User talk:Sartma

Indexing on Cuneiform transliterations

@Tom 144, Fay Freak, Metaknowledge, Profes.I. Hi there! Thank you for taking the time to engage with me in the past days re' Akkadian and Cuneiform!

While reviewing some Cuneiform sign entries, I also modified some cuneiform transliterations, and I started using Unicode subscript numbers to indicate indexes. But I'm having doubts whether that's the best approach (even though it does look neater on screen from a typographical point of view, at least to me). Unicode subscript numbers are not easy to type in general outside the Wiktionary editing window. So I'm curious to know what your opinion on this matter is. Which of the following options for indexing transliterations do you think would be better to use on Wiktionary?

1. Unicode subscript numbers: ₀₁₂₃₄₅₆₈₉? Ex.: du₃, gu₄, gi₁₇, etc. (they can be found and easily entered selecting Miscellaneous in the drop down menu on bottom left of the page when in editing mode.)
2. HTML tags: <sub><sub/>? Ex.: du₃, gu₄, gi₁₇, etc.

Thank you! Sartma (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sartma: My opinion is that Unicode subscript numbers are easy to type. I directly input Unicode by name or hex via the function in my IME (search name subscript NUMBER and select), or otherwise via dedicated applications like gucharmap or KCharSelect, so I have never once used the Wiktionary editing window to find signs. Such Unicode input even exists in bare GTK and QT environments by default. The machine readability of the them is also better than with HTML tags. Fay Freak (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Thank you! I'll keep those for now then, unless someone points out a compelling argument in favour of HTML tags. — This unsigned comment was added by Sartma (talk • contribs) at 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC).

Akkadian: three vowel lengths?

Hi, @Tom 144! I've seen you changed the vowel length in the Pronunciation section of šarrāqum, stating in your comment that "Vowels could have three lengths.". Where did you find this information? I find it quite difficult to believe that we could understand such a minor thing from the cuneiform script, but I'm willing to change my mind if I see valid proof! Cheers, Sartma (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Problemi con l'UNICODE

Ciao Sartma, sto provando a trascrivere in unicode i testi in cuneiforme che sono incrostati nelle voci di Wikipedia con delle immagini. Sto incontrando però alcune difficoltà, come con l'albero ḫalub perché non trovo il simbolo corrispondente a ub₂. Il mio riferimento è la tabella dn-works. Potrei farti altri esempi, ma l'idea è quella. Che tu sappia, c'è un modo per ovviare a questo problema, come la "composizione di caratteri"? Grazie --Ruthven (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Ciao! Io da browser uso questo:

• Akkadian Keyboard.

Non ha sempre tutte le “pronunce”, ma è comodo nella maggior parte dei casi.

ḫalūb

Se ci sono caratteri che non trovi, fammi sapere che te li copincollo qui! Sartma (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Bello strumento, grazie! Ho provato, ma non ritrovo i caratteri che cerco. Nella finestra "classic" ho scritto ḫalūb e il risultato non corrisponde esattamente a quanto mi aspettavo (che corrisponde all'immagine qui di lato, per intenderci, che ho trovato anche in un'altra fonte).

Stesse difficoltà con anzūd, che io ho segnato come traslitterato an-zu-ud₂^mušen. Qualche idea? --Ruthven (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

rimani su “Advanced” e nella finestra di input (quella più in basso di una riga solo) digita “kha” per 𒄩, “lu” per 𒇻 e “ub2” per 𒂠. I caratteri compaiono nella finestra più grande sopra.

per “anzūd” digita “an” per 𒀭, “zu” per 𒍪, “ash2” per 𒀾 (ud₂) e “mushen” per 𒄷.

purtroppo non sono presenti tutte le pronunce di alcuni caratteri, quindi se non trovi il carattere che vuoi con una pronuncia devi provare con un’altra. Io in questi casi uso “An Akkadian Handbook”, che ha una lista di tutte le pronunce e il rimando ai caratteri corrispondenti. Se vieni sul canale Discord di Wiktionary puoi chiedermi I caratteri che non trovi via chat. Sartma (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Grazie, mi hai aperto un mondo! --Ruthven (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Missing cuneiform characters

Hello Sartma

I wanted to use the cuneiform character MU , but it is not on the Wiktionary set.

Can you please create this symbol.

Shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav: Hi! The question with Unicode cuneiform signs is a bit complicated. The sign you're looking for does exist and is 𒈬. If you want to display Neo-Assyrian signs you'll have to use a Neo-Assyrian font. By default you'll see a representation of the lapidary style (the one Hammurabi's code is written in, for example). So, it's not a question of Unicode symbol, but of font. Sartma (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sartma

Thanks for the reply.

Indeed, this is the same Unicode.

How can I implement a Neo-Assyrian font while typing in Wiktionary? What are the steps?

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav It's a matter of display. I've always been working with lapidary style cuneiform, so I wouldn't really know what to suggest. You can find free Neo-Assyrian fonts on different places online. I know of this site, for example: Cuneifont. Once you installed the font you want, you need to set your browser to use those fonts (if your browser allows it. I'm on Chrome and still didn't quite understand how to do that). Sartma (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav: Update on the Neo-Assyrian font front. To change the font Wiktionary uses to display Akkadian, you need to create your private common.css file. Create the page User:ShlomoKatzav/common.css and copy paste the following line in it:

:lang(akk).Xsux {font-family: Assurbanipal; font-size: 150%;}

After that, go to this site and download the font called Assurbanipal (choose it from the Download menu on the top right) and install it on your computer. Restart your browser and all Akkadian entries should appear in Neo-Assyrian cuneiform now. Let me know if it worked! Sartma (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Another place from where you can download cuneiform fonts: Oracc fonts Sartma (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sartma

I understand the point.

In the meantime I'll read more about these symbols.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sartma

i was glad to receive your message concerning the Neo-Assyrian characters.

i'll try the font option.

in the meantime i'm using the available characters. It's O.K.

shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The cuneiform graphical files

Hello, Sartma

I perceived that in the Wiktionary there are stored some cuneiform files, which are displayed in the character-info box.

Are they stored by a user?

How are they defined in the entry?

Shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@ShlomoKatzav Yes, there are some images of Neo-Assyrian cuneiform stored on Wikimedia Commons. You can find them here: Cuneiform signs.

To add them to the character info box, you need to add their Unicode code point and the name of the corresponding image file to this module: Module:Unicode data/images/012.

If you have time, please go ahead! :D Sartma (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Sartma

Thank you for the reply.

I think that these images provide very important value for researchers.

I hope to contribute some input to this category.

Shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Akkadian parts of speech

Please stop adding headers with "logogram" as the part of speech: this isn't acceptable per WT:POS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! There was a discussion about this on BP where most participants supported the Logogram POS, that's why I'm using it. What's the procedure to make it official and add it to WT:POS? Sartma (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks for this and for reverting me. I recommend that you post this to the Grease Pit to get help having it added to the template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Akkadian template

I made {{akk-signs}} based on {{sux-signs}} but haven't tried putting it in many pages. Do you have a perspective on if this template is a good idea? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for getting in touch. We don't need an {{akk-signs}} template though, since Akkadian entries are given in their Normalised forms (Latin letters) and Akkadian cuneiform spellings are given with the {{cunsp}} template. See for example: 𒀭 (šamû). Sartma (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

𒈦𒌋

Since you have added Akkadian categories to this I assume there should be an Akkadian L2 header somewhere, right? I didn't add it myself because I wasn't 100% sure on how to break up the entry. 37.110.218.43 12:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes indeed! I fixed it, thank you! If you are interested in adding more Sumerian/Akkadian, just check other Sumerian lemmas or Akkadian lemmas and copy the page structure. Don't be afraid of adding content, I check new entries regularly and will edit them if they need editing. At the moment I'm pretty much the only editor for Akkadian and Sumerian, I could use a hand! :D Sartma (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Check out the About Sumerian and About Akkadian pages for more info, too! Sartma (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

𒍠

Please see my edit there and confirm that this is correct and consistent with other such entries. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: It is, indeed! Thank you! Sartma (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Invalid parts of speech again

Please amend the entries in Category:Sumerian demonstratives per WT:EL or get consensus for adding a new part of speech to headings. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: Changed! Can you have a look and see if what I did is ok? I copied what they did for Cimbrian dèar... Sartma (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Beautiful. Thanks for all your hard work here! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Determinative

Hello, if it's a valid/required POS header, maybe you should get it added to WT:POS. (I just noticed that this was already discussed, but the page hasn't been updated.) – Jberkel 21:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: Done! Thank you! Sartma (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

For the detailed and perfectly formatted Akkadian entries. 70.172.194.25 23:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Anytime! :-) Sartma (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

אוֹפֶה vs אֹפֶה

Hi Sartma First, it's so nice to have another active Hebrew contributor. I've checked the Hebrew Academy and Morfix https://hebrew-academy.org.il/keyword/%D7%90%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%A4%D6%B6%D7%94 https://www.morfix.co.il/en/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%94 and they support the use of אוֹפֶה. Could you verify whether אֹפֶה is used as baker? Thanks in advance. Taokailam (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! It is in Biblical Hebrew (where in general participles are not written with plene spellings). See entry in BDB and Gesenius' Lexicon: אָפָה. Sartma (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there's a difference in Biblical Hebrew and Modern Hebrew. I can change the entry to look like אוֹפֶה \ אֹפֶה. What do you think? Taokailam (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Taokailam: I added the niqqūḏ to the plene spelling, as you suggested. It does make sense in this case, I guess. Sartma (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Taokailam (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to add .MEŠ plurals as alternate cuneiform spellings?

As you did in šandanakkum. Biolongvistul (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Biolongvistul: Nothing is “really” necessary. It might be useful though, since not all plurals have MEŠ. Some words have ḪI.A, some other can take both, some nothing… Sartma (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Where to put HE root?

Hi Sartma

I don't mind putting the HE root template under ==Hebrew== as you suggested in ראש.

1. There are entries with different roots, eg: כילה. I think in those pages, the HE root template is best after ===Etymology 1===, ===Etymology 2===, etc.

2. The section WT:AHE#Formatting Hebrew entries seem to suggest that HE root be used under the section ===Etymology===. A rewording will be useful for future editors.

Let me know what you think. Thanks. Taokailam (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Taokailam: Hi! Thanks for getting in touch about those points!

1. I agree that entries with more than one root can have the root template right under their Etymology header.
2. We should definitely reword the paragraph you linked (and the . I'll have a go at it later this week. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 21:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

hello, thanks and questions on how to's

Hi Sartma!

Thanks a lot for your work on the sumerian pages, it's really fun to find and browse this resource!

I'm an amateur and I would like to use it but also to make it more discoverable by "inverting" the translations, the pages go [sumerian symbols]-> english meaning right now, and I would like to invert this and possible add pages for other languages. Not by editing the pages as they exist, but by finding the linked to words and adding it to their list of translations.

In that process I would also create a [english]->[sumerian symbols] set that could also be of use on the sumerian pages?

I'm hesitating to just go full steam ahead on my own, it's probably relatively easy to cause damage that's at the very least annoying to fix.

Do you have ideas or suggestions how that might be done? I would analyze the pages with the python programming language.

Also I'm not sure if this is the best place to discuss these things, is there maybe some public chat channel or hashtag or some other platform where discussions are taking place?

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Bmaxv

Hi Bmaxv! Thank you for you post! Unfortunately I'm terrible when it comes to the technical side of things. I'm not even 100% sure I fully understood your request... I would say that, if you are confident with how Wiktionary works and you know your tools, then... go for it?

I'll just ping a couple of people I think might have a deeper insight into this, they might give you some better suggestions or help: @Erutuon, Benwing2 (Can you guys help?) — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 18:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Bmaxv A few things: (1) Please sign using ~~~~ in place of typing in your name. (2) When you say "'inverting' the translations" I take it you want to take the English glosses of Sumerian terms and invert them to get Sumerian translations of English terms. You are aware that English terms already have translation tables? If what you're proposing is to augment the existing translation tables based on the English glosses of Sumerian terms, that cannot be done automatically because there may be several Sumerian terms mapping to the same English term, and the translation table should not blindly list all the Sumerian terms but only the most common one(s); and if more than one are common and worthy of listing, they need to be ordered by how common they are. Think of a regular print dictionary, which uses the same principles. Discussions of this nature are perhaps best carried out at the WT:Beer Parlour so you get the widest possible audience. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Akkadian ux’s

Just curious, are they picked from ancient sources or are they your own creation? --Biolongvistul (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Biolongvistul: No, I take them from CAD. I do my best to find the original cuneiform spelling, but if I can't find it I just use plausible spellings (i.e., spellings I find elsewhere in CAD). — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 21:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Biblical Hebrew pronunciations

Do this user’s contributions look right to you (especially the one on חלב)? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Biolongvistul: I would not accept them. I believe that at the moment the consense for Biblical Hebrew pronunciation reconstruction is based on Tiberian pronunciation. Those edits look more like a reconstruction of Paleo-Hebrew. This is definitely something that should be discussed and agreed upon. If there was no previous discussion about it, I’d remove them all. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Suqum

"Cognate" indicates it is a parallel word, not a loanword, so Hebrew is not a cognate. Why did you add it back? Ogress (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your comment. I changed it to "Compare". — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi

Sartma Hi I am Tony, I don't know what I should do here so if you need any help with editing, I will do it. I have a lot of free time. Tony022

Hi @Tony, thanks for your message! If you know Sumerian and want to help adding new entries, please do go ahead!

Please refer to the page About Sumerian when adding or modifying entries. Thanks a lot for your help! — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to learn Sumerian, my friends and I have various resources on discord. I told them about wiktionary but many of them don't know that this site exists for some reason. Tony022 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

https://discord.gg/VykprZaxdC this is a link to the discord server if you want to meet more people interested in this language. Tony022 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Akk. 𒃮𒊑 in Old Armenian etymology

Hey, could you also take a look at the etymology section of Old Armenian մաքառիմ, where this Sumerogram was cited? There, it is transliterated as 'maḫāru⁠', which presumably would also be incorrect. Thanks in advance! AntiquatedMan (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Pazuzu

Greetings Sartma,

There is no attested plural form for this entry, correct?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paz%C5%ABzu#Akkadian

Originally, there was a plural form included. newfiles (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mynewfiles I found it on CAD. Where did you read that it's not attested? — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, my error. Can you plz verify if this entry that I created is accurate and correct in its wiki form?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Paz%C5%ABz%C4%81nu newfiles (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

governed state

Sartma,

Is the def. that I created look correct and accurate to you?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/governed_state

I would appreciate your feedback. newfiles (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

governed state

Sartma,

Is the def. that I created look correct and accurate to you?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/governed_state

I would appreciate your feedback. newfiles (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Mynewfiles. Where did you find that definition? It doesn't look correct to me, since the only case that the second term of a genitive construction in Akkadian is genitive, not a "specific case ending". While the first term (the one in the construct state) usually has a specific form that can be different from its absolute state, there's really nothing special about the second term, it just is a noun in the genitive case. I know some grammars have a term for this noun, but it would be ideal if you could add some references to your definition. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sartma,

Thank you for the reply. I obtained the definition from a book on Akkadian grammar. I can't remember the exact title. Would you be so kind as to revise and improve the entry I created? mynewfiles (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

governed state

Sartma,

How does the revised definition look now? Accurate or no? mynewfiles (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Module:category tree/lang/akk

Could you check that all of the definitions for the verb classes here are correct, if you don't mind? Saph (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

hello

You have been trying to contact me? Try the mail thing again. Think it got junked last time.

Do you remember mouse? Poor girl just got hax0red. I have told her: change all your passwords and start with the financial ones! 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:3047:5F1F:BE0D:3B50 21:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes! I'm ready to make love to you again! What mail thing are you talking about? I don't have your email address (do I?)! — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 20:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Send mail through the wiki mail function. Still works. Forgot to turn that off! — Yesterday I ate: a hot green Thai curry, jasmine rice, morning glory, and a papaya salad. Next time you can join me (and pay for it, game industry boy). Warning, there was a little ring sting. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E554:283:652D:79BD 20:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You say all the right words. ♥ And yes, I can be your sugar daddy, as always. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

世の中

The deleted readings were taken from the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (second edition). See here (the concise edition). Maybe if the okurigana の was included then it's fine (although 世の間 isn't in the Japanese IME by default). I'll need someone else to advise.

Pinging: @Eirikr

In the full NKD2 (not concise NKD), you see this section:

表記

【世間】色葉・文明・書言

【人間】名義・書言

【世中】文明・言海 Chuterix (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

If you check the quotes in the link you posted, you find any sort of spelling:

• 【余能奈可(よのなか) (yononaka)】or 【与能奈可(よのなか) (yononaka)】in the 万葉集(まんようしゅう) (man'yōshū)
• 【世中(よのなか) (yononaka)】in the 方丈記(ほうじょうき) (hōjōki), 古今和歌集(こきんわかしゅう) (kokinwakashū), 源氏物語(げんじものがたり) (genjimonogatari), 万葉集(まんようしゅう) (man'yōshū), 伊勢物語(いせものがたり) (isemonogatari), 今昔物語集(こんじゃくものがたり) (konjakumonogatari)
• 【世間(よのなか) (yononaka)】 in the 万葉集(まんようしゅう) (man'yōshū)

But none of those are modern spellings of the word.

The language itself of any of those works was not modern Japanese, either.

In modern Japanese, 世間 can only be "seken", and 世中 doesn't exist. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 23:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't they be at least marked rare and obsolete? I don't know how to go with this. Chuterix (talk) 23:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

In the full NKD2, you can see quotations with 世間 being read as よのなか, so I guess it's obsolete. I don't think we are splitting to a new Middle Japanese section, otherwise many definitions would be duplicated. Chuterix (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

If we can mark them as "obsolete", I'd have no objection.

In that case, we should also add 余能奈可(よのなか) (yononaka) and 与能奈可(よのなか) (yononaka) — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 12:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Late to the party. 😄

For man'yōgana spellings that are only attested in Old Japanese, my general thought is that we should not have these as entries, certainly not as "Japanese". In some cases, a single word (based on phonology, morphology, and sense) might have a large number of variant man'yōgana spellings. It is not clear to me how it is useful to have entries for each variant spelling. If someone can articulate a compelling use case, I am certainly open to being convinced. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Eirikr I agree. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 22:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

amāsiuncula

Had you any source upon making this page what it was? One attestation and a bad reading is enough to find sluts and broads in every such word. Saumache (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s in my Latin-Italian dictionary as sgualdrinella, diminutive of sgualdrina, which in Italian means “slutty woman” or whore. It's definitely used as an insult in Petronius. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 23:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Where did you find it's a "humorous or endearing" term? In the only place it appears it doesn't look to be either to me... — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 09:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma I see the example as endearing "my little thing, dear", though tending to a more sensual/vulgar sort of endearment, sure; derogatory given the masculine form in the same book "petty lovers". These are all expected values of a diminutive, I don't think it is as far a stretch as your "slut", but sure the humorous one can be discussed... Saumache (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache In that scene Trimalcio is completely mad. Some lines before he offensus convicio calicem in faciem Fortunatae immisit. ("was stung by Fortunata's invective and in reply threw a cup at her face."), he calls her a caudex ("blockhead, stupid"}} and says ambūbaia non meminit se? ("doesn't she remember she was a flute playing prostitute [before I saved her and made a lady out of her]?"). This is the context he calls her an "amāsiuncula", so I find it difficult to believe he says that as a term of "endearment". It's clearly just derogatory. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Irony? I haven't read the whole text but the humor, the wife-husband relationship and the rethorical questions make it obvious, then it remains endearing. And please don't edit the page before having settled the thing. Saumache (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache It might be a good idea to read the whole passage then. Trimalcio is mad for real. He throws stuff at her and she's crying. In what sense you see "irony" there? (Soz for the edit, I thought we reached the bottom of the discussion...) — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Irony might be seen in madness, it at least is for me. Again, the rethorical questions are clearly ironical/humorous, as are the epithets "fulcipedia", "milva" and "sterteia", as they are not all by themselves derogatory or mean. Even the translator I took from has it as "my little dear". Saumache (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache I don't agree with seeing irony or humour, but as long as we agree it's not endearing, I'm happy. That said, remember this is the only context we have for this word, we should be objective and judge on what we see, not what we would want to see. What is clear is that he's throwing insults at her, so what we know for sure is that "amāsiuncula" here is an insult like the other words you quoted. There's no endearment whatsoever, nor clear humour. We have a proper fight described here. The fight itself, to a reader or a bystander, might come through as humourous, but it's clearly not for Trimalcio and Fortunata. Trimalcio's words are meant to be insults, all of them, with zero humour on his part. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't reconcile your "we should be objective and judge on what we see, not what we would want to see" and the "Trimalcio's words are meant to be insults, all of them, with zero humour on his part."

Now a French translation from Charles Héguin de Guerle:

C’est là ton dernier mot, pendarde ! Crois-moi, ronge en paix l’os que je te jette, oiseau de proie ; et ne me fais pas trop enrager, ma mignonne, ou je pourrais bien faire quelque coup de ma tête !

"ma mignonne" = my pretty, my deary,... / "madame" is also here used ironically

another English trad from William Charles Firebaugh:

But Fortunata won’t see it! Ain’t that the truth, you high-stepping hussy? Let me beg you to make the best of what you’ve got, you she-kite, and don’t make me show my teeth, my little darling, or you’ll find out what my temper’s like!

We're four to one here! (and I didn't sieve translations through, the three that came to me first, find them on wikisource) we all saw ironical endearment here. I'm editing the page back as the reading has already been substantiated enough. Saumache (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache I have a question: when you say "it's used ironically", what do you mean? Because I could actually agree with this. It's "humorous" that I can't agree with. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 15:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Irony goes hand in hand with humour. The character uses a term of endearment (because diminutive = deary; there are no room for sluts here, though the term of course has more than some connotation, which perhaps makes it all the more endearing in its little way) addressing his wife, which is out of place in plain uncontrolled madness; it is so common I shouldn't have to explain. The word is humorous in this case because endearing, humorous because ironical, not humorous as in jolly good fun, of course... I removed the humorous label anyway, and said I was about to do so from the start. Saumache (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Irony and humour might overlap, but they are two very different things. Irony is a contrast between what is said and what is meant, that can be funny but doesn't have to be. Irony might be at the origin of why "amasiuncula" gets used as it does, but we will never know from the current text, whether the word is used ironically or whether irony is built into the word itself, and inseparable from it. It could be either or both, but we don't have enough material to prove it, so the philologically correct approach is to describe how the term is used in the corpus, and that excludes "humour" just as much as "endearment". — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 09:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

In the 2000 translation by Sarah Ruden:^[1]

You damn buzzard, you better think about what’s good for you. And don’t make me show my teeth, sweetie. You don’t wanna be in the way when I’m really angry.

 ​‑‑Lambiam 18:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Sorry, I've misread you the first time and I just realised you wrote that fulcipedia, milva and sterteia are not by themselves mean or derogatory. But... how can you say that with such certainty? Fulcipedia is a hapax legomenon, so we actually don't know what it means exactly, but we know fulcio and pes, and even your translator translated that as "high-heeled hussy", which is a clearly derogatory word. Milva is is described in Forcellini as "convicium est in feminam nimis avidam et rapacem", another clear word of contempt, and for sterteius it has "qui stertit, ignavus, desidiae plenus" = lazy, full of laziness. None of these words are positive, and are clearly used out of scorn, not in a humorous way! — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 15:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The "my" in "my high-heeled hussy" is cardinal. The author seems to go out of his way to make the husband utter words that peak our attention (at least of us, 21th century wiktionarians), new words: compounds, images, diminutives. And in laziness is a lot of fun to be poked of. I'm not saying the guy is having a laugh with his wife, but the author surely did have his share of pleasure in writting it, and the pleasure is shared. The character must be somewhat ridiculous, ironical, comical though the situation be serious, no? Have you read Shakespeare? Again, I haven't read the thing and know little about it, but the book is called Satyricon for god's sake, I found the snippets I read quite amusing. Anyway, I'm going nowhere. This was about the endearing quality of the term and I think I've proven my point above. Saumache (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache All personal assumptions aside, the word is not used as an endearing term in the context it appears. It's used as a snarky, sarcastic reproach. You say above that "diminutive = deary", but that's absolutely not true. At least it isn't in Italian, I guess French must have similar cases? Some diminutives are only and exclusively used as offenses, it doesn't matter that etymologically they are not. attricetta in Italian can only and exclusively mean "a bad young actress", despite literally meaning "little, cute actress". My point here is that we don't have one single example in the extant corpus of amasiuncula (or amasiunculus, for that matter) where the word is used with a proper endearing sense. We can't just decide that "it must be", and then work on assumptions to confirm our theory. I'll remove "endearing" from the entry. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 09:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

-y in English, -ette in French, Russian -ка (-ka) have endearing value, I know it to at least be a staple in IE languages, you must be delusional; compare in Latin amiculus, now isn't this one endearing? A familiar term of address, especially to one's wife, as a diminutive is likely to be endearing. The translators thought the same, the nature of the word is here unobvious but for you. Should I remove the "derogative" tag as it is only attested in the masculine? And you won't get away from this as the sensible one considering what a mess the page was when you first made it.

Now not to make this personal:

@IlleScrutator, @Imbricitor, @Urszag (note that the issue has almost nothing to do with being a good Latinist), I'm sorry for the long read, feel free not to do yourself the favour of perusing that but, can someone help me weigh in on this issue?

Mea culpa: Though I assume it, I went a bit far, I sometimes don't check myself and my wording—I'm really just cross—, not usually enough to be rude or seem mad, anyway... I'll leave the weighing-in (if one or the other is even interesting for them to defend) to others Saumache (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Assuming that was addressed to me, apologies accepted. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 16:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache We can invite everybody, at this point. The more, the merrier.

(Notifying workgroup: Fay Freak, Brutal Russian, Benwing2, Lambiam, Mnemosientje, Nicodene, Al-Muqanna, SinaSabet28, Theknightwho, Imbricitor, Urszag): — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 11:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Now that's funny, though I didn't want the whole world to see me raving :) Saumache (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

First, please calm down. It is really not that grave. I would say that this particular use definitely is contemptuous, but I agree that the word amāsiuncula should not be primarily treated as an insult or something alike, as it is really merely a little female lover.

Now I want to bring in my knowledge of German, as of my mother tongue, and say that there exist at least two deminutives that are used in reprehensions, Freundchen "litte friend" and Fräulein "little lady", with Freundchen being used almost exclusively in reprehension and threatening and Fräulein being used when parents rebuke their daughter. There also is the expression "deine kleine Freundin" ("your little female friend") which is e.g. used when one man threatens or verbally attacks another while bringing in the target's companion in a belittling way. However, of course, Freundin per se has no negative connotation. Imbricitor (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Imbricitor Thanks for your contribution to the thread. I've been called delusional for saying that some diminutives are only used with a negative meaning, so it's good to see I'm not alone in my delusion. We can discuss about what labels would be better to use, but I can't philologically just accept that this specific diminutive must have surely been used as a term of endearment, despite all evidence. It might very well have been used as a term of endearment, but we don't have proof of it. What we have is proof of the term being used in a derogatory way. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 11:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily derogatory, maybe it is the same threatening usage as in Freundchen, since it is placed right after a threat. Imbricitor (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Imbricitor I don't know... Isn't sounding "threatening" just one of the possible consequences of using a derogative term? "Derogative" means " to lessen the worth of a person". There are many reason why one would want to do that, intimidation definitely being one of them. Like, if you start or end a sentence with "you little/lesser [WORD]!", the implication could be "I despise you!", but could also well be "you're just a little [WORD], mind what you say/do cause you stand no chances against me!". The implication is more dependent on the context than the word per se. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Imbricitor Oh, I forgot to say: my previous consideration is based on how the masculine form, amasiunculus, has been used, too. In that context it's clearly not threatening, just belittling. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 13:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we translate it with ambiguous terminology as “my sweet tartlet”, which sounds tasty, as one's wife is supposed to be, and at the same time sportively enough. Apart from that you have the option to use {{def-uncertain}}, but given that the term amāsius is known, it is quizzy to prefer so only by virtue of the unclear connotation, which may not even be lexical but within the individual piece of art, which means even if the instance is derogatory it is an overgeneralization that the lexeme is—a particulari ad universale non valet consequentia. Fay Freak (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fay Freak I agree with not overgeneralising. I wouldn't want that either. I just think we should be very carefull with hapax legomena. We can't just go about adding meanings we think one word should have based on etymology alone. In the end whoever looks up that word will be doing so because it appears in that specific line in the Satyricon, where it is clearly not used as a term of endearment. If we lable it as "endearing" or "humourous", that would be completely arbitrary and unjustified. Maybe the best solution is not to give any lable at all... — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

In the play Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? George and Martha address each other with such terms as my dear, baby and honey while insulting one another. This makes the insults feel even more cruel. You can find a similar use of the terms my dear and my darling in the novel Gone with the Wind, used by Rhett Butler while dressing down Scarlet. It makes the rebukes feel even more belittling than if this had been left out.  ​‑‑Lambiam 17:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fay Freak @Imbricitor @Lambiam @Saumache For reference, I've also found this Glossarium Eroticum Linguæ Latinæ, where amasiunculæ are defined as "puellæ Veneri deditæ; virorum venatrices". — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 19:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Which has not more sources than us to say so, a single quote. These two dictionaries (counting your Italian one) have no more authority than the Gaffiot or my translations but should obviously and comparatively be taken with a grain of salt given their radical assumption. I still can't get away with thinking the character is calling his wife a slut. Saumache (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache Why do you find it so difficult to believe that Tramalcio is calling his wife a slut? She was an ambubaia, which in the past were associated with prostitutes, and he literally says he saved her from the streets and turned her into a lady. He was probably being quite literal when calling her "my little lover (=men hunter)".

Anyway, I'm not pushing to translate amasiuncula as slut, I'm happy with what we have now. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 08:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should not try to interpret the terms amasiunculus and amasiuncula as having distinct intrinsic meanings beyond the masculine–feminine difference. L&S gloss amasiunculus as “a fond lover”.^[2] In the languages for which I know a diminutive form meaning “lover” (Dutch liefje, German Liebchen, Turkish sevgilicim), this makes it a term of endearment, but the term can in each of these languages also be used derogatorily or ironically.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache He wrote a full book on Latin sexual language where he researched, collected and compared almost 2000 words and expressions from original texts with the precise intent of finding out their true meaning. I don't think either me or you have done anything similar, so let's not think our judgment on the topic to be just as well-informed as the author's (who, btw, seems to be from France).

Another couple interesting quotes from that book:

• amasii: qui vaga libidine fœminas insectantur. Mulierum vagi proci.
• amasiæ, amasiunculæ: puellæ Veneri deditæ; virorum venatrices
• amasiunculi: contumeliose, amatores nulli ponderis.

The following is particularly interesting, since there seem to be a difference between amans and amator, the last being a synonym of amasius:

• amator: hanc dissimilitudinem constituere Latini inter amantem et amatorem quod amator fingere possit, dum amans vere amat. ( V. Donat, in Andr. Terentii.) Amator sæpissime fœdo sensu. (Vid. Plaut. , Horat. Terent., elc.) «Adeo nullum sine amatore vitium est.» (Senec. Controo. 1 , 5.)

I think English translations of amator and amasius etc. as lover or similar don't really capture this difference (possibly on purpose, knowing how prudish scholars tended to be in the past, especially in England). — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 07:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma I assumed it was a regular dictionary, my bad. And if it is indeed French, then 100% trustworthy it is. It would be nice using this source to update said pages instead of waisting y/our research in fruitless discussions for our readers, I don't have time right now and it seems a topic you favor, I'd go for it. Saumache (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@Saumache I do hope you're being sarcastic about the 100% trustworthiness of the book just because it's French... As for the rest, I'm sorry you find a completely fine and valid discussion to be fruitless, especially since it's clear you also learned something from it (if anything, not to "assume" as much as you seem to be doing). — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 15:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sartma Of course it was sarcastic, as I thought your own words were, a bit of comedic relief perhaps. Fruitless for our readers, but fruitful for us of course, my comment is all about turning positive discussions into positive output. I think many discussions end up being about winning an argument, editors forget about or don't bother using the research put into it. I spend little time in talk pages and fora, if I seemed the brawly one, I didn't introduce myself well to you, sans rancune on my part :) Saumache (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts: given the appearance with "milva", which seems to be a negative metaphor (not a positive one used ironically), it seems possible to me that the diminutive is used with direct pejorative force rather than with affectionate force used ironically. But distinguishing the senses of diminutives can be difficult and in this case we don't have multiple examples to help us out. "Little" can get that across somewhat and I think the current definition seems reasonable.--Urszag (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pronunciation notation question

Heya, over in your recent reply about 男の子 etc., you added romanized strings of several examples. I'm used to the acute accent being used to indicate high pitch, and I can figure out from contrast with "kō" as a plain long vowel that "kô" indicates long vowel with a high-to-low pitch contour.

But I don't know what's intended by your inclusion of under-dots, as in "kotobạ no ayá" and "kamị no ke". In fact, at first I just through my monitor was dirty. 😄 What does this notation signify in this context? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Eirikr It's a transliteration system I created for myself to transliterate Japanese words and sentences with accents. The dot under a vowel shows that in isolation the accent would fall on that vowel. So in kotobạ no ayá, the first word is kotobá; in kamị no ke the first word is kamí. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Eirikr You can find a full description of my system here. It might get a bit complex, and not all diacritics I devised are really necessary all the time, it's more a question of having a way to show everything accent related in case it's needed. Depending on the context, I might just use acute/circumflex, which are arguably the only two accents you need for Japanese. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 18:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hebrew romanizations

Hi, regarding Hebrew romanizations for Berber terms borrowed from Biblical Hebrew: since WT:HE TR states that “in some cases it might be necessary to use a romanization that is based not on Modern Israeli Hebrew but on another form,” I assumed this would apply to these romanizations. If that assumption is incorrect and a Modern Hebrew based romanization is preferred instead, please let me know, thanks. Lankdadank (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Lankdadank! Yeah, of course you can use the traditional transliteration, as long as it's correct. It wasn't, so I changed it to Modern Hebrew, mainly because you had "Hebrew" in the etymology, and not "Biblical Hebrew". I don't think Modern Hebrew should be in any etymology sections, but I know that some people prefer that, so I didn't want to impose. Now that I know you meant Biblical Hebrew, I can change the translitteration and the language link accordingly. — Sartma ^{【𒁾𒁉 ● 𒊭 𒌑𒊑𒀉𒁲】} 14:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be great! I didn't realize a language code for Biblical Hebrew existed, it would be more appropriate for sure, since the timeline of Punic/Hebrew borrowings corresponds to beginning of the first millennium BCE until presumably contact with Arabic. Lankdadank (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Good quality entry, bad quality product

coming to you with a fun request: would you please create the Akkadian entry for "copper" with the internet's favourite infamous merchant in the quotations? asking for a friend.  Juwan  🕊️🌈 10:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)