User talk:Victar

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


Whoa, don't delete a page just because there's a more common form. We should have both. Look at what I'm about to do to the original entry. Equinox 11:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was actually about to do just that but you beat me to it ;-). --Victar 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for also creating jawdropping. --Victar 11:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconstructed Frankish terms[edit]

We do allow this... at least I don't see why not. If you want to create Frankish reconstructions, you can make them like we currently make Proto-Germanic entries. For example Appendix:Frankish/helm. Make sure to add {{reconstructed}} to the top of the page. —CodeCat 21:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to experiment with the entries before I published them. Victar (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Linking to unattested terms[edit]

I don't think edit warring over it is going to get us anywhere. If you make an edit and someone else undoes it, just putting it back isn't really very helpful. Now, I don't think we should use {{recons}} because it's not meant to be used that way. The templates {{term}} and {{recons}} are meant to be used in running text. But when we have lists of terms on Wiktionary we always use {{l}}, that's just the way it is. Using {{l}} for some, and {{term}} or {{recons}} for others, just doesn't look right. I suppose we could create {{lr}} or something similar, to be an equivalent of {{recons}}, but I think no link is better than linking with the wrong template. —CodeCat 23:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

{{lx|lang|term}} is what is used in for PGm. entries. Could we use it for Frankish and Old Dutch terms?
Not quite, unfortunately. That template is kind of automatic: it looks at the language code and decides where the term should be located. But for languages that also have attested terms, like Old Dutch, it will decide to link to the main namespace. So there really needs to be a template that explicitly links to the appendix. —CodeCat 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


I've written this to summarise and codify the facts we found. Please tell me what you think? —CodeCat 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking good! I'll add my thoughts to the talk page. --Victar (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankish etymologies[edit]

I appreciate that you want to improve the etymologies, but please don't use {{suffix}} with a language other than Frankish itself. This template also categorises the entry you put it in, so now it has put all the Frankish entries you added it to into categories meant for Proto-Indo-European words. I don't think that's what you intended. —CodeCat 14:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops. All fixed. --Victar (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankish compound template[edit]

Re diff: you can use {{compound|Appendix:Frankish/a|Appendix:Frankish/b|alt1=*a|alt2=*b|lang=frk}}. — Ungoliant (Falai) 01:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Victar (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I changed the Proto-Germanic form, because PGmc did not have short o, only ō. Leasnam (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, OE forms daraþ have the variants > daroþ and dareþ; Old Norse also shows -a-: darraðr...Leasnam (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Right, and if it was /ō/ in PGmc, it probably would have been retained in OHG. If you want to move the Frankish entry to *darath, that'd be fine by me. --Victar (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, on second glance CodeCat and I thing it *was* *darōþuz. The Old Frankish entry is fine :) Leasnam (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
If it was *darōþuz, then the Frankish entry should be *darōth. Where's the thread you guys used? --Victar (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
It's at *darōþuz (Discussion tab) Leasnam (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Latin bulla[edit]

Just be careful with terms deriving from bulla ("bubble") (< Proto-Indo-European *bulno-, *bōwl- (round object, bubble)) as this sense is not Germanic, but rather is cognate to words like English poll. Only senses like "ball", "bowl" "goblet", "scoop", etc are probably derived from the Germnic term. Leasnam (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless of course you find a reliable cite stating otherwise...Leasnam (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, I was going to tell you the same thing. ;-) There was certainly a *bolla/bulla merger, as evident in Old French. I'll do some more research. --Victar (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi Victar! I've noticed that you are using Anglo-Norman in Descendant trees as though it were a descendant language of Old French; yet Anglo-Norman *is* [a dialect of] Old French; it cannot be a descendant. Leasnam (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It is however an intermediary step between OFr and English, often exhibiting unique spelling conventions. --Victar (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No. It *is* the step. A unique/different spelling does not constitute a separate level. Leasnam (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Old French was a continuum which comprised all Oïl dialects, terminating in Anglo-Norman in England. Leasnam (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
You should start a thread on the Anglo-Norman talk page. Anglo-Norman is commonly listed in descendent trees. --Victar (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


Why did you move *dants? —CodeCat 22:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I did. According to Matasovic, the Celtic is o-stem. Victar (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
*benā could not possibly have been a simple ā-stem. It still shows the original stem ablaut in several of the descendants. —CodeCat 01:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm misreading, Matasovic believes it's a-stem; I assume based on the attested genitive plural. Victar (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Then how are the zero-grade plural forms explained? —CodeCat 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I recommend you read the entry in Matasovic's paper. This is not my original work. Victar (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're moving all these pages to alternative spellings, like kw to kʷ and oi to oy. I prefer the old spellings as it fits better with the phonology of the language. —CodeCat 09:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a miss-mash of both on Wiktionary and if we're to choose one, I think it best to use the modern spellings, which is closer to the Proto-Italic entries which also use gʷ and kʷ. Victar (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I could see, our Proto-Celtic entries used exclusively oi, ai, ou etc. before you started to move them. I'm not aware of them being "older" in any way. As for the use of ʷ, Proto-Celtic did not have any phonemic distinction between kʷ and kw, just like in Proto-Germanic. In Proto-Italic there was a distinction, though, as far as I can tell. —CodeCat 14:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
You have to look at the entries pointing to Proto-Celtic, many of which use oy, ow, etc. Older, as in not from the latest published work. You'll have to refer to Matasovic's work for any phonological distinction. Victar (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I still disagree with moving the entries. —CodeCat 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
We're at odd than. Perhaps you can start a thread here Category_talk:Proto-Celtic_language so others might chime in. Victar (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving pages[edit]

When you move pages, can you place {{delete|leftover from move}} on the old page? That way the redirect can be deleted. —CodeCat 21:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Victar! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, DerHexer (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


Sorry, that was an accident. I rolled my rollback back Leasnam (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Hi ! The j in this word looks very out of place. I think a more appropriate form would be something along the lines of *rīffilōn or better yet *riffilōn, *rifilōn with short i Leasnam (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam: And to that I reply Sievers' law? Or am I misinterpreting? --Victar (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
While on the subject of Frankish *rīffijlōn, I'm having the darnest time sorting the descendants of *rīffijlōn, from what looks like a merger with the Frankish or OHG word *hraflōn, *hraffijlōn. You wanna have a look? --Victar (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Siever's Law wouldn't affect a cluster like jl. That law only applies to the addition of i before j after a long syllable. The Frk word would need to be *rīfilōn, *rifilōn, or perhaps *riffilōn. Same for the PGm term. No jl combination at all. Leasnam (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Roger, moved it to *rīffilōn. Let me know if you have any thoughts on my query. English ruffle probably fits in there somehow as well, perhaps from the MDut. --Victar (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

bikkel, *bikkel[edit]

The etymology at bikkel and the (Middle) Dutch descendants at *bikkil are at odds. (The same split is also in the WNT vs. etymological dictionaries.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Vocalisation of laryngeals[edit]

The vocalisation of laryngeals is a post-PIE phenomenon and occurred exclusively when the laryngeal was between two obstruents. When there were sonorants in the mix, they were vocalised already in PIE and thus always vocalised first. The explanation of "syllabic" laryngeals next to sonorants is analogy with roots containing only obstruents. If CHC vocalised to CaC in post-PIE, then RHC or CHR might become RaC or CaR by analogy. This is seen in e.g. *bladą, which the PIE rules say must be *buldą instead. —CodeCat 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, the vocalisation of laryngeals is post-PIE, it didn't exist in PIE itself. PIE only had syllabic sonorants, thus they were vocalised before any laryngeals were. A sequence of HRH always becomes ur in Germanic. Any exceptions are post-PIE processes and thus should not be listed as PIE descendants. —CodeCat 20:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Source access[edit]

Were you able to get into that book using Google Books? I've purchased it, so I'm not sure if that page is visible for public access. I'm not sure if I"m allowed to post screenshots of it (fair use?) but here's an attempt:, as well as the appendix:

P.S. what is templunk? I can't find anything in the manual so I don't know what I'm removing. Thanks for the info. Djkcel (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Yeah, if you have a look at your source you shared, it has a completely different reconstructed Celtic root, *broccus (a sharp-pointed object) not *brokkos (badger), so it's not giving an etymology to the Celtic word for badger. The Celtic word from that PIE root is *brodzos (point, tip). Proto-Celtic *brokkos (badger) to Latin brocca (buck-toothed) does make sense though, and that's where you see the Catalan boca they cite of the same meaning likely coming from.
Haha, yeah, not knowing what something does is probably a good reason not to touch it. {{unk.}} adds entries to a unknown etymology category, i.e. Proto-Celtic terms with unknown etymologies. Going through your contributions, I can see you've removed quite a few. I recommend that you go back and restore them. --Victar (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, templunk = template unk(nown), figures. I tend to prefer 'uncertain' over 'unknown' because it leaves the discussion open rather than just dismissing the term as an eternal mystery. However, I understand the need to be able to tag words of this category because there's no category for words with 'uncertain' origins. I believe you can still make it say uncertain while tagging it as unknown. I'll figure out how to do that and move forward with it. Djkcel (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

*ā or *ah in PII[edit]

Which one should be used in reconstruction? I see both in academic literature. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Both existed, as it depends on the PIE root, i.e. *ō > ā and *oH > *aH. But yeah, a lot of older paper reconstruct *aH as *ā. --Victar (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I would say the distinction should be maintained between *aH and when known. —JohnC5 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, absolutely. --Victar (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
How would the difference be reconstructed, if not for PIE? What evidence is there within PII to reconstruct the difference? —CodeCat 17:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Avestan script[edit]

Hi, do you know about {{chars}}? If you only have the transliteration for Avestan, you can generate the native script automatically by writing {{subst:chars|desc|ae|θβərəsaiti}} and so forth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am, thanks. I commented on the talk page earlier. I'm hoping that the tool is actually built into {{m}} and {{l}} to automatically generate transliterations from |tr=. Also, on that page I'm working on, I'm using more exacting transliterations for more detailed sound changes, which got overwritten, unfortunately. --Victar (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify the statement "exacting transliterations for more detailed sound changes"? Do you mean the use of hyphens or something else? —JohnC5 15:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. No, I mean like accent marks and vowel quality, ex. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎 (dā́ᵘru) vs. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎 (dāuru). --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to use that system, it would need to be something like 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎 (dāuru, /dā́ᵘru/), if at all. The actual transcription always takes precedence over the academic phonemic reconstruction. —JohnC5 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
At this stage, it is just my personal project on my user space, so I don't require your input at this time. Thanks.--Victar (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I thought we were talking about adding stuff in content entries. I apologize if that came off as overbearing. —JohnC5 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I thought you were aware. No problem than. It's for a reflex table. --Victar (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Oh, sorry. Feel free to revert me; it is your user space after all. I was just trying to clear out Category:Avestan terms needing native script. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks though. I appreciate you going through that list. --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, does Avestan script show accent in any way? Or are you simply assuming the position of accent on the basis of Sanskrit? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't, but can be guessed on the basis of Sanskrit. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct, "Avestan manuscripts do not have written accent", however we know it existed because "Avestan *r is devoiced yielding -hr- before voiceless stops and after the accent — if the accent was not on the preceding syllable, *r is not devoiced". --Victar (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


You've marked the page *skankijō for deletion, and you've linked it to a different PGmc word...what's up ? Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

*skankijō would be the correct form. Leasnam (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad on that one. Was going to move it back when it got deleted. --Victar (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi. You show that Old French took heiron from Middle Latin, but I don't believe that's the way it went. Middle Latin is not the ancestor of Old French, Vulgar Latin is. I think Middle Latin borrowed the word from Old French, which took it directly from the Frankish. Do you have a reliable source that shows otherwise ? Leasnam (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that you are attempting to funnel all Germanic loans in Romance languages through Latin first, but that's not always accurate. Only some of the earlier loans can be treated that way, but many words, and I believe this is one of them, came in through Old French, and were later borrowed by (Mediaeval) Latin and the Romance languages from French. Leasnam (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I can look, but generally I find OF words of Frankish origin being descended from ML in sources, when an attested ML form exists. Want to look for any sources for your argument? --Victar (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Mediaeval Latin was a liturgical language, and was largely a second language (not really anyone's first language). It didn't have native speakers really (save rare cases where people chose to raise their children speaking Latin, but that was extremely rare). Mediaeval Latin was able to borrow from languages such as Old High German, Old Dutch, etc. but Frankish ? Please check on this. Online Etymology states Old French from Frankish for heron, but they say the earliest form was hairo. Leasnam (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Different sources may use "Mediaeval Latin" differently. I hold with the camp that sees Mediaeval Latin beginning where the Romance languages emerge. Others do not, so maybe we need to clarify here what Midiaeval Latin means Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I can see where you are coming from with this. There is a eleventh century attest of hairo in Mediaeval Latin. My bad. This looks good. Good work. :) Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Haha, well that was a journey. Yeah, ML is extremely vague. If I have an attestation from 8th century, I still have to call it Medieval Latin. I think I've actually yet to find an word where the OF attestation predates the "ML" one. --Victar (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Hey ! I saw you added some Descendants to *waiþijaną. I am aware that Ingvaeonic languages regularly convert class 3 weak verbs into class 2, but are you sure Old Dutch and Old High German did (*waiþijaną is a weak 1, btw...) ? I would expect these to come from *waiþōną. Leasnam (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And what happened to the Icelandic and Faroese descendants on the page ? Leasnam (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, forgot to note that on the entry. I accidently created a duplicate of your entry, and forgot to re-integrate those. Happens when two people are simultaneously working on the same family of entries. =P --Victar (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Really, I'm not sure how supported a Proto-Germanic reconstruction is. Weak class 2 was very productive, so every class 2 weak verb can potentially be formed in each language individually and this doesn't present any evidence for a PG reconstruction. I don't know how the productivity of weak class 1 developed, but it wasn't entirely unproductive in Proto-Germanic times. So really, the different formations represent two independent formations, not a common inheritance. —CodeCat 22:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
That's sort of my point. Old English wǣþan and Old Norse veiða point to a weak class 1 verb. The weak 2 could have been formed from the noun later, and they shifted in meaning too to "feed; graze". Leasnam (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the meanings shifted, as you find this dual meaning in pretty much all forms, centered around "to acquire food". --Victar (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

On another note, I'm not quite sure what the PIE root would be for all theses entries. Is the verb denominal? Is the noun root *woyh₁-t-ós, *woyh₁-tis, *woyh₁-teh₂? --Victar (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, the root would be *weyh₁- of course. —CodeCat 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously (I created that entry), but where is the -t- originating from, a root extention, or a suffix, like -tis, or both? --Victar (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)