line. So if there are too many, a list format appears to be cleaner and more understandable than a large paragraph on the definition line.
2. késted - Removed the example. Left the explanation in the etymology. To me this is a better place for the explanation of the form than the definition line.
3. lekésted - I moved the "With separated verbal prefix" line to the etymology. Again, I feel this is the proper place for it.
4. Inflection table: I thought about this some more. I'm no longer sure it's a good idea to display the definite forms for intransitive verbs. A new thought is to add another table for verbs like lekésik and display the forms with separated prefix. The second table would not have the infinitive, the participles, the potential, and the conjugated infinitive.

Maybe we should come up with use cases to help us with better ideas. Or ask a non-Hungarian speaker who studies Hungarian what would be helpful. Panda10 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I created this template: {{U:hu:preferred-verbal-prefix}} (it's currently used in értettem, értettél, értettünk, értettetek, értettek). I think we should also put the other information we want to communicate in templates, so that they should be consistent. I'll go on thinking and experimenting. Adam78 (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Sounds good. The template may have to be adjusted if more than one verbal prefix is possible, though. Panda10 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I added options for two additional prefixes. Adam78 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I modified it so that it be displayed in the way you arranged it; I just added bold format to the dictionary form and included the option of the prefix preceding the verb (as in le is késted, le sem késted). See bízd, késted, úszd, and értettem. As far as késted is concerned, I moved the explanation from Etymology to Usage notes, because that is where it's located in the case of the other verb forms, and because people tend to expect information on morphology in the Etymology section, rather than syntax. I admit it's not only a matter of syntax but also that of lexicology, which naturally belongs to Etymology, but I still find this placement more user-friendly, partly because it's closer to Derived terms with its section (With verbal prefixes) where similar derivations are normally presented. I'm open to discussion, though. (PS: Happy holidays!) Adam78 (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78: I like the new format but I wonder about the script and the parameters. Take a look at {{hu-verbpref}}. It asks to provide the base verb first, than the long list of prefixes. It's up to you. Also, the name of the template contains a dash after hu instead of a colon. I know it's confusing, all other template start with hu- except the usage and the reference templates. Thanks and Happy Holidays to you, too! Panda10 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's much better that way. I've changed it along with the entries where it is linked from, as well as its name. Thank you! Adam78 (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Vertical bar after a hyphen in the hyphenation

How can we know whether it makes sense to keep or delete the vertical bar after the hyphen in words like angolnyelv-tudás? I noticed it is also there in autóbusz-állomás, so it may not be by accident, but I don't understand why. Adam78 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I added it in every word that has a hyphen since it is a place for hyphenation. Correct? Or is it self-explanatory that the hyphenation is not before the hyphen but after it? Panda10 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the way hyphenated words are syllabified in dictionaries, e.g. un-American in Merriam-Webster (or you can try other words and other dictionaries; hints are at w:Hyphen), I think we could safely omit the interpunct (here: the vertical bar) after hyphens. Adam78 (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 That's fine. We can do it that way. By the way, I've always thought it was strange that we use hyphenation instead of syllabification. But that's how this wiki works. Panda10 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be syllabification because hyphens don't always follow syllables, even in Hungarian, as seen in el-intéz and rend-őr. Syllabification is a matter of phonology, and in some cases it's not quite obvious (e.g. pl, bl, tl, br, pr, tr staying in the same syllable in some languages and getting separated in others). Adam78 (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Verbal nouns in Hungarian

Some while ago I created the category Hungarian verbal nouns (based on the template {{verbal noun of}}), which is almost empty at the moment, despite the fact that we have numerous nouns that would fit there nicely, located in these categories:

• most Hungarian nouns suffixed with -ás, -és, though with some exceptions, e.g. tojás
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -at, -et (e.g. cselekedet, ígéret, élet, fordulat, javaslat, vigyázat)
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -alom, -elem (e.g. félelem, figyelem, tilalom)
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -ó, -ő (e.g. bemutató (“presentation”), találkozó, esküvő)
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -ta, -te (e.g. jötte, érkezte, as well as their further derivations like láttán, hallatán
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -atal, -etel (e.g. kivitel, behozatal)
• some Hungarian nouns suffixed with -áció (e.g. integráció)
• and maybe (probably) some more types.

If you compare these two examples (source):

• A brilliant reading of the poem won the competition. (verbal noun)
• Brilliantly reading the poem won the competition. (gerund)

and you consider the translation of the first sentence, you'll see that Hungarian nouns formed with -ás/-és (and the others) are not gerunds but verbal nouns (they take arguments like a noun does, rather than taking arguments like a verb). In fact, you can notice that you have to transform the sentence with a gerund into a sentence with a verbal noun to express it in Hungarian.

I admit that it might look a bit confusing at the moment, but I noticed Category:Hungarian adverbial participles also has forms with different endings (-va, -ve, and -ván) so why not have another category that is based on function rather than form (the ending) if it's such a widely used, paradigmatic part of Hungarian grammar?

However, first of all we'd have to decide if we want to (or need to) include verbal nouns that express the result of an action (ítélet, iromány), the tool of an action (állvány, billentyű), the performer of an action (síelő, szabó), the location of an action (ebédlő, kijárat, uszoda), or the extent of an an action (csipet, rakás). According to the descriptions I came across (e.g. this one) these don't seem to belong here (as far as I understood). However, Hungarian sources describing igéből képzett főnevek – deverbális főnevek normally include these types as well. I'd prefer to exclude these types and stick to the narrower definition. My purpose would be to pinpoint the most immediate derivations of verbs that refer to the action abstractly, as opposed to various other senses, by means of the template I linked above (compare írás), and let people access the words with this sense as a group, just like adverbial participles. Adam78 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 I'm sorry but I don't yet see the benefit of having this category and do all this work. I'd be happy just to provide the English translations and a gloss to specify the meaning. The term verbal noun is not defined in the Glossary and {{verbal noun of}} is nominated for deletion (no decision yet). So I'm kind of hesitant about this. Wouldn't it be higher priority to add more new entries to reduce the number of the red links? Panda10 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It's OK, I don't insist on having it, either. Anyway, it's better to agree on it now when we haven't started using it widely. In this case, we can remove the existing handful of links and just delete this category. Adam78 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Adam78 Let's wait for the decision about the template. No need to change anything for now. Panda10 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

New template under construction for A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára

I created {{R:ErtSz}} along with its database (nearly 2 MB), which contains all the codes for the entries in this dictionary (which we currently need to type one by one for each), except for homonymous/polysemous terms that need disambiguation, for which there is a single digit that shows how many senses it has. For 97% of the terms it should work all right (all the 59.421 entries minus 1800 terms with homonymy, the latter comprising 838 terms with 2…6 senses). For homonyms, my idea is that there would be two options:

• a number can be supplied as a parameter, and it would display that particular sense of the term, based on another (much smaller) database for homonyms (I have it ready too, but I haven't been able to upload it yet because there is a syntax error in it),
• if no number is given, this template would check if the value is between 2 and 6. If so, it would call itself as many times as necessary, each time with the particular code retrieved from the smaller database, thus displaying the senses one after the other. If not (it's a set of at least 8 letters and numbers, for the majority of the terms), then it's not a homonym so it can be displayed almost the same way as {{R:BarcziOrszagh 1962}} does.

I used {{R:Mindat}} as a basis for this template and its database. The only difference is that I put the dictionary codes between quotes, because they contain letters, so they need to be treated as string variables, I suppose. However, I don't know how the homonym database can be created, because it would need to contain data like this (for the four senses of the term a as given in the dictionary):

["a","1"]="a-1-1BFB0", ["a","2"]="a-2-1BFB6", ["a","3"]="a-3-1BFBA", ["a","4"]="a-4-1BFD0",

but this structure is apparently not allowed. May I kindly ask for your help? Adam78 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I took a quick look and noticed that the module is missing. Looking at Mindat, there is a template, a module and a database. For ErtSz, we have a template and a database. So we need a Module:R:ErtSz. I need to spend some time with this because I'm not really familiar with Lua. I can modify small things by following existing patterns. I'll look into it more tomorrow. Panda10 (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've created a function in Module:R:ErtSz because I saw the module error in CAT:E. It will look up the first parameter to {{R:ErtSz}} or the page title in the database. — Eru·tuon 05:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon, thank you very much! I've just uploaded the smaller database for homonyms. Its syntax is not correct, so I uploaded it as a template, although it's a module. Do you think you could possibly help us implement this template as I described it above? I can re-upload the smaller database in a different format if you kindly tell me how. Adam78 (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I think a good format is

local index = {
	["a"] = { "a-1-1BFB0", "a-2-1BFB6", "a-3-1BFBA", "a-4-1BFD0" }, -- etc.
}

so that you can access it with index["a"][1] to get the first homonym. I've changed the format (though instead of directly creating the tables, it uses a function) and moved the code to Module:R:ErtSz/homonyms and changed the content model. — Eru·tuon 19:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon, thank you once again! I'll try to delve into Lua, although I don't know this language, so all I can rely on is the minimal PHP I dabbled in 15 years ago, some Turbo Pascal 20 years ago, and QuickBASIC 25 years ago. :) So if you can spare the time, assistance with the finishing step would be highly appreciated… Adam78 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: Okay, I read what you said above, and it would be easy to add a parameter to access the nth homonym, but I'm not sure how the multiple homonyms would be displayed, so could you demonstrate that? — Eru·tuon 20:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's look at the Further reading section of a, which has five senses in the dictionary we're about to link to. The result should be the same as what you see there (aside from the first link to a more recent but yet unfinished dictionary), but I'd like to achieve it only with the ErtSz template, like this:

{{ErtSz|a||the speech sound, its written sign, the first element of a series, or an abbreviation|the musical sound and its written sign|definite article|interjection for emphasis; dialectal|interjection for displeasure, contradiction, surprise, disappointment, or pity}}

I left the place for the second parameter empty because that's where I could submit the ID of a particular sense if I only want to refer to that sense, like this:

{{ErtSz|a|3|definite article}}

So if the second parameter is empty, and the template is invoked, it would find the digit "5" in the database for the current record, so it would invoke itself five times:

{{ErtSz|a|1|sense1}}, {{ErtSz|a|2|sense2}}, {{ErtSz|a|3|sense3}}, {{ErtSz|a|4|sense4}}, {{ErtSz|a|5|sense5}},

the first getting the 3rd parameter for its sense specification ("the speech sound, its written sign, the first element of a series, or an abbreviation"), the second the 4th ("the musical sound and its written sign"), and so on, with the result as given in the entry linked above. I wonder if Panda10 agrees with me. Sometimes we can't, needn't or shouldn't link to all existing senses of a term, that's why it would be better to have the option to link to one or the other. However, normally we could have all the available senses listed in Further reading, as is the case in the entry above. Adam78 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78, Erutuon: I wonder if we should include the page name in the call at all. How about: {{ErtSz|1|gloss1|3|gloss3}}, it should display only those that are called, in the order called. Panda10 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the best suggestion, I prefer this way the most! Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've been using this new template for non-homonyms. Is that okay? The homonym words generate errors. I assume the database is not ready. Panda10 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, although we should first consider inserting an asterisk in the code so that we don't need to type it every time before using the template. Whether the database is ready or not depends on which format @Erutuon finds the most convenient. The data is waiting to be implemented. Adam78 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: None of the other templates include the asterisk, we should be consistent. Panda10 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely clear on what to do and how to do it. (I guess you're not suggesting actually putting commas between multiple instances of {{R:ErtSz}}, because that would look bad at the moment: {{R:ErtSz|...}}, {{R:ErtSz|...}}, ....) I'm also not enthusiastic about putting asterisks (list syntax) inside the template, which would be required to replicate the "further reading" section of a. In addition to not being the practice in most other reference templates, it's likely to cause confusing problems. So I don't see a good way to present multiple senses in a single {{R:ErtSz}} template. But one possibility is that the template could tell you that how many homophones there are and let you choose one. — Eru·tuon 00:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon If we can't use a single template with multiple parameters to display multiple rows (one for each homonym) then the only solution is to place multiple template calls. If the template is called without parameters, it will search the non-homonym database. If it is called with parameters, it will search the homonym database. In the second case, two parameters will have to be provided: a number parameter and a corresponding gloss. And the output should look like the Further reading section of a:

* {{R:ErtSz|1|gloss}}

* {{R:ErtSz|2|gloss}}

* {{R:ErtSz|3|gloss}}

* {{R:ErtSz|4|gloss}}

* {{R:ErtSz|5|gloss}}

Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think I've implemented this, but can't insert it into the template because the template is already used and the current version uses different parameters. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon Sorry, I don't understand. Yes, I did use {{R:ErtSz}} in several entries without parameters and it worked fine. When I try {{R:ErtSz|1|music}} at akkord, I get this error: Lua error in Module:R:ErtSz at line 42: No value for 1. If it helps you in testing, I can remove the template from all entries that contain it. Just let me know. Panda10 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, parameter 1 wasn't used so I could insert the new function. Now it might work, though I haven't tested it. — Eru·tuon 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon It did work for akkord. I'll test more. Thanks. :) Panda10 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78, Erutuon: Thank you both so much! Adam, for coming up with the idea and getting the database, Erutuon for helping with the module. I have already used it and it's a joy compared to the old cumbersome method! Panda10 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Erutuon Thank you so much! It seems to work just fine in a! I hope it will all right elsewhere too. Anyway, I think your username will have a gilded plaque in the history of this encyclopedia! As it's not much used here, all I can give you is a barnstar, placed on your talk page. Adam78 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Infection of Neki

Hi!

I noticed you've reverted back all of the edits of inflected forms of word neki which I added November 29th as a declension template (particulary teneked, neked, minekünk, nekünk, énnekem, nekem).

Were those contributions an error or there was indeed a reason behind that? Without that template it's really harder to navigate through words. --FormerCancer (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted it because the declension table was added to a pronoun form and not to the base word (the dictionary word or lemma, in this case neki). Declension tables usually contain the inflected forms of the actual entry. For the pronouns, the ===See also=== section already contains all the links you need for navigation between all forms. Hope this helps! Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

noun forms becoming adverbs

I wonder if angolul, csehül, finnül, franciául, gaelül, magyarul and németül are actually adverbs as well, aside from being noun forms. For például, I can say ez az eset jó például szolgált az elhangzottakra, in which case it is a noun form and of course we use például in the lexicalized sense of "for example", which is an adverb. But can we make the same distinction for the names of languages? I have a hunch that the adverb senses of these noun forms are simply the normal, ordinary senses already implied in their essive-modal forms, and we should perhaps delete their categorization as adverbs. What do you think? Do you think they have any particular semantic or syntactic traits that qualify them as being distinctively adverbs? Adam78 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 The -ul/-ül adverb-forming suffix according to Zaicz: "A melléknevekből mód- és állapothatározói értelmű származékokat hoz létre, pl. vadul, angolul, hihetetlenül. Ebben a minőségében az -an/-en-hez hasonlóan határozószó-képzőként működik." Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the reference. In this case, I guess we'll have a hard time trying to find examples for their noun form senses. Adam78 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Maybe we should remove the noun forms and leave the adverb only. Panda10 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What you quote practically sounds like adjectives cannot take this case suffix at all, but as far as I remember, this is the modal part of the term "essive-modal", so in this case we would question the currently established case system of Hungarian. I think we should consult some more sources about the exact scope of this case vs. the adverb-forming suffix, especially Magyar grammatika and my favorite Magyar nyelvtan. Formák, funkciók, összefüggések by Rita Hegedűs, which latter has a revised and extended 2019 edition. (Its author has insights I haven't really encountered elsewhere; I recommend it wholeheartedly.) Adam78 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I meant to remove it only from the language names (angolul, magyarul), not from all adjectives suffixed with -ul/-ül. Thanks for the book suggestions, I will try to get Magyar nyelvtan. I double checked Magyar grammatika, p. 200 lists -ul/-ül as essive among the case suffixes: tanúbizonyságul hív, barátjául fogad, feleségül megy, eszközül tekint, zálogul elfogad. I also have an old Magyar-angol dictionary (Országh, 1983) that has a suffix list at the end. For -ul/-ül:

1. (helyhatározó) arcul üt
2. (állapothatározó) feleségül vesz, foglyul ejt, rosszul van, tudtul ad
3. (módhatározó) rosszul bánik vkvel, például, véletlenül, angolul
4. (célhatározó) segítségül hív
5. (állítmányi szerkezet helyett, vmilyen minőségben szerepel) bizonyítékul szolgál, például szolgál

Panda10 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 For the sake of completeness: Magyar grammatika p. 202: -ul/-ül (Chapter: Melléknévhez járuló ragok)

1. (módhatározó) szükségelenül kockáztat, hangtalanul sír
2. (fokhatározó) hallatlanul érdekes, irgalmatlanul elpáhol
3. (állapothatározó) tétlenül néz

Panda10 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Church of Almighty God in Hungarian

How would you translate the following terms used by The Church of Almighty God (or 全能神教會/Quánnéng Shén Jiàohuì in the original Chinese) into Hungarian?

全能神教會 (Quánnéng Shén Jiàohuì) ― The Church of Almighty God

全能神 (Quánnéng Shén) ― Almighty God

話在肉身顯現 (Huà zài ròushēn xiǎnxiàn) ― The Word Appears in the Flesh

律法時代 (Lǜfǎ Shídài) ― The Age of Law

恩典時代 (Ēndiǎn Shídài) ― The Age of Grace

國度時代 (Guódù Shídài) ― The Age of Kingdom

話語時代 (Huàyǔ Shídài) ― The Age of Word

千年國度時代 (Qiānnián Guódù Shídài) ― The Age of Millennial Kingdom

大紅龍 (Dà Hóng Lóng) ― The Great Red Dragon

Thanks for reading. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I do not feel competent to provide translations of religious terms. It would require deep knowledge of the field and it would be irresponsible of me to give you incorrect information. Panda10 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Still try your best, because it wouldn't surprise me if the coined terms were intended to be easy to understand.

For instance, how would the Christian term "Grace" (or 恩典/Ēndiǎn in Chinese) be translated into Hungarian?

Here's a possible translation for the new religious movement's name: A Mindenható Isten Egyháza (Corrections are welcome) --Apisite (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding the verbal noun to the conjugation table?

I think the verbal noun is as ubiquitous and as regular in Hungarian as the infinitive and the participles (in fact, probably more common than the future participle) and it serves the same purpose (shortening subordinate clauses) so I think we should add it to the conjugation table (namely between the adverbial participle and the potential, I suppose). In fact, if the term főnévi igenév were not reserved for the infinitive, this form could be termed this way, as it mostly behaves like an igenév and it creates a noun. Its stem is normally the same as the one for the present participle, so not much programming would be needed. We could add a parameter for the cases when its form is not what could be expected so that it can be specified or disabled whenever necessary. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) PS: It is probably the most productive noun-forming suffix and one of the most common and most regular non-finite verb forms. It's listed for verbs at E-Szókincs. Later we might discuss adding more forms as well but this one seems the most justified. Adam78 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I checked E-Szókincs but I didn't see where it is listed for verbs. Is it in the "Toldalékolási típushoz tartozó szavak listázása" drop-down? You didn't mention it above but I assume you are talking about nouns with the -ás/-és suffix for now, then later adding the rest such as -at/-et, -alom/-elem, -atal/-etel, -áció as you listed in a previous conversation about verbal nouns. I looked into the subject but I could not find any source that would define the -ás/-és nouns as verb forms. I know that you genuinely care about Hungarian grammar and I truly value your contributions but I don't think we should clutter the conjugation table with derived nouns. That's why we have the derived terms section. I'm really sorry that this is not the answer you were hoping for. Panda10 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I only meant the -ás/-és suffix, see the bottom e.g. here: http://corpus.nytud.hu/cgi-bin/e-szokincs/alaktan?lemma=k%E9r Needless to say, it's regular and productive indeed. Having to insert it individually would be overlooking its ubiquity in Hungarian grammar and lexicon. Adam78 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I still think the conjugation table should not contain derived nouns, but if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and add it. You might want to rethink the location. The bottom of the table would be better for all the additional items that are not strictly conjugation forms (just like in E-Szókincs). And while we are at it, would you please add proper documentation with examples for the new impers parameter you created? It should be in {{hu-conj-ok/documentation}}. I saw you added it to {{hu-conj}} documentation but the other place should contain it, too. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind placing it at the bottom of the chart. At the same time, I wonder, could we make the top part of this table a little more compact? There is a lot of useless empty space there, in contrast with the fact that so much information is crammed into the bottom part. See {{hu-conj-experimental}}. (The potential form is missing here as it depends on whether it's supplied.) Honestly, I believe this -ás/-és form is just like the other nonfinite forms (főnévi igenév in its literal sense, a noun derived from a verb, cf. Úszni jó ~ Az úszás jó), so its proper place would be at the top, whereas the -hat/-het and possibly the -ható/-hető forms could be listed at the bottom. Adam78 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I like the new format. I think the top two columns should go to the bottom, though, just like in E-Szókincs. The actual infinitive could go to the same row where the conjugated infinitive forms are by dividing the label column into two. The title "Conjugated infinitive" could be shortened to Infinitive, and the term itself could be placed in the second part of the divided column, under the moods. This way you get not seven but six additional items to place at the bottom (four participles, the potential and the verbal noun). Just an idea, it's up to you. Thanks for updating the hu-conj-ok documentation. Panda10 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't completely understand your idea but I think I made something close to it. I put the verbal noun before the present participle because its form is derived from the same stem (e.g. dicsekvés, dicsekvő) and because they exist for the broadest range of verbs, as opposed to the past and future participle, which are more limited due to the fact that they usually require an object (*a dicsekedett eredmények, *a dicsekedendő eredmények). Finally, I put the potential to the last cell, next to the adverbial participle, because if the verb is defective (like siklik), these two will be equally missing or at least controversial (?sikolva and ?sikolhat), whereas the preceding participial forms derive from the short stem, where there is no morphological obstacle to being formed (they're only limited by semantic conditions, e.g. sikló, ?siklott, ?siklandó). Again, siklás and sikló are the most common, most natural and most wide-ranging types of nonfinite derivatives, hence they are in the first two cells. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Adam78 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It's looking good. My original idea was slightly different, sorry I didn't explain it clearly, but I do like this layout. I think we can stay with this. I don't understand why the Potential label is missing, though. It should be there even if there is no corresponding form. I'm sure it will be worked out. Thanks for doing this. Panda10 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I've just noticed that the background color for the last row of values is white instead of the light gray. I checked {{hu-conj}} but I don't see the problem. Can you please look at it? Panda10 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Reducing vertical space in the chart at the "téged/titeket" forms

How about this arrangement? Adam78 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 If I just consider the layout, yes, the vertical space is reduced. But I think the content is more confusing by the shared persons. It's a first-person form with a second-person object, it shouldn't be displayed in the second-person column. I'd rather keep the old arrangement and instead of bold letters for én téged/titeket use a small font and even parentheses. You have already successfully reduced the space and made the table compact and still clear. Panda10 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, the clarity of the content is crucial. I'd also like to make it more clear, because it looks out of place in the current arrangement. What about this one? Adam78 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

In this new layout the Indefinite/Definite column contains a new label that doesn't belong there, not to mention that it is now uncertain where this row belongs to: Indefinite or Definite or both. Plus the new rows will have to contain a hyphen for each cell that is empty. A simpler solution would be to keep the existing layout and change the Hungarian én téged/titeket to English 2nd-p. object in small font. I don't understand when you say "it looks out of place". It is what it is, a Hungarian feature. :) Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It "looks out of place" because it is appended to the end of an existing cell and it's currently unclear how it fits into the system. Also, "én téged/titeket" can be understood as belonging to the previous verb form, so if it were to be left there, a horizontal bar should be inserted above this text, under the definite form. The current layout needs some change, anyway. From the new layout, it becomes clear: it is a third type. And if you come to think of it, it's indeed not decidedly definite. Téged (or titeket) as an object goes with indefinite forms in the other persons (ő lát téged, mi látunk téged, ők látnak téged), so we could just as well put this -lak/-lek form to the indefinite row. But the truth is that it's outside both definite and indefinite, it belongs to one just as much as to the other, and the table is supposed to show this feature. That's why I propose that we put it in a separate row. And you can consider it as an additional gain that a couple of lines can be spared, as téged/titeket or 2nd-p. object (I don't mind either) goes to the left-hand column, instead of occupying additional new lines at every single occurrence. Adam78 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK. Panda10 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Now it's really beautiful and informative. :) Adam78 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhyme tables

I'm thinking about using tables for rhymes, something like this below, instead of Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒ-.

What do you think about this layout? (The vowel in question could be replaced easily for each.) Adam78 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

	‑B	‑P	‑D	‑T	‑G	‑K	‑DZ	‑C	‑DZS	‑CS	‑GY	‑TY	‑V	‑F	‑Z	‑SZ	‑ZS	‑S	‑M	‑N	‑NY	‑R	‑L	‑J	‑H
–	-ɒb	-ɒp	-ɒd	-ɒt	-ɒɡ	-ɒk	–	-ɒt͡s	–	-ɒt͡ʃ	-ɒɟ	-ɒc	-ɒv	-ɒf	-ɒz	-ɒs	-ɒʒ	-ɒʃ	-ɒm	-ɒn	-ɒɲ	-ɒr	-ɒl	-ɒj	-ɒx
long	-ɒbː	-ɒpː	-ɒdː	-ɒtː	-ɒɡː	-ɒkː	-ɒd͡zː	-ɒt͡sː	-ɒd͡ʒː	-ɒt͡ʃː	-ɒɟː	–	–	-ɒfː	-ɒzː	-ɒsː	–	-ɒʃː					-ɒlː	-ɒjː
-L-	–	-ɒlp	-ɒld	-ɒlt	-ɒlɡ	-ɒlk
-R-	–	–	-ɒrd	-ɒrt	-ɒrɡ	-ɒrk		-ɒrt͡s
-J-	–	–	-ɒjd	-ɒjt	-ɒjɡ	-ɒjk				-ɒjt͡s					-ɒjz
-N-	–	–	-ɒnd	-ɒnt	-ɒŋɡ	-ɒŋk
-SZ-	–	–	-ɒsd	-ɒst	–	-ɒsk
-M-	-ɒmb	–	–	–	–	–
-C-	–	–	–	–	–	-ɒt͡sk

@Adam78 I think the table is a great idea. Thoughts:

1. The color of the first vertical column: It might be good to set it to light green, same as the header row.
2. Capital letters in header row and column: I'd use small letters.
3. Order of letters in header row and column: An alphabetical order would make it easier for the reader to find certain combinations. The same layout should be used for other rhymes. I assume you arranged the letters in order of frequency. But the frequency will be different for other rhymes, so the order of letters will be different for each? I'd go with alphabetical order. It will be more consistent throughout.
4. Empty cells: I wonder if hyphens should be added to all empty cells.
5. The header row contains only consonants. What about vowels: -aó (Makaó), -au (Haynau), -áé (házáé).
6. Should inflected forms be added to rhymes? Maybe in a separate section under the lemmas? They would definitely add clutter. These websites do contain non-lemma forms: rimszotar.poet.hu, rimkereso.hu, rimszotar.hu.

Panda10 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I've used many of them in updating Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒ-. I'll reply in order:

1. All right, done.
2. All right, done.
3. For the rows, I intended to consider frequency more or less (or, I would say, the likelihood or viability of the given combination), but for the columns, I used phonetic criteria, which I have added now. Since rhymes are about phonotactics, I think it's quite normal that we use phonetic criteria. Kaland almost exactly rhymes with alant, so I think common sense dictates that they should be adjacent to each other. What's more, consonants of a given manner of articulation often behave similarly in terms of syllable structure, see Sonority in phonotactics and Sonority Sequencing Principle. The consonants on the far left are the least sonorous so they are more likely to be at the very end of a syllable, and therefore, they are more likely to allow for a preceding other consonant: this is why their columns are more populated than the columns of more sonorous consonant types towards the right side. We can still rearrange them but I'd like us to consider the above aspects.
4. I'm afraid hyphens (actually, dashes) might add unnecessary clutter to the overall layout. What's more, they apparently suggest that these combinations don't exist at all although later we might come across examples, especially in place names (e.g. Apc, Zirc, Nick, Vönöck, Recsk, Köcsk, Ilk, Erk, Zsurk, Deszk, Detk, Dötk, Batyk, Gyugy, Prügy, Tiszasüly with less common endings) or foreign loanwords.
5. Yes, we need to figure out the layout for vowel-final words. There are already some rhyme pages with them (jɒ- and jɛ-‎). However, these are not so interesting phonologically so I'd prefer to put off this part of the question.
6. My suggestion is that we could add one (common and short) example for each type, e.g. for the ending -ozd, we could enter hozd in the rhyme list and then maybe add a link to the relevant suffix and/or the relevant verb type whose instances have the same ending. I hope it wouldn't interfere with the functioning of the page (having the empty field "+Add new rhyme" as usual).

In fact, I also have doubts about adding compound words to the list. Until now, I've been mostly adding only those compounds that are less obvious or less transparent (like hónap, as opposed to születésnap). Also, I tended to add multiple words with the same last element if there were very few words in the given list altogether. I'm not convinced that it's the best practice, though.

As a matter of fact, we could use a template for these tables, with the vowel in question as its parameter, and optionally excluding certain groups of columns if they are irrelevant. This way the layout could be improved later for all of them without having to make changes on each. Adam78 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 The table looks really good, thanks for the explanations. Panda10 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

navigation box for rhymes with the same consonant but different vowels

What do you think about this new navigation box that I inserted here: Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒd? (I made the note in the last row with respect to the numerous examples for pronunciation variations like szinész/színész, szunyog/szúnyog, szerviz/szervíz, irigy/irígy, huszas/húszas, sűrü/sűrű, tanu/tanú, kiván/kíván etc.) Adam78 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It's a good idea. A couple of questions/suggestions:

1. The template name: If you are planning to create more rhyme templates, it would make more sense to name them hu-rhymes-xxx, in this case {{hu-rhymes-same-cons}}. This will help with sorting these templates in the template category and keep them together. Other Hungarian templates are named in a similar fashion: hu-decl-xxx, hu-conj-xxx, etc.
2. The header row for the long vowels: It might be better to place it above the row with the long rhymes. Then the black separating line would not be needed. But if you want to keep it this way, the separating line should be continuous.
3. The Close vowels comment: I'd list the close vowels, there are not so many: í, ú, ű. A few examples would also help. Even if the comment will be in two lines. Learners don't always know the linguistical terms. Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I implemented them. For the second, I deliberately made the line incontinuous, indicating that the close-vowel pairs are not as distinctly divided as the other pairs. But the note should make this fact clear anyway; maybe it's no use illustrating it. I also made the template breezier (and a little bit bigger) as the dense, short, and small links may be difficult to click. My only remaining question is where this template should be located in the page. Is it at the right place now? Or should it be at the very top, next to the other, regular (horizontal) navigation template? Adam78 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Location: I think the current location is the best. I tried placing it on the top but it ran into the section separators, didn't look good. I also tried it at the bottom, also not good. I viewed it in Mobile view and it moved from right to left, just above the One syllable section. There is not much we can do about it. Size: I'm not sure about the larger size. On a desktop computer it's almost too large. On a tablet it was fine, but the green row height could be reduced a little. There are no links there. Close vowels comment: It is not immediately clear that (i, u, y) are IPA characters. I would use í, ú, ű, or even i/í, u/ú, ü/ű. Tend to lose distinction of length: Can this be rephrased in a simpler way? Would adding an example help? E.g. színész: [ˈsiːneːs], [ˈsineːs]. Panda10 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't forget about your remaining suggestions but I wanted to glean more cases; I've just added three examples where the difference is widespread and where the vowel in question is in the rhyme. I don't know how to rephrase the current wording in this limited space, but I think the existing examples make it clear now.

I just realized that this text makes the table wide enough in every case, so we don't need to magnify the font any more. I've changed it. Adam78 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Looks good. Panda10 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

a request

Please delete these two pages; I mistakenly created them: Rhymes:Hungarian/aːt͡ʃː, Rhymes:Hungarian/y. Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Done. Panda10 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have time, please these ones too: Rhymes:Hungarian/oːpː and Rhymes:Hungarian/uːrː. I am sorry. I wonder if I could become an admin here some day and then I could clean up such things after myself. (I was an admin in the Hungarian-language Wikipedia for nearly 15 years but I didn't have enough activity around the end, that's why this right was withdrawn from me.) Adam78 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It's no problem deleting pages. If you want to be an admin, I can nominate you. Let me know. Panda10 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, I'll think it over; first I'd like to get information on the obligations involved. For the time being, I'd like to ask you to delete one more page: Rhymes:Hungarian/ont͡ʃd. Thanks in advance. Adam78 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Prefixed verbs on rhyme pages

What do you think about this treatment of prefixed verbs? Rhymes:Hungarian/eːl I'm not sure it's the best way possible, but I don't have any better idea. Adam78 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It's not bad but I don't see the advantage of treating them separately. Actually, there is one obvious disadvantage: the "Add new rhyme" automated entry field is missing, so you always have to make two edits: one on the rhyme page, another on the entry page to add the rhyme. Panda10 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

rhyme table variant for vowel-final words

What do you think about the rhyme table I created for vowel-final rhyme pages, like on this one? Adam78 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It looks fine but it took a minute to figure it out because it follows a slightly different concept than the previous two table structures and it confused me at first. So this table combines two things: Rows 1-4: Same consonant - different vowels, rows 5-8: Different consonants - same vowel. The letters in the two consonant row headers might need a preceding dash, as well: -r-, -l-, -j-, etc. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

pronunciation template, module and corrections

I'd like to see the list of Hungarian lemmas where some special way of pronunciation was entered (and perhaps others too would like to), so I added this to the pronunciation template. (I don't know the syntax of "OR", which would be more appropriate.) What do you think? I haven't created the target category yet. Do you have any suggestion for its name?

I also made some change in Module:hu-pron, since the program put an accent on és in ízlések és pofonok, which is a mistake. The above change was also made with a view to identifying any other manual adjustments which should be addressed by this module instead (e.g. hallra, mellre). Adam78 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I clicked on the category without creating it to see the content. The pronunciation of these words and expressions is not necessarily non-intuitive, it's simply that the module is not able to handle them, the rule was not included at the time or maybe it's just too hard to figure out the IPA of a longer phrase or a compound word. If you just want to categorize lemmas with a manual entry in their IPA, Category:Hungarian terms with manual IPA pronunciation would be more accurate. Since the main category is called Category:Hungarian terms with IPA pronunciation, let's try to stay as close to the wording of the main category name as possible.

Removing the accent before és and vagy was a good idea. There is still a space before them in the resulting IPA: [ˈiːzleːʃɛk eːʃ ˈpofonok]. I wonder if it should be [ˈiːzleːʃɛkeːʃ ˈpofonok]. The first is easier to read but a user might think that the accent was accidentally left out where the space is. Panda10 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I created the category with the name you suggested. I also implemented the space deletion before the phonetic transcription of és and vagy as per your idea (Btw, I didn't insert vagy; I only changed the existing line; however, I did insert the és line based on that.) I don't understand why zuhog, mintha dézsából öntenék appears in this category but a füle botját sem mozdítja does not, even though the category link is inserted into the latter as well. Maybe it just takes time to update the content. (?) Also, I don't understand why there is a parameter given for rendszert. Is there any problem here with the operation of the module? Adam78 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: Thanks for removing the space before és and vagy. Yes, it does take some time to fill up a new category. The phrase a füle botját sem mozdítja is there now and there are three times as much items than yesterday. About rendszert: The module works as it should. Without manual addition the IPA is [ˈrɛnt͡sɛrt] (phonetic respelling: rencert), with manual addition indicating the boundaries of the compound word the IPA is [ˈrɛntsɛrt] (phonetic respelling: rentszert). It's possible that both pronunciations are correct depending on the person and the speed or speech. Should I add a clarification to Appendix:Hungarian_pronunciation explaining the difference between [ts] and [t͡s]? Panda10 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, what I don't understand is what makes you think that the amalgamation of [t] and [s] does not take place in this word, creating [t͡s]. Did you reach this conclusion based on your own pronunciation, or based on the consideration that there is a morpheme boundary between them, or based on some linguistic literature, or something else? If you look up hasonulás (assimilation) and especially összeolvadás (merger), for example in Osiris Helyesírás (mostly pp. 41–87), it seems that these processes do happen, not only across morpheme boundaries but sometimes even between adjacent words if they're within the same prosodic unit. Adam78 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I'm a little surprised about the tone of your note. I hope you are not having a bad day. :)) Please see section 64. Összeolvadás point 2 of this webpage: Papp István: Hangtörvények a magyarban. It says: "Járulékos szóalakokban a tővégi t, d, gy mássalhangzó a járulék sz-ével hosszú vagy rövid c hanggá, a járulék kezdő s elemével pedig ugyancsak hosszú vagy rövid cs-vé olvad össze: másodszor (másoccor), egyszer (eccer), nagyság (naccság). Meg kell jegyezni, hogy az összeolvadásnak ez a fajtája nem kötelező érvényű: az összeolvadásos ejtés mellett gyakran hallani az összeolvadás nélküli (csupán hasonulásos) alakokat. Például: másodszor (másotszor), egyszer (etyszer), nagyság (natyság)". So even though our case in question is a compound word and not a járulékos szóalak, it seems that rentszert and rencert are both possible. Panda10 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the source. If this is the case indeed, then it would be nice to clarify this matter on the page Appendix:Hungarian_pronunciation. For me, it sounded self-evident that rendszer becomes [rencer] in pronunciation; I couldn't really imagine otherwise, and I can't recall having seen [t] and [s] following each other in a phonetic transcription without becoming [t͡s]. Actually, Papp István doesn't expressly affirm this point, either. I'm sorry about my tone; I didn't realize it was not right. You know, I tend to be wary due to the "writing trap" (or "the trap of writing"? – az írás csapdája –, I sent you some material on it, see 6.4.), and I assumed that you might prefer this form only because you rely on the written form and/or the morphological analysis more than the actual pronunciation. That is the possibility I wanted to exclude. Adam78 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: It's interesting that Section 58 of A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás gives two options for egyszer [etyszer] (v. [eccer]) and for nagyság [naccság] (v. [natyság]). I can't find the source now but somewhere I read that compound words behave a little differently: kötszer, mondatszó, passzátszél, kardszárnyú, földszín - would you say köccer, mondaccó, passzáccél, karcárnyú, fölcín? Derived words are a different case: lejátszó is clearly lejáccó. I'll think about how to update the appendix. Panda10 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If I'm delivering a speech in a formal setting and I'm mentioning a term for the first time (and I make it a point to be unambiguous), I might use the form without amalgamation. In other words, in careful speech. All right; we can mention both pronunciations. Thank you again for looking up the sources and the examples. Adam78 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I've started updating the IPA sections in entries from the new category when I've found an article that contains some useful information: Hangtani és alaktani kötöttségű folyamatok. Section 6 compares lemma+suffix and lemma+lemma cases. E.g.: hagyja [-ggy-] vs. vegyjel *[-ggy-], etc. Section 7: látsz [-cc-] vs. hátszél *[-cc-]. This appears to say that összeolvadás (merger) doesn't happen at the boundaries of compound words. On the other hand, I listened to the Hungarian radio today and noticed twice that the word rendszer was pronounced rencer. I myself pronounce it closer to renc-szer when I speak slower than rencer. If you listen to the audio at the entry maybe you can hear it? Obviously, recording a single word or a short phrase is different than regular speech. So how should we proceed about this? Maybe rendszer is slightly different than hátszél or becsületszó, perhaps the fact that it's a compound word is no longer felt as obviously by speakers as in the others? Panda10 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this audio is fine. The difference is rather small and it happens as a natural process anyway, so I don't think we need to worry about it. On the other hand, would you please look into my suggestion for a table? Template:hu-infl-pos-table-comparison (at the very bottom). I'd really like to implement it if we can come to an agreement about its looks, partly because third-person singular possessive forms are extremely common in Hungarian (compare e.g. Appendix:Hungarian verb-final set phrases); I'd even consider adding this form to Template:hu-noun after the plural. If you react on my user talk page, we can keep the threads separate. Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

one more table, that of correlatives

{{hu-corr}} Do you have any suggestion? Adam78 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: Summary tables and lists are always helpful. Especially, if they are clear and easily grasped. I find this table a little cryptic due to the abbreviations which save space but reduce clarity. My suggestions are very similar to the other navigation tables.

1. The table should be closed by default and placed at the bottom. It's too overpowering. Especially on mobile devices where it shows up on the top before any information about the entry.
2. The abbreviated titles (s, nm, e) and entries (v, a, b, m) do show a tooltip on desktop computers but nothing on mobile devices.
3. Instead of nm in the header, how about any?
4. Instead of every... and no..., how about every- and no-?
5. The first Hungarian column (ki, mi, ...) contains questions, all the others are possible answers to those questions. This could be made clearer in the table header structure and would be helpful for quickly understanding what this is all about.
6. The English translations of the questions don't have to be in a separate column. They could be in parentheses after of below the Hungarian.
7. A Hungarian translation could be added below each English header: every (minden), same (ugyan), etc.
8. In the every column, how long row, there is an empty cell. Don't we have mindeddig/mindaddig?
9. Consider adding this table and the other navigation tables to an appendix where they can be displayed in full size. Even if you keep the navigation tables at each entry, the table title could be linked to the appendix where a more detailed explanation could be given.

Panda10 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've considered your suggestions and implemented several (I won't go into details, you'll see them). Some comments:

1. Since I intended it as a navigation template, I'd like to keep it on the right side. If you really prefer, I can hide some less important rows, though (merről, merre, meddig, miért and the bottom-line note -- if it's enough).
2. I haven't put the English-language definitions below the Hungarian terms, not only because it would extend the table vertically too much, but also because this column serves as a kind of header, identifying the semantic relation that applies to the whole row. I found the translation of the question words more understandable than abstract titles like Person, Thing, Time, Place, Manner, Reason, etc. However, I can give this column the background color of headers, if you like.
3. Do you mean an Appendix of (Hungarian grammar related) appendices, so to say? Or separate appendices that give more information on the particular topics? And: Is it possible to call a template at most places in a compact form but at one place in a full form? If so, what else do you think the full form should include?

Adam78 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: If you want to leave it on the right side, it's fine. We all have different points of view.

1. Using a different color for the two question columns (English and Hungarian) and the two header columns would help. The different color would make it also possible to remove the bold face from the question row to make some room.
2. If you want to keep the bold face for the English words in the header row, you could remove the bold face from the Hungarian translations to make the distinction stronger. The goal with these changes is to make the table more readable, so readers don't have to spend several minutes to figure it out.
3. The one-letter Hungarian translations in the question row create more confusion. I'd leave them out and just use the full word translations where it makes sense (ugyan, mind(en), se(m/n), vala, akár, bár, más). This would be especially important where abbreviations are used (u for ugyan, v for vala, etc.) It would just help the reader to understand what u, v, a, b, and m are.
4. I'm not aware of a method to call a table two different ways. In the appendix, I meant the same table but with full words (e.g. ugyanez instead of u). Also, a longer description could be given about the table itself. You can create a separate appendix for each of these tables or one appendix for all of them. Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

new table for vowel-final rhymes

Do you have any suggestion about this page? Adam78 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: It looks good. Maybe two things:

1. Adding a table title Vowel-final rhymes.
2. Changing the first column from vertical titles to green horizontal rows that would visibly separate these groups and would make it easier to read the terms.

Thanks for doing this. Panda10 (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For the second, do you think it's better this way, or you'd still prefer to have the letters horizontally? Adam78 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And I think I could move its content to the primary rhymes page and then you can delete the template, since it's not going to be used elsewhere. Do you agree? Adam78 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 The first version was better since it was a separate column. Here the two information (the letters and their category name) run into each other and the text is not readable. But why do you need this column at all? In the other large table this information is not present, only the letters. Yes, you can move this template to the main page. Just let me know exactly which template to delete. Panda10 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

{{hu-rhymes-verb-deriv}}

Do you have any suggestion for this template before I insert it on more pages? This is where I've inserted it until now. An example is linked from its documentation page.

In fact, I'd like to insert some marks on the rhyme pages that help those without sufficient knowledge of Hungarian browse the rhyme list and find instances of a given part of speech among them, as well as some marks that indicate that a given form belongs to a particular declension or conjugation type. For example, it would be nice to see how many words are affected by the vowel loss on a particular page like Rhymes:Hungarian/ɛr (e.g. eper, ezer, iker, szeder but not ember among nouns and numerals and seper but not ismer among verbs). Adam78 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: Perhaps the name of the template (if you want it to conform to the existing ones): hu-rhymes-verb-deriv. My only concern is that the note refers to "verbs that end in" xyz but when the user goes to that rhyme page it is not clear which terms are verbs. Other than that, it looks good. Panda10 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've replaced the links; you can delete the version with the original name. Thank you.
• Yes, I'm planning to add some marks to verbs and other parts of speech in the list; see my comment above. I think this indication could mention the POS, whether its inflected or uninflected, and the type of inflection (ideally with a link to the page presenting this inflection type). Not for all items in the list, only those that may be relevant.
• I noticed that the ik-less csempész is the primary form for the verb (rather than csempészik) both in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára and A magyar nyelv nagyszótára. If you agree, could you move this entry to csempész, with the necessary adjustments, as another etymology? It has derivatives without the -ik ending, so it would be more consistent with them. Thank you if you'll do it. Adam78 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 This is done. I'm not sure about the etymology of the verb csempész. I left it empty. Panda10 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Adam78 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

vágysz

The IPA transcription shown [ ˈvaːcs] doens't take into account the assimilation of when a sibilant forms a voiceless geminate affricate with a preceding palatal stop. This should render [ˈvaːt͡sː].

@Littleowljrn: To my knowledge, gysz assimilates to tysz. See Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation assimilation. Egyszer: etyszer vagy eccer? Eccer is more dialectal to me. I would never say vácc. It's vátysz. I will ask the other Hungarian editors. @Adam78, Einstein2: Should we add both pronunciations? Panda10 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. Osiris Helyesírás says the following on pp. 44–45:

• A sziszegők/susogók kölcsönhatásai. Ezek a kölcsönhatások jobbára nem kötelező érvényűek. [emphasis mine]

Ha a fogmederben vagy a kemény szájpadon képzett zárhang vagy zár-rés hang (/t/, /d/, /c/, /dz/, /cs/, /dzs/, /ty/, /gy/) után sziszegő/susogó hang (/sz/, /z/, /s/, /zs/, /c/, /dz/, /cs/, /dzs/) áll, kölcsönhatásuk eredményeképpen hosszú zár-rés hang ([cc], [ddz], [ccs], [ddzs]) keletkezik, amelynek zöngéssége és képzéshelye a sziszegő/susogó hangé, például: látsz [lácc], vad cerkóf [vac cerkóf], szabadság [szabaccság], egyszerű [eccerű], csapatzászló [csapaddzászló], csontzsír [csondzsír].

A sziszegőkből/susogókból álló kapcsolatokon a következő szabály működik: a későbbi sziszegő/susogó határozza meg a kapcsolat egészének zöngésségét és képzéshelyét, a képzésmódban (rés vagy zár-rés) ugyanakkor nincs kölcsönhatás, például: egészség [egésség], kis szoba [kisz szoba], község [kösség], kapocsszeg [kapoc-szeg], gyümölcszselé [gyümöldzselé], bányászcsákány [bányáscsákány], tánczene [tándzzene].

In addition, gy + sz is mentioned on page 43:

A d + sz, gy + sz, t + sz hangkapcsolat kiejtéskor gyakran hosszú vagy rövid c hanggá olvad össze: vetsz [vecc], adsz [acc], egyszer [eccer]; a d + s, gy + s, t + s hangkapcsolatból pedig hosszú vagy rövid cs lesz: barátság [baráccság], költség [kölcség], nagyság [naccság vagy natyság].

I suppose we could find sources from more specialized phonetics books, but I had this one at hand and it's supposedly in line with language description anyway. Adam78 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm clearly struggling with this. I added audio to vágysz and látsz. They sound differently the way I say them. The gysz is softer, the tsz is harsh. I tried to say aloud the following two sentences with very rapid speech:

• Süteményre vágysz vagy tortára? [ˈʃytɛmeːɲrɛ ˈvaːcsvɒɟ ˈtortaːrɒ]
• Házakra látsz vagy tavakra? [ˈhaːzɒkrɒ ˈlaːt͡svɒɟ ˈtɒvɒkrɒ]

The resulting [cs] and [t͡s] sounds are very close to each other, but not identical. Internally, they are definitely not identical since I always want to say the gy (or ty) in vágysz, while I just want to say [t͡s] in látsz. There is a book: Péter Siptár and Miklós Törkenczy: "The Phonology of Hungarian" by Oxford University Press, 2000. The authors say in the introduction:

"The dialect described is Educated Colloquial Hungarian (ECH), the spoken language of ‘educated’ people living in Budapest, the capital of Hungary. That dialect (cf. Nádasdy 1985) contrasts with Standard Literary Hungarian (SLH), the speech of conservative or speech-conscious speakers on the one hand and with various types of non-standard speech, including traditional rural dialects (cf. section 2.2.3), on the other. Both authors are native speakers of ECH."

Should we apply this information when we add the two IPA variants and label them accordingly? One is colloquial the other is literary/conservative?

Another quote from this book:

"[A] form like ötször has a number of possibilities. In a very formal style, it can simply surface as [ötsör], with no rule applying to it. Less formally, Fricative Affrication (23) can apply to give [öt-tsör]. In colloquial speech, Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22) applies either to the underlying /t-s/ sequence or to the output of (23), both being possible inputs as (22) now stands. The output of Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22) will then be modified by OCP merger, to give [t͡s]. Similarly, a form like hegység ‘mountain’ may surface as [hεtyseːg] via Voicing Assimilation alone, as [hεtyčeːg] via Voicing Assimilation and Fricative Affrication (23), or as [hεčːeːg] via Voicing Assimilation, Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22), and OCP. Hence, the order of application of these rules need not be specified (whereas they may be indexed somehow for the level of casualness that goes with each)."

Panda10 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Colloquial though it may be, I can imagine myself pronouncing the above sentence with [ˈvaːt͡svɒɟ] in rapid or lazy speech, in a very similar manner to [ˈlaːt͡svɒɟ]. (I live in an urban area of Transylvania.) – Einstein2 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78, Einstein2, Littleowljrn I've updated the entry with a second IPA. Please take a look and make changes if needed. Thanks for all your comments and thoughts! Panda10 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

homonyms

Do you think it would be possible to insert some code (e.g. in a template) that collects homonyms into a category? Or any other way to make the software collect them? Technically speaking, all entries that contain "Etymology 2" within the "Hungarian" section? Adam78 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: I'm not sure how to automate this. The only Hungarian template that would be common to all Hungarian entries is {{hu-IPA}} but I don't think we should add homonym collection to its original purpose. How will the template know there are numbered etymology sections? You might want to submit a question to Grease pit to see what other editors think about this. Would it make sense to them to add a homonyms category into the existing category tree for all languages to use? And how could populating the category be automated? Panda10 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wrote a suggestion there. Adam78 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

a new template for uniform definitions across different allomorphs

What do you think about {{hu-pos-a-definition}}?

Shall we include

{{hu-pos-a-definition|a}}
{{hu-pos-a-definition|e}}
{{hu-pos-a-definition|ja}}
{{hu-pos-a-definition|je}}

in their respective entries? (-a, -e, -ja, -je)

And shall we create similar templates for other allomorphs? As I may have mentioned earlier, it looks unprofessional, it may be confusing, and hence it seems counterproductive to let the definitions of different allomorphs gradually diverge more and more from each other, despite the fact that their meaning is identical. Adam78 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78: The template looks good to me, it's great that you included examples for each type. I think the template can be added to the respective entries. Which other allomorphs are you thinking of reworking with templates? Panda10 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideally every suffix that has more than one form (which is the majority of suffixes in Hungarian), especially those that have more than one distinct meaning (e.g. -ról/-ről for "from" and for "about", -nál/-nél for "at" and for "than", as well as the other suffixes and their other senses defined in Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, Rounds, Keresztes, or other textbooks or dictionaries, although some dictionaries only supply the meanings of suffixes under the relevant pronoun forms like róla/arról and nála/annál). Adam78 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion

Would you please delete this page:

• Rhymes:Hungarian/eːfː (it was my mistake)

and this category?

• Category:Hungarian nouns by inflection type (I realized I cannot include Category:Hungarian words with alternating stems in that because "words" is broader than "nouns", even if most of its terms are nouns)

I'm also thinking about what to do with mákat, the plural accusative of "ma". It only occurs 2 times among 1 billion words in MNSZ2 (2 out of the total 5 hits are mistakes and one must be an alternative accusative of "mák"). Both occurrences are poetry (I'm not sure about their quality), as a result of an apparent constraint of rhyme (with traumákat in one and with kutyákat in the other). We might keep this form as a (green) link in the declension table of "ma" but I think the actual entry shouldn't exist. Think about it what citation criteria exist normally here in Wiktionary. Do you think these two nonce words would suffice as citations for this form? (In the same vein, I'd prefer to delete the other plural forms of "ma", but in those cases you don't need to delete articles, as those forms are shared with the "poppyseed" sense.) Adam78 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Done. Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam78 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

enabling not generally comparable adjectives in Hungarian

I've always been mildly annoyed to see the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives that are normally not comparable, but I do remember your rationale about providing grammatical information on all conceivable word forms for the sake of language learners and I am aware that poetic licence or journalism sometimes make people coin unlikely forms. As a compromise, I'd like to recommend the new function of {{hu-adj}} (which happens to work practically the same way as "countable and uncountable" for nouns) for such cases. It is already used for English adjectives (e.g. pitch-perfect, see its code at Module:en-headword) and there are lots of similar cases in Hungarian, so I think we could make use of it, as well. It only takes two extra keystrokes, a hyphen and a pipe, like {{hu-adj|-|ebb}} in acélkék. I hope you'll enjoy it and use it wherever you find it applicable. Adam78 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Thank you for updating the template. Panda10 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

“szokik”

Can you please explain why you reverted my edits in this article? 83.226.235.200 20:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your sentences were grammatically correct. However, the different word order emphasizes different things and the sentences will have a different intonation. I use bold letters to show which word has the emphasis in both versions:

• Original: A leveleket reggel szoktam elolvasni.

• Your version: A leveleket reggel el szoktam olvasni.

• Original: Reggelente szoktam elolvasni a leveleimet.

• Your version: Reggelente el szoktam olvasni a leveleimet.

• Original: Reggelente szoktam volt elolvasni a leveleimet.

• Your version: Reggelente el szoktam volt olvasni a leveleimet.

The original emphasizes that the mail is read habitually in the morning and not some other time during the day. Your version places the emphasis on the action instead of the time of the action. They also answer different questions. But you left the English translation unchanged. In my opinion, the original examples provide a better illustration of how the verb szokik is used. Hope this helps! Panda10 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am learning Hungarian, but being new here on Wiktionary, it is not always clear to me how things are done here. I would have translated reggelente szoktam elolvasni into it is in the morning that I usually read my mail, which, to me, sounds off simply because the entry deals with the action itself and not the time of the day it is performed. At least that is my view. This is why the current version is confusing to me. Anyway: I appreciate getting such a nice and thorough answer! Have a good day! 83.226.235.200 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It's good to hear that you are learning Hungarian. If you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. I see your point and I will think about better example sentences. Thanks for your comment. Panda10 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

minthogy etc.

What if we created a category like "Hungarian terms with spelling issues" (or something similar, perhaps "usage issues") as opposed to "Hungarian misspellings" for cases when the form is fine in some sense but a mistake in another? Adam78 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 A category sounds good. We can think more about the name, Hungarian terms with usage issues might be better. Would it make sense to have a Hungarian terms with usage notes category? The logic is that if there are usage notes, there are usage issues that need to be explained. For the minthogy type terms: I assume these are all compound words where the question is one or two words? We usually don't have an entry for the two-word spelling (e.g. magyartanár - magyar tanár), only usage notes at the single term. Panda10 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "Hungarian terms with usage notes" could be useful on the long run but a little too broad for this purpose. It could be a parent category of what I meant, which is actually a subtype of "misspellings", which are only potential misspellings (pitfalls). I hope there will be several other types of "usage notes" as well, which are actually related to usage and not spelling. (Nevertheless, it would be helpful for visitors to be able to find terms with some usage notes.) Maybe we could specify this current case, like "Hungarian terms with semantically different spelling variants"? And this could be a subcategory of "Hungarian terms with usage notes" and subordinated or coordinated (?) to "Hungarian misspellings". Adam78 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Yes, I agree that the usage notes category is broader. I like the solution you described above. Panda10 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

fixing plural forms displayed in the singular column

I'm sorry to bother you again on the same day. I inserted a link in hu-infl-nom to populate Category:Hungarian terms with a singularia tantum parameter (although we don't need to actually create this category) because I realized I wouldn't be able to add the declension table for nejei* or vejei unless their forms are listed in the singular column. It occurred to me that I had encountered the same problem elsewhere as well and I wanted to see the relevant entries in one place (and e.g. bankjai was listed indeed).

I was wondering if we could find a better solution to it, either by creating a new declension table or by implementing a new parameter in an existing one, to handle a kind of plural formed with ‑i, ideally including singular (possessive) cases like neve, with its plural nevei. If the accusative,the superessive, and the essive-modal can be manually supplied, the plural should be possible too, even if it affects several forms. Do you have a suggestion which way looks more doable? Adam78 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

* Not necessarily via polygamy, if someone remarried after a divorce or the demise of the spouse.

@Adam78 This is a tough one. Over the years the possessive forms came up several times but the subject was always dropped due to difficulty of design and implementation. I started using the regular declension table for possessives because nothing else was available and it did display the forms. In case someone would search for a not-yet-created form at least the table would point to the right lemma. Yes, the plural forms should be in the plural column but that doesn't work. As for listing the declension for both neve and nevei under the entry neve - for some reason this looks awkward to me. Do you view nevei as a declined form of neve? I always think about it as a possessive form of név. So to list the declension nevei, neveit, neveinek, etc. under the term neve doesn't make sense to me (at least now). Adding a parameter: It would be great if we could just replace the k with i, but this doesn't work. For example, if I remove n=sg from bankja, it will populate the plural column with *bankják, *bankjákat, etc. This needs two changes: Replacing k with i and not lengthening the a to á. And what about the other possessive forms? Assuming you'd want to change those, too, to keep the possessive declension tables standard for all forms. Without n=sg bankom becomes *bankomak instead of bankjaim. We need to decide first if this is really a good idea to populate both columns for each possessive forms (not just the third person). I really don't see an issue with creating entries for nejei and vejei and having the declension table there. After all, the goal of this dictionary is all words for all languages. Let me know if I misunderstood your question. Maybe you want to move the multiple possessive forms from the singular column to the plural column. In that case, n=pl will be the correct parameter and bankjaim displays *bankjaimak, *bankjaimakat, etc. Here, the -ak- should be removed, the v of the instrumental and translative modified correctly. We need a solid list of requirements before we even start thinking about new parameters. Panda10 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think I've managed to add a new parameter for number, "isg", which is meant like "i" type singular (this way only a letter "i" need to be inserted before the existing "sg"), so that plural forms like "ablakai(m/d/nk/tok/k)" can be inflected like singular terms but will be displayed in the plural column. If you like, you can keep trying this feature with various forms (rounded, unrounded, front, back, o-stem, a-stem, singular, plural, first, second, and third person possessive) to make sure it works all right in every case. If it does, I'll insert the description of this value and (if you agree) I'll ask a bot admin to replace "sg" with "isg" wherever "inflection of" and "mpos|poss" are found. Adam78 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Pretty genius solution. :) I am still testing, found one issue: it inserts the essive-modal even if the parameter is not given. See akitek. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 So far this is the only issue. I wonder about the non-attributive possessives (there are only a few, I usually don't create the plurals such as házéi and házakéi, I've just created them for testing). There are still about 500 entries out there with (multiple possessions) instead of the mpos parameter. Panda10 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm clueless. Now it doesn't display esm_sg even when it should. :( Adam78 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Sorry, I can't help with the code. This seems to be a very specific problem, it could be described at Grease pit. It's okay to ask. Panda10 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I contacted Erutuon who made some improvements on this module earlier and he was kind enough to fix it for us. :) Adam78 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 This is great news! When you request a bot, it could be connected with changing (multiple possessions) to mpos before i is added to sg. There are still 448 entries out there. Panda10 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Benwing2 was kind enough to do it for us. Everything looks fine now. Adam78 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

erdei

Thank you for the formatting. I'm sorry, I didn't know that {{n-g}} can be used for formatting the inflection. It't a lot of nuisance that "archaic form of" doesn't allow parameters for the inflection! :-(

I don't quite understand your question. If I say Megmutatta nekem a kastélyát és a körülötte fekvő erdeit, the last word would sound archaic because today we'd mostly say erdőit. Wouldn't we? Adam78 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 No problem, just make sure not to use HTML in entries. Templates are preferred. The form erdei is listed in Alaktani táblázatok and not in parentheses. It may not be used colloquially but it is still used in writing. E.g. as of 2014: Kérjük a természetjárókat és a helyi lakosokat, hogy a látogatási tilalom – vélhetően több hónapos – kényszerű fenntartásáig a Gerecse magasabban fekvő erdeit ne látogassák! [7]. Also, I'm not convinced that the new formatting is better than the old one for archaic forms. Another comment about archaic forms: When the modern synonym is given, let's use the same gloss all the time. Variants that I've seen in the past 30 minutes: modern, modern form, modern equivalent, etc. Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• OK, I think you're right about erdeit. I'd say it has some archaic overtone but we can mark it in some other way if you like.
• I'm not convinced the new formatting is better than the old one, either. Not at all! I had to make some change because inflected forms were mixed with dictionary terms. I suppose you agree that it was not perfect. – However, I think I've just fixed it. I hope I won't be eaten alive by the admins…
• Yes, consistency is better in glosses and elsewhere. (That's why I keep creating templates for various different purposes.) I just haven't found guidance on which one to use here.

Adam78 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 It was very brave of you to make this code change. :) I agree that archaic non-lemmas need the archaic label and that they should not be put into the archaic lemma category.

When I'm in doubt, I check around to see other languages. For example, the Russian австралийскою. Interesting solution, we could apply that, too. In this case, the synonym is not needed since it would be part of the definition line.

About the glosses: It doesn't matter to me which one we use, just let's use the same consistently. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

angolul, németül, rosszul, feltétlenül etc.

I'm sorry to diverge from the participle discussion and the related things to be done. I noticed that many -ul/-ül adverbs (those from language names and those from regular adjectives, like given in the subject above) are also categorized as the essive-modal case form of the corresponding adjective. I can't make sense of it. I think their essive-modal form is exactly the adverb that is defined above. I'm afraid one thing is presented as if it were two.

I suppose the adverb sense needs to be retained, since it can have comparison in the case of regular adjectives (rosszul, rosszabbul), so it needs to be taken as a new lemma. I think this was our conclusion at our earlier discussion, anyway (even if there are valid arguments for the opposite, i.e. treating them as non-lemma forms). Also, they are linked in the {{suffixsee|hu|adverbs|head=-ul|pos=adverb}} as adverbs, in contrast with -ul/-ül noun forms, which obviously don't have a category of their own, being case suffixes like -ban/-ben. In short, it seems we almost consistently treat them as lemma forms, with the exception of this strange "Adjective" section.

So we could either incorporate the case sense and include it in the definition of the adverb (providing the definition after the case name template followed by a colon), or we could delete the Adjective section. (Of course, it wouldn't affect noun forms like ajándékul, which is a clear non-lemma case form.) I'd prefer the former, so that we can account for the fact that adjectives can have essive-modal case forms. What do you think?

Actually, I noticed a similar thing in the case of some participles, where the definition and the examples only seem to support the participle sense and yet they are given under the adjective sense. Of course, if it can have comparison and/or it has some meaning(s) that don't derive from the verb, then the adjective as such definitely exists. I'm not sure it's the case with each participle-derived adjective. Maybe we could be a little more cautious with creating the Adjective sections and more bold in giving definitions and examples under the participle sense (?). Adam78 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Adverbs: I'd rather delete the adjective sense in rosszul and the noun sense in németül. It doesn't make sense to me to incorporate a non-lemma definition in the lemma. There is only adverb section in angolul and feltétlenül. Maybe the etymology could clarify what the -ul/-ül suffix is. Participles: I agree that in some cases the adjective sense is not justified. For example viselő. I'll be paying more attention to this in the future. Panda10 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. (I mentioned the terms only as examples, not in particular.) This solution is fine with me. In fact, their etymology should include ……pos=adverb}} in {{affix}} after their -an/-en/-ul/ül or other suffix, which would make it clear that -ul/-ül can have this adverb-forming suffix and such a category would provide lots of relevant examples. Do you agree?

On the other hand, do you think I could request in Grease Pit to have POS subcategories by suffix? So for example e.g. Category:Hungarian adverbs suffixed with -an should be available from Category:Hungarian adverbs by suffix (placed Category:Hungarian adverbs) and Category:Hungarian nouns suffixed with -vány should be included in Category:Hungarian nouns by suffix. At the moment, Category:Hungarian words by suffix has 901 (!) subcategories. Not very useful without POS. Adam78 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I updated the adverbs to the new standard. There were only a few without category. You can make this request, it makes sense to me. Panda10 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ételeket feltálalók – noun or participle?

Why do you think it's a noun? If it has an object (ételeket feltálalók), it indicates that it still behaves like a verb, which means that it should be a participle. (Compare az ételek[nek a] feltálalói, which would be a noun, due to the possessive.) Do you remember what I quoted from Magyar grammatika last time? A karácsonyfát plafonig érőnek képzeltem el (page 233) and Én gyorsan elintézendőknek látom ezeket az ügyeket (page 248).

A noun usually implies that there are people whose occupation is to serve food (just like there are eladók, whose occupation is actually to sell things in a shop). Having said that, the existence of an object in the sentence would still make this interpretation unlikely.

When I checked Magyar grammatika again, I also found pp. 236–237. A melléknévvé vált igenevek jellegzetessége, hogy igenévi bővítményeik nagy részét elveszítik. (Also, page 233 says A melléknévi igenevek szófaji elmozdulását határozói szerepben bővítménykeretük szűkülése jelzi.) Well, this term hasn't lost its participial argument, so I'm not sure it has become an adjective (or a noun). – On the other hand, the next page speaks of alkalmi főnevesülés. So if it's a noun, it's an ad hoc noun. If we do want to classify such terms as nouns (aside from participles), it would mean that we could add this ad-hoc noun sense to practically every participle form as well, which would make it kind of pointless.

I looked up szófajváltás / alkalmi in the index of this book, and out of the four places indicated there, I found p. 411 the most relevant here: „Főnévi értékben használt egyéb szófajok. […] Másrészt a szövegelőzményből vagy a beszédhelyzetből következő visszautalással, illetve ráértéssel alkalmilag főnevesülve bármely melléknév betöltheti az alany szerepét (pl. Nekem az utolsó tetszett; Ehhez a feladathoz a második párosítható; Sok maradt az asztalon).” – It means that if we call it a noun in this case, we could also add a noun sense to utolsó and most other adjectives as well, just because in certain cases they may be used that way. Do you think it's the right way to do? – Of course, in some cases it's lexicalized in this sense (cf. page 140, győzni fog a jó; jóból is megárt a sok etc.), but if it's not lexicalized as such, I don't think this is the way to go.

Instead, I think we should consider what Nóra Ittzés wrote: Az igeneveket az Nszt. az igék szócikkében adatolja, önálló címszóvá csak lexikalizálódott szófajváltás után válhatnak. (There are several other useful insights in this article of hers; highly recommended reading.)

The good thing about participles is that they are known to be a transitional part of speech, so they are known to retain their verb-like features even if they take other (noun-like) suffixes. That is, it's understandable if a participle has a plural suffix -k, while it's considerably less common for a noun to have an object.

What do you think? Do you think we could consider lexicalization as the primary criterion? (Or are there any cases when you'd allow participle forms at all?) Adam78 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I thought it had a noun sense similar to tálaló [8] (1. a person who serves food and 2. a room between the kitchen and the dining room where food to be served is kept). At the time of my edit, I didn't realize that you started adding participle forms. So it is probably both. The noun and adjective sense could be archaic. Here are a few quotations:

1. Participle: a sülteket feltálaló vőfély
2. Adjective: Nagy lakodalmat csináltak, a három katona is ott volt, ők voltak a feltálaló legények.
3. Adjective: A következő étek volt vadkanfej megtöltve szarvasgombás vagdalékkal s körítve hideg kocsonyával. Ez ellen már egész litániát tudott felsorolni Henrik, a mint a feltálaló mester egy leszelt darabot odatett az ezüst tálczájára.
4. Adjective: Szentesi Lap, 1897: A czinkusok az áldozattal asztalhoz ültek és Szappanos Judit feltálalta a derelyét, mely közül kettő a szilvaizen kívül arzénnal volt megtöltve. A feltálaló Szappanos Judit gondoskodott arról, hogy ez a két derelye az áldozat felé essék, ki is azt gyanutlanul kiszedte a többivel és megette.
5. Noun: Honismeret 1989: A fehéregyházi Haller-kastély: A déli szárny nyugati végében volt a „nagykonyha", majd kelet felé haladva következett a feltálaló, az éléstár, a borpince, az ivó, a sütőház, a mosoda és két raktárhelyiség.

I'm not sure how to answer the rest. Maybe I just don't understand the question. Panda10 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The last example is certainly a noun because it refers to a place. I'd call most if not all the other examples participles (maybe except for the first, feltálaló legények, which may refer to their function) because I don't see how their sense diverged from the original meaning of "one who serves [something]" or "one [who is] serving [something]". (By the way, I don't like the practice of ÉrtSz. that they call everything adjectives even if their own example sentence clearly shows their behavior as participles; as if they ignored the existence of participles. Maybe it was an editorial decision or an attempt at simplification; I don't know. Mind you, it was published half a century ago and certain points that we can see in Magyar grammatika may not have been so thoroughly researched.)

My suggestion in short is that we should check participle-derived terms whether their meaning shifted from the original, literal sense (see e.g. háló) and if we cannot spot any particular change in meaning (e.g. "intended for something" instead of "one who/which is doing sth.") or in behavior (i.e., something typical of adjectives or nouns), then we could possibly keep them as participles. Especially but not exclusively in cases where they show verb-like features (e.g. having objects or adverbs), otherwise I'm afraid we can face an unbridled (and ungrounded) proliferation of POS'es.

Clues for the opposite case, when a participle has become an adjective, can be (among other things) a semantic change or the opportunity of comparison (which is an adjective-like behavior). Clues for a participle becoming a noun can be (among other things) a semantic change (again) or a possessive construction (which is a noun-like behavior). I think the claim that a participle-derived term also exists as an adjective and/or a noun always needs support, whether semantic or syntactic arguments. Adam78 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Yes, that's fine. Another clue for adjective can be that a -ság/-ség noun can be derived from it, or as in Laczkó Krisztina: A Magyar ragozási szótár alkalmazásának tanulságai: Kizárólag a melléknév és a számnév ragja az -an/-en és az -ul/-ül (pl. magyarul) mód- vagy állapothatározós alak, valamint a fokjeles alakok. Panda10 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and these are mentioned in Magyar grammatika as well, pp. 247–248. I think Laczkó mentions it in contrast with nouns, not in contrast with participles, though.

However, currently language names with -ul/-ül are given under the noun senses. Do you think we should change the terms in Category:hu:Languages to reflect that this form of theirs derives from the adjective sense? If so, the parameter "esm_sg" could be moved to the adjective table, and this "only singular" sense of the noun could be deleted, I suppose. After all, their noun sense must be secondary and their adjective sense seems to be primary. Adam78 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Based on the Nagyszótár, the name of the language is a noun, so we can't remove it from the noun section. But it also listed as an adjective and the -ul/-ül suffix can be used only with the adjective sense. See for example albán. So we will have to move the parameter "esm_sg" from the noun to the adjective and will have to add a new sense to the adjective. By the way, maybe we should list new project plans in Wiktionary:About_Hungarian/Todo because otherwise they may be forgotten. I'm still working on the participle project and would like to finish it before I start something else. Panda10 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian reflexive verbs and normal verbs used with the reflexive pronoun

I noticed that most of the verbs in this category (22 out of 29, namely árt, bevesz, bíz, elszán, érez, feldolgoz, fog, hívat, itat, kellet, kiad, kialszik, kibeszél, kihúz, megbecsül, megértet, meggondol, moderál, összeszed, tartóztat, vall, and visel) are not actually reflexive verbs in and of themselves but they may be used reflexively if and when the reflexive pronoun magát is added. I think we need a separate category for such verbs. Maybe it could be named like Hungarian verbs used reflexively with magát or something similar. I wonder if you have a better idea.

When I created the articles kiszolgál and kifut, I added this magát phrase as an expression, in the section of Derived terms, rather than in the main definition section, contrary to the practice in most of the entries above (with the exception of megadja magát), though I'm not sure it's OK. It seemed fairly different from the other senses both syntactically and semantically, but perhaps still not different enough. Maybe the definition field of the same entry is still OK, in which case we could remove the latter entry and move the magát expressions with kiszolgál and kifut to the main definition section. (?) – Anyway, let's remember not to use {{lb|hu|reflexive}} if the verb entry is not reflexive by itself, only this new category.

We might also consider the case of magának, because of phrases like megenged magának [as ’to afford’ or as ’to have the audacity’] and kikér magának; maybe these could be left among the category of normal phrases since there are so few of them.

For the record, there are separate entries for the following phrases in Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, however, their base forms do not exist on their own: agyondolgozza magát, átverekszi magát, behízelgi magát, beleártja magát, beverekedi magát, elbízza magát, elgaloppírozza/elgaloppozza magát, elpityergi magát, elrikkantja magát, elsikoltja magát, elszámítja magát, elszánja magát, elszégyelli magát, gerálja magát, kigyönyörködi magát, kimulatja magát, kipanaszkodja magát, megbicsakolja magát, megmakacsolja magát, megszégyelli magát, nekidurálja magát, ragadtatja magát, teleissza magát, telezabálja magát, and túllövi magát. Adam78 (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 These are good observations and I like the idea of separating the two kinds of verbs. How about Category:Hungarian verbs with reflexive senses as the category name? This sounds more general than the one containing magát. I think it would be better to list the reflexive sense as a last definition in the main verb entry instead of as a derived term and an independent entry. Language learners (especially beginners) usually search for separate words instead of expressions such as megadtuk magunkat. With this, I would take a different approach from Magyar értelmező kéziszótár. We could create a label template {{hu-reflexive}} or something similar (see {{bg-reflexive}}) that would provide a standard text and would place the entry in the new category. There are similar discussions for other languages in Beer parlour, see for example Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2020/April#Reflexive_verbs_in_languages_with_a_separate_word_for_reflexive_particles or Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/July#Context_Label:_Reflexive. I'm also wondering how to represent the conjugation of the reflexive sense, since the pronoun magát will be inflected, as well. Panda10 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Panda10 In the discussion, there seems to be a consensus about using a template and I, too, support it. On the other hand, I don't really like the name because these verbs don't have reflexive senses unless they are supplemented with a reflexive pronoun. "Verbs with reflexive senses" might be more likely to refer to verbs that can have a reflexive sense by themselves, somewhat like move in English (in the senses ’mozog’ or ’költözik’), though the latter group is named ergative. (I removed rogy from my list above because I realized it may have a reflexive sense in the actual sense of the word. But it's not the case for érez, elszán etc.) – If you prefer to avoid magát, we could name it like "(Hungarian) verbs used with a/the reflexive pronoun/particle". However, this latter could still include kikér magának and even kitesz magáért (and who knows what else) so maybe the accusative still needs to be specified.

We can diverge from ÉKsz., but in that case we'll have to create non-existent intermediate forms. After all, we have already created lexically non-existent unprefixed forms for verbs that only occur with a prefix (e.g. valósul, szalaszt, jelenik). I'd say that e.g. agyondolgoz could be a soft redirect to agyondolgozza magát (similarly to the procedure with s’en aller, mentioned at the discussion you linked). Probably the template {{only in}} could be used in both types of cases; this looks like a good compromise. Maybe we should have a category for forms that only exist syntactically (and/or phonetically) but not lexically, actually two for these two subtypes: one for the type of agyondolgoz and the other for the type of valósul, something like "Hungarian terms only used as part of compounds or expressions", I don't know).

The verb conjugation table might need another parameter (maybe "refl=y") and the forms of this pronoun could be added if this parameter gets a value. I don't mean to discourage you but actually there are two more things concerning the conjugation table which should be handled (perhaps at the same time, perhaps not): (1) adding -hat/-het forms in all persons, probably in a table at the bottom that needs an extra click to open (the potential being completely productive in Hungarian and applicable to all verbs, as opposed to the causative) and (2) separate-prefix forms (partly due to the imperative sense of the subjunctive and partly due to most negated forms, since e.g. menj be is much more widely used than bemenj). Their elements should be linked separately, so for example vehettük (and of course észre) should be linked from the separate-prefix forms of észrevesz, as in nem is vehettük volna észre. Form entries like vehettük already link to lemma entries like észrevesz thanks to {{U:hu:preferred-verbal-prefix}}; what we'll need is the reverse direction. I don't even dare to imagine how many cases will have to be created with the separate-prefix, the potential, and the reflexive cases combined… Adam78 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK, fine, let's use your original category name. In the Nagyszótár, there is an entry for agyondolgoz and we could follow that example. I don't like to create too many redirects. The conjugation template can be tackled later. Feel free to add your project ideas to Wiktionary:About_Hungarian/Todo. So the steps are:

1. Create category: Categoy:Hungarian verbs used reflexively with magát
2. Create label template: {{hu-reflexive}} or some other name if you don't like this. This template will create a label saying that used with magát reflexively or some other text and will place the main entry into the above category.
3. Add the new label template to the appropriate entries to move them to the new category. Since the conjugation template will not show it, it could be mentioned somehow that the reflexive pronoun is also inflected depending on the person.

Panda10 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

-való and other suffixes or compound elements + prefixes

Can we create a subcategory in Category:Hungarian exocentric compounds for való compounds? There are almost twenty of them already, scattered here and there, and many more could be created, which is bound to interfere with browsing the rest of the content. What about Hungarian compound nouns with -való? (I don't think we need to include that they are "exocentric [compounds]" because all these are necessarily exocentric ones, as they consistently lack a modified word like "dolog".)

We also need to distinguish such nouns as the majority (mosnivaló etc., and there are at least forty more) from compound adjectives, which would include alábbvaló [= kevésbé értékes], alávaló, arravaló [= rátermett], belevaló, csapnivaló, égetnivaló, életrevaló, ennivaló [= aranyos], helyénvaló, hiábavaló, idevaló [= helybeli], jelenvaló, jóravaló, nyilvánvaló, odavaló, örökkévaló, semmirevaló, szemrevaló [= csinos], and valamirevaló [= számba vehető]. This way the former category could be included in Category:Hungarian compound nouns, and the latter, in Category:Hungarian compound adjectives. Some (few) terms will need to be added to both.

On the other hand, we might want to insert the word "suffixed (with -való)", which would make it fit better to Category:Hungarian words by suffix, but it's not really a suffix like the derivational suffixes (képzők) in this category (or in Category:Hungarian suffixes) but a meaningful compound element ([összetételi] utótag, which recently superseded the term képzőszerű utótag), more similar to the existing prefixes, except for their position. Possibly comparable morphemes are -alja(i), -ellenes(ség), -fajta, -félben, -féle, -fi, -fia, -fil, -fób, -forma, -formán, -föld(i), -hát, -köz, -mellék, -mód, -mező, -nemű, -örs, -rét, -rétű, -szám, -számba, -számra, -szemmel, -szerte, -szerű, -virágúak, and -zug. Shall we classify them simply as suffixes? There are already so many Hungarian categories with suffixes and these above are pretty different from -ő or -s.

Perhaps we could do it in parallel with meaningful nominal prefixes like al-, anti-, auto-, bel-, bio-, dörzs-, e-, egyen-, euro-, ét-, ex-, gyógy-, hason-, hidro-, hiper-, hord-, infra-, inter-, kontra-, köz-, kultúr-, kül-, lő-, mellék-, meta-, mini-, multi-, mű-, röp-, déd-, ük-, vegy- etc. Maybe Category:Hungarian word-initial compound elements and Category:Hungarian word-final compound elements? Or Category:Hungarian prefix-like compound elements and Category:Hungarian affix-like compound elements? Or Category:Hungarian lemma-derived prefixes and Category:Hungarian lemma-derived affixes? Or Category:Hungarian compound-forming prefixes and Category:Hungarian compound-forming affixes? (Maybe this last is the best.) – In any case, they could be included in prefixes and suffixes, respectively. Nominal prefixes could be preferably set apart from verbal prefixes (despite some occasional overlap like elő-, ellen-, kölcsön-). Adam78 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 While I agree with you that it would be nice to distinguish these suffix-like elements, using a non-standard category name has consequences. Look at -féle. The current part of speech is Suffix and this is what it has to be in the future. There is no compound-forming suffix PoS. Under ===Derived terms===, the {{suffixsee}} and {{prefixsee}} templates assume standard category names, so we will not be able to use them. While we could add those new categories manually to ===Derived terms===, they would not have that nice blue arrow for preview. My suggestion is to keep it as is in order to enjoy the standard category functions and add some additional things. Here I thought of four options:

1. Create two new categories as you suggested and add them manually to these entries by using the parameter cat2 in {{head}}: Category:Hungarian compound-forming prefixes and Category:Hungarian compound-forming suffixes. Note: I think it should be suffixes and not affixes because all other suffix categories use this term. So these will be additional categories, and would not replace the old ones.
2. Create a new usage notes template for each (one for compound-forming prefixes and one for compound-forming suffixes), give a brief explanation about what they are and list all of them.
3. Create two list templates, one for each, and add it to the ===See also=== section.
4. Some combinations of the above three.

Panda10 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I'd go for adding the two categories in "cat2", because a category is always up to date, by its very nature, as opposed to a list that was once manually compiled. (The "See also" section or any relevant templates could be thus replaced by the built-in function supplied by {{suffixsee}}.) The category "Hungarian suffixes" will be even messier then, but never mind, I understand your reasons. On the other hand, I think we'll have all the more reason to create a subcategory (or some subcategories, for example by the part of speech) for the rest, i.e., derivational suffixes (képzők), so that they can be browsed in a meaningful way, distinct from compound-forming suffixes.

By the way, this separation has some relevance in spelling (quoting Osiris Helyesírás): „A képző- és ragszerű utótagokra is érvényes a szótagszámlálási szabály, azaz összetételi utótagként kezeljük őket ebben a vonatkozásban. Elsősorban a -szerű és a -féle, valamint a -ság/-ség képzővel továbbképzett alakokban realizálható: programjavaslat-szerűség, nyereményjáték-féleség […]” – as opposed to honvédemlékműveink, since its base form is only 5 syllables, so all its derivations are written without a hyphen, even beyond 6 syllables. Also, their spelling is not simplified, e.g. viaszszerű vs. viasszal. There is even a phonological argument for the distinction: they don't undergo harmonic assimilation with the base form (it is also exemplified by the latter pair). So it seems to me a good decision to make them searchable separately, in their own categories. Adam78 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 I wonder if I misunderstood your question. There is already a Category:Hungarian derivational suffixes. And Category:Hungarian suffixes has several subcategories. Why is it going to be even messier? Panda10 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant Category:Hungarian words by suffix, which already has nearly one thousand (!) subcategories. This one is messy… On the other hand, I think the name of the two (noun and adjective) categories with való should have no hyphen,

• partly because similar categories are named without a hyphen (e.g. Category:Livonian compounds with mīez and other Livonian compound categories, Category:Ancient Greek compounds with ποιός, though not many)
• partly because it exists on its own as an entry here, and if we insert the hyphen, the reader might expect to find a separate entry on -való and I doubt we should create that,
• and partly because való is listed in Magyar helyesírási szótár without a hyphen (together with its compounds).

Or in spite of all these above, shall we still use the hyphen here so as to make it comply with other suffix categories and enable {{suffixsee}}? This might also make sense since in these particular cases való does work like -féle or -forma, and -való could (hard- or soft-)redirect to való. Adam78 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Category:Hungarian words by suffix is large because it contains not just the main categories but all their subcategories. For example, Category:Hungarian words suffixed with -ad has two subcategories: Category:Hungarian numerals suffixed with -ad and Category:Hungarian verbs suffixed with -ad. All three are in Category:Hungarian words by suffix even though this category should contain only those that have Hungarian words suffixed with in their name. The origin of this problem could be the non-standard category names I started but at the time none of the other languages followed: I used the actual part of speech in the category name (noun, adjective, etc.) instead of just word. After a few years, someone or a bot added the matching categories Hungarian words suffixed with and now we have this situation where this category contains three times more subcategories than it should. I don't know how to solve it.

As for using a hyphen or not: We have to examine the entire group of compound-forming prefixes and suffixes. Can they be independent dictionary entries without exception? Tótfalusi, István. Idegenszó-tár: Idegen szavak értelmező és etimológiai szótára (’A Storehouse of Foreign Words: an explanatory and etymological dictionary of foreign words’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2005. →ISBN uses hyphens for prefixes. I think we should keep the hyphens for both prefixes and suffixes and use other methods to clarify, such as a label {{lb|hu|compound-forming suffix}} and an extra category.

I still think that a usage template would be useful because it could describe what a compound-forming suffix is. The Appendix:Hungarian suffixes could also be updated to include a new paragraph. The Appendix:Hungarian prefixes already contains them but does not group them separately. Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I found this in w:Suffix:

A word-final segment that is somewhere between a free morpheme and a bound morpheme is known as a suffixoid or a semi-suffix (e.g., English -like or German -freundlich "friendly").

It seems to be fitting for segments like -szerű, and at least it's more established than what I coined yesterday. (I have nothing against using a template, especially if we want to call them suffixoids.) Magyar értelmező kéziszótár also provides information on several such elements, and as they're not used on their own, the hyphen is beyond doubt, cf. -szerű, -féle, -számba, -számra. I even found -való there. Adam78 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duden has this term, too: Wortbildungsmittel, das sich aus einem selbstständigen Lexem zu einer Art Suffix entwickelt hat und das sich vom selbstständigen Lexem unterscheidet durch Reihenbildung und Entkonkretisierung (z. B. -papst in Literaturpapst, -verdächtig in olympiaverdächtig), that is, a means of word formation that developed from an independent lexeme to a kind of suffix and that differs from an independent lexeme in series formation and de-concretization (e.g. -papst [literally, “pope”] in Literaturpapst [an almost unappealable literature expert], -verdächtig [literally, “suspicious”] in olympiaverdächtig [likely to be worthy of the Olympics]). Adam78 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK, so this means that we will use the hyphens for both the prefixes and the suffixes. I'm still not sure about the rest of this project, meaning the categories and their names. Panda10 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extending the verb table with the potential and prefix-separated forms

I've succeeded in creating {{hu-conj-ok-test}} and the variants of the related other templates, so now they can display potential forms. You can try opening e.g. ad#Conjugation for editing, enter {{hu-conj-ok-test|oda|a|d}}, then check the preview. Since all verbs can have a potential form, it would be added automatically (visible or hidden, it's another question). Of course, I'm open to any ideas to improve the layout, although first I'd like to make sure that everything works perfectly.

On the other hand, before we implement the potential form, I'd also like to implement the prefix-separated forms, and I thought I'd do this with an optional parameter that contains the length of the prefix, so e.g. "odaad" could have "3" for "pref", and all the existing forms would be transformed to display the following:

• an ellipsis sign (…),
• the right side of the given string (linked) starting at character number "pref" + 1, counted from the left (possibly with this)
• a space,
• and the first "pref" number of characters, linked to the hyphenated form like [[oda-|oda]].

As a first draft, I thought of displaying another table (probably hidden by default) under the existing one, which would take its values from above. I'm not sure yet if I can actually do this, though.

I've been thinking about adding the causative as well, but not automatically, only if a parameter like "caus=y" is supplied. If enabled, causative forms could be displayed under the potential forms. Once again: what is displayed is another question (I know that an oversized table would be intimidating, to say the least), but if and when everything is shown, the order could be like this:

• odaadok – odaadsz etc.
• odaadhatok – odaadhatsz etc.
• odaadatok – odaadatsz etc.
• odaadathatok – odaadathatsz etc.
• … adok oda – … adsz oda etc.
• … adhatok oda – … adhatsz oda etc.
• … adatok oda – … adatsz oda etc.
• … adathatok oda – … adathatsz oda etc.

What do you think? Compare these forms of odaad in E-Szókincs. Adam78 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 The table looks fine to me with the potential forms. I have some questions/comments:

1. The potential cell was removed from the main table. I'd add it back, even though it is repeated in the potential table's 3rd-person singular cell.
2. What happened to the adhatni, adható, adhatatlan forms?
3. Did you test all existing parameters with the new table? Will they work?
4. What if there is a need for just the base table? Not sure under what circumstances, but this will need a parameter to hide the potential forms and any other below.
5. Does this mean we are not going to add conjugation tables to the potential forms? Such as {{hu-conj-potential-hat|tud}} at tudhat?
6. Adding the causative forms using an extra parameter sounds good.
7. I question the usefulness of the separated forms tables. There will be so much clutter. Who is going to use it and how? A separated verbal prefix can happen several ways, before and after the base verb, separated by other words: "Még oda sem adtam neki a pénzt, már panaszkodik." Or: "Oda ne add a pénzt!" Or: "Nem adtam még neki oda a pénzt." Or: "Mikor adod már oda neki azt a pénzt?" Or: "Soha nem adtam volna oda a pénzt." Or: "Oda fogod adni neki a pénzt?" Even E-szókincs doesn't have them.

Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Chiming in as an outsider --

What about the frequentative -gat, -get forms? And do these combine with the potential? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr, yes, they do, but they are considered separate lemmas, so we need to link them manually. This suffix cannot be added to any verb, and some verbs take a different, though synonymous ending, e.g. járkál, szaladgál, futkározik, ájuldozik, legelészik etc.

@Panda10, I think these are the main reasons to have the separate verb forms:

• to have links from the suffixed forms, and hence provide the reverse of {{U:hu:preferred-verbal-prefix}}, so this way "gondolhattál" will be linked from "belegondol" and "kigondol", which will make it easier (1) for editors to find and add a "U:hu:preferred-verbal-prefix" reference to "gondolhattál" (if it was missing) and (2) for readers to do the same (i.e. find an answer to the question "might this form possibly be part of a compound verb?") in case these links are missing. It's important for non-native speakers to realize these connections, since prefixes can get rather far from their base verbs. (“Be is tudunk majd még talán legalább néhányat közülük a lakodalmat követő éj leszállta előtt csomagolni.” – even if this is a bit of a stretch.)
• The primary way for subjunctive forms to occur is the reverse order (menj be is far broader in use than bemenj: the latter is limited to subordinated sentences).
  • Look at the conjugation of ausgehen, for example: you'll see that forms like gehe aus are not only linked but they were actually created as form entries on their own. It's true that they're grammatically required to separate in most forms, but the imperative in Hungarian also requires verbs to separate the same way, which information is currently overlooked.
• There are multiple cases of apparent prefixes (somewhat comparable to German non-separable prefixes, but usually resulting from coincidence, rather than etymology). Just to name one example for each: alázkodik, általánosít, átkoz, beszél, belehel, elemez, ellenőriz, felejt, fennhéjáz, földel, hazardíroz, idegesít, kiabál, kölcsönöz, körülményeskedik, különbözik, lebeg, rámol, szembesít, telepedik, továbbít, túloz, visszakozik. I think we should make it (more) clear in the table which segments are actual prefixes and which ones are not: it's not only a matter of etymology.

For your other suggestions:

• OK, we might put the potential form back, maybe with an arrow like this: ↙ to indicate that it was not some oversight on behalf of the editors to have it twice. However, I was thinking about adding forms like adván in the far-right cell (maybe in parentheses), since the header "adverbial participle" is already longer than necessary, so it could be the header for both adva and adván. Do you think we should "sacrifice" adván for the sake of a redundant "adhat"? Note that this form is much more common with some other verbs, e.g. tudván, látván, ismervén.
• adhatni, adható, adhatatlan – a very good point. They should be added, especially the latter two. I'll add them.
• No, I haven't tested it extensively yet, because first I'd like to settle the matter of separated prefixes (and ideally the causative too).
• OK, we can include this feature as well.
• I don't think we should delete those tables, but in the future it won't be a necessity to add them.
• Going back to the split (or separated) verb forms: indeed, we should state clearly that the prefix can also be separated from the base verb if it's before the base verb but not immediately before. I'd say that we could have a notice at the very top of the table about this feature of prefixed verbs, and this notice could be a link to the – otherwise hidden – extra table below, listing all the split forms. (We could also link to this Wikipedia article; it looks good.) Adam78 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Adam78 Ok, go ahead and replace the potential form with the second adverbial form, although I still think it should be there. As for the split forms, I still don't feel comfortable with this addition, but if you want it, add this function. Instead of pref=3, why not pref=oda? Wouldn't it be easier to code? This parameter would also indicate that the section with the separated verbal prefixes should become visible. Panda10 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

order of terms

I think the term "definite/indefinite" should precede the person in the inflection formula, because it's encoded on the same suffix as the person, and because the normal order in English is from the more particular to the more general (cf. postal addresses). The second-person-object could remain at the end. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam78 I think it should start with the person. I looked at an English form (e.g. Third-person singular simple present indicative form of avoid), a Finnish form (e.g. Second-person plural indicative present form of aakkostaa), or the German vermeidest. I don't mind the rest but before you make any changes in the templates and acceleration script, think about how the existing forms will be changed. Panda10 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant (e.g. in the case of kér.t.ed) "definite second-person singular indicative past of kér" (or perhaps "second-person singular definite indicative past of kér"?) instead of the current "second-person singular indicative past definite of kér". The suffix "-ed" combines the definite with the second person, while it is independent of the past tense "-t", after which it's currently supplied. (See also kér.j.ed, where the definite second-person suffix "-ed" is distinct again from the "-j" that indicates the mood.) It wouldn't affect the order that is used with other languages because these languages don't have the definite/indefinite distinction. (In fact, we could also consider whether it's general vs. definite conjugation. Határozott and általános ragozás is mentioned in the sources I can recall. I admit this might be confusing, though.) I'm not saying we'd have to hurry and start changing things. I just wanted to let you know about this point of view and then we can think about it and get back to it later. Maybe there will be some other idea that could improve on the verb form entries and this change could be made at the same time, (semi)automatically, who knows. On the other hand, I used this order in the entries of verb suffixes I edited (like "-ed") and I didn't want you to see them as mistakes (though I'm aware that I still make mistakes, unfortunately). I hope we can keep this order (or its variant, given above in parentheses) at least in these few suffix entries. Adam78 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam78 OK, I see. In this case, the order "definite second-person singular indicative past of kér" sounds good. Yes, we can keep this order in the verb-forming suffix entries. Panda10 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Hi. Could you, please, tell me how hyphenation works in Hungarian? Because I'm lost. If I were to hyphenate the word "epidémia" myself, I would do it like this: e‧pi‧dé‧mi‧a - because "epi" certainly does not constitute a single syllable but two, the same goes for "mia". I'd already made an exception to my way of thinking before you edited it by not breaking up "mia" into two separate syllables because that's how the other words with this ending seem to be hyphenated. However, I still don't get it. Do you break it into single syllables except when a syllable consists of a single vowel? Or maybe you divide it into morae, not syllables? Shumkichi (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: Hi, there is hyphenation (epi‧dé‧mia) and there is syllabification (e‧pi‧dé‧mi‧a). Point 3 of Appendix:Hungarian hyphenation says: "Although not incorrect, it is not recommended to leave a single vowel at the end or the beginning of a line." I have to admit that this is causing a lot of confusion. Users often try to replace the hyphenation with syllabification. I wish we could come up with a good solution. Maybe we should just forget about hyphenation and display syllabification in every case. If you have some thoughts, please share it. And thank you so much for your work on Hungarian entries! @Adam78: I think we talked about this before. Your thoughts are always welcome. Panda10 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the right person to give any advice on your own language - in my native tongue, Polish, hyphenation is always equivalent to syllabification (that's why we don't even mark it on wiktionary as it's pretty obvious), and I actually don't get the point of NOT syllabifying Hungarian words. Idk, is it some arbitrary idea that when a syllable consists only of the nucleus, syllabifying it would not be considered very elegant or something like that? I mean, if I were to choose, I would syllabify all the languages out of simplicity, but that's just me. But I'll leave the decision to proficient speakers. Btw., I've just started learning Hungarian and it's such a lovely language. I've always studied only Indo-European languages because I'm lazy so I chose languages from the same family as my native tongue - similar grammatical features (you know, Standard European Sprachbund), similar phonotactics in some respects, etc., etc. But Hungarian is a challenge, and that's why it fascinates me. It has many non-Indo-European features, such as an almost completely free word order (well, as far as I know, this is actually an innovation even within the Uralic family, so it's pretty unique), dependent on what the focus of the sentence is (I briefly studied Japanese and it is also a topic-prominent language but it doesn't mean that it's easier for me to learn this feature - the whole concept is so elegant but horribly idiomatic). Hungarian phonology is also cool with its vowel harmony (although it's typical of this language family but still a foreign concept to me), pretty weird gemination (you guys even geminate the semi-vowel /j/), and what I struggle the most with is the phonemic vowel length distinction. How are you able to keep the stress on the first syllable even if there are multiple long vowels on the unstressed ones? I know that Czechs and Slovaks (and, to a much lesser extent, even the English and Germans) do the same, but it's much easier there IMO. Even the foreign influences, like Turkic, Slavic and Germanic languages, are an interesting historical aspect of the language. As a Polish speaker, I'm glad to see some Slavic influences in your vocabulary (it's pretty cute that you've changed "ugorka" to "uborka" xd), as well as the shared German loanwords as both of our languages have significant German influences. Shumkichi (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shumkichi Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was refreshing to read about your enthusiasm and interest in languages, among them Hungarian. I'll think about the hyphenation issue some more. The single vowel at the end or beginning of the line - I'm not sure if it is about not being elegant. Perhaps it slightly interrupts continuous reading because it is not always obvious from a single vowel what word might come in the next line. About the phonemic vowel length distinction: Since I'm a native speaker, it comes naturally to me, but if you regularly listen to Hungarian radio and television (available on the internet at https://mediaklikk.hu/) or other audio, you will figure it out. Even if you don't understand anything, or just a word here and there, it will help you with sentence intonation and the rhythm of the words. I wish you the best in your future studies. Learning languages is a beautiful journey even with its occasional frustrations. Panda10 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the solution applied in Laczkó, Krisztina with Attila Mártonfi (2006) Helyesírás [Orthography], Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, →ISBN, which uses the hyphen for syllables that can be separated in printing and the hyphenation point for syllables that cannot be separated in printing. Maybe we should have our own hyphenation tool, just like we have our own pronunciation tool (template:hu-IPA). If you look at Module:hyphenation, you can find "‧" and afterwards there is even tr = "-" but I don't understand its purpose. There could be a tool tip (maybe with a link?) where the difference of the two marks is explained. Only those entries should be modified where there is one or more extra syllables in terms of phonology; the other pipes (|) could be left intact, as they would generate hyphens, as usual in Hungarian-language typesetting. Adam78 (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adam78: While I do like their solution, in our case it would cause confusion for compound words connected with a hyphen. The simplest solution for us would be to select a character for the syllables that cannot be separated and simply add it to the current template: {{hyphenation|hu|e.pi|dé|mi.a}} would result in e.pi‧dé‧mi.a. The Finnish language does have its own hyphenation template and module: {{fi-hyphenation}}. Panda10 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I created {{snh}} and experimentally inserted it into előadás. I think the undertie suggests the notion more than dots placed at different heights (not mentioning that lower dots would coincide with those used in some abbreviations). What do you think about this notation and this template? (If this template is used for Hungarian only, it can be renamed like "hu-...", but I'm not convinced it's exclusive to Hungarian.) However, this undertie could be a link to some page where its meaning is given. Perhaps the Glossary, if we can find a good name ("syllabification-only hyphen"?). Adam78 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adam78: I appreciate that you are thinking about solutions to improve the hyphenation issue. I'm not sure that the undertie is the best way to go about it. It looks a little confusing to me, especially on mobile devices. I tried to insert a simple dot and it is not that bad {{hyphenation|hu|e.lő|a.dás}}. We don't usually hyphenate abbreviations so a period is acceptable to me. My preference would be to change the name "hyphenation" to "syllabification" (Finnish entries already do that) and provide the information appropriately. Well-intentioned anonymous editors often "correct" the hyphenation with the syllabification which then I have to revert and explain the difference. Panda10 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian entry analysis

A while back you asked me about this: User:DTLHS/hu analysis. Somewhat experimental still, but it is at least functional. DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@DTLHS Thank you very much, this will be very helpful! Panda10 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Old Hungarian" for both ómagyar AND ősmagyar or "Pre-Old Hungarian" for the latter

Did you read this reply by Tropylium? If you check w:Proto-language, it seems we might need to use Old Hungarian both for ősmagyar and for ómagyar, since the term "Proto-Hungarian" is not applicable (see the same Wikipedia article).

However, the article says "When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed "Old X" (e.g. Old English and Old Japanese)." Ősmagyar is not attested (except for very few, very brief fragments), only ómagyar is.

On the other hand, "Pre–Old Hungarian" could be considered, based on the section Proto-X vs. Pre-X.

Anyway, we may have to resort to "Old Hungarian" as a broader term, or use "Pre–Old Hungarian" as a specific equivalent of "ősmagyar". (I'd prefer the latter.) In this case we could stipulate it in the general guidelines about Hungarian. Adam78 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adam78 Yes, it sounds good (Old Hungarian for ómagyar, Pre–Old Hungarian for ősmagyar). Did you mean to add it to Wiktionary:About Hungarian? I'm not sure where are the general guidelines about Hungarian. Panda10 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

unhyphenated syllables: a tentative list

(Moved to Template_talk:hu-hyphenation)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

some useful resource

English–Hungarian and Hungarian–English linguistic dictionary, published online in 2021. (Searching for terms with "ő" and "ű" might not work properly due to encoding issues.)

One thing I've already found is their equivalent for "belső keletkezésű szó": native word (as opposed to internal development, as we put it). We can research its usage and equivalence though. Adam78 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78 These are extremely helpful. Thank you very much for letting me know about them. Panda10 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

egyetem

Are my ears betraying me or does the speech sample there sound more like IPA^(key): [ˈeɟetɛm] than IPA^(key): [ˈɛɟɛtɛm]? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The uneven speed might cause this but all three are ɛ. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: see also the entry of ë. (In short, I suppose it's perfectly all right even if it has the [e] sound.) Adam78 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you! That link is really helpful. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 05:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hungarian phrases

Thanks for editing these. Note how I have modified the headword lines to fix an error that you introduced. Please look over some of your edits to fix this. See Category:head tracking/unrecognized pos to find the malformed entries. Köszi. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf I looked through the category and completed the multi-word terms. However, I don't know what to do with the superseded spellings, see halkszavú as an example. The PoS is Adjective but the template is {{head|hu|superseded forms}} since we don't want to add it to the adjectives category. If you know how to fix these, please let me know. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would we not want to add it to the adjectives category? It's an adjective, correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78 Would it be OK with you for the superseded terms to use {{head|hu|<actual PoS>|cat2=superseded forms}}? The <actual PoS> is noun, adjective, etc., matching the content of the PoS line. We'll add any additional category with cat2, cat3. Panda10 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Panda10, Koavf I don't think it's a good idea. It would result in several mistyped forms listed in multiple categories, considerably confusing any readers. They've got to be excluded from normal PoS categories. If it's not possible, then we could simply delete their entries, mentioning them only (without links) in "Alternative forms", adding "nonstandard" as their label. Adam78 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78: There is no reason to remove any content: Wiktionary includes all kinds of obsolete terms and spellings (even dead languages!) as well as out-of-date orthographies, etc. The category Category:Hungarian adjectives is not only for current and official spellings of present-day adjectives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78, Koavf I would also like to keep the separate entries for superseded forms. After all, they were correct in the past and they still exist in older literature with all their inflected forms. Panda10 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf, Panda10 See Category:English misspellings. I clicked on two random entries there and neither were included in their own PoS categories, only in misspellings. See e.g. abit. I don't mind keeping them, just not in their PoS categories, only as misspellings. Fair enough, isn't it? Adam78 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78, Koavf Misspellings are handled differently than superseded forms. Look at Category:Superseded forms by language. I checked a few German words, they are all in their correct PoS category. I'm not saying I want to include them, I just don't know how to exclude them AND conform to the appropriate head template rules. Panda10 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The same is true in Portuguese, Spanish, etc. "Abit" is not and has never been a word in English. "Teh" or "hodl" could be considered words due to their ironic and deliberate usage. Superseded forms are words in those languages, they have just been reformed or changed by some authority. Anyone who knows Brazilian Portuguese would understand "idéia" and many of them would use it still, no matter if some government somewhere says to not use it. Even if these Hungarian spellings have really fallen out of use among actual Hungarians today, it's still been a part of the language. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf Anyway, my conviction is that including superseded forms in normal category listing would be misleading and disruptive. I'm not saying they're not part of the language, but displaying them twice (in two forms) or sometimes even more times in the same listing doesn't make sense; it'd give false information about the number of entries comprised and it would interfere with the normal use of categories. – If they are still included in the relevant Hungaries PoS categories, then there should be subcategories with one single entry for each lemma, no matter how many different forms they may additionally have. There has got to be a meaningful category for them, whether it be called (e.g.) "Hungarian nouns" or "Primary lemma forms of Hungarian nouns" or whatever else. Adam78 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Adam78, Koavf One solution could be to use {{head|hu|misspelling}} in the headline and {{superseded spelling of|xxx}} in the definition line. This will place the entry in three categories: Category:Hungarian non-lemma forms, Category:Hungarian misspellings and Category:Hungarian superseded forms. Superseded spellings are actually misspellings, so this categorization is valid. I made the change at halkszavú. Please let me know if you agree with this direction. Panda10 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like it; thanks for the suggestion. Adam78 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Audio files

Hello again. If you have some spare time on your hands, it would be great if you could create audio files for the remaining few words that don't yet have them in the tables in w:Hungarian_phonology#Consonants and w:Hungarian_phonology#Vowels. This is the place most learners of Hungarian will probably visit at some point so I think having audio files for all example words would be of great benefit. Köszi in advance! — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha I've uploaded a few, please go ahead and update Wikipedia. I updated the Wiktionary page. Panda10 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added them to the Wikipedia article. BTW, the reason why I requested dzsezz was because it appears on w:Hungarian_phonology#Consonants. If it is really wrong it should probably be removed from there as well. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha I corrected the spelling in Wikipedia and added two more audio files. Panda10 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Deklinációs sablonok fordítása franciára?

Helló, megláttam, hogy te voltál az, aki (legalább nagyjából) hoztad létre az angol nyelvű magyar szavak deklinációs sablonjait, én meg nemrég (tkp. tegnapelőtt) kezdtem hozzájárulni a francia nyelvű, magyar szavakkal és kifejezésekkel foglalkozó wikihez, és úgy vettem észre, hogy a jelenlegi francia nyelvű sablonok egyáltalán nem felelnek meg a szavak nagy többségének (pl. nincs is megfelelő sablon a magas magánhangzóknak, kivéve egy, ami nagyon ritka esetekben lehet helyes), és csak azt akarnék tudni, hogy le lehetne-e fordítani a te sablonjaidat franciára, hogy miért ne lassan ismertebbé valjon a magyar nyelv a franciául beszélők közül is :) Szóval, az a kérdesem, hogy tényleg lehetséges-e, és ha igen, hogyan csináljam, ha nem, hogyan hozzam létre a sajátaimat? Amúgy köszönöm, hogy végigolvastad és emellett szép napot kívánok!

Ui.: Előre is bocsánat a lehető hibákért, tanulok még :)

Ombreux (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ombreux Helló, gratulálok a magyarodhoz! A sablonok nagyon sokat változtak az elmúlt években. A francia wikiben még mindig az eredeti változatot látom. Át lehet őket másolni (egy részüket lásd itt: Category:Hungarian nominal inflection-table templates), persze mindent le kell fordítani franciára. Dolgoztál már wiki sablonokkal? Vagy Lua programozási nyelvvel? Ha nem, van valaki, aki tud neked segíteni a francia wikiben? Amit tudok, szívesen segítek, de sajnos nem beszélek franciául. Panda10 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Eddig soha nem dolgoztam velük, Luával sem, de kicsit érdeklődtem iránta. C-ben meg HTML/CSS-ben pedig elég jól tudok kódolni, de nem hiszem, hogy köze van a Luához...

Kérdeztem már a francia wiki adminjaitól, de eddig sajnos nem is kaptam választ :/

Te amúgy tudnád kódolni ha mindent fordítanék franciára, ami kell? Ombreux (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ombreux Do you mind if I write in English? I see that you are a near native speaker. I'm not familiar with Lua and I can do only basic stuff in wiki script. I copied two templates to Catégorie:Modèles d’accord en hongrois: Modèle:hu-décl-table (this provides the table structure) and Modèle:hu-décl-ek (this provides the declension information) but I immediately ran into a problem. Some templates are not present on the French wiki (such as l-self) that we use here and I'm not sure how to fix this. So this might not be as easy as I thought. You will definitely need someone who is familiar with the templates over there. I'm very sorry about this. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

It's fine I'll try to find someone and I'll eventually come back at you :)

Maybe we could translate the missing templates too though? Ombreux (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ombreux Here is another approach. Instead of using the current complex templates, I copied the old -ok template structure that exists on the French wiki to the new -ek and modified the suffixes. This seems to work. Try to add the declension to kert, this is what you have to add: hu-décl-ek|ker|t|et in curly brackets. Panda10 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you it works perfectly! I'll try to do the same with the other templates :)

By the way do you know how to make it a box (amit be lehet csúkni, nem tudom, hogy mondják angolul) just like with the English wiki? Because aesthetically it's not very pleasing ^^ Ombreux (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ombreux The Manual:Collapsible elements says you have to add mw-collapsible mw-collapsed to the class in the table. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It worked!! Thanks a lot :) Ombreux (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A last question, do you know how to align the table at left, while keeping its width, and the words inside of the table still staying centered? I have a bit forgotten my CSS classes 😅

Btw here's the template Ombreux (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it by myself 😂

But I have another problem now, it causes the text below it to not span across the whole screen, ie. if the width of the table is 50 %, all of the text below will also stop at 50 % (see here)... Ombreux (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ombreux The closing div tag is missing. Panda10 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankss it works perfectly :) Ombreux (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Transferred senses?

I'm curious why Category:Hungarian terms with transferred senses doesn't exist—I was going to use (transferred sense) for sense 2 of hűbéres, since the Értelmező szótár itself says "átvitt értelemben", but then saw the red link. Not sure if it's an intentional decision or not. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Al-Muqanna: I've been using figuratively for "átvitt értelemben". This label does not create a category but I don't see how a category in this case would be useful. Panda10 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think these large categories are mostly intended for large-scale data-harvesting, though I suppose it's also useful precisely for this reason (to indicate a convention). Thanks. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Karmol

Hello, why did you reverse my edit on an Udmurt cognate?

Here is the book I got it from, page 154

145х215 (paradoxplaza.com)

~ Gibby01 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gibby01: The Russian-language book you linked above mentions karmolás only (a noun), but not karmol (a verb). You can find this entry's etymology in the New Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian. There is no mention of an Udmurt cognate. Please stop editing Hungarian etymologies. The majority of your Hungarian edits had to be reverted because they were incorrect. Panda10 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, these were only 2 entries from the same book though. My other edits on the etymologies of Hungarian kings have not been removed :)

~ Gibby01 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

gyűlöl

Why did you undo my contrib? [[9]] According to Anna Vladimirovna Dybo, the "unattested stem" is derived from PT *yǖl-. Nothing is wrong with my contrib. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ardahan Karabağ No need to be angry. You removed the previous valid etymology and its reference and replaced it with your own. After reverting your changes, I added a new online reference, now there are two of them saying the same thing. If you found a different point of view about the unattested stem, you should mention that after the original etymology as an alternate and add your new source after the existing one. BTW, I clicked on *yǖl in your reference and no match came up in the database. Panda10 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, I've also noticed that I wrote it wrongly, sorry for my mistake. Here is the correct link [10]. I'm not going to delete the current etymology which had been supported by other references, but write another alternative etymology. I also have a question, do the notifications come to you if someone make an entry or edit about Hungarian or other languages, because of being administrator? Thanks in advance. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ardahan Karabağ Sounds good. To answer your question: I get notifications only for those entries that I created in the past. Otherwise, I have to add entries to my watchlist to see a change. Panda10 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

vekni

So what's the standard, neutral (=non-colloquial) word for a loaf of bread in Hungarian? And not some very specific one like "vekni", which means an oblong loaf of bread specifically, but I'm asking for the general term for any loaf? Shumkichi (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi Usually kenyér: Vettem egy kenyeret/egy kiló kenyeret. Panda10 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

csöröge

Thank you for this entry, I "stole" some parts of it to improve the form loaned into Rusyn (череґи (čeregy)) :) — Phazd (talk|contribs) 00:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

kroki

Saw your edit on kroki. Do you have a good reference for adding skit as a translation? Although I'm not a native speaker, but for me skit is more like a play than a short written article. Are there any native speakers here to ask? Drkazmer (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drkazmer Some of the online dictionaries provide multiple definitions for skit, for example Dictionary.com: 1. a short literary piece of a humorous or satirical character 2. a short theatrical sketch or act, usually comical. Or Merriam-Webster: 2a. a satirical or humorous story or sketch. Országh gives the following translations: sketch, light essay, gossip. Szotar.net: kroki=sketch; skit; vignette. The gloss after the English translation is important to make it clear which English sense is used. But it's always a good idea to ask native speakers. These type of questions can be asked at Wiktionary:Tea room by pressing the tab with the plus sign on it (between the Read and History tabs). Panda10 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

jóból is megárt a sok

Hi Panda10, this is not an etymology and it's a duplication of the information in the rest of the page. See Wiktionary:Etymology#Phrases,_compounds,_acronyms,_and_abbreviations —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Caoimhin ceallach: Hi, the paragraph you linked above refers to English language entries. For Hungarian entries, it is not a duplication because the affixes are separated from the base word, each is translated, and a literary translation of the entire phrase is also provided. There are more complicated sayings where this type of detail is necessary and it's always a good idea to maintain the same standard for every entry. Panda10 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It refers to entries of all languages on the English version of Wiktionary. In addition, you can find the parsing of jóból by clicking on it, as most declined forms of Hungarian have their own entry. Or you'll find it in the declension table at jó. Everything can be linked to from the headword line. Anyway, the etymology section is not the place to explain ordinary grammar. If this is currently the convention then the convention is wrong, because this isn't an etymology. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78, Einstein2 Sorry to bother you with this, but I'd appreciate your point of view. Panda10 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say only those elements should be explained that can have multiple etymologies. (Although even those particular etymologies can be linked with the "head" parameter of the POS, using the right "id" that had been defined.) I don't like Caoimhin ceallach's way of communication but I have to admit that I also had misgivings about duplicating information that can be unambiguously accessed from the elements.

Also, there are questions we face with this kind of detailed etymology, for example: If we find a better translation for a morpheme, should it be updated on all pages that link to this morpheme? I don't think so. However, currently it's quite possible that we supply some suboptimal gloss in an etymology section. And: Who can tell if it's better to supply the most typical meaning or the local, current meaning? Both are useful in a way, yet there's usually no room to supply both.

Instead, I think the definition of the glosses linked should be checked each time to make sure that the sense used in the phrase is actually provided (and truthfully provided, comprising the relevant sense).

Personally, I often felt discouraged by the fact that I'm supposed to provide such elaborate level of etymology, down to the level of individual morphemes, so I didn't create some entries I would have created otherwise. Honestly, I would be relieved if we didn't have to do so. Providing the "literally" note should suffice in most cases, I think (along with the "ID" wherever necessary).

Adding the detailed etymology seems like a burden not only for the editor but also for the reader: because they expect to see something extra, something special, and then they realize it's nothing more (actually less) than what is already given elsewhere, and the selection (the gloss text) may be arbitrary. In the end, redundance may beget disappointment or annoyance, a feeling that you've been robbed of a bit of your time or effort for no obvious reason. Adam78 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 Okay, thank you. I was probably the one who started this etymology style because I thought it might be useful for learners (and I really don't know that because I never asked Hungarian students who use this Wiktionary). Even if we remove this type of information we should not do it automatically (with a bot). Some may contain other things, for example a füle botját sem mozdítja. Panda10 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 I'm sorry if I came across as overly blunt. That wasn't my intention. The thing to note here is that although the deconstruction of a word or phrase can surely play a role, and I can see how it could be useful for learners, it is not the be-all end-all of etymology. Doing this and only this for a phrase, apart from not contributing anything meaningful, creates the impression that it is all there is to be said about it, although it actually leaves the main question unanswered: Where does it come from? (Panda10's example above is actually a good illustration of what I would like to see, apart from the obligatory parsing of course.) In this case I was hoping to find information on the relationship to similar phrases in other languages. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr: I know you've been interested in Hungarian, especially in its etymologies. I also noticed that you often added an English gloss to the Hungarian etymology elements, although not necessarily in phrases, idioms, proverbs, etc. Would you share your thoughts about how you'd like to see the etymology for expressions like jóból is megárt a sok? Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

For my part, as someone definitely less savvy about Hungarian (but savvier than a completely-ignorant-starting-out newbie), I do find breakdowns quite helpful. This is a bit of a ramble, as I try to address several points I see in the thread above.

• As @Caoimhin ceallach notes, it is possible to click through. However, requiring users to do this is poor usability -- especially for longer idioms. It can become an exercise in yak shaving, where one has to dig into one thing after another and loses sight of the overall entry they were trying to understand. I have keen and painful memories of doing this in my struggles learning Japanese: resources at the time were hardcopies, and usually targeted Japanese readers, providing extensive Japanese-language explanations of English terms but offering only cursory information about Japanese terms. One had to read the dictionary in order to read the dictionary. It was a frustrating exercise in recursive tedium. Part of why I got involved here in the first place was out of a desire to save other language learners from this kind of avoidable barrier to learning -- and providing glosses and breakdowns and explanations is one way of doing so.
• I mostly agree with @Caoimhin's point that etymology sections should ideally include additional lexical information: things like defdates, and development over time in terms of senses, phonology, and spellings. I don't think this precludes adding glosses. For phrases, a literal breakdown and then idiomatic rendering strikes me as appropriate and helpful for language learners. I have been gradually adding such detail when I can, as at the Japanese entry 猿も木から落ちる (saru mo ki kara ochiru, literally “even monkeys fall from trees”).
• This is the English-language Wiktionary, and we can (and should) assume that our readers can understand English. At the same time, we cannot assume that our readers understand non-English text, so providing a relevant short gloss greatly improves usability. Providing historical development, first appearance, semantic changes, and other details are also helpful. That said, I don't think doing so should be a requirement, as this can wind up being a deterrent to adding anything at all, as @Adam78 mentions. That said, if an editor has added glosses, defdates, development, or other details, I see no reason to remove those, so long as they are correct.
• To get to @Panda10's specific question to me, my hope is that idioms in non-English entries like jóból is megárt a sok can be explained in a way that helps readers understand how the phrase works, as (hopefully) exemplified by the 猿も木から落ちる (saru mo ki kara ochiru, literally “even monkeys fall from trees”) entry. I haven't added glosses to any Hungarian phrase entries yet, simply because I haven't encountered any such entries so far 😄 -- I am still quite "early days" in my Hungarian studies, and idioms have not yet entered my field of view. As I come across such entries in future, I will likely add glosses and breakdowns as seems appropriate to better explain the entry to an English-language readership.
• Regarding jóból is megárt a sok itself, I am unsure how the a sok part fits in grammatically / semantically? Is it the subject / agent of the verb megárt? If so, is this phrase parseable as "a lot [of something] is harmful even if it is good"? Or is the jó essentially nominalized by the addition of the -ból suffix? → "even from a good [thing], a lot [of it] is harmful"? But then why is it the definite a sok? Can't quite wrap my head around this.

Anyway, there's my 2p (or whatever the above amounts to).  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Eirikr Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience, they were very helpful. In the phrase, a sok is the subject of the verb megárt, jó is used in its noun sense here (a good thing). The online Hungarian dictionary marks sok as a numeral that can be used both in adjectival and nominal sense. This translation might be closer to the original Hungarian: a large amount is harmful even out of a good thing. Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

While I do find the separation of each morpheme (e.g., jó + -ból + is + megárt + a + sok) a bit excessive and sometimes confusing, displaying the contextual meaning of each word (e.g., jóból + is + megárt + a + sok) occurring in a given phrase might be helpful for readers and save them the time of clicking through each entry in their attempt to completely parse a phrase (as Eiríkr said). At the same time, I think our current way of displaying such information is rather muddled visually. I can think of two alternative methods that might be worth considering, although neither seems perfect and both methods lack implementation in other languages. One option is the recently created Module:interlinear (too technical?), while the other one would be using {{comment}} in the headword line to display the meaning of each word (too compact?).

(1)

jóból	is	megárt	a	sok
good-ELA	even	be.harmful-IND-PRES-3-SG	the	much
"even too much of a good thing can be harmful"

(2) jóból is megárt a sok

Einstein2 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Einstein2 Wow, I didn't even know about these two functions! Thank you for mentioning them and also for your comments. I incorporated them on a test page I created to display the variants: User:Panda10/Test.

@Adam78, Caoimhin ceallach To summarize the above:

• Adding an Etymology section to phrases is not a requirement.
• A literal translation is allowed. See [11]:

“For phrases that have more complicated origins, an etymology may be useful. This applies in particular to idiomatic phrases that cannot be interpreted literally by the sum of their parts, such as rain cats and dogs. For idiomatic phrases in languages other than English, the etymology can be used to provide the literal translation of the phrase.”

• For the benefit of language learners and to increase usability, if editors want to spend time and effort to add a breakdown analysis of the phrase, they may do that under the literary translation and any other lexical information that belong to etymologies. See layout comparisons at User:Panda10/Test and let me know if any of them is acceptable. Or you still want to go with no Etymology for phrases under any circumstances. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Panda10 A literal translation is not only allowed but highly recommended, I'd say. I didn't question it at all (I wrote "Providing the "literally" note should suffice in most cases, I think"; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough).

  In general, I prefer {{comment}}, though I very much hope it can be adapted to mobile devices. We might as well check out the Etymology section of phrases of some other morphology-rich languages, like Finnish or Turkish.

  As another option, the way we employ Interlinear could be simplified, for example only indicating the inflectional suffixes (that define or reflect the actual syntactic relations in the current phrase), i.e. the rag elements but no jel (let alone any képző). For example, present and indicative are less relevant features in this phrase than elative or third-person singular. Adam78 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Eirikr Your example entry (猿も木から落ちる) looks great overall. I hadn't considered the issue from the angle of a language learner. Nevertheless, I have trouble imagining how detailed parsing could be useful, and I'm saying that as someone who used Wiktionary extensively when learning Hungarian.

  Firstly, as a beginner you don't usually grapple with sayings, idioms, and proverbs. Secondly, by the time you're ready for such phrases, you'll have the tools to parse them yourself. If you're given the idiomatic meaning it shouldn't be any harder than any other sentence. Thirdly, if you belong to neither group and are just dabbling you probably don't care about the precise grammatical analysis and only want to know what it means literally and what it means actually.

  I find that the case especially for the phrases we've discussed here, where the base words are usually one click, sometimes two clicks, and rarely (botját) three clicks away from the headword line. But that's just my view and obviously my experience isn't universal, so if I'm overruled, so be it. Cases where I would maybe support detailed parsing are phrases with archaic or otherwise unusual syntax.

  I agree with @Adam78 that a literal translation is desirable, combined when necessary with an explanation of how we get from the literal to the idiomatic meaning.

  Thank you @Panda10 for laying out the alternatives clearly like that. Notwithstanding what I've said above, I prefer variant 3. I agree with your con though, so what if the comments are in the headword line? I've added variant 4 to illustrate this. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I made some code that makes it easier to enter the values; see {{comment-link-mul}} and section "4a" on the test page. The display is the same as "4" but it's easier to code. Shall we settle on this version? Adam78 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 I do appreciate that you spent time on the code (BTW, it was moved to User:Comment-link-mul). I'm hesitant to implement it because the tooltip is not working on mobile devices. Also, I'm not sure if this particular arrangement will be accepted by the wider community. What does the name mean? Why comment-link-mul? Panda10 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. After a quick search, this is what I found. In short, there could be a circled question mark after each term (so that the terms are not clicked by accident) and the tool tips could appear by means of CSS, as shown on this page, which works fine on mobile devices. When it's ready, we can consult the wider community. Based on the earlier comments above, the others don't seem to question its use. For the name, I just appended "mul" because it can handle multiple terms. Of course, it can be renamed to anything. Adam78 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 A question mark after every word in the phrase doesn't look very appealing to me. How will a longer phrase look like? E.g. a hazug embert hamarabb utolérik, mint a sánta kutyát. I double checked proverbs in other languages (Finnish, Turkish, Polish) as you suggested. Some do not have an etymology section at all, others do have it with a literal translation, others add {{qlit}} in the head line to display the literal translation (see tappaa kaksi kärpästä yhdellä iskulla). I'm okay with giving up the detailed etymology and going with the current policy: either no etymology or an etymology with a literal translation. If you want to go further and implement the comment template, please make sure that the idea is presented in Beer parlour before you invest more time and effort into it since to my knowledge it is not included in the current policy. Panda10 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

All right. Interestingly, the Finnish example you brought up links to the corresponding lemma entries, not the inflected forms as we do. What do you think about this practice? Linking to the lemma makes it easier to collect derivations, whereas it might make it more difficult to look up which form (number/​case, tense/​mood/​number/​person) something is. I wonder if there's any policy or guidance about it.

Another question. Based on this discussion (especially Benwing2's warning), do you think I can start converting senses formed with "maga" into separate entries, such as érzi magát, magához tér and kitesz magáért (to name the three types)? I noticed that Bulgarian, Polish, and Old French use a "reflexive with…" sense, while English actually lists them each in separate entries. Anyway, a separate entry may still be better so we don't need to make a redirect e.g. from "érzi magát" to "érez" (and if a literal sense exists, we can still use {{&lit}}). In fact, there may be many translations that link to the Hungarian phrase including the reflexive pronoun, so we'd better not leave them red. Also, some phrases don't even exist without the reflexive pronoun. The reflexive derivations of verbs could be listed among Derived terms > Expressions, I suppose.

On a more practical note, I think the "Conjugation" section of these entries should be standardized with a template, partly for the sake of a uniform look, and partly to avoid unnecessary typing. On the long run, I think standardizing the conjugation section of other phrases as well would be useful, e.g. with a template for the possessive-suffixed forms that could be listed as parameter values without having to type (or copy-paste) the entire sentence each time. Adam78 (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 I prefer linking to the actual inflected form and not to the lemma. I clicked on each word in the Finnish proverb to see the experience. The first two were lemmas - OK. The second two were inflected forms - when I finally found the form in the declension table, I clicked on it to see the structure but there was no etymology to show what the case suffix was to further investigate it. It’s a normal practice here not to add etymology to form entries and the Hungarian practice is frowned upon but to me the plain form entries without etymology, IPA and hyphenation are useless. For the last word I had to search individually because it was not included in any of the declension tables at its lemma form. Another reason I don’t want to link to lemmas: If we link to the actual inflected form, it forces us to create that form if it is a red link. Otherwise, there’s no guarantee that it will ever be created.

Further thoughts on the etymology in form entries: The reason I like to add more information than just the POS and the {{infl of}} line is again my imagined target audience. These users are not the lucky ones that come with two or three native languages just by being born into a multilingual family. And they are not linguists who study multiple languages and have a natural talent to pick up foreign languages easily. They are the ones who either do not know Hungarian at all but read a sentence or heard a saying somewhere and just want to understand it better and the ones who study Hungarian as a second language and are not linguists.

For the question about verbs with a reflexive pronoun: I'm okay with a separate entry. Let me know how I can help.

For the conjugation: This would be another special Hungarian template. I wonder if this would be accepted. Panda10 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian–English terminology in mathematics, physics, biology, and chemistry

Technical terms collected at the website of Cambridge University for Hungarian applicants. Adam78 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Adam78 Thank you! This will come in handy. Panda10 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

szókincs and szótár

Why did you revert my edits? the combo for instance of "word" and "treasure" is pretty darn specific. Synotia (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia The references you provided were not specific enough. There was no way to determine that your statements were correct. Please create a user page and indicate your language fluency. Panda10 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought that since Karl Popper the focus is more on Falsifiability? Or is it not the case in linguistics? Synotia (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)