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
Moves done by MewBot217:50, 23 November 2017
Arabic etyl cleanup completed120:50, 22 November 2017
On Latin impersonal passive inflection017:12, 21 November 2017
*ǵʰésr̥'s inflection400:07, 21 November 2017
Only curious111:06, 19 November 2017
salto319:19, 18 November 2017
test007:27, 17 November 2017
Categorization question323:30, 12 November 2017
[x], USA moves313:30, 11 November 2017
Limburgish810:22, 11 November 2017
Template:th-morse letter203:50, 10 November 2017
biergu and oažži123:02, 7 November 2017
I think this rollback is in error213:46, 6 November 2017
'Policial' as a noun in Spanish215:42, 5 November 2017
waithanjan1413:12, 24 October 2017
Code help213:10, 24 October 2017
Unknown PIE root1219:29, 23 October 2017
{{temp:de-noun}}319:28, 23 October 2017
Relative (Zulu part of speech)119:27, 23 October 2017
Help with Proto categories/templates719:26, 23 October 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Moves done by MewBot

During User talk:Wyang/Archive7#Deleting maintenance categories is a stupid idea, I was surprised that the moves done by MewBot were not automatically applied into Wikidata. I said "Perhaps it was not applied because the account MewBot has never logged into Wikidata. The consequence is that each move (followed by a deletion here) will lead the category with the new name to become isolated here, without its interlanguage and interproject links."
In the discussion, an example was the move from Category:Hawaii to Category:Hawaii, USA, where I have been forced to correct the sitelink in Wikidata.
Could you use your account MewBot and open one page of Wikidata ? If you do that, I suppose that wikidata will appear in meta:Special:CentralAuth/MewBot and I suppose that the next moves will be automatically applied into Wikidata.

17:41, 23 November 2017


Rua (mew)

17:47, 23 November 2017

Great. Thank you!

17:50, 23 November 2017

Arabic etyl cleanup completed

I have just completed the cleanup of the Arabic lemmas from the {{etyl}} and write to you so you change it to reflect it in that template (and else if it is necessary; also there is the empty category of course) as I can’t – I have understood that that addition to the list of completed languages blocks the addition of further instances of the deprecated template? acw (Hijazi Arabic) and arz (Egyptian Arabic) should be added for cleanup as they contain a considerable number of entries. Also sem-pro which can be done fast.

20:49, 22 November 2017


Rua (mew)

20:50, 22 November 2017

On Latin impersonal passive inflection

Hail, Rua.

Since you made this, could you please correct this template of Latin verbs allowing impersonal passive constructions to show only third person instead of all persons in passive indicative perfect/pluperfect/future perfect and passive subjunctive perfect/pluperfect?

   Conjugation of User talk:Rua/On Latin impersonal passive inflection (fourth conjugation, impersonal in passive)
indicative singular plural
first second third first second third
active present veniō venīs venit venīmus venītis veniunt
imperfect veniēbam veniēbās veniēbat veniēbāmus veniēbātis veniēbant
future veniam veniēs veniet veniēmus veniētis venient
perfect vēnī vēnistī vēnit vēnimus vēnistis vēnērunt, vēnēre
pluperfect vēneram vēnerās vēnerat vēnerāmus vēnerātis vēnerant
future perfect vēnerō vēneris vēnerit vēnerimus vēneritis vēnerint
passive present venītur
imperfect veniēbātur
future veniētur
perfect ventus + present active indicative of sum
pluperfect ventus + imperfect active indicative of sum
future perfect ventus + future active indicative of sum
subjunctive singular plural
first second third first second third
active present veniam veniās veniat veniāmus veniātis veniant
imperfect venīrem venīrēs venīret venīrēmus venīrētis venīrent
perfect vēnerim vēnerīs vēnerit vēnerīmus vēnerītis vēnerint
pluperfect vēnissem vēnissēs vēnisset vēnissēmus vēnissētis vēnissent
passive present veniātur
imperfect venīrētur
perfect ventus + present active subjunctive of sum
pluperfect ventus + imperfect active subjunctive of sum
imperative singular plural
first second third first second third
active present venī venīte
future venītō venītō venītōte veniuntō
non-finite forms active passive
present perfect future present perfect future
infinitives venīre vēnisse ventūrus esse venīrī ventus esse
participles veniēns ventūrus ventus veniendus
verbal nouns gerund supine
nominative genitive dative/ablative accusative accusative ablative
venīre veniendī veniendō veniendum ventum ventū

In passive indicative perfect/pluperfect/future perfect and passive subjunctive perfect/pluperfect they should only have -tum (! not even "-tus", as here is) est/erat/erit/sit/esset,foret.

Thank you very much.

17:12, 21 November 2017

*ǵʰésr̥'s inflection

Hi Rua, I noticed you've deleted the inflection on *ǵʰésr̥'s page, but Kloekorst leaves pretty clear that it must have come from something that looked like this: *ǵʰés-r̥ *ǵʰs-ér-m *ǵʰs-r-es *ǵʰs-r-ey

--Tom 144 (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

21:23, 19 November 2017

That's the so-called "Leiden model" and it's not widely accepted.

Rua (mew)

21:35, 19 November 2017

Then attribute the reconstruction to Kloekhorst just like it was done in Proto-Indo-European *éǵh₂ with Sihler, or erase the This noun needs an inflection-table template. message. It's useless to have it if you'll delete the template when they do add one.

Setting aside the topic of *ǵʰésr̥, I've been looking for evidence that the *-ti- suffixed nouns where truly proterokinetic, but I haven't been able to find a single full grade in the root of any of the descendants. Maybe you could help me.

21:55, 19 November 2017

Tom, not to go into great detail, but it is a matter of some scholarly debate at the moment of whether proterokinetic inflections exist at all. While the Erlangen and Leiden models reconstruct them, compositional models like those favored by Kiparsky, Halle, and Probert neither predict nor accept the existence of proterokinetic inflection. There has actually been a recent concerted effort by some to explain all proposed evidence for that paradigm (or indeed for paradigmatic inflection itself). We give the proterokinetic inflections here for *-tis, *-tus, *-us, and *-mn̥ because it is the traditional model, but there is in truth little unproblematic evidence to support the proposed paradigm. I might take a look at this Kiparsky paper to see this alternative view.


07:39, 20 November 2017

Thank you for the reply, I'll look into it.

00:07, 21 November 2017

Only curious

If you don't mind: what is the meaning of "Rua"?

01:11, 19 November 2017

Irish for "red".

Rua (mew)

11:06, 19 November 2017

Sorry Rua, but I disagree. Although saltus indeed is an inflected form of salto, approving sault under descandants of salto sets a dangerous prerequisite. For instance, I could easily add the following Romanian words as descendants, because hey, they're inevitably from the same source right: salt, sălta, săltare, săltăreț, săltător, săltătură, saltație, etc. I we apply the same logic to the other Romance languages the result would be a descendants section overcrowded with terms indirectly derived from the lemma entry. Do you see what I mean?

19:07, 18 November 2017

I undid my edit for a different reason. saltus belongs to saliō, not saltō. But the normal practice is to include descendants on lemmas, not on inflected forms.

Rua (mew)

19:11, 18 November 2017

I seem to recall this being discussed, but I don't believe we reached an agreement. But do you see what I mean about overcrowding the descendants section?

19:17, 18 November 2017

Robbie SWE, do you think you could weigh in here?

19:19, 18 November 2017

this is a test edit

07:27, 17 November 2017

Categorization question

Hi, I noticed that Template:rfv-etymology wasn't in Category:Etymology templates, so I tried to move it there. It took a while for me to figure out what to do, and I thought I had figured it out when I edited it, but now the page says that it's in the category and links to it but doesn't actually appear there. I'm pretty sure I heard that you did stuff with categorization, so I thought I'd ask you about this. Can you look and see what I did wrong?


22:57, 12 November 2017

Once you edit the documentation page, you need to edit and save the template without making any changes (a "null edit"). When you save a page, any pages that "use" it aren't immediately updated, it can take a while. Doing a null edit forces an immediate update.

Rua (mew)

23:00, 12 November 2017

In that case, since that template is locked, should I have just waited for the category to update or asked someone who's able to edit the template?

23:22, 12 November 2017

Waiting would probably be best. The categorisation of templates isn't crucial anyway, there's no hurry.

Rua (mew)

23:30, 12 November 2017

[x], USA moves

Can you please point me to discussion on this topic? I think this is an ill-conceived idea. Please use {{Ping}} if you respond here (and if that even works on these style of talk pages...

Justin (koavf)TCM

00:00, 10 November 2017

Rua (mew)

00:01, 10 November 2017

Thanks. Why "USA" rather than "United States" or "United States of America"? Are any other states abbreviated? (E.g. "DRC" for "Democratic Republic of the Congo" or "UK" for "United Kingdom")

Justin (koavf)TCM

01:33, 10 November 2017

The "USA" part was my idea. I believe I first proposed it here: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/June#Proposal: Clean up, rename and replace "en:" → "English" in all categories.

Writing "United States of America" in the categories would be a mouthful. I mean, I'm OK with some kinds of long category titles but that one seems avoidable, "USA" is preferable to me. We never discussed the "DRC", as far as I know. Feel free to propose it somewhere if that's your preference.

13:30, 11 November 2017


Please do not revert my edits. As also indicated on this page. Limburgish should be directly under Old Dutch as it does not share many innovations of Middle Dutch. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

12:43, 10 November 2017

Limburgish is considered part of Middle Dutch. Middle Dutch dictionaries include Limburgish forms and grammars also mention the particularities of Limburgish. On Wiktionary, we consider Middle Dutch an ancestor of Limburgish, as noted in Module:languages/data2. Please don't push your own agenda here.

Rua (mew)

12:44, 10 November 2017

That is an unfortunate case, as Limburgish shows clear changes directly related to sound changes prior to Middle Dutch, such as o/u-split. If that is the rule you keep then please update all the pages to reflect this (including the page I referred to earlier).

Also, please don't accuse me of pushing "my agenda". If you gave me a message earlier, that would have been more constructive.

12:53, 10 November 2017

Ok, sorry for accusing you.

It depends on what you define Middle Dutch as. If you say that terms must have, say, fronting of ū in order to be Middle Dutch, then yes, Limburgish isn't Middle Dutch. But the sources I've consulted consider Limburgish to be a rather divergent dialect of Middle Dutch, and describe the particular sound changes and retentions that occur in Limburgish.

For example, A. van Loey describes the special development of original long â: "In Limburg (en verder noordoostwaarts) is â een geronde ao-klank geworden (dus verschillend van ā)." and also the typical Limburgish lengthening in open syllables when no ending follows: "In het Limburgs vindt men dgl. gerekte vocaal ook in nietgeflecteerde vormen: laem, ghaef" and "In Limburg komt, tengevolge van apocope, gerekte o ook in gesloten syllabe voor: hoel ‘hol’, loef ‘laus’, hoef ‘hof’." The Dutch language history by M.C. van den Toorn, W. Pijnenburg, J.A. van Leuvensteijn and J.M. van der Horst also covers Limburgish variants of Middle Dutch, and even gives a separate paradigm for Limburgish personal pronouns.

The two Middle Dutch dictionaries, VMNW and MNW, also list Limburgish forms as variants, e.g. . Notice that it says the oldest attestation is in Limburg.

All this leads me to conclude that the consensus of linguists working on the subject is that Limburgish is a form of Middle Dutch. Wiktionary should follow this consensus, unless there's evidence that something has changed in the prevalent opinion.

Rua (mew)

13:11, 10 November 2017

No problem :) As always, there is no clear rule when it concerns cases like this. Limburgish of course belongs to the Dutch sprachraum and as such could be considered Middle Dutch. Linguistically, it is more blurry. Limburgish (with the notable exception of Maastrichts) clearly exhibits a-umlaut in keeping pairs like "hae vloog" vs. "hae is gevlaoge", which can only be explained as having come before all unstressed "a"s became schwa. (unfortunately I do not have the literature at hand currently) Even though I think direct Old Dutch is linguistically a better grouping, I am not bothered with the grouping under Middle Dutch. However, consistency is very important, and as such, it should be indicated somewhere. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

13:32, 10 November 2017

Are you sure that the distinction between those is umlaut? They had separate vowels across Middle Dutch, as indicated at vliegen. Can the Limburgish distinction be a result of an older ô ~ ō alternation?

Rua (mew)

15:05, 10 November 2017

Template:th-morse letter

Hi there. This template pits entries into Category:Translingual letters in Morse code - shouldn't it be Thai letters in Morse code?

06:34, 9 November 2017

I don't know. Ask on the Grease Pit maybe?

Rua (mew)

12:02, 9 November 2017

@Octahedron80 fixed it.

03:50, 10 November 2017

I have a question about two Northern Sami terms: is the term biergu (ultimately from a Germanic language) a synonym of the term oažži (ultimately a native term)? Thanks for reading.

23:01, 7 November 2017

They seem synonyms, but I'm not a native speaker so I can't say to what degree.

Rua (mew)

23:02, 7 November 2017

I think this rollback is in error

Unless the etymology entry for блохá, too, is wrong.

What was the basis for your reversion?

21:03, 3 November 2017

It's already listed on the Proto-Slavic page.

Rua (mew)

21:04, 3 November 2017

I don't understand the logic here. After all, French puce is already listed in the entry for Latin pulex, but it shows up in this article. And English flea is already listed in the entry for Old English fleah, but it shows up in this article.

I guess your aim is to avoid redundancy, by limiting mention of the origin of Russian блоха to a single occurrence in Wiktionary? But to my way of thinking, that comes at a very high cost. The reader who is not intimately familiar with the way Wiktionary editors structure things can easily end up ill informed. Why, after all—he might ask—do descendants in such modern languages as Armenian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Dutch, English, German, Greek, Pashto, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish show up in this article, but none for Russian? He might easily conclude that the Russian word for "flea" is something derived from someplace other than the Proto-Slavic (labeled in this article as "Slavic," which itself is a potential source of confusion). And likewise for the modern Polish word.

13:46, 6 November 2017

'Policial' as a noun in Spanish

Hello, Rua: 'Policial' is an adjective. See the official Spanish dictionary ( In any case, the use of 'policial' as a noun has not been accepted. Notice that sometimes the subject is implicit. For example, in "... una policial ..." the phrase is "... una (novela, historieta, etc.) policial ...".


14:26, 5 November 2017

Wiktionary accepts terms that others don't accept. If a term is used, we include it. We don't tell people what's acceptable.

Rua (mew)

14:39, 5 November 2017

We do tell them however, by way of labels. If the word is nonstandard, it should be labelled as such.

15:42, 5 November 2017


Could you check the dutch etymology of weiden to see if it's actually descended from *waithanjan? Thanks.

03:02, 28 November 2012

I can't find anything about *waithanjan. It looks like a very strange word, too. I am finding weidon in Old High German, veiða in Old Norse and wǣþan in Old English. The meanings of the French verbs don't make much sense either... why would a verb meaning "graze" be borrowed as "win"? The double -a- seems suspicious too... But the form gaaignier reminds me of a very different verb that exists in Gothic, gaaiginōn, which actually means "to acquire, to take possession of". That matches the meaning much better. So I don't think the current etymology of gagner and varieties is really correct at all.

03:29, 28 November 2012
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 13:11, 24 October 2017

Yeah, it is a strange one. If you look at the Spanish guadañar (to mow), the root makes more sense. And then there is weidanōn (to hunt, chase), which also exhibits the odd ending. Could it be a merging of the two words?

Looks like weidanōn is from the Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.

03:50, 28 November 2012
Edited by 3 users.
Last edit: 13:12, 24 October 2017

I think if you compare *waithanjan to PG *burþinjō (a burden) and OGH burdinōn (to burden), it actually isn't that strange. Although, *waithinjan may be a better reconstruction.

06:24, 28 November 2012

It still begs the question why OHG has a class 2 weak verb, though. I mean, if that's what's actually attested, we should probably reconstruct it. Besides, French had no verb chass in -o- so it had to improvise on that.

13:33, 28 November 2012

doesn't Old French turn ga- into ja- though (gamba > jambe)? so a form beginning with ga- would be an abnormal if not unlikely candidate (?) Leasnam (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

13:43, 28 November 2012

I don't know. That may be true in stressed syllables, but the prefix ga- was unstressed so it may have given a different outcome.

13:45, 28 November 2012
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 02:37, 26 January 2016

If gaaiginōn came into Old French via Old Provençal, the hard /g/ could have survived.

17:46, 28 November 2012

Hey, as I suggested on Metaknowledge's talk, I'm coming to you for some help now. I just can't see to understand some of this code...Yet again, it's a snippet from an Icelandic declension template.


One thing really confusing me is that third nested switch:


Just what the hell does that do?? switch({{{i}}}) ? What? o.o

23:31, 12 June 2012

It actually means the same as {{#ifeq:{{{i|}}}|i||i}}. If equals i, then show nothing, otherwise show i. —CodeCat 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

00:04, 13 June 2012
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 13:10, 24 October 2017

I've given up on understanding this template I think...:L but yay success!! I successfully used my program to create all inflections (excl. indef dat & gen sg) of Ísland. :D Judging by the horridness of the decl template though, I'll have to see whether or not I need to modify my code to cater for other quirks in nouns of the declension. But even then after that I'll need to copy, paste, modify code for other declensions heh.

03:09, 13 June 2012

Unknown PIE root

Hi CodeCat, I was looking at articles about PIE and I came across the root *treh₁w- (to nourish), but I cannot find any derivatives of it. Do you have any insight? Also, in general, if I come across a root for which I cannot find any derivatives, where should I look?

01:32, 17 January 2013

If someone gives a root but doesn't give any descendants, I'm not sure there is much you can do. Not unless you can find words yourself, but that means having good knowledge of how the descendants developed, which may be very difficult.

01:35, 17 January 2013

I can't find Italic or Germanic reflexes. Would the Germanic derivative be something like **þrawaną?

01:50, 17 January 2013

It could be. The three grades would be *þrēw-, *þrōw- and *þraw-.

01:53, 17 January 2013

Could you make a guess of how the root would develop to end up in one of the modern Germanic languages?

05:45, 17 January 2013
  • þrēw- would end up in Dutch as *drauw-, in Old English as *þrāw- or *þrǣw-, in Old Norse as *þrá-. I don't know for *þrōw-. *þraw- would become *drooi- or similar in Dutch, Old English *þreaw-, Old Norse probably also *þrá-.
14:14, 17 January 2013


Edited by another user.
Last edit: 19:28, 23 October 2017

Hi there. It's worst than ever now. See Hoch - second genitive displayed wrongly, plural not displayed at all.

08:38, 2 January 2013

I'm gradually deprecating most of the parameters because there were just too many before. I've fixed the entry now, and I'm fixing the others with a bot.

13:03, 2 January 2013
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 19:28, 23 October 2017

I see that your MewBot didn't entirely fix Komplex - it left the g= parameter.

17:00, 2 January 2013

It's still making its second pass over the entries to fix g=, but it has 12 thousand entries to do, so it will take some time. It's currently at Bengalkatze.

17:02, 2 January 2013

Relative (Zulu part of speech)

Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 19:27, 23 October 2017

Didn't want to hijack your thread, but if a "relative" is what you describe, then we are missing a sense at relative. I wonder if you could add it. Thanks.

22:34, 30 August 2012

I'm not quite sure what it is myself, I only know that it is 'not an adjective, but acts similar to one'. It's apparently part of established practice for Zulu and other Bantu languages, and the main online dictionary for Zulu uses the term with the assumption that the user is already familiar with it. But I haven't been able to find a good explanation of what it actually is, yet.

22:37, 30 August 2012

Help with Proto categories/templates

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 19:26, 23 October 2017

Hi again CodeCat, I was wondering if you could help out by creating some templates. Currently I believe Proto-Malayic and Proto-Finno-Permic have no langcode templates, categories, etc. Would you be able to create them? Proto-Malayic seems pretty valid, but I'm not completely sure about Proto-Finno-Permic so I guess you should check that one out.

14:25, 9 July 2012

Do you know which codes they should use? Codes for proto-languages normally are formed from the family, followed by -pro. Once you have decided on a code, you can create them as Template:proto:(code). You can look at other templates like {{proto:ine-pro}} for examples. The next step after that would be to add the code to {{langprefix}} so that it can be used, and then create the /family and /script subtemplates for the code template.

18:11, 9 July 2012
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 19:15, 10 July 2012

Ok, I guess I can try to have a look when I get a chance. Could you confirm this for me since I'm not sure: Should Proto-Malayic, given our current family structure, be fitting into Category:Sama-Bajaw languages?

Also, on an unrelated note, something weird seems to be up with some topic cats? I created parents/description templates for Category:Letters, symbols, and punctuation and Category:Symbols but for some reason Symbols cats aren't showing up as children of the former cat? I don't know if it's just some fuckery going on on my side alone (but I did clear my browser cache already) but I thought I should mention it. 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

14:24, 10 July 2012

No it would go in Category:Malayic languages, since it's the ancestor of all Malayic languages.

16:25, 10 July 2012

Can I give suggestions?

For the classification of Austronesian languages, refer to User:Liliana-60/Austronesian classification.

16:44, 10 July 2012

Sure, suggestions are welcome.

I'm sorry, but I think I'm missing something? I can't seem to see where "Malayic languages" fits in. Is it supposed to be somewhere within Austronesian?

Also, another slightly problematic case (for me at least) I came across: We have some entries listing "Iberian" in their etymologies. Now clearly Iberian was an existing language in the past according to WP, but we have no lang cat for it yet. We do however have {{xib}} to represent it. The problem I see is that on WP it's categorised both as an "unclassified language of Europe" and a "Paleo-Iberian" language. So what should we, Wiktionary, do? Is Paleo-Iberian languages category we should have?

19:04, 10 July 2012

Paleo-Iberian isn't really a language family, it just means 'pre-indo-european language of Iberia'. It is probably best to use qfa-und or qfa-iso as the family.

20:16, 10 July 2012
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page