User talk:Rajkiandris

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome!

It's great to have you here and registered! Please note the changes I made to kasang (how to link etymologies). ms stands for Malay; all Wikipedia entries have the language codes on the infoboxes in the righthand corner. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Again, please format your etymologies correctly. See tewel for how I fixed it. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is very frustrating. Please just try to format them correctly. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's five years later and you are still not formatting etymologies correctly. —Rua (mew) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Livonian stød[edit]

It is not a part of the default orthography, but it's not actually predictable either, so we have been marking it in headwords such as kež, vež, veļ. It's generally also transcribed in source literature, and so I've been similarly including it in Proto-Finnic entries (e.g. *velji). Compare this with our conventions for Latin: "On Wiktionary, macrons should never be used in the names of entries, so the word līber would appear on the page liber. However, within the text of the page, macrons should be used wherever appropriate."

Wiktionary:About Livonian should maybe have a mention of all this, though: the info is currently only found at Appendix:Livonian pronunciation. --Tropylium (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, I notice you also corrected jeng to jeṅg at *henki. The letter ‹ṅ› is however to my knowledge not a part of the Livonian standard orthography at all, compare Līvõkīel-ēstikīel-lețkīel sõnārōntõz. Do you have some different source you are working with? --Tropylium (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

My source is quite old, that is true: Sjögren 1861.


Hi, you added a Livonian entry at lem, but according to Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/lämbin it should be spelled lemm. Can you double-check which spelling is right? Thanks. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In Sjögren 1861 it is spelled as -mm, but in modern dictionaries it is just -m. The same applies to many words ending in -ll in the older dictionary, turned to -l in modern dictionaries.

Okay, thanks! If the -mm and -ll spellings are likely to be encountered by people reading Livonian texts, we could add them as {{archaic spelling of}}, {{dated spelling of}}, {{obsolete spelling of}}, or {{superseded spelling of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I would recommend prefixing all Salaca Livonian material from Sjögren with {{label|liv|Salaca}}. It is a fairly different language variety from Courland Livonian; Salacan also went extinct shortly after Sjögren, and all later publications on Livonian work with the Courland dialect(s). --Tropylium (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blank category pages[edit]

Don't leave completely blank but please write {{auto cat}}. Equinox 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You're still creating blank pages. Please stop. —Rua (mew) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You are creating more blank category pages. Last warning. —Rua (mew) 14:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Etymologies again[edit]

The etymology sections that you are creating are not etymologies. Please either provide proper etymologies (like in the Finnish entries), use {{rfe|izh}}, or leave out the etymology section. Also, you should use {{cog}} to link to cognates. —Rua (mew) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It is a question: Do these Finnic languages (like Karelian or Ingrian) have etymologies that are independent of Finnish? Or they evolved directly from PF? (My answer: I do not think so.)

In most of your etymologies, you've said that they are akin to a certain Finnish term. That implies that they have common ancestry, and thus that they come from Proto-Finnic. If they aren't actually related, then it would be wrong to use {{cog}} or to say "akin". Instead, they would be parallel formations, formed independently. For most of these terms though, it is quite obvious that they are from Proto-Finnic. It's probably easiest to copy the Proto-Finnic term from the Finnish entry. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have a huge problem with PF (Proto-Finnic). It is as if we wrote "English fish comes from Proto-Germanic *fiskaz". This might be true, but this info is misleading: of course, English fish comes from Old English fisc. But we cannot repeat this kind of exercise here: Ingrian kala (meaning fish) does not come directly from PF *kala. It should come from a common Balto-Finnic word (originating around the 10th century), but here we are stuck: we have no written records. The first materials are available from the 16th century. So please, do not write "Ingrian kala comes from PF *kala". In my opinion, "akin to Finnish kala" is the best solution. This solution is not perfect, but at least it is not misleading. Regards.

What is misleading about Proto-Finnic? It's well-supported by linguistics. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
In principle it would be possible to reconstruct also intermediate stages like Old Karelian or Old Veps, analogical to Old English or Old Norse etc. However, there is no consensus on the exact make-up of these, while Proto-Finnic does have a rough consensus reconstruction. This is because the classification of the Finnic varieties is still partly under debate, and a reconstruction of e.g. "Old Veps" is going to look different depending if we attempt to derive from it just the "Veps" dialects; or also some or all of the "Ludian" dialects; or even also the substrate in Livvi. (A similar problem would come up whe trying to reconstruct Old English, too: there are modern English dialects that do not descend from the West Saxon written standard of OE.)
On the other hand, since we do not distinguish things like "Old Veps", this means that "10th century Balto-Finnic" is still just Finnish, Karelian, etc. The Finnish and Ingrian words for e.g. 'fish' have been separate much longer than that (even though they have not changed in shape from each other). Proto-Finnic first breaks up around 500 BC, Proto-Northern Finnic around 0 CE at latest (though I suspect actually earlier than that as well). --Tropylium (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Again, can you please format etymologies using the right templates? You are giving other editors tons of extra work to fix your edits. —Rua (mew) 11:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I try my best.

You are still not using the right templates, such as {{inh}}, {{m}} and {{cog}}. Why is this so difficult? —Rua (mew) 14:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
You're now using {{m}} properly, which is good, but don't forget to use {{inh}} for terms inherited from Proto-Finnic. —Rua (mew) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Ludian terms inherited from Proto-Finnic is practically empty. Can you please start using {{inh}}? —Rua (mew) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
You can also leave a clean-up note by {{etystub}} if you're not sure if some Finnic word-group is native or what its proto-form would be. --Tropylium (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


What is your source for it meaning "morning"? ETY lists "Ludic huomen" as meaning "tomorrow", and huonduz as meaning "morning". Strombones (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Ludian vocabulary -

It clearly says that it means "tomorrow" - here. Although the first translation into Finnish is "huomen", which is a poetic word for "morning", the translations into Russian say "tomorrow" as an adverb and "tomorrow" as a noun. Also, use 4 tildes to signature your posts. Strombones (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Livvi vs. Karelian[edit]

You seem to be on a roll of creating Livvi entries as "Karelian". Many sources call both of these "Karelian", but on Wiktionary we distinguish the two. For adjectives ending in *-eda (= Finnish -ea), the two are usually easy to tell apart: Livvi has -ei, Karelian proper has -ie. --Tropylium (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Depending on your source. I have Makarov's Russko-Karel'skiy Slovar' (Petrozavodsk 1975) and for adjectives ending in *-eda (= Finnish -ea) it clearly states -ei all the time. I apologize for that. (Rajkiandris)

Most likely this means the dictionary in fact is of Livvi, not of Karelian proper. No dialect of Karelian proper has -ei in these. I notice also a few other entries you've created as "Karelian" while they're clearly Livvi, e.g. tavar (Karelian proper is tavara), leugu (Karelian proper is leuga ~ leuka). I've added some notes to WT:About Karelian and WT:About Livvi on this, for future reference. --Tropylium (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Etymology of fúr[edit]

Hi, the sources I've seen contain Proto-Uralic *pura (and not *pura-). What is the reason for the hyphen you added? --Panda10 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You are right. The only reason I inserted the verb *pura- here is that in Hungarian, the verb fúr (to bore)) seems to be the original form, while the noun fúró (drill) is just a derivation. (Rajkiandris)

Orthography notes[edit]

As long as you're on a roll, please do take a few moments also to familiarize yourself with the writing system and conventions of each particular language. In particular:

  • the letter for a "non-nasal" glottal stop in Nenets is the single symbol ˮ, not two instances of ʼ;
  • the lemma form for Nenets verbs is the 3rd person singular aorist (ending in -сь or -зь), not the bare stem;
  • ȣ̈ and ȣ in Uralic reconstructions indicate "unknown front vowel" and "unknown back vowel" (unknown to the author, anyway); they do not stand for *ü;
  • we use *d and *ď for Proto-Uralic, not *δ and *δ́ (forms with these are OK as redirects, though).

Whatever we do with reconstructions is in principle negotiable, but the first two are a bit more concerning.

--Tropylium (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Another issue is PU (Proto-Uralic). How can wole- (and many others here) be PU if no Samoyedic parallels exist? (Rajkiandris)

It's no longer universally accepted that Samoyedic was the first group to branch off, and therefore "Proto-Finno-Ugric" might have been the exact same thing as Proto-Uralic. (For some discussion and references, see e.g. w:Finno-Ugric languages.) We currently deal with this at Wiktionary by treating PFU as an "etymology-only language" — which can be referred to, but for which we will not create any entries separately from PU.
Also, for I should still add this sometime, but *wale- or *wole- (both can be argued for) has been occasionally compared also with the Samoyedic copula *åə-. The rime correspondence is regular, same as in e.g. *kale- > *kåə-.
Lastly, not to be too negative; so I'd like to thank you for incrasing our coverage of basic vocabulary in the more eastern Uralic languages. We are still fairly low even on the larger languages like Komi or Udmurt that have well-established literary traditions. --Tropylium (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


We use the Devanagari script for Konkani, the Latin script (and Kannada script) form is secondary. Please don't make changes like that without talking to people who know the language, like @माधवपंडित. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 05:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Also can you use {{der}} and the like? Thanks, I'd appreciate it. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 05:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@AryamanA: True, and the etymology given is wrong as well; Konkani words are not derived from Marathi. And @Rajkiandris, although the Latin script is also standard, it would be good to maintain consistency. The Latin script forms are anyway documented in every Konkani entry. How well do you know the language? -- माधवपंडित (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a nice little English-Konkani dictionary published in New Delhi in 1999. It contains only Latin script, this is why I thought it would be useful to add a few of the words to the corpus already existing here - even, as you say, the Latin-script forms are secondary. Such a move would definitely alleviate any search within the corpus. This is, in my view, a VERY important aspect if we bear in mind that most users have Latin-script keyboards only. Have a nice day. (Rajkiandris)

The fact of the matter is that the standard for Konkani is Devanagari. Neither Latin, Kannada, or even Malayalam are actually standard, but are secondary scripts. As माधवपंडित said, consistency is key currently. Next time, just ask the main editor of a language before making such a change. DerekWinters (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we include the Latin script on the Konkani page, so anyone searching for, say, "zanap" will be able to find जाणप. I do agree that it would be a good idea to have Latin script entries that redirect to the Devanagari lemma though. If you don't mind me asking, who is the publisher for the dictionary? I've been looking for a Konkani dictionary for ages. Also, yes you are right that most people in India only know how to use Latin script keyboards, but I'm definitely not adding Latin script stuff for Hindi because there's no historical precedent for it. Konkani is different because the Portuguese introduced the Latin script in their colonial rule; just that people don't have Devanagari keyboards is not enough reason to have Latin script entries. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 14:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Removing information[edit]

Don't remove useful templates with correct information, whether they be etymologies, regional forms, or anything else. It may well be accidental, but if that is the case, you must try to be much more careful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

KHMA and LHMA[edit]

Is Middle Persian really written in uppercase Roman letters? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Actually I copied an earlier text, to be found with the Persian word meaning flour. IMHO Roman letters are useful when there is no way to copy the original script. (Rajkiandris)


A cursory look at Yaghnobi language on Wikipedia even shows that the language is not derived from Tajik. Please do a little research before making entries en masse; the Proto-Iranian "roots" you provide are incorrect as well. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 19:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Let's take one example, Yaghnobi маҳтоб. In my opinion this is clearly a borrowing from Tajik. I am ready to delete this etymology, but what is your suggestion, what should we write in its stead? (Rajkiandris)

Take a look at маҳтоб now, I've made some changes. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

невиштан, source of Yaghnobi entries[edit]

Hello. I have added a 'request for verification' for this word, I hope you don't mind but I think there could be a mistake. Also, if you don't mind me asking, it this the source for Yaghnobi entries ? If so, are you sure there permission to use it? Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC) My source for Yaghnobi entries is "Jaghnóbsko-česky slovník" (Praha 2010). (Rajkiandris (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC))

I see, so it's just a coincidence that out of the 20 Google hits for невиштан, one of them appears in that lexicon? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


Well, there are a lot of problems here, and it's a pity they haven't been addressed until now. You are editing in a wide range of languages, and it's clear you're in over your head. Just in the last few days, you are adding incorrect translations in languages you don't know at all without even checking linguistic sources (e.g. in Tahitian), you are still (after all these years) not formatting etymologies correctly (e.g. at gwlg), you are adding entries without basic information, like transliteration (again, at gwlg and your other Middle Persian entries), and you are evidently lying about your sources based on the section above. This is unacceptable behaviour.

So what do we want from you? Basically, just effort toward improvement, care while editing, and adequate responsiveness to concerns addressed to you. If that doesn't happen, I (or another admin watching this page) will block you, first for relatively short periods of time, but longer if it is recurring. Ultimately, we care about building a quality dictionary, and you will have to prove that you can take part in that. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)