User talk:Wikitiki89

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive – 2008–2010201220132014

Phoenician help[edit]

Howdy, I was intending on working on the Latin and AG terms Corduba and Κορδύβη and was looking into their etymologies, which eventually led me to make this edit on Córdoba. Could you take a look at the Phoenician and tell me if it makes sense. Feel free to tell me I was completely off base. In a related note, do you have any advice on getting the Phoenician Unicode to display correctly? Sorry to pester so much; I have been appreciating your edits from afar. Thanks! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@JohnC5 Sorry for taking so long to reply. What is your reference for the Phoenician word? It looks like it is close to the words קִרְיָה ‎(qirya) and قَرْيَة ‎(qarya), but if it is the same word, it is strange that it has an extra 𐤀 ‎(ʾ) and is missing a 𐤁 ‎(y). As for the Unicode displaying properly, you just have to have the fonts installed. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It mentions it here; though to be honest, I can't find my more authoritative source now. The rest is idle speculation based on Carthage (which is why I wanted you to check it out). I could not find a good text mentioning Juba in Phoenician; so again, that spelling is a guess. Feel free to just remove all the unverified material. Just thought I'd give it a try. JohnC5 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot is making some mistakes[edit]

Re: User talk:DerbethBot#Your bot is making some mistakes:

  • خبز - if the audio is wrong, go to Wikimedia Commons and ask it to be removed, giving an explanation. The bot is not a human and can never judge whether the sound sounds correct and not - and this will never be corrected, because it cannot be!
  • أهلا - AFAIK there is no rule that two recordings with pronunciation of the same word should not appear in the entry. The bot is not a human and cannot judge which file is 'better'. This will never be fixed. Again, if the recording is broken or of too poor quality, ask at Commons to remove it.

Please do not write on the talk page of the bot, because it is not a human. It cannot talk. Please leave messages on the operator's talk page (i.e., mine). Regards --Derbeth talk 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


The redlinked category Catgeory:Hebrew פ״ז hif'il verbs has been sitting in Special:WantedCategories for a while because I have my doubts about whether there really is a פ״ז verb class. Could you either create the category or fix the entry at הוזיל? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No there is nothing special about verb roots starting with ז. The strange thing is that this verb looks like its root is י-ז-ל rather than ז-י-ל, but I'll have to change my Even-Shoshan when I get home. --WikiTiki89 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Latin sēmita ⩼ Aramaic *simta ⩼ Arabic سَمْت (samt)[edit]

Hi Wikitiki. I wonder if I may pick your brains. w:Zenith#Origin states:

The root of the word "zenith" in Proto-Indo-European was reconstructed as '*mei-' ("to change"). In Latin we find 'meare' ("to pass"). With the prefix 'sē-' ("aside") it became 'sēmeare' ("to branch off"). Then the noun 'sēmita' ("side-way") was formed.REF: {{cite book|last=Wyld|first=Henry Cecil Kennedy|title=Universal Dictionary of the English Languages|date=1932|pages=715, 1089}} When the Romans occupied Syria, shortly before the time of Christ, the resident Arameans adopted the word 'sēmita' as 'simta' ("side-way").REF: {{cite book|last=Avinoam|first=Reuben|title=Compendious Hebrew – English Dictionary|date=1968|location=Tel Aviv|publisher=Dvir}} The Romans left. As the Arabians conquered the land in the seventh century they took the word 'simta' from the Arameans as 'samt' ("side-path") and also coined astronomical expressions.REF: {{cite book|last=Fraenkel|first=Siegmund|title=Die aramaeischen Fremdwoerter im Arabischen|date=1886|location=Leiden}}

Our entry for the Arabic سَمْت ‎(samt) currently states that the word derives from the root س م ت ‎(s-m-t). Which is right, do you think? Do you happen to know an Aramaic word that could be transcribed simta and which would work as an intermediate etymon between the Latin sēmita and the Arabic سَمْت ‎(samt)? Thanks in advance for any elucidation you can provide. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym Many of our Arabic entries say "From the root XYZ" even when the root is really a back-formation from the word in question. The link to the root is useful, but the text is misleading. I honestly don't know how best to fix this. In some case, I have changed the text to say "Reanalyzed as belonging to root XYZ", but I'm not sure if that is the best thing to do since such "reanalysis" is a regular part of the Arabic language (and Hebrew for that matter). --WikiTiki89 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Please excuse the 11½-week delay in my response. I suppose I'm most interested in the supposed Aramaic word. Any idea about that Aramaic [script needed] ‎(simta, side-way)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
A while ago I suggested having categories for terms derived from each PIE root. Perhaps the same could be done for these languages but with modern-day roots (perhaps alongside actual Semitic roots). Such a category would bypass issues of synchronic vs diachronic origin: it's simply about whether the word has the root or not. —CodeCat 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I think I found the word you are talking about in CAL: סימטא ‎(S-Y-M-Ṭ-ʾ) / סימטה ‎(S-Y-M-Ṭ-H), which I'm guessing was probably voweled as סֵימְטָא ‎(sēməṭā) or סִימְטָא ‎(sīməṭā). @CodeCat: I agree, that would be a good idea. --WikiTiki89 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: Thank you very much; it's nice to have it confirmed that that Aramaic word exists. Now, was I right to do this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess so. I don't think we have ever discussed what to do with Aramaic transliterations when the vowels are not known for certain. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the all-caps looked kinda shouty. Do you think that the Aramaic word is plausibly descended from the Latin sēmita? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh it definitely is, I don't think there is any reason to doubt that. --WikiTiki89 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for the confirmation. What about the Arabic سَمْت ‎(samt)? Do dates of first attestation and facts of language contact make the hypothesis that the Arabic سَمْت ‎(samt) derives from the Aramaic סימטא at least possible? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The language we call Arabic has had plenty of Aramaic borrowings since the language itself was first attested. Even the Arabic alphabet is a borrowing from Aramaic (specifically the variety of the alphabet that we now call Syriac). But I can't tell you anything specific about سَمْت ‎(samt), except that it is not in the Quran, but it is in Lisan al-Arab (1290). --WikiTiki89 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Looking at The C.A.L.’s entry, it seems that the Aramaic סימטא is attested in the Palestinian (AD 200–500) and Babylonian (AD 200–700) recensions of the Talmud and in responsa of the Geonim (AD 589–1040). That indeed seems to "make the hypothesis that the Arabic سَمْت ‎(samt) derives from the Aramaic סימטא at least possible". Is it therefore fair to state this? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"I honestly don't know how best to fix this"[edit]

כ־ת־ב ‎(k-t-b)

We could do what Hebrew wiktionary does and just say "root". Of course our structure is different than theirs, so if we didn't list "Root: X-Y-Z" under the L3 etymology header, we'd have to make an L3 "Root" one, which seems a bit much. — קהת — 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Or we could have a floating box on the right like this. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Such a box was what I had in mind for PIE roots originally as well. —CodeCat 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I kind of like it, but I can see it sometimes interfering with pictures. — קהת — 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent, Wikitiki89, CodeCat: FWIW, I really like the box; it looks a lot like what's done for multi-hanzi Chinese terms. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


Somehow I didn't notice, but we have this module set to transliterate everything automatically, which is a really bad idea if it isn't capable of recognising when it certainly shouldn't try to transliterate. Of course, we'll never be able to teach it to transliterate טעם as taam rather than tem, but it should certainly be coded to refrain from transliterating when the letters only found in words from Hebrew are present. I simply don't have the Lua abilities to do this, hence me asking you despite the fact that you've been fairly inactive. Are you willing to help? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan#Automatic_transliteration. I second the request but it's quite challenging.
How many are the words of Hebrew origin, which are pronounced irregularly and cannot have diacritics? I wonder if it's the matter of just maintaining Yiddish entries and translations? Other languages also need hardcoded transliterations at times. The automatic transliteration can be turned off but I think it's the worst cases scenario. BTW, Hebrew terms can potentially be also autotransliterated with about 90% accuracy, if the word stress can be ignored. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed this before. My opinion is still that if a transliteration is missing, it's better to have a transliteration of just the consonants (which is effectively what happens) than to have nothing at all. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better to simply have the transliteration module add a cleanup category if the term has Hebrew-only letters, rather than removing the transliteration entirely. Feel free to disagree. Either your proposal or mine would be fairly easy for me to implement. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Cleanup categories sound like a good idea. Perhaps adding words with no vowels would also work. Chinese modules have large volumes of readings for characters. Is it (theoretically) possible to have updatable lists of irregular words either for exclusion or for customised transliteration? In any case, there's ongoing work for editors but I don't see many dedicated Yiddish editors. Pls don't forget about Hebrew transliteration, I still believe it's possible to achieve good results, similar to the success with the Arabic module. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev Making hardcoded lists is an impractical idea for Yiddish, and even more prone to issues IMO.
@Wikitiki89 We have an inherently different viewpoint; you think of shbs as being closer to שבת than nothing, but I think of shbs as being incorrect and that lack of information is better than misleading information. But in the meantime, I would very much appreciate that you create a cleanup category, because translations especially need to be dealt with and we'd hit a lot of offenders with the Hebrew-only letters. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Why is it impractical - too many words, no data available, all inflections should be included as well or all these together and something else? I also think that "shbs" could be used as a signal that there's something wrong and better than nothing. The partial transliteration could be used to make a correct one by an editor, especially in example sentences where only one word may be transliterated incorrectly. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev Too many words and there is never going to be a finite or manageable number; some texts borrow from Hebrew extensively when talking about anything religious. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I disagree with your use of the word "borrow". Many Hebrew words in Yiddish are direct continuations from the time when Hebrew was still the native language, so you can't say they were "borrowed". In fact it would be more correct to say that the entire Germanic part of Yiddish was what was "borrowed", while the Hebrew part was simply "kept". --WikiTiki89 19:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I have just transliterated a random first sample Yiddish text and I got this: mayn letst lid rkhl bushevski-kaplan 1 may, 1958 ayngehoykert in dreyen, bagis ikh mit trern mayn veg. troyerik iz mir tsu tseyln, mayne letste teg... gehoybn di oygn tsum himl, fun betn bin ikh shoyn mid. vayt, gants vayt shoyn farblondzhet zingendik mayn letst lid ... a lid fun benkshaft un khrth, vi khlumus iz alts fargangen, gevigt hot mikh dos lebn un gevorfn, punkt vi in felder, di zangen. krank un farshemt, kh'fal anider, dos lebn iz geven zeyer shver, aykh kinderlekh, vel ikh shtendik zayn mukhl in mayne oygn vet eybik blishtshen a trer ... azoy sheydt zikh in eynzamkeyt a mame, fun kinderlekh zeyer fil, keynmol hot ir keyner farshtanen, geshtorbn aleyn in der shtil .... I reckon the core Yiddish vocabulary is Germanic and transliteratable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It would be very unhelpful to reject an entire transliteration like that just because it has some Hebrew words here and there. As for the frequency, it really depends on the subject matter and/or author of the text. You happened to pick a more Germanic one. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course! I don't disagree on that. Manual transliteration is allowed and is necessary for those words. It would be possible to add to attention categories words transliterated without vowels, wouldn't it? I disagree on frequency (religious words are not the core vocabulary) but I'll let slide. All words are important. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I know you don't disagree, that was more intended toward Metaknowledge. But as for vocabulary, it's not only religious words that are Hebrew. In fact it was the educated secular Jews in the 19th century, who received the bulk of their higher education in Modern German, that pushed away the less familiar Hebrew-derived words from their writing in Yiddish and even introduced new borrowings from German such as שפּראַך ‎(shprakh). At the same time, the religiously educated were incorporating more Hebrew words into their Yiddish. But outside of these two influences, the "core" vocabulary was thoroughly mixed and Germanic words may have been the majority, but not an overwhelming majority. --WikiTiki89 01:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have updated Module:yi-translit to add terms as needed to Category:Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters needing transliteration. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This category is catching issues that don't actually have any Hebrew-only letters, but still need to be dealt with. Why is the module transliterating ־ונג ‎(-ung) and אַדורכשמועסן ‎(adurkhshmuesn) thus? This is something that should be easily predictable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Because when I originally wrote the module, I was under the impression that CuV would be written with dot in the vav. Only when I made this category today did I notice that I was wrong about that. Although I should fix this, it's not very common and I probably won't have time to fix it any time soon. As for ־ונג ‎(-ung), that's only because the module does not treat makaf as a letter, which it shouldn't be, so suffixes starting with vocalic yud or vav will display incorrectly. Since it only applies to suffixes, I'm not sure whether it's even worth fixing. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's worth making it actually work rather than not, so if you ever have time I would appreciate if you could make the module more functional. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that a hyphen/makaf should not be treated as a letter in general, but only in suffixes. Is a hyphen/makaf occurring at the beginning of a string sufficient to be sure it is a suffix? --WikiTiki89 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
For the full string, yes. For any substring, no. That shouldn't be hard to implement. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'll do it when I have the time. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Done. It was easier than I thought (and I also added some detection of Hebrew words with the letter א ‎(a) and improved their default transliteration). --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Probably the biggest source of bad transliterations that we're still not finding is links in {{plural of}}, like in this old version, where the word linked to has a Hebrew spelling without any Hebrew-only letters. These can definitely be caught if you (or someone else capable) is willing to generate a list of pages that have a Yiddish section, end in ים or ות, and use {{plural of}} without the tr= parameter being specified. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    We would need a bot to catch the form-of entries, since I would not want to modify non-Yiddish-specific templates such as {{plural of}}, but we could catch lemmas from the headword template by requiring a transliteration for the singular if the plural ends in ־ים and also requiring that if either one of the singular or plural is manually transliterated, then they both should be. In my mind, the old version of קרבנות you linked to is much less of a problem than lemma entries. --WikiTiki89 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't reconfigured my bot since I got a new computer; can you still run yours? I agree re lemma entries, that would be great to implement. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Well actually we don't need a bot, but just a search of the dumps and I don't have time to write the code for that, especially considering there are others who do this all the time. We should just put in a request at the WT:GP. Meanwhile, I can write something for {{yi-noun}}. --WikiTiki89 14:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stress mark on monosyllabic terms[edit]

Привет, для чего используется знак ударения в таких словах, как כיס? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Я был против, но так было решено. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


I see more use י than ה, especially in things organized by root like verb stuff. Barron's for example. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh Gosh I almost forgot, שבת שלום — [Ric Laurent] — 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent Even-Shoshan, for example, uses ה. It's also what we have been doing (see צ־ו־ה and כ־ס־ה). I personally wouldn't mind using י and ו, but we would have to change our existing entries. Plus, you can't expect people looking up roots to know when to look for י and when to look for ו. And אַ גוטע שבת to you too. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It could be done, I'm pretty sure. Actually now that I look again Barron's lists these roots like this קרה (קרי) If we don't use the י and ו forms in pagenames, I think we should at least mention them somewhere in the root entries themselves. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

א נייע קאץ[edit]

Hypothetically — if there were a category specifically for halachic terms (since obviously Judaism encompasses more than just halacha) do you think it would be better to go with the format Category:he:Halacha or Category:he:Jewish law? (pingponglekh tsu @Metaknowledge)[Ric Laurent] — 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that since Wiktionary is not primarily targeted toward Jews, using a term that is readily understood by readers unfamiliar with Judaism is probably a better idea. Our choice would not matter so much if it were only for Hebrew entries, but since this applies to English entries as well, I think Category:en:Jewish law would be better. This also relieves us from having to choose a spelling for הלכה. --WikiTiki89 17:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I actually preferred using the native term since the translation isn't entirely precise, but I would agree that "Jewish law" would be better entirely on the basis of your last point :D — [Ric Laurent] — 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that there are too many languages that need that level of granularity for Jewish terminology, but have fun rooting through the cats for Hebrew and Yiddish to fill the bloody thing. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:he:Judaism and Category:yi:Judaism don't have terribly much in them, anyway. If I were to do it, (which I might not, because I forgot that the topic cat templates use JS which I don't know at all so I can only make categories with those ugly "this isn't a real category" things) it would probably only take a morning. — [Ric Laurent] — 05:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
They don't use JS, they use Lua. I'll do it if you don't. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I created the following categories: Category:Jewish law, Category:en:Jewish law, Category:he:Jewish law, and Category:yi:Jewish law. All I had to do in Lua was this. --WikiTiki89 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If only {{cx}} were smarter — [Ric Laurent] — 11:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It is smarter. It just lacks knowledge, and I can fix that. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Righteous — [Ric Laurent] — 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ʾiʿrāb question(s)[edit]

What's the deal here? I recently was editing ἀμερμουμνῆς and was doing my best to learn the vowel system of Arabic for the word أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين ‎(ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) (and doing it poorly, I might add). I know WT:AAR says that lemma should not have ʾiʿrāb, but in the past you added them to سَلَاطِينُ ‎(salāṭīnu) at salateen. So should a compound lemma like أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين ‎(ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) be:

JohnC5 05:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policy on this kept changing, but now that we have declension tables we agreed that we no longer need ʾiʿrāb in headword lines, links, or mentions, except perhaps for certain exceptions like اللهُ أَكْبَر ‎(allāhu ʾakbar). --WikiTiki89 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
So... أَمِير المُؤْمِنِين ‎(ʾamīr al-muʾminīn) in this case? —JohnC5 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
That's right. BTW with full ʾiʿrāb it would be أَمِيرُ المُؤْمِنِينَ ‎(ʾamīru l-muʾminīna). Benwing (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense... —JohnC5 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek *rhēxis, *rhêxis?[edit]

Hi Wikitiki. Are you sure that you meant to add requests for Modern Greek entries for *rhēxis and *rhêxis to WT:WE? Obviously, they're not in the Greek script, but even as transliterations, they're valid for Ancient Greek, not Modern Greek. Were you thinking of ῥῆξις ‎(rhêksis), perchance? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me with WikiWinters (talkcontribs), who was the one who added those. --WikiTiki89 12:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, Wikitiki89 (talkcontribs). ;) --WikiWinters (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikitiki. I was knackered when I posted that message and failed to distinguish you two Wiki-prefixed editors. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I was hoping that someone would sort it out, but I should've consulted someone like you first, I'll admit, before adding them. I wasn't sure for which Greek (Ancient nor Modern) terms the transliterations were. I'm a regular editor of Chinese entries, so I guess I'm used to entries being created for pinyin and other romanizations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears now that this is not done for Greek entries. What is the next step of action, I'm so meta even this acronym (talkcontribs)? Also, I requested rhexis on the English requests page because I noticed that it was very common in the breakdowns of English medical terms (such as keratorrhexis, which I created from the requested entries page), which got me thinking that there should probably be the original Greek term as an entry. I apologize for the confusion and the inconvenience. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@WikiWinters: English vocabulary derived from Greek almost always derives from Ancient Greek, rather than Modern Greek (compare Category:English terms derived from Ancient Greek [8,625 members] with Category:English terms derived from Greek [137 members]). And no, Romanisations of Greek (Ancient or Modern) are not currently given entries. Out of respect for Wikitiki, we should continue this discussion at User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym#-rhexis / -rrhexis / -orrhexis. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


=kesuvem? (Somehow it isn't in any of my easy-to-search dictionaries.) — [Ric Laurent] — 18:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I would think כּתובֿים ‎(ksuvem), just like כּתבֿ ‎(ksav) and כּתובה ‎(ksube). --WikiTiki89 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That was my other thought, but I feel like I remember seeing a lot of words whose first vowel in Hebrew was a shva being pronounced with it in Yiddish. Then again. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I think in many cases the vowel is optional, but I can't picture it being pronounced in this case. I've definitely heard ksuvem before (albeit in Ashkenazi-English), but never kesuvem. (Unrelatedly, can you check the transliteration in the first quote at לחמא?) --WikiTiki89 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Yiddish is about as Ashkenazi as it gets? :D
Actually the only talmud masekhta I own is Chagiga (too bad it wasn't from the mishna for berachot, I actually have that one), but I'll see if I can find that bit menuqad online. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I meant that it wasn't actually Yiddish, but English. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But is it reaaally English? :D
שַׂמּוּחֵי, but I'm having trouble finding the quote we've got on the page itself so I dunno. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Well is it reaaally Yiddish if the speaker doesn't speak Yiddish? And thanks, there seem to be different versions of the Talmud out there; I picked this quote, which I found in CAL, because I didn't have to translate it from scratch. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's toward the bottom of the page: אלא חמרא סעיד ומשחא לא סעיד וחמרא מי סעיד והא רבא הוה שתי חמדי כל מעלי יומא דפסחא כי היכי דנגרריה ללביה וניכול מצה טפי טובא דריר פורתא סעיד ומי סעיד כלל והכתיב ויין ישמח לבב אנוש ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד וגו' נחמא הוא דסעיד חמרא לא סעיד אלא חמדא אית ביה תרתי סעיד ומשמח נחמא מסעד סעיד שמוחי לא משמח —This unsigned comment was added by Dick Laurent (talkcontribs) at 19:21, 26 May 2015‎.
Yeah, I guess that version uses the word נהמא instead of לחמא (and adds a whole bunch of extra words), defeating the whole purpose of a quote for לחמא. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Now that I look more closely, Masekhet Berakhot has almost the same number of pages in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. I might just be looking at the wrong one. The investigation continues — [Ric Laurent] — 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yerushalmi has almost completely different Gemara text, and most of it is actually in Hebrew. It's definitely Bavli. --WikiTiki89 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I was sure the Gemara would be different, but I had no idea about the language difference. Though it makes sense :D Thanks lol — [Ric Laurent] — 20:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi there. I can't help noticing that we haven't got an entry for Judeo-Tat yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! We do now. --WikiTiki89 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
speaking of tat, I dunno how to make the yi-xlit do right for טאַטויִרונג ‎(tatuirung) — [Ric Laurent] — 08:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to suggest doing טאַטוּיִרונג ‎(tatuirung), but it seems your spelling is more common in Google Books. Anyway, fixed. --WikiTiki89 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I just used the spelling I found on Forverts lol. שבת שלום אחי — [Ric Laurent] — 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

One question[edit]

Imagine that a native Korean speaker learns Hebrew. Exactly what kind of difficulty would he or she face while learning Hebrew? (Hebrew is a extremely rare language in South Korea, so to speak.) --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@KoreanQuoter Wikitiki89 doesn't speak Korean but you do speak English and some Russian, so it's not so extremely hard for you any more. Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic have (usually trilateral - i.e. consisting of three consonants) root systems where words and word forms are created by using meaningful root consonants plus various prefixes, infixes or root vowels and suffixes, all of which may have vowels and some consonants. See Semitic root. What makes reading in Hebrew (also Arabic) difficult, is that (short) vowels are usually omitted but native speakers can "guess" where they are needed. Special texts supply vowels, which are usually unwritten (religious texts, texts for children or foreign learners). Foreign learners are required to master many words and grammar before they can read out texts in Hebrew or Arabic, both are only partially phonetic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Wow. This is like a whole new world. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
IMO, despite lexical differences, Semitic languages are somewhat easier for European language speakers (grammatically and syntactically) than for speakers of East Asian languages such as Korean or Japanese, let alone Chinese. I know very little Hebrew (mainly theoretically) but Arabic, which I know a little, is a close language, so I used it for comparison. Arabic has a complicated diglossia situation, which makes mastering any variety of Arabic very difficult (you can't practice what you learn from the books in the street and you can't brush up your spoken Arabic by reading books) plus lack of resources. So, Arabic is among the four most complicated languages for English speakers (level 4). The other three are Chinese, Japanese and Korean. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Following what Tolya said about written Hebrew, I started learning Hebrew almost 7 years ago. I haven't focused on it intensely for that whole time, but I still have problems reading unvowelized text, and I can still be pretty slow about reading text with vowels if the words have unfamiliar prosodic forms. — קהת — 14:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been reading Hebrew with vowels from a very young age (without understanding the vast majority of it). Because of that, when I started learning to understand Hebrew and to read without vowels, I already had many of the patterns ingrained into my subconscious. However, I have met many people who started completely from scratch later in life and did fine. I have met at least one Korean and a few Chinese in Israel learning Hebrew. In short, I would say that learning Hebrew for you (regardless of the variety of Hebrew) would be roughly equivalent to learning English completely from scratch. Think about how much effort you spent getting to each level of English and that is roughly the effort it would take for you to get to that level of Hebrew. At any point, switching to another variety of Hebrew would be comparatively very easy, and learning Arabic would be much easier than it would have been otherwise. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
To add a fun dynamic to that, I've met native speakers from Israel who can't read nikud at all because they didn't pay attention in school :) — קהת — 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There are many Chinese who can't read pinyin or other romanizations too :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 18:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Well of course, pinyin is in a foreign alphabet, but nikkud is native to Hebrew. However, I have heard that in Taiwan, many young people can read and type, but not write with pen and paper. --WikiTiki89 18:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Or Koreans who don't know any Chinese characters and these people struggle in universities. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Come on...[edit]

We're specific enough for

שיבולת \ שִׁבֹּלֶת • (shibólet) f (plural indefinite form שיבולים \ שִׁבֳּלִים, singular construct form שיבולת \ שִׁבֹּלֶת־, plural construct form שיבלי \ שִׁבֳּלֵי־)

but not for

נוֹלַד • (nolád) (nif'al construction, 3rd person masculine singular future ייוולד \ יִוָּלֵד, active counterpart יָלַד)

? — קהת — 06:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

So you don't think that
לָקַח ‎(lakákh) ‎(pa'al construction, infinitive לָקַחַת, m sg present לוֹקֵחַ, ‎3rd person m sg future יִקַּח, m sg imperative קַח, passive counterpart 3rd person m sg past לֻקַּח)
is a little too long compared to
לָקַח ‎(lakákh) ‎(pa'al construction, infinitive לָקַחַת, present לוֹקֵחַ, future יִקַּח, imperative קַח, passive counterpart לֻקַּח)
 ? --WikiTiki89 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think all of those forms should be present in the headline. I think the headline should be reserved for the principle parts (which for Hebrew I would say are the 3rd person singular masculine perfect and imperfect), otherwise why are we just including the masculine singular forms instead of all of them? I prefer conjugation tables to listing a bunch of forms in the headword line. The lack of specificity in your second example makes it look to beginners like there are no other forms, and to non-beginners like we're, at best, leaving out important grammatical details, or, at worst, giving inaccurate descriptions of what each form represents. Conjugation tables are infinitely more useful than listing the masculine forms in the header. — קהת — 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
My plan was to include all of the non-obvious parts. In this case, maybe לוֹקֵחַ is not completely necessary, but the others are. As for the non-specificity, we do that for Arabic also, labeling يَكْتُبُ as the "non-past" of كَتَبَ. --WikiTiki89 17:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that technically all of the parts are non-obvious, but still they're only non-obvious to beginners, and they're going to vary depending on the shoresh and binyan, and conjugation tables are still better at showing them. I think the forms that the headword template can handle should only be included if every word needs those forms shown. If you know enough Hebrew to be able to figure out the conjugations based on limited information, generally that only requires the past and future forms. — קהת — 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
"If you know enough Hebrew to be able to figure out the conjugations based on limited information, generally that only requires the past and future forms." That's exactly what I'm talking about, but sometimes other parts are also required and I want to show those. Also, the future is only required in pa'al verbs. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If you need more than the past and future to figure out the conjugation, a full table is going to be more helpful than a handful of masculine forms. (I think that's the sentence I've been trying to put together this whole time lol). I guess that's what I don't get, why not just make the tables, which I think we both agree are useful to any learner. I would probably be working on tables if somebody hadn't changed them to a color scheme I find hideous :( — קהת — 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If you already know enough Hebrew, having to look through the table to find all the irregularities takes more time than to have them highlighted for you in the headword line. I have nothing against also including a full table. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
What other language do we have where the headword line only lists the lemma and irregular forms? — קהת — 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
We currently do that for Arabic nouns; the dual, construct, and "informal" forms are shown in the headword line whenever they are irregular (in addition to the full declension table). --WikiTiki89 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Arabic isn't the best example, since it's only recently that anybody started really standardizing it on here. It's been utter chaos for years. And anyway, Arabic is insanely irregular. — קהת — 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
This is what most print dictionaries, anyway. And I think it is useful. Also, Arabic is also insanely regular in other ways. The dual and construct forms are almost always regular, which is why they only need to be shown when they aren't. We aren't talking about the plurals. --WikiTiki89 19:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary isn't a paper dictionary. Focusing only on the irregulars is going to do a disservice to beginners and intermediates who would be better served by conjugation tables, which are regular in form and not that difficult to navigate for Hebrew verbs. I don't think Barron's 500 Verbs series exists just to be cute. There's no place on Wiktionary where someone just starting to learn Hebrew is going to find out how to guess feminine forms from looking at the masculine ones. My question isn't whether or not it's useful, it's how to be the most useful to the broadest base of people. In my opinion, an organized chart is more useful than a string of random forms. That is, it's easier to read a chart than to scan through a list for the forms you want. Especially if the forms you want aren't there at all. — קהת — 05:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Like I said, I do plan on also including a full conjugation table. The headword line just serves as a summary of the important parts. --WikiTiki89 11:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol I guess I just prioritize the tables. That was always my favorite thing to do until we started doing them in more advanced code that I've never understood. Ah well. שבת שלום — קהת — 14:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)



Ты забыл протранслитерировать גְּזוּזְטְרָה. Это "gezuzetera"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

По нашей системе — "g'zuzt'rá". Но это не я это слово добавил. --WikiTiki89 04:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


Why is the emphatic the lemma for nouns but the absolute for adjectives? — קהת — 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Because those are the default forms in late Aramaic, where nouns almost never occur in absolute form (and even the construct state is pretty rare), while adjectives are still frequently used in the absolute state as predicates (and the construct state for adjectives was always very rare). I would even have preferred to use absolute state as the lemma for nouns, but there is a strong case for this only in Samaritan Aramaic and older varieties of Aramaic. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It almost seems like a bad idea to treat all Jewish Aramaic under just one header, given the timespans and divergences — קהת — 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Not much worse than it is for Hebrew. I would actually prefer to unify all varieties of (non-neo-) Aramaic because it just creates too much duplication. Regional, temporal, and ethnic varieties can be handled with usage notes. CAL, for example, lists the applicable varieties before every sense of every word. --WikiTiki89 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

אלטע זאכן[edit]

Can you check the Yiddish. Enosh (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's right, but I linked the two words separately. --WikiTiki89 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


In modern Hebrew I've only heard these forms pronounced with a v. Think that should be mentioned somewhere? It's not really relevant to the other letters, since their final shorashim don't change pronunciation, but maybe for this one? — קהת — 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in a usage note. There are tons of words that are pronounced "incorrectly" by most Modern Hebrew speakers. --WikiTiki89 21:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The usage note is what I was thinking. — קהת — 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


The translation table in this entry had lots of fossilized markup from before there was a {{t}} template. Someone decided to clear this out, but managed to leave the Hebrew translations seriously mangled. I tinkered with it a bit, but gave up: I have no idea what the person who originally added it was trying to do, and no idea what would be right for the entry. Could you take a look at it? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I see what they were trying to do and made it so. But I'm also unsure it's the best link/display to have there. — קהת — 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Hey, would you like to check out טב and קדיש and critique? — קהת — 13:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  1. I've never heard of a form like טָבִי ‎(ṭāḇī) or קַדִּישִׁי ‎(qaddīšī) for the
  2. I think we should have only ־א for and only ־ה for Of course, both were used for both, but there is no need to list all alternative spellings for everything.
  3. We probably should include the very common טָבֵי ‎(ṭāḇē) and קַדִּישֵׁי ‎(qaddīšē) as alternative forms for the
  4. Is "determined" the right word? I remember this usually being called "emphatic".
--WikiTiki89 17:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I followed the little table in Max Margolis's guide to Talmud Bavli Aramaic. He lists the -ī form of the m.p abs as a "newer" form. (I thought about making a note of the older/newer forms where relevant, but I'm not sure how to word this, or how to note that the construct basically fell out of use at a certain point.)
I'll add the -ē for m.p det, but Margolis says this is only used of substantivized adjectives, so I think I won't be able to avoid adding some kind of note to the table. Personally, neither determined (which is what the English translation of Margolis uses) or emphatic makes any sense to me... I'd prefer "definite," but if emphatic is the most common, I don't really have much problem using that instead. — קהת — 18:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Just note that the only Aramaic grammar I read was of Biblical Aramaic, so I'm not an expert on later dialects. I didn't realize there was a difference between nouns and adjectives in terms of ־ַיָּא ‎(-ayyā) vs. ־ֵי ‎(). I just thought that the latter was a later contraction of the former influenced by the construct. But I may have been wrong. Also, the construct state for adjectives was always fairly rare, well before it even mostly fell out of use for nouns. I'm curious where the evidence is for ־ִי ‎() and how it could be distinguished from ־ֵי ‎(). --WikiTiki89 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Hah, ironically I've almost only read of Babylonian Aramaic grammar. I really should start learning about the Biblical grammar, but... anyway.
Of the ־ִי ‎() for plural absolute, Margolis says it was only used for adjectives and participles. The table and notes to it are on page 28 of his book, which I'm sure can be found online somewhere. I can't remember exactly where I found it. The full title is "A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud." To be simple, I frequently find it infuriating, but it's better than nothing. :) — קהת — 18:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
But how do they know the pronunciation? I'll take a look at that grammar. BTW, for BA I recommend A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic by Alger F. Johns—short, sweet, and thorough. --WikiTiki89 18:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't begin to guess :) Thanks, I'll look for it — קהת — 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
(I didn't have to look far, turns out I already have it and didn't realize it lol) — קהת — 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


I got this one from Jastrow. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 19:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the ink is wearing off? I got it from CAL. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Lol not unless it wore off in the same way three times; he lists alternative spellings חנוותא and חנואתא all with segol. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
CAL has four citations from Jewish texts that have nikkud, all from Targum Jonathan: Jeremiah 37:16 (חָנְוָתָא), Ezekiel 27:17 (בְחַנְוָתִיך), Ezekiel 42:71 (בְחָנְוָתִיך), Ezekiel 42:72 (חָנְוָתִיך). I'm not sure where Jastrow gets its nikkud from, but I don't trust any vocalized versions of the Talmud to be accurate. The problem is Aramaic is a macro-language and we have made no decisions about what to use as our lemma dialect. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


The IP that made that edit is our well-known IP who likes to insert unattested words, remove the * from links, and make other disruptive nonsense edits. They've been rather active lately. I have taken the stance that nothing by this user can be trusted, so I just revert anything that looks slightly suspicious or that I can't verify. That doesn't mean the edit is wrong necessarily, I'm just being cautious. —CodeCat 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The only part I resotred was the Akkadian script, which is phonetically correct. That doesn't mean it's definitely the correct spelling, but I'm willing to trust him on that. Most of his edits show that he does have at least some knowledge of the languages. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#L.P.[edit]

Do you have any thoughts on this? It would be much appreciated if you could give your opinion. Thank you. --WikiWinters (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@WikiWinters: I'm not sure why you nominated it at WT:RFD when it is already about to fail WT:RFV. If what you meant is that it someone should finally delete it and close the discussion, that is not what RFD is for. All you need to do is comment something like "RFV failed" in the RFV discussion and strike out the heading, and then (if you're not an admin) add {{delete|RFV failed}} to the page so an admin will find it and delete it. --WikiTiki89 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies. --WikiWinters (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@WikiWinters: You misunderstood a bit:
  1. The RFV has already failed, you don't need to vote "Delete" on it.
  2. You should strike the header of the RFV discussion, because it is over.
  3. You still haven't added the {{delete|RFV failed}} template to the L.P. page (if you were an admin, you could delete the page yourself, but since you are not, you can add this template to request an admin to delete it for you).
No need to apologize. I'm not being critical; I'm just trying to teach you. --WikiTiki89 16:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I know you were trying to teach me, and I'm very grateful, so thank you! I was simply apologizing because my edits seemed disoriented, and I hate making things more confusing for other editors. Again, thank you for helping me learn how to go about this process! :) --WikiWinters (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I feel like we should have a page describing how RFD and RFV processes work. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

за жизнь[edit]

Вот страница из орфоэпического словаря под редакцией Аванесова. Если у вас есть источник на вашу транскрипцию, то покажите его, пожалуйста.--Cinemantique (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

English pronunciation sections[edit]

Hello, again! I was wondering if my edits to the pronunciation sections of arbitrage and certificate were done properly. I added noun and verb senses, which I don't know if were properly listed, and I added IPA pronunciations. I also added rhymes. For rhymes, are you supposed to include the entire part of the word that is emphasized? For one of the senses of arbitrage, the emphasis is placed on all syllables from the start, so I assumed the rhyme was the entire word. Also, for the hyphenations that I added, are they supposed to be at the bottom of pronunciation sections, and what is the proper order? Thank you. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if a word begins with a stressed vowel, then the entire word is the rhyme. At least in English. It's not likely that it will actually rhyme with anything else, though. —CodeCat 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The pronunciation differences for arbitrage do not have to do with part of speech. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You may be right, but if I recall correctly, the second pronunciation is for the archaic sense, which I have just added. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's also a dialectal variant. --WikiTiki89 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's very likely. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that British dictionaries give both variants, while American ones only give /-ˌɑʒ/. --WikiTiki89 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's probably why the archaic definition I saw used the variant pronunciation, as archaic words' pronunciations seem to resemble British pronunciation more often than American pronunciation. —  WikiWinters ☯ 韦安智   00:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

root cats[edit]

Should these indicate shin/sin, like התנשק is doing now? Just checking — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 23:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If you do it wrong, I made it give you an error. Don't go crazy with it yet, though. --WikiTiki89 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm out of control. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 23:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
So, what else is new? ... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Your face.
Your face is new.
Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 01:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey. תווית - are we gonna use תו״י or תו״ה? — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that even the root? Maybe it's just ת״ו. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Got it from the AcademyZ. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have already disagreed with the Academy on בן and רב. Do you know any words related to תווית? I was thinking תו, but any verbs? --WikiTiki89 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nah, this is the first time I've ever seen it. — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
תווי \ תְּוַי ‎(route, path) might be related. Enosh (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh and there's תָּווּי and תיווי \ תִּוּוּי, so that settles it as {{HE root|תוה}}. --WikiTiki89 13:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
@Dick Laurent, Enoshd: By the way, now there is {{HE root see}}. See כ־ת־ב and ח־שׁ־ב. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I like it.
שבת שלום. (וצום קל למי יצום).Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
שייבנה הבית ולא יהיה צום --WikiTiki89 20:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

{{HE root cat}}[edit]

Any way you could take this a step further and have it parse everything from the page title if the parameters are left out? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I could if there is a good reason for it, otherwise it would be too much work. As it is now, it also provides a check to make sure you're creating the category on the right page. --WikiTiki89 13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

קו״ם \ קי״ם[edit]

I think these might be two separate roots. Bolozky lists קו״ם as being the root of verbs like קומם and התקומם and קי״ם as being the root of קיים and התקיים. What do you think? — Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 10:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Bolozky is more interested in being useful than historically correct. I am fairly certain it's the same root, although I can't say for sure whether it was originally קו״ם or קי״ם (but I'm leaning toward קו״ם). --WikiTiki89 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


I'd just like to quickly thank you for my Whitelist nomination! Stephen MUFC (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem. --WikiTiki89 12:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)