User talk:Rua

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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Hebrew roots.1006:48, 6 April 2018
(s)teg-203:11, 1 April 2018
Noone011:25, 29 March 2018
template:rel-mid014:59, 16 March 2018
German words from Low German916:30, 7 March 2018
kweern217:08, 7 February 2018
escolhos001:00, 3 February 2018
Re dôre, door, Tor010:20, 2 February 2018, 29 January 2018
*madeh / *matadak112:31, 28 January 2018
The pronunciation of Old English hnīgan210:12, 16 January 2018
gebaarde116:51, 14 January 2018
'autocat'115:59, 13 January 2018
Latin reconstruction pages323:06, 9 January 2018
Re: diff 48378753 -- "glosses should not use Template:l"120:42, 6 January 2018
hur'ri318:55, 4 January 2018
gegevene215:48, 2 January 2018
uitrijden113:32, 28 December 2017
stokken020:36, 25 December 2017
iets220:00, 25 December 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Hebrew roots.

Dear (Mr. CodeCat),

Thank you for your message. It is not right for me to assume an evolutional root for present words from a pre-Babel language. It is a known fact that most of the dialects around Caucasus are entirely distinct. One of them has been stated to be the origin of the Basque grammar; but that is beside the point. No one can prove that many language heads did not start up at the time of the confusion of languages. I, personally like to cite a word that is attested for a stock root, rather than making up a conjectured one. I have had to research into pre-Aryan languages, such as Basque and Finnish, in order to decipher some of the words of unknown origin. To provide an example of an unintelligent conjecture that I made, regarding the origin of Basque for 5 as 'basti', and 'nilar' for 4; but that was just ignorance. The nearest to the stock root is Turkish BESH, (long E). The nasalised Indo-European root, PENKWE answers to most European forms, but Finnish VISI is ultimately allied with Basque BOST. An old Semitic word for 5 is MACH, and they all answer to a stock root, MESH in Hebrew CHAMESH, probably from its usage, in spite of all having distinct languages at the time. Another common Eurasian prefix is MAN, implying habitation in various contexts. This answers to Hebrew MAON (den, or habitation). I have had discussions on this subject with a friend who has a degree in ancient languages.

18:16, 11 August 2015

For starters, not Mr. CodeCat. Don't assume.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "pre-Babel" language or "pre-Aryan", those are not terms I've ever come across before. But what you're doing now is basically pseudoscience. You can't just compare two random words in widely different languages and say that they're related. English is not related to Hebrew, Indo-European is not related to Finnish and not to Basque.

If your friend really has a degree in linguistics, and accepts all of this, then I honestly worry for their contributions to science.

18:27, 11 August 2015

Thank you for your message. I fully realise that two similar words of similar meaning belonging to diverse language families cannot be merely connected without an older stock root from a parent language or analogous words retained in the minds of such speakers. My usage and style was NOT derived from my friend, otherwise I can sympathise with your last sentence. I learned most of my pre-research of ancient languages from 'the Loom of Language' by Bodmer. By pre-Aryan, I was referring the the older family stock of Finn-Ugrian that includes Magyar, parent of Hungarian and Finnish, that as you state, are outside of the Indo-European family. However there was a period when only one language was spoken, that I wrongly believed to be Akkadian as being the first Semetic language to disappear, as well as being antediluvian. Sumerian, as one of ancient languages, was restored and in use until about the time of Sanskrit that led to Prakrit. It must also be realised that the ancient languages of Britain belonged to different families: it must not be assumed that they were all Indo-European; because, for example, the two main verbs, to be and to possess, in Pictish are strongly connected with those in Basque that is constitutionally separate in its syntax, et cetera, from all the other language heads. Indo-European, for example is, Japhetic, whereas Iberian, or Punic and Hebrew are Semetic. In Cornwall we have the Iron Age Celtic derivative 'DIN...' for a fort, from Celtic 'DUN' whence our word DOWN (hill), possibly through Old Saxon though; whereas the other preposition 'KER' = Welsh 'CAER' is akin to Punic QERETH (town or city), from another stock entirely. It is these oldest words in English that have slipped through the multitude of conquests, that have been my focal point of attention. When writing out all the mediaeval and older words in the English dictionary commencing A and B, eight years ago, I was quite free to admit that only about 0.2% did I need to change. I used the Oxford Etymological Dictionary as my base source. This was a hobbly of mine since I was seventeen.

Kind Regards,

19:23, 11 August 2015

Where are you getting the idea that at one point only one language was spoken? See w:Proto-Human language, where it's noted that this idea is seriously criticised and linguists consider it unscientific. Even smaller "macro-families" like Nostratic have not gained wide acceptance in linguistics, so Proto-Human is way out there. If we're going to discuss etymology on Wiktionary, you have to at least be aware of and speak in terms of current scientific consensus.

19:28, 11 August 2015

Thank you, and also thanks for the two messages on editors' news. Kind Regards, Andrew

19:43, 17 August 2015

Werdna, you may wish to read the article "How likely are chance resemblances between languages?" over on the Zompist blog. This addresses the pattern of correspondences you describe above.

You may also find "Proto-World and the Language Instinct" of interest. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

19:53, 17 August 2015

‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig Thank you so much for this information that I am perusing. I made sure that I perused the sites on Sound Changes, to refresh my mind on Grimm's law and other laws, before editing Talk pages on certain words. My aim is to be available towards perfecting Wiktionary etymologies of illusive words, to make sure that it is indisputably the most reliable reference. Certain Proto Indo-European roots have caused me concern, particularly that of DOWN, where the meaning changes abruptly and could well be criticised by professional etymologists. It is always safer to be able to cite a known language for the period of the unattested = * root, such as Hittite for an axe, under etymology for ADZE, that I always regarded as an Iberian word that remained through the conquests. Since the spelling changes considerably over the years, and there are a number of such words in Spanish, some of which were borrowed into Basque, two or three illusive words may have these remote connections. You may be interested that English BAD is cited in the Guiness Book of Records as the oldest English word; but I reject folk etymologies. All of what you have recommended for me will be essential if I am to edit words seriously. Kind Regards, Andrew

20:43, 17 August 2015

Don't worry Andrew, this whole conflict was worthwhile because at least SOMEBODY (me, namely) is making good use of the intelligence you have posited on here about preBabel and the Basque and Caucasian langs. Still didnt read it.. but wish me luck in finding it if you didnt post it. Hope this doesnt get my server number banned if that's possible from wikipedia, this little notage of support of sorts.

22:17, 24 March 2018

On Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)teg-, you asked "why -th-" a couple of times for Sanskrit words. Why shouldn't plain "t" change to dental "t"? Danielklein (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

21:45, 6 February 2018

The question is why there is aspiration.

Rua (mew)

22:02, 6 February 2018

You shouldn't be questioning the material by asking on the page itself. If you have concerns, take them to the Tea room where they're more likely to get answered.

03:11, 1 April 2018

Hi Rua I would like to discuss your reversion of my edit on 'noone'. Do you have a competent reference/source that indicates the use of 'noone', at any time, with the meaning 'no one' (or no-one) is other than a typographic error?

11:25, 29 March 2018

Your last edit here deleted not only documentation, but the code of the template.

14:59, 16 March 2018

German words from Low German

Hi, as yet there are two etymological categories: "German words from Middle Low German" and "German words from German Low German". The words of the former category are not included in the latter one. I think there should be a category including all words from Low German, either by making a new category or by adding the "Middle Low German" ones to the "German Low German" ones. (I would prefer the latter because I've added several "German Low German" etymologies without paying attention to at what time they were borrowed.) - Could you do that? Or tell me how it could be done? Thanks.

20:39, 20 May 2014

That's not currently possible, and I don't know if it's desirable either. You should ask in the Beer Parlour what others think of it.

20:53, 20 May 2014

Why would it not be desirable?? They are all words from Low German, whether they were borrowed in 1400 or 1600. I couldn't think of one reason why there should not be a list that unites all of them... But okay, I'll ask someone else.

20:04, 25 May 2014

They're not all words from Low German if some of them were borrowed in 1400.

I imagine the confusion arises because "Low German" is, in the minds of non-linguists, an imprecise term. Some people group Dutch Low Saxon + German Low German, some people group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch, you seem to group GLG + Middle Low German, someone else might group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch + MLG. But as a linguistic work, we can't use non-linguists' conceptualizations of these lects. After all, some non-linguists group some or all of the preceding lects into "German" (which in turn may or may not include Middle High German); they would probably expect a list of e.g. English words derived from German to include words derived from Low German. I don't know of any practical way Wiktionary could cater to such people, except the way we already do, which is that we have linguistically-based categories which people can, on their own computers, combine any way they want.

Tangentially, I note that it isn't even necessarily the case that all words derived from modern Low German varieties derive from Middle Low German: in some cases, a Low German variety borrowed a word from another language (e.g. Polish) in the post-MLG period.

17:49, 2 June 2014
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 16:30, 7 March 2018

Okay. These seem to be "international" problems that I wasn't aware of. From a traditional German dialectologist point of view, Low German means those dialects of continental West Germanic that have not undergone the consonant shift -- with the exception of Low Franconian, although the very traditional view would also include Low Franconian in Low German. (Nota bene that there is a 18th or 19th century grammar of Dutch with the name of "Nederduytsche Spraakkunst".) Low German writers of High German used Low German words in High German texts. And whether they did that in 1550 or 1650 doesn't make much of a difference in my opinion. But okay... I've been adding quite a few etymologies marking words of Low German origin as from German Low German ( {{etym|nds-de|de}} ). How should I proceed in the future? Only use this tag when the word is attested in High German after 1600? And otherwise Middle Low German? Could we at least add an info to the lists saying "see also: words from German Low German" and "see also: words from Middle Low German"?

18:29, 2 June 2014

Btw, I do "admit" that I'm not a professional linguist. But this is the normal definition of Low German. Of course, also excluding Frisian which I forgot above.

How can I group Middle Low German and German Low German together? Middle Low German is an earlier form of Low German, which later may have split into DLS and GLG.

The point is that Low German has been spoken in northern Germany from the earliest days to the present. Over time words have made their way from the various dialects of Low German (because there has never been Low German as one language) into High German and later standard German. All of these are from Low German, in my point of view.

I'm not saying that there's no difference between Middle Low German and modern Low German, but nearly all Low German words in standard German date back to 15th ~ 17th century (the time when Low German adopted standard German). We're arbitrarily splitting them into two groups, just because one is attested a few decades earlier than the other.

18:47, 2 June 2014

Yes, if a word was borrowed before 1600, it was borrowed from Middle Low German, and if it was borrowed after that, it was borrowed from German Low German. Compare how béabhar derives from Middle English while gairdín derives from English, and how trousers derives from Middle Irish while keen derives from Irish.

We could add {{also}}s to the tops of Category:German terms derived from Middle Low German, Category:German terms derived from German Low German, Category:German terms derived from Dutch Low Saxon and potentially Category:German terms derived from Plautdietsch, linking them all to each other, and then do likewise for "Dutch terms derived from..." and all the other categories. Assuming we wouldn't have to modify the {{also}}s once they were placed, that wouldn't be the maintenance nightmare it might seem to be at first glance. (In any case, it'd be less of a maintenance nightmare than trying to conflate MLG and GLG, in my estimation.)

02:56, 4 June 2014

Hi Rua ! I saw that you've added Dutch kweern to *kwernuz. Does this mean that it should be removed from *kwernō ? Please advise (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

16:43, 7 February 2018

No, I was mistaken. But wow, Germanic is such a pain with its different stem varieties...

Rua (mew)

16:53, 7 February 2018

I know...going forward perhaps I should create pages only for the bare stem, not the stem variety

17:08, 7 February 2018

Where did the information about its metaphonicity go, Rua?

01:00, 3 February 2018

Re dôre, door, Tor

I saw you added the rfe at dôre. A few sources connect either this or the German Tor to a Proto-Germanic *dauz-.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)

10:20, 2 February 2018

There's an anon editing and adding Old English pronunciations like this: [[1]].

Some edits this IP is making seem okay, but I've been reverting the ones like the above. Are they correct ? I've asked for clarification, but have got no response. It's a lot of reverting, so I'd hate to block this IP :\ ...

Any insight ?

18:57, 28 January 2018

It's probably some vague theory about the pronunciation that is given by one source. I would just get rid of it.

Rua (mew)

19:54, 28 January 2018

Thanks !

00:18, 29 January 2018

*madeh / *matadak

Entry for *madeh should be created but I have no information on it. SSA mentioned the made-mataa connection as possible, but someone had already linked them here through *madeh without remarks. Therefore I added the note in *matadak to make the connection to made visible.

00:54, 28 January 2018

Descendants should go on the actual entry for *madeh when it's created.

Rua (mew)

12:31, 28 January 2018

The pronunciation of Old English hnīgan

Hello Rua,

I'm curious in how you came to the conclusion of hnīgan having a voiced velar fricative g. Normally that sort of sound only comes when g is between two back vowels with the exception of l, r, or if the word descended that the 'g' was replaced by a 'w'.

Hope to hear from you soon.

05:57, 15 January 2018

In what way do you think I came to that conclusion? I'm not sure of the context here.

Rua (mew)

11:23, 15 January 2018

I had the impression that you assumed that Old English hnīgan's 'g' never changed into a 'back g'.

10:12, 16 January 2018

Hi Rua ! I added Etymology 2 at gebaarde, but I am not 100% certain of this. Information on this word is scant. Can you please confirm the inflected forms (plural and diminutive) ? Also, should this word for this meaning be labelled as obsolete ?

Thanks !

16:40, 14 January 2018

I've never heard of this word, I only know of gebaar.

Rua (mew)

16:51, 14 January 2018

Hello, I have seen on the talk page for 'PulauKakatua19' that you recommend to him to use 'autocat' to create a category. I didn't know about this, should 'autocat' always be used? Thank you in advance.

15:55, 13 January 2018

If you want.

Rua (mew)

15:59, 13 January 2018

Latin reconstruction pages

Hello. I wonder what's your yardstick for judging whether a reconstructed entry should be kept or not. Personally, I think we shouldn't have reconstructions when they only trivially differ from attested words. But I'm not always sure myself what would count as "trivial". *circlus seems totally useless, while *padule is already a bit more interesting. What do you think?

21:58, 9 January 2018

If they are alternative forms of attested words, they shouldn't be created. Only actual unattested words should have entries.

Rua (mew)

22:24, 9 January 2018

All right, that makes sense I guess. So you wouldn't keep *padule either, right?

22:45, 9 January 2018

No I wouldn't.

Rua (mew)

23:06, 9 January 2018

Re: diff 48378753 -- "glosses should not use Template:l"

In the edit summary for diff, you mentioned that "glosses should not use Template:l". I seem to have missed that memo. I've been quite active in using Template:l to specify the language of the linked term, in part due to various usability issues people have reported over time, such as when using tabbed languages.

Is there a specific reason not to use Template:l?

20:38, 6 January 2018

The TabbedLanguages issue no longer applies since changes were made to its code. It now defaults to English or Translingual.

Rua (mew)

20:42, 6 January 2018

Can you give some extra clues or citations for hurri ?

19:53, 3 January 2018

I've added Álgu links for both of the senses.

Rua (mew)

20:00, 3 January 2018

Thanks alot. Do you have any idea of the age of the word? Would it be out of question that the Finnish word was derived from it?

17:27, 4 January 2018

I don't think they're related. The "newcomer" sense is actually a bit vague, Álgu gives a more precise sense of someone who doesn't know how things are done. I'm not sure how that relates to the Finnish sense at all.

Rua (mew)

18:55, 4 January 2018

Can you define gegevene? -

03:38, 2 January 2018

I don't think you should be editing Dutch anymore. You make too many mistakes.

Rua (mew)

11:46, 2 January 2018

Which mistakes have I made on this one? -

15:48, 2 January 2018

Could you review this entry? -

03:14, 28 December 2017

Fixed. It was pretty bad, to be honest. The definition was totally wrong.

Rua (mew)

13:32, 28 December 2017

According to this, stokken can be translated as balk. -

20:36, 25 December 2017

Besides functioning as a pronoun meaning something or anything, can the word iets be used as an adverb? How would you best translate the phrase "een iets recenter verschijnsel"? -

19:52, 25 December 2017

As "somewhat". I think it is an adverb, yes. Similar to ietsje.

Rua (mew)

19:53, 25 December 2017

Thanks. I've added that adverb definition to iets.

20:00, 25 December 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page