User talk:Rua

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
"sawubona"217:34, 15 February 2019
ḱr̥h₂os-715:54, 11 February 2019
Category position122:37, 5 February 2019
scientific names216:49, 4 February 2019
Definitions parameter316:41, 4 January 2019
Proto-Germanic strīkaną - noun or verb216:25, 4 January 2019
Proto-Balto-Slavic adjective inflection template210:18, 3 January 2019
Template:got-compound of114:50, 23 December 2018
Definitions parameter014:51, 9 December 2018
Making Module:af-headword smarter300:15, 4 December 2018
volo - sense id321:30, 30 November 2018
bad111:24, 17 November 2018
Latin nascor and and nascere120:12, 14 November 2018
Template:etymtree/ine-pro/*wódr̥005:49, 13 November 2018
template:rfdate112:38, 9 November 2018
ety at bezwaar516:05, 1 November 2018
Proto-Samic Entries With Module Errors110:00, 17 October 2018
Category:en:Area codes522:56, 10 October 2018
*weghs323:30, 9 October 2018
"feren" as a supposed German descendent of farjaną323:23, 9 October 2018
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

"sawubona"

I was wondering why you say that sawubona is a contraction of "siyawubona", and not of "siyakubona"? I'm not aware of -wu- ever being used as a 2SG object marker, and weakening/elision of /k/ isn't unusual in Zulu.

Smashhoof2 (talk)05:27, 15 February 2019

It's what it said on isizulu.net: "the only left use of -wu- in the 2p sg.".

Rua (mew)10:59, 15 February 2019

Thanks. I guess I'll ask on the forum there about that. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't be a contraction of "siyakubona".

Smashhoof17:34, 15 February 2019
 
 

ḱr̥h₂os-

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 15:54, 11 February 2019

Hi. Should PIE *ḱr̥h₂os- (s-stem) be listed under Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂- or Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂s-? That form is the ancestor of the Indo-Iranian words for “head”.

Vahag (talk)00:41, 11 September 2015

I don't see why not.

CodeCat00:41, 11 September 2015

My question was under which root, the first one or the second one? I am not familiar with the rules of PIE derivation.

Vahag (talk)07:49, 11 September 2015
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 15:54, 11 February 2019

After a closer look, I think Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂s- should be merged with Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂-. What do you think?

Vahag (talk)08:27, 11 September 2015

I don't see why. They're different roots, even if they might be related.

CodeCat13:20, 11 September 2015
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 15:54, 11 February 2019

Which descendants point to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱerh₂s-? Only Germanic and Latin cerebrum?

Vahag (talk)13:39, 11 September 2015
 
 
 
 
 

Category position

We always put categories at the bottom of the page. We'd only put it next to the sense if we were using {{lb}}.

Mahāgaja · talk19:51, 5 February 2019

That's not what I've been doing, and same for Victar it looks like.

Rua (mew)22:37, 5 February 2019
 

scientific names

You have italicised a lot of scientific names in Dutch definitions, but taxa from subfamilies and above should not be italicised. Could you undo those incorrect italics that remain?

Also, quite a few of the recently created taxonomic terms are apparently not attestable. I have RFV'd a few, but more remain. They seem based on the Dutch Wikipedia, but that is a source that very often coins protologisms, also when it comes to taxonomy.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)09:26, 4 February 2019

Ugh, stupid rules...

Rua (mew)11:48, 4 February 2019
 

Ok, I've removed the italics, let me know if I missed any. I'll also try to verify names from Wikipedia in the future.

Rua (mew)16:49, 4 February 2019
 

Definitions parameter

In your changes to this template, the parameter definitions= disappeared, as used and needed in entries such as spann#Swedish. Please fix.

LA2 (talk)14:51, 9 December 2018

Seriously? That edit fixes one page, not the broken template. What about all other pages that uses the definitions= parameter to that template?

LA2 (talk)19:34, 10 December 2018

Which ones?

Rua (mew)19:44, 10 December 2018

I have reverted your changes to the template, and it should stay that way until you fix the remaining 39 broken entries currently using the definitions parameter. You can find the list here.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:41, 4 January 2019
 
 
 

Proto-Germanic strīkaną - noun or verb

I guess Proto-Germanic strīkaną is a verb, and “Noun” is a mistake?

Caoimhin (talk)23:11, 3 January 2019

Yes, it looks like it.

Rua (mew)23:19, 3 January 2019

I find it strange that you did not bother to fix it. (I just have.)

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:25, 4 January 2019
 
 

Proto-Balto-Slavic adjective inflection template

Do we need to create such templates to address adjectives such as pílˀnas? I mean you don't like putting me three declensions for masculine, feminine, and neuter.

Kwékwlos (talk)00:38, 2 January 2019

Yes, there are always separate templates for adjectives.

Rua (mew)11:39, 2 January 2019

Well, there are only noun templates in Wikt.

Kwékwlos (talk)10:18, 3 January 2019
 
 

Then please repair the template so it doesn't generate "Stripped" SPANS then.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk)14:49, 23 December 2018

The code looks fine to me, I don't see the problem.

Rua (mew)14:50, 23 December 2018
 

Definitions parameter

In your changes to this template, the parameter definitions= disappeared, as used and needed in entries such as spann#Swedish. Please fix.

LA2 (talk)14:51, 9 December 2018

Are you interested in working on this? The rules of Afrikaans morphology and spelling are such that urineer is a regular verb, yet both participles have to be supplied. It would be preferable if the module could predict everything that isn't irregular.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:36, 27 November 2018

The same issue exists for Dutch, really. Cases like this could be handled transparently, but it could never predict everything. The problem is that the orthography doesn't distinguish between a stressed e and a schwa, which determines whether the following consonant should be doubled or not. The near-minimal pair of wervelen and vervellen demonstrates this: both have imperative forms that simply end in -el, and this is the form that becomes the present stem in Afrikaans.

Rua (mew)08:16, 27 November 2018

It doesn't need to predict everything; it just needs to predict the vast majority of what it will be used on. I don't have the ability to do it, but I know what rules we could easily implement for Afrikaans (you probably do as well, and you certainly know them for Dutch).

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:12, 27 November 2018

I will take your silence to mean that you are not interested in working on this, but it would have been preferable for you to communicate that explicitly.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds00:15, 4 December 2018
 
 
 

volo - sense id

From this edit it seems the entry is broken, possibly due a template issue? - Amgine/ t·e 04:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Amgine/ t·e04:56, 23 November 2018

What's broken about it?

Rua (mew)14:32, 23 November 2018

Sorry about the delay. This toot has a screen cap of the issue; once the sense id was added, blank <li>s appear in the display.

Amgine/ t·e20:47, 30 November 2018

I don't really know what's causing that. Ask at WT:GP maybe?

Rua (mew)21:30, 30 November 2018
 
 
 

If you revert that last edit; please place the correct language in its place, since what was there is incomplete. If no one is able to do that, it just reflects upon the fallacy of the P.G. reconstructions here! You are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Andrew H. Gray 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Andrew (talk)

Andrew H. Gray11:13, 17 November 2018

That makes sense. However, although it stated "compare" that would normally use "cog", it was a comparison of its origin, however false the P.G. reconstructions are. Anyway, it is much better like it is! So thank you for adding the correct code. Kind regards. Andrew

Andrew H. Gray11:24, 17 November 2018
 

Latin nascor and and nascere

Why did you change the etymologies of Romance descendants of Lat. nascor to just Lat. nascor or nasci (the deponent verb), without Vulgar Lat. nascere? Are you saying they all formed simply by some conscious act of analogy later? I'm pretty sure it looks like there was some proto-Romance form they all sprung out of, at least. Also, nascĕre was attested in some Latin anyway.

Word dewd544 (talk)20:05, 14 November 2018

In past discussions, it was generally agreed that Vulgar Latin entries should not duplicate attested Latin entries.

Rua (mew)20:12, 14 November 2018
 

I don't know if you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:etymtree/ine-pro/*wódr̥ before you deleted this, but Template:etymtree has a module error now. Could you fix it?

Chuck Entz (talk)05:49, 13 November 2018

This edit of yours is categorising into an inexistent group, instead of Category:Requests for date. Why?

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez)11:29, 9 November 2018

The goal is to find all instances that currently use parameter 1. All other request templates use parameter 1 for the language code, so I was trying to bring this template in line with the rest.

Rua (mew)12:38, 9 November 2018
 

The template's fine with me, but is there really much to add? It looks like a fairly straightforward deverbal noun, but with a somewhat less typical gender.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)15:24, 1 November 2018

I actually think that the gender is indicative of the formation. It looks like the same formation as gedoe, but because the verb already has a prefix, it's not added.

Rua (mew)15:26, 1 November 2018

Okay, that's interesting. Are there any plans to make a template for that?

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)15:52, 1 November 2018

Perhaps it could just be indicated as being prefixed with ge-, which already has an entry for this formation. A usage note should be added that the prefix is dropped when the verb already has one.

Rua (mew)15:53, 1 November 2018

On the other hand, could it be analogous to e.g. bedrog ~ bedriegen, but without an ablaut available (due to it being a late formation)? Bezwaar doesn't seem to have ever denoted a concrete activity, unlike the verbal nouns on ge-.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)16:04, 1 November 2018

I wonder what the Middle Dutch situation is regarding these formations. It may give us a clue on how things evolved.

Rua (mew)16:05, 1 November 2018
 
 
 
 
 

Proto-Samic Entries With Module Errors

Were you unaware of these, or is there some reason for breaking a dozen entries and leaving them that way?

Chuck Entz (talk)03:54, 17 October 2018

There's a problem in the template. It should show a term request, like {{m}} does when you don't provide a term. Someone should fix it.

Rua (mew)10:00, 17 October 2018
 

Hi, please don't remove categories from a category unless you're going to add a template that re-adds the categories. Your edit leaves the category not included in any categories.

Purplebackpack8919:29, 10 October 2018

That doesn't matter. Categories should never be added manually to a category that uses {{auto cat}}, they should be added to the data modules instead.

Rua (mew)19:31, 10 October 2018

I disagree. And I stand by my comment that if you are going to remove the categories, you should then immediately add them to the data module. Otherwise, you're just pedantically orphaning a category.

Manually adding categories is a useful stopgap for (the vast majority of) people who don't mess with data modules. And, IMO, it's ridiculous to base categorization on something that few people other than you can understand.

Purplebackpack8919:34, 10 October 2018

Well, are you going to add it to the data module or are you just going to leave it orphaned?

Purplebackpack8921:57, 10 October 2018

Why don't you do it yourself?

Rua (mew)21:58, 10 October 2018

Because I don't know how nor do I see any particular need to have it done. You're the one complaining about how I had it AND you're the person who always codes that stuff.

Purplebackpack8922:56, 10 October 2018
 
 
 
 
 

I am curious what you didn't like about my edit. I cited it. Perhaps it is that I didn't use the correct formatting and templates? I find that side of wiktionary quite counterintuitive. In general the IE pages are very good, but they rely too heavily on the Leiden school, and I have been trying here and there, when I have time to make adjustments that achieve a more well rounded position. Thanks. --Tibetologist (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tibetologist (talk)06:43, 8 October 2018

Your reference said only "ibid", which doesn't mean anything to me. If it's some kind of abbreviation, it should be clarified so that everyone can understand it.

Rua (mew)09:44, 8 October 2018

I cited Watkins 1962 and gave the full bibliographical details. Please check again. ibid is a very well known bibliographic abbreviation as you could find out here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibid.

Tibetologist (talk)22:54, 9 October 2018

I stumbled across this thread, and reading through, I wondered too at your meaning. While ibid is indeed known well enough in various other works, the specifics of how Wiktionary function can make it risky to assume that ibid will always be correct in its particular context.

For instance, suppose the list of descendants were sorted alphabetically by language name. If your line for Old Church Slavonic were placed above your line for Sanskrit, the ibid ceases to make any sense. Alternatively, suppose some other language were inserted between the two, and the new line includes a different citation.

If you intended for your second citation to simply refer to the first, try using the name="xyz" attribute on the <ref> tag instead, and simply use the same value for both attributes. So long as there is one <ref> tag on the page with the same name and full details, the other instances of that identically-named <ref> tag can be empty.

What you had:

* Sanskrit [[avākṣam]]<ref>Watkins, Calvert, 1962, Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. 1. The Signmatic Aorist. p. 19 et passim</ref>
* Old Church Slavonic [[vĕsŭ]]<ref>ibid</ref>

A suggested change:

* Sanskrit [[avākṣam]]<ref name="Watkins_1962">Watkins, Calvert, 1962, Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. 1. The Signmatic Aorist. p. 19 et passim</ref>
* Old Church Slavonic [[vĕsŭ]]<ref name="Watkins_1962"/>

This way, both citations safely refer to the same source, no matter where the individual <ref> tags appear on the page. HTH!

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:30, 9 October 2018
 
 
 

"feren" as a supposed German descendent of farjaną

Hey,

the word "feren" does not exist in Neuhochdeutsch, yet you keep re-adding it to the page for farjaną (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/farjan%C4%85).

--79.245.68.170 10:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

79.245.68.17010:53, 3 September 2018

Where is it established that it doesn't exist? I don't see a discussion at WT:RFVN.

Rua (mew)13:02, 3 September 2018

There's also no discussion at rfvn for sbgzpfnoxmtn, for the same reason: no one has ever created a German entry for it. Perhaps it's an obsolete spelling- it seems like it should have an "h" in it for a modern word. Also, see German Fähre.

Chuck Entz (talk)19:56, 3 September 2018
 

I must say that I dare doubt this word too, for my knowledge of German unlike with the other languages has reached a state of completion. And I cannot find usages of it in any spelling on Google Books which I should as Germany has invented printing with movable types. The lexicographic resources I have consulted for New High German and Middle High German lack it strangely too, is this possible for a word from Proto-Germanic? I could imagine it as as a dialectal word at the most. So I find a fêren “rudern” in the Swiss Idioticon the identity of which I cannot insinuate nor deny however. And why is Middle Low German varen in the descendant list when it is from *faraną, identical to the well-known High German fahren? Ghost-word alarm.

Fay Freak (talk)23:23, 9 October 2018
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page