User talk:Word dewd544

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



Hi there. There is no need to add inflected forms manually. We have a bot that does it automagically (if there is an inflection table). You can make requests at User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme. SemperBlotto 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Since there is no single 'Slavic language', to link you need to use {{proto}}, like {{proto|Slavic|vojnikŭ|lang=ro}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Re: [1] Well, not really. It comes from the Vulgar Latin oblique feminine plural, which amalgamated the non-nominative Classical cases. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Linking in etymologies[edit]

When you create links to other terms in etymologies, could you please use the {{term}} template instead of cursive bare links? Thank you! —CodeCat 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Resources on Aromanian?[edit]

I wonder where you got all the Aromanian words from; I'm curious. --Lo Ximiendo 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm getting them mostly off online dictionaries like and and For now I'm just making entries for words on a standard "Swadesh List" for basic words, like I also have some relatives that are part Aromanian as well who speak a little of it if I need to ask them about certain words. Word dewd544 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


Why empty that page? --Lo Ximiendo 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I realized that isn't really the main way to spell it and put the main definition at brats, which I found was the way it was listed on other sources (being a neuter noun this makes sense, corresponding with the Romanian as well as other words with the same ending, like sots). With Aromanian, there isn't really a standard way to spell words, especially with a Latin script, so various sources use different ways to spell out the same sound, and there are regional variants of words also. That was one that I'm not sure was completely correct, or it may have even been referring to the plural form; I'd have to check with someone to verify this. I guess I shouldn't have totally erased the entry, though. I didn't want to move the whole page either since there is an (unlikely) chance another language's word may also coincide with it later. Word dewd544 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
If the spelling is not the main spelling but is still used, you could use {{alternative spelling of}} ? —CodeCat 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually now I can confirm it is the plural form, corresponding to Romanian brațe. That's why I didn't want to just put alternative form at the time. I'll change it now. Word dewd544 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Etymologies of inflected forms[edit]

Why are you creating etymologies of inflected forms? This is not the norm on Wiktionary. Also, please read the message I posted a few weeks ago. Thank you. —CodeCat 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I thought to add them since it may not be immediately apparent how they are linked to the Classical Latin forms, which are different in some cases. For -are conjugation endings it's pretty obvious, but for others like -ere it's different. Also, in some sources, if the inflected form, or participle in this case, has an extra or separate meaning or becomes substantivized, they sometimes list the etymology specifically, just for people who are interested in how the word evolved, especially words that entered English somehow. About your message, you're referring to the use of {{term}} rather than just [[]]? I've been doing that most of the time, but sometimes I didn't when editing a page that already had them. Word dewd544 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is mostly that inflected forms can often be changed by analogy with other forms within the paradigm. This makes it hard to trace them back to an origin. In essence, what is inherited from the parent language is not the individual word forms, at least not usually. Instead it's the entire paradigm as a whole that is inherited, or the 'stem' along with its 'inflectional class' if you will. So if the Catalan infinitive is inherited from the Latin infinitive (like our etymologies already state) then you can assume the same for the participle or any other form of the verb. It seems a bit meaningless to add this separately because it's entirely predictable. The only part that isn't predictable is the form of the Latin participle itself, but you can always look it up using the link in the lemma's etymology. —CodeCat 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense, I suppose. I am aware that they inherit an entire paradigm of forming inflections that are applied analogically to all words of that type, and in some cases even those that didn't exist in Latin. I was just doing that for comparison purposes between languages, mainly, and since some lingustic essays I've seen do mention hypothetical or attested Vular Latin -utus participles as the source for Romance language participles. But I guess these are just there as a basis to demonstrate from what paradigm they evolved and don't necessarily mean that Romance words came directly from them. Anyway, I won't add anymore from now on. Word dewd544 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


Where did you find that etymology? As far as I know it comes from the name of a tree (w:Cnidoscolus quercifolius). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I got it from here: I guess they were basing it on the fact that those neighborhoods resemble honeycombs somehow? But after reading up more on it, English dictionaries list it as being derived from the tree, and that's what Wikipedia also says, about how the hill with the favelas was named after a hill with the tree. It may be the more accurate etymology actually. Maybe we should have it as being either from this or the other? Word dewd544 05:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. I'm more confident it's named after the tree; in fact, the Brazilian History Channel airs some short videos by writer Eduardo Bueno during breaks, one of which explains the origin of this word ( But since that site mentions favo + ela I think we can leave it too. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


delicio was not attested before deliciae, nor was lacio; therefore, doesn't this etymology need to be fixed? Caladon 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen several sources derive it from delicio and then lacio, but you might be right; they might not be that accurate or just outdated perhaps, but that seems to be the general consensus. If it really wasn't attested at all until well after deliciae, that could show that it was the other way around. I guess we'll just take down the etymology for now until someone finds one then? Word dewd544 21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Some of your contributions contain formatting errors which need to be cleaned up. Often you put References as an L4 rather than an L3 header, for example. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Got it now. I think it started because I might have seen a page that had it done incorrectly with a level 4 header and just thought that was right. I'll remember that from now on. Word dewd544 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The problem is, L4 references are all right per Wiktionary:ELE#Additional headings. I don't like them either. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly tip[edit]

{{sc}} is the code for Sardinian. {{sro}} is Campindanese Sardinian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


While you're at it, would you mind working out the mess with radish, radis, and radicchio? Or is it just that radicula is getting in the way? Thanks --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Torvalu4[edit]

Hi Word dewd544,

I've noticed that you have tried to talk to Torvalu4 about changes made to Romanian etymologies of presumed Albanian descent.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you won't get a straight answer from this user. I undid the changes made to sâmbure, because Torvalu4's changes were fundamentally incorrect (alternative forms of sâmbure were never - and I repeat never - simbure and sumbure).

If you have the time, please keep an eye on Torvalu4's modifications to Romanian etymologies and let me know if other disputable changes are made and I'll bring the subject to the attention of administrators.

Keep up the good work!

Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Robbie SWE: I can't help but interject, but simbure and sumbure are dialectal forms listed by the Dicționarul etimologic român (1955-68), so if there's a problem, it's with that dictionary. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "won't get a straight answer"; since we've never spoken to each other, you couldn't have any basis to say that. I welcome yours and anyone else's discussion. Torvalu4 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
it may be possible that sâmbure does come from that, though I don't see why that can be the only explanation, especially given the obvious phonetic and semantic differences. Either way, it would have had to have been a very old "borrowing", if you could even call it that, due to the shift of 'l' to 'r'. This usually happens when an intervocalic 'l' in a Latin-derived word is altered to an 'r', which is one reason why I think the Latin etymology may be plausible, since almost every other case where this happens it is an inherited word from Latin. Additionally, the 'e' at the end often results from a Latin '-a' ending or its plural; why would there be an 'e' at the end and where would it have come from if it came from 'thumbull'? (the Aromanian version is sãmburã as well, and I could see how 'symbola' could lead to that phonetically as it follows pretty regular sound shifts; plus there are other occasions where 'y' turns to 'u' in Rom. Also, the existence of the variant 'simbure' is noteworthy perhaps) Simply because it coincides with a vaguely similar sounding word in Albanian, which doesn't even have the same or similar meaning ("fruit pit" vs "button"?), doesn't necessarily prove a direct borrowing. And you're basing the etymology of 'thumbull' ("button") on that of 'thumb' ("thorn, sting") as well; I can't say I know much about the nuances or intricacies of Albanian and how their words are formed but is that etymology a 100% probability? If not, then it may make its link with the Romanian even more tenuous.
You're exaggerating their differences; the words don't differ significantly, especially when the dialectal forms are considered. l > r is apparently regular for the ll [ɫ] sound: viezure (Transyl. viezune [!]) < vjedhull(ë), zară < dhallë, brusture < brushtull, etc. As for the internal development of thumbull (var. sumbull) < thumb, phonetically there's nothing unusual; for the meaning, thumb more fully means "protuberance, knob, thorn, sting(er), prick, cleat, jab, etc." - basically any pointy thing that sticks out; buttons aren't pointy, but they're small and a type of knob; but none of that really matters. The Romanian meaning of a round "pit/stone of a fruit" isn't a big leap from "button". Torvalu4 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the only word he's edited; most of the words that have an apparent relation between the two languages have been edited as coming from Albanian. I don't know if there's much to do now really if it's just going to be changed back every time someone tries mentioning the old etymologies. And apparently it's news to me, but now it's supposedly academically accepted that Romanians migrated to their current land from around Albania?? The evidence for that is not conclusive at all. Bit of a stretch to be using alternative theories as the main source for these etymologies on this site and present them as if they're the main ones.

Word dewd544 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"he's" - are you talking to yourself? No, Romanians wouldn't have migrated from Albania per se, just the Balkans, but you're getting caught up on the history. The primary method for establishing the link is phonetic and semantic. If you take, for instance, viezure, we know it comes from older viedzure, so there's a nearly identical sound correspondence - V-I-E-DZ-U-re < V-J-E-DH-U-ll, where already it's been shown -ll- > r is common. Plus, they mean exactly the same thing. Vjedhull is clearly Albanian, because it's a derivative of vjedh "to steal" (in any case, r > -ll- is totally unheard of). It's pretty solid, and the other "alternatives" have no real support. If you can't provide a good argument for something and cite your sources, then, yes, I'm afraid I'll revert your reversions. Wiktionary can't be a forum where you dump every theory from the past and give them all equal weight. Wiktionary would be useless if that were allowed. Torvalu4 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry that I forced this discussion upon you. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


Hullo sir. May I ask where you acquired that ‘t’ from? It does not match with the Italian descendant. I believe that a more likely model is *nivicāre from *nivicō, either that or *nivāre of *nivō, though the latter (which may be either an alternative form or a synonym) is more in synch with Ibero-Romance. I do not distrust you, but this ascendant looks incongruous. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I think that must have been a accidental typo or something, because yes, it definitely would come from a form *nivicare, which would make sense. Thanks for catching that. I changed it now. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


Alabo los trabajos de vuestra merced, los cual serán muy útil debería finalmente aprender estos lenguajes. Espero que un día igualare el nivel de información lingüística de vuestra merced; he estado fascinado por los idiomas romances un poco recientemente, y estoy poco a poco aprendiendo en español y francés, pero idealmente y espero que la información que acumularé debería hacer lo aprender más fácil en el futuro. Podemos siempre usar más de los romancistas en el proyecto, especialmente para los idiomas romances obscuros.

En adición, ¿ha vuestra merced ya examinado Appendix:Vulgar_Latin? Vuestra merced pueda agregar más términos ausentes a las listas de los descendientes. Chau. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I understood all that you said, but my Spanish isn't as good anymore, so that's why I'm replying in English. And no, I didn't see the Vulgar Latin appendix until now, but only a few terms under it. That can be useful to add hypothetical words to, especially if many languages seem to have descendants from the same word. I'll remember that. Thanks.

Word dewd544 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Hola otra vez. ¿Es la ortografía de ésta correcta? Chau. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I changed it now. It was supposed to be attitiāre but there was an accidental typo. Thanks for noticing that. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Salut. Elle est épelée autrement comme « attītiare » dans atizar#Etymology & dans attiser#French. Sait Votre Grâce pourquoi elles sont ainsi ? Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Je crois que c'est la même forme pour touts les étymons, *attitiare dans le latin vulgaire. C'est correct. Chaque langue a évoluée différemment. Merci. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)



Hope that you're well! I don't know if it was brought to your attention, but the matter of Torvalu4’s edits was discussed in the tea room. If I'm to understand the input from other members correctly, we're free to revert edits where modern Albanian terms are presented as sources of Romanian words - in other words, most of the terms in that category. I've started, but it's quite a long list. Let me know if you're up for it - it's ok if you aren't cause I see that you've been busy with Dalmatian and Aromanian. Why aren't you contributing in the Romanian Wiktionary? Your knowledge of these languages is impeccable! ;-) Keep up the good work! Best Regards --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not that big of a deal to me anymore regarding the edits with the Albanian sources. I actually do think a good number of them have some potential to be true, but not all of them, and they need to be examined on an individual basis, as the real picture can be complex and doesn't always have to work completely one way or the other (i.e. all the cognate terms must be either from Albanian or from Romanian or substratum). I admit Torvalu did have a point for some of them when he explained them (some of them seem to follow regular sound shifts; whether this is evidence of borrowing or just the way they evolved separately from a common source, I can't say with certainty as of now, since I'm not an actual pro linguist and this is more of a hobby to compile data from around the web and other resources into this free online dictionary; even the professionals can't seem to agree on an easy answer for this), but I still thought the old alternatives could at least be mentioned. I'm going to do some further in depth research on any published papers on the issue later probably to get a better idea on recent theories or updates. Like I said before, it would be useful to have some opinions from people who regularly work in this field and have strong background knowledge on both languages developments and histories. And yeah, for now I'm just doing basic Dalmatian and Aromanian terms due to my interest in Balkanic Romance; there's not too much to go there. I may end up also editing the Romanian wiktionary at some point. Thanks for the offer to help though; you're welcome to change any of those as you please of course.

Word dewd544 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I've started to scrutinise Romanian terms edited by Torvalu and the problem is that a substantial number of them violate etymology guidelines, especially NPOV. For instance baltă and daltă (N.B. they're reverted now) were changed so that their origin was from modern Albanian, despite being two of the oldest terms of Slavic/alternatively Balkan origin, even in Albanian. I'll asses the terms individually - if you oppose any changes, let me know and we could discuss it here or you can send me a message. Best Regards --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I didn't even notice baltă and daltă were changed, since I was also under the impression those were of potentially Slavic origin anyway, or some other more obscure ancient Balkanic one. Yeah I think the problem is the fact that the vast majority of cognates that are linked to an Albanian term are automatically branded as coming from Albanian, whether its in a South Slavic language or Romanian, mainly I assume because its presumed to be the most ancient or "native" language in the area, which isn't entirely objective, though of course some may have that origin. Then again there are a few where he did give them a common Slavic origin, like copil/kopil, copac/kopaç, and flojere was listed as coming from the local Vlach/Aromanian language, so it's not entirely one sided and it does seem he did research on it certainly. But we should be careful about this. I guess simply with the information we have to work with now, there's no way of knowing for sure what the true etymology of each of these words is, or which came from what, but it's best to keep it as NPOV as possible, I agree.

Word dewd544 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Aromanian[edit]


I've been going through Romanian terms and I've noticed that some of them include references to Aromanian cognates. Since I'm no expert in Aromanian – although I do try my best to keep myself updated – I'm asking you which is the preferred orthographic norm for inclusion of Aromanian terms. E.g. bască. I suspect that bascã is more appropriate, but I'm not sure. Also, Torvalu4 added quite a substantial amount of references to Aromanian cognates which didn't seem to be correct. Is caš correct for Aromanian? Judging from baş, the correct form should either be caş or cash. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well there is no one standardized orthography for Aromanian as far as I know, unfortunately, but most official sources I've seen online use the symbol 'ã' to stand for an equivalent of both Romanian 'ă' and 'â' (this can get confusing since one letter can mean different sounds depending on the word and location, so that's why I'm thinking of adding pronunciation guides at some point maybe). Some documents use 'â' in Aromanian instead, but more rarely, but this still doesn't help differentiate between the sounds. And yeah, in the same vein, I've usually seen 'sh' used as an equivalent for what would be 'ș' in Romanian, but some also use that character. Also, 'ts' is usually used for what would be 'ț' in Daco-Romanian. I think it's best to just stick with this style that's as standardized as possible to mainatain consistency between entries, so I use 'ã', 'sh', and 'ts'. Sometimes I noticed 'ts' is used instead of 'c' followed by a vowel for some words, but it varies even within the sources I get, so I'm not fully sure how to handle that. I'll have to look more into it. Also, there are variants of pronunciation within the language itself to account for.
A few entries have apparently been made for Aromanian before I started adding many words, like baș for example, and whoever made those apparently chose to just use the 'Daco-Romanian' equivalent for the letter. This isn't technically wrong I guess, as there are documents that opt to use this orthography, especially ones written by Aromanians in Romania who acquired that style. But I use the 'bash' entry as the main one in the descendants and translations pages, and list the other form in the 'Alternative forms' header at the top of its page. And Torvalu I suppose is just using another way to express those sounds, such as with carons like 'š' often used in Balkan languages, but these aren't actually used in written Aromanian as far as I know, and may just be used by academics or linguists in writing about it to transliterate that sound to something familiar. These entries should be edited to the correct form to maintain consistency and not have links that go nowhere since there is no entry for the orthography he used. I also noticed he occasionally included accent marks on certain links to both Romanian and Aromanian terms in etymologies, which don't actually appear in the words themselves, so these would be incorrect. They can optionally be added in the second bracket to guide pronunciation better, as with Latin macrons, which don't show up as part of the main entry. But I don't see the need to do this too often, unless trying to demonstrate some sound similarity in an etymology.

Thanks Word dewd544 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! Thank you for bringing some clarity to this subject. I'll keep it in mind next time I stumble across Aromanian articles. Torvalu4 included accent marks on certain Romanian words, because he/she copied them from some online - alternatively literary - source. DEX always provides its terms with accent markers, for instance. I'm not completely convinced that he/she knows Romanian, but that's another discussion. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Bonne nuit. Ne devrait pas être {{alternative form of|veglju|lang=rup}} ? Saludos. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oui, merci. J'ai oublié. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


Why did you remove the Old Portuguese descendant from carrico? — Ungoliant (Falai) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought the policy was not to include "Old" versions of languages if the word is the direct ancestor of a modern one of the language and essentially the same. Or at least not as a separate line from the main language's. I thought for instances such as when Old French had a popular, inherited form vs the modern French learned form or neologism, it was okay to include them separately. But it seemed in this case they were the same word at two different points in history in the same language, which didn't seem necessary. I guess that's not a rule, but I read some other people's discussion of the issue in the policy section I believe. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Do you remember where you saw these discussions? I’ll surely contest them. BTW, Portuguese and Old Portuguese aren’t the same language; Portuguese is just one of Old Portuguese’s descendants, and if the words being different is necessary to list it, every Old Portuguese is listable because the infinitive suffixes -ar/-er/-ir became -al/-el/-il in one of its descendant languages (Fala). — Ungoliant (Falai) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
It was quite a long time ago; over a year or more ago I think. And yes, I know they're not the same language, especially since Old Portuguese gave rise to Galician as well, but I wasn't sure of the exactly policy here, since the word was the same (thought it was better to just include it deriving from Old Portuguese within the Portuguese etymology itself rather than descendants). I think Mglovesfun may have been someone who mentioned it. Personally, I have no problem with it either way. It's just that I thought it would make the descendants lists somewhat cluttered or reduntant if we were to include every Old language, like Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, etc, along with the modern versions, respectively. As to how they should be incorporated, should the overall lists still depend solely on alphabetical order, meaning all "Old" languages count as starting with "O" and appear separately from their modern descendants, or should they count as if they began with the first letter of the actual language, like "P" in the case of Portuguese? And should the modern ones be nested/bulleted under the Old version if they are direct descendants? Last time I checked, which was a long time ago, this was still being debated and I guess is simply a matter of style.
Couldn't find exactly the discussion I was looking for, but this page mentions the issue of descendants and bulleting. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer nested lists, like we do in appendices, because such a list would contain much more useful information. This is how I used to do it before I became more familiar with practice, but was told not to ([2]). — Ungoliant (Falai) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I support 'Old' languages in these sections, but not nesting. Nesting discourages IPs who don't know about the development of Romance to add descendants if they don't know where to put them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Common Slavic etymologies[edit]

Could you please add them like this (diff), instead? Thank you. —CodeCat 16:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

All right. It's just that the sources I use have different ways of writing the (hypothetical or reconstructed) words than the ones used with the proto-Slavic template here, so I didn't want to cause confusion or discrepancy with the ones that already exist, since using that automatically links to the term. For example it seems they have Cyrillic characters mixed in. I guess I will have to check the form the other etymologies from Slavic languages use and match it with that so it all flows better. Apparently the right proto-Slavic from was *veverъka based on the Polish etymology I found. But thanks for letting me know; there's a lot of etymologies which were done incorrectly that need tweaking now. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the practice here is to use Czech and Polish-based spelling (č, š, ě, c, ę, ǫ etc.) except for the short vowels ъ and ь, which are written in Cyrillic. Personally I think that is a bit strange (I would prefer to write them as ŭ and ĭ like in Old Church Slavonic transliterations) but this is what is currently done on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Linking in etymologies[edit]

Could you please use the {{term}} template, like this: diff? That would help a lot. —CodeCat 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


Ehhh…est‐ce que vraiment du roumain ? Ciao --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Hullo again. Could you please explain why you changed recons to term in this edit? If it isn’t exactly from Vulgar Latin, would it not be more appropriate to label it as being from (regular) Latin? I am confused. --Æ&Œ (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is Vulgar Latin actually, but the page was created originally as a regular Latin entry page, but simply labelled with Vulgar Latin at the top. I guess technically it should be a recon page. But since no one actually made a page like that for it yet, I switched it back to linking to the existing (normal) excambio page for now at least, since all the other descendants still linked normally to it as well. I can try to make a recon page modelled off some other ones. I believe there's a special template you need to use for them Word dewd544 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


Je déteste te molester nouveau, mais est‐ce que le ancien provençal vraiment emprunte du moderne français ? Ummm… --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


Could you use {{etyl}} and {{recons}} for Proto-Tocharian etymologies as well, not just for Proto-Indo-European ones? Thanks! —CodeCat 04:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to, but I didn't know there was an 'etyl' template or language code for Proto-Tocharian yet. What would it be exactly, since there isn't one single one for it (unlike with 'sla' for proto-Slavic 'sla-pro' or 'gem' with proto-Germanic 'gem-pro' for example)? There's 'xto' for Tocharian A and 'txb' for Tocharian B. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
You can always make a request for a language code if one doesn't exist yet. We currently have {{etyl:ine-toc}} for the Tocharian language family. So presumably the code for Proto-Tocharian would be "ine-toc-pro"; I've created it now. —CodeCat 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, okay thanks. That should be helpful. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you go back to your earlier edits and update them so that they use this code and link to the Proto-Tocharian entries with {{recons}}? See Special:Contributions/Word dewd544. —CodeCat 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The counterpart for {{l}} when linking to proto-languages is {{lx}}. {{recons}} is the counterpart of {{term}}. —CodeCat 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Does it take a while for the template to be useable or to register or something? I used that code and it didn't seem to work, at least yet. But the one for Tocharian "ine-toc" does work apparently. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so, it should work right away. It works fine on āknats. —CodeCat 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind I apparently put 'pro' and 'toc' in reverse order accidentally. I'll get back to the others and change them later Word dewd544 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


Are you sure this wasn't an adverb? PIE probably didn't have true prepositions, but had adverbs that could be combined with a noun in a certain case to express more specific meanings. Also, it's believed that they were originally postpositions instead. See w:PIE particles. —CodeCat 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It should be an adverb or maybe just listed as a root if anything. I made that based on what characterizes the descendant language forms accidentally, which doesn't apply in this case. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not a root though, not just because it doesn't have the shape of a root (I don't think a root can end in -ǵʰs-) but also because roots aren't words, and this is. —CodeCat 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't use the right word. I meant to say particle. Maybe that's the best way to describe these kinds of PIE words that can act both adverbs and postpositions Word dewd544 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I would say that the word for such a thing is just "adverb" but I don't actually know if all PIE adverbs behaved that way, or only some. Still, it would probably best to call them adverbs for now. —CodeCat 03:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


I don't think your reasoning in the etymology is really correct. It's true that Gothic is the only other attested language to keep the -d-. But that doesn't mean it's the only one altogether. In fact, linguists now generally believe that Crimean Gothic descends from an East Germanic language that was not Gothic, so the etymology isn't even right. It's probably more correct to just say that East Germanic as a whole retained the -d-, but we have only Gothic and Crimean Gothic to demonstrate that. —CodeCat 22:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing but just decided to go with that to simplify things. I guess it wasn't the best way to handle it. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are you reordering all the descendants like you did at *fedwōr? According to WT:AGEM, it's preferred not to do that, and I agree on the principle that each 'line' in the list of descendants should be a language, not a group of languages. (Keep in mind no Proto-West Germanic is known to have existed) —CodeCat 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I did that so Gothic and Crimean Gothic could fit neatly under their own East Germanic category, and then also grouped the others into the major three divisions as they're usually seen. I know there's not a proto-West or East Germanic attested language, but I was kind of basing it off the other language families like Slavic, which often break them apart in the three major groups of South, East, and West, and Brythonic vs Goidelic or P vs Q or Insular vs Continental in Celtic, etc. Sometimes even some Romance etymologies break it down by the type but I could see that causing problems as some people may be uncertain where a certain language fits. Though I have seen some etymologies use a hypothetical "west Germanic" term in them, especially if its a word unique to them, but that's not common. Thought it would make it more clear in the descendants sections, but I didn't see that page you posted until now. Word dewd544 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Holy and sacred descendants[edit]

The descendants at Appendix:Proto-Slavic/svętъ should probably be Czech "svatý", Polish "święty", and the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was in the middle of editing it and was about to change it when I got interrupted by something and had to leave. Am going to do that now Word dewd544 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


For the sake of categorisation, please be careful to add headline inflection, like so: [3]. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, please be sure to use {{compound}} (like {{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, {{confix}}, etc) as I did here. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


Your input is kindly requested here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


Old High German doesn't use the letter þ. —CodeCat 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

încheietura mâinii[edit]

My Romanian is awful, but shouldn't there only be one i at the end? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is the definite articulation of the genitive form of 'mână' (so literally, joint of the hand) Word dewd544 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatically watching all pages you edit[edit]

Could you please add all pages that you create or edit to your watchlist? There is an option in the preferences to do this automatically. I am asking this because I often have to fix up your entries. Rather than telling you about it, if you keep track of your watch list, you will automatically see what others have changed. Because it seems like you are rather oblivious to this and keep doing the same thing over and over. See my edits to *dvьrь to start; I have had to do the exact same thing (add {{reconstructed}}, {{sla-noun}} etc) to at least 10 of your Proto-Slavic entries by now. —CodeCat 13:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

All right, sorry about that then. I was just basing it off some other already existing entries to make it quicker and copying the frame of the entry, which didn't write those the correct way. I'll keep in mind to just add it that way then (which I usually do in most regular entries). I still put them in a category anyway so they would show up for that on the page, though. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology request...[edit]

I noticed that you are adding etymology sections to entries. Do you think you could do the same for the Proto-Slavic entries I have been creating, by adding the Proto-Slavic etymology to each of the descendants? It would be much appreciated! Try to go easy on the cognates though; they aren't really that important if they are already listed in the Proto-Slavic entry. Two or three should be plenty. :) —CodeCat 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankish *haim[edit]

You added a link to haim at Appendix:Proto-Germanic/haimaz, but it's not an attested word. Can you fix it please? —CodeCat 23:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought using the "lx" in appendices linked to the appendix (not attested) page link, as with the PIE entries. Or was that "lr"? Using "recons" gives it an italic font, as Old Dutch itself appears on the Frankish appendix page, but is this the right way to do that? Word dewd544 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
{{lr}} is the equivalent to {{recons}}, and it's the right one to use. {{lx}} should only really be needed when making templates that have to work for all languages. —CodeCat 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

PIE root ablaut grades[edit]

PIE roots are always cited in the full grade (e-grade), except a few roots that have no full grade. So when you add etymologies like you did to 𐌼𐌿𐌽𐌸𐍃 (munþs), please only add the full grade form of the root. —CodeCat 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

bună dimineață[edit]

Hola señor. Es‐tu certain que la forme correcte n’est pas bună dimineața ? Saludos, --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It was an accident. Thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

*leugh- and lewgʰ-[edit]

You shouldn't list both of these together in etymologies, because they are really one and the same thing. PIE, not being an actual written language, has no real standard spelling, and different linguists use different ways of writing the same sounds. But this isn't the same as an "alternative spelling" because there is no spelling in the first place, just transcription - different ways of representing the sounds. On Wiktionary, we follow a standard representation which is detailed at WT:AINE, which says that we use *lewgʰ-. That means that listing alternative representations is redundant because they really are the same thing, and they will always redirect to each other if they exist. —CodeCat 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. I know they're the same, but I for some reason did that because I noticed some entries already had one or the other, and just wanted to account for both, but what you say makes more sense. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi! I reverted your edit to Template:termx. I think consensus here is that -i- glides for PIE are represented by "y"s (as -u-'s are with "w"s). Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes that's more or less the same as the post I made just above this one... —CodeCat 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


Hola. As‐tu n’importe quelle requête à lui ? Saludos, --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough information on Dalmatian conjugation that exists to make a template, as far as I know. The language is only partially attested and rather limited. I remember seeing a site that had some parts of verb conjugation, but I forgot what it was. I'll try and look for it. Here's one link I found with a partial example, but it's not the one I was looking for: Word dewd544 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


As far as I know, the modern linguistic consensus is that Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic are one and the same. —CodeCat 16:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was referring to a stage that preceded the individual Baltic languages that occurred after the split from Proto-Balto-Slavic though; not sure if that is necessary to include, however. In some cases, Baltic and Slavic words of common PIE origin can be rather different, though usually they're pretty similar. But from what I've seen, you're right. Even the sister project Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for Proto-Baltic alone. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a fairly recent idea but it is gaining acceptance. The main point is that Slavic clearly remained unified for a while after splitting off. This in turn had the effect of making it seem more strikingly different from the rest of the Balto-Slavic languages, which made it easier for linguists to suggest that they simply split into two groups. But what really counts for a proto-language is shared innovations, and it turns out there are no innovations relative to PIE that are present in all of the Baltic languages but not also in Slavic. Said differently: Proto-Slavic is just as "Baltic" as the Baltic languages themselves are as it has all of their characteristic features (of course it also has its own innovations, but those don't count). This strongly suggests that Proto-Balto-Slavic was also the latest common ancestor of the Baltic languages. That the Baltic languages have certain vocabulary similarities to one another can also be an areal feature: languages that are in proximity to each other often share features and vocabulary. This is not unheard of elsewhere, either. It's often stated that there was no Proto-West-Germanic language, even though the West Germanic languages certainly do share features. More recently, modern Frisian has many grammar and vocabulary resemblances to modern Dutch, even though it is historically closer to English and shares many early sound changes with it. And the case of the Finnic languages is even more interesting. Linguists agree that the south Estonian dialects (Võro and relatives) were the first ones to split off from Proto-Finnic because they have innovations that can be traced back to Proto-Finnic that no other Finnic languages share. And yet in modern times, they resemble standard Estonian more than they resemble standard Finnish, even though historically speaking Estonian and Finnish are more closely related to each other than either of them is to south Estonian. —CodeCat 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean about the areal factor in this: I know that while Frisian's ancestor was originally closer to English's, it's been drawn more toward Dutch throughout most of its later history due to geographic proximity and other reasons, now being a minority language. And it seems the Baltic languages are quite conservative among Indo-European in general, and are closer in many ways to Proto-Balto-Slavic than individual modern Slavic languages are. So I guess the Proto-Baltic Template:bat-pro doesn't really need to be used except for exceptional cases? The Latvian etymologies tend to include that and don't often include a Proto-Balto-Slavic, from what I'v seen. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it really would be a problem if we just treated such etymologies as Proto-Balto-Slavic instead. I doubt there is any difference at all. —CodeCat 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I would be more careful than that. As we discussed on my talk page, the general case is not that. PB has already been done; PBS mostly hasn't; and I don't know of anyone (yet) claiming that we can simply equate them. Why not wait and see? --Pereru (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


D’où trouvas‐tu cette orthographe ? ¿De dónde encontraste esta ortografía? Donde encontraste essa ortografia? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Word dewd544 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Avestan v/y[edit]

Hi, I've seen that you've added Avestan words that use 𐬬 (v) and 𐬫 (y), but these letters are used only in initial position, for anywhere else 𐬎𐬎 (uu, two "𐬎"s) and 𐬌𐬌 (ii) are used for v and y respectively; so 𐬰𐬌𐬌𐬃, not 𐬰𐬫𐬃, and 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬎𐬎𐬀, not 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬬𐬀. --Z 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

cases en aroumain[edit]

Salut. Sais‐tu une bonne source de trouver les cases en aroumain ? Je veux que créer une modèle pour démontrer eux. (J’espère que ce message est compréhensible, sinon, je peux replier en anglais.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I’m guessing that you are silent either because my French was incomprehensible or you simply know no source for this. I was fairly certain that Aromanian sported a case system, which is why I’m dissatisfied with the current layout. --Romanophile (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I understood. It does have a case system, but I don't know how to actually make templates for something like that, so I just add the basics like gender and plurals for now. I guess someone else could work on a template. It would just be confusing given all the variants and lack of standardization for the language. Also, I'm still looking for a good resource on that. There's not much out there. Honestly, I'm just gathering stuff based on a variety of sources and compiling it into this dictionary in a somewhat standardized form to be more easily accessible, but there are still a lot of gaps and holes in accessible and reliable online information on the language as a whole. I'm mostly working on just the main vocabulary/lexicon for the time being. I'll keep looking for now and let you know if I find anything worthwhile! Word dewd544 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

WT:ELE again[edit]

In this edit you inserted a "See also": heading, 1., after the Anagrams heading and, 2., over semantic material not better located under another heading. Both of those are not correct. Anagrams appear below all semantic content and References and External links. And "Synonyms" (before translations, at level 4) is a more appropriate heading for jealous. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake; I accidentally put it below Anagrams when I didn't mean to. Also, I thought it would have fit better under Synonyms myself but since I didn't see it already there, I figured there was a reason for that and it may have been different enough in meaning to go somewhere else, but I fully agree with you. Thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Aromanian online[edit]

Hey Word dewd, do you know any good online resource for Aromanian available online? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just been using a variety of sources, though orthography and spelling isn't standardized across them unfortunately. In addition to the ones I mentioned in the question under number 5 on my page, there's Also and Some info here too, or on Wikipedia maybe. But there doesn't really seem to be any one main authoritative resource for it. And for some of them, some basic knowledge of Romanian can be useful. Word dewd544 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. You might be interested in this Megleno-Romanian dictionary. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Pourquoi les verbes lemmatiques sont‐ils en première personne ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Parce-que il n'existe pas un infinitif dans l'aroumain; donc, par défaut la première personne est utilisée. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
As an update to the original question, I found another quite useful Aromanian dictionary which actually uses the most common orthography and is based on the most common dialect (one reason why I've been changing some entries; earlier I'd been basing it on a combination of Romanian sources, which didn't use the most common dialect, orthography, and word varieties, and my direct exposure to Aromanian through family, which turned out to be a dialect that was not the most common overall and was likely influenced in some ways by Romanian, since the speakers had lived there for a long time. Basically, some of my experience with it had been filtered through Romanian sources and interpretations since direct sources are not often easy to find). Word dewd544 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

vaškas etymology[edit]

First of all, I believe we had a vote a few years ago where it was decided not to ever use "<" in etymologies again- all of them were removed via bot and AWB quite some time ago. Secondly, I'm pretty skeptical about there being a separate "Baltic" branch of Balto-Slavic, since Old Prussian is so different from both the living Baltic languages and Slavic that it seems wrong to lump it in with either group. I think the main reasons for the concept still lingering in the mainstream are politics and institutional inertia. At any rate, this is the only remaining member of the deleted Category:Lithuanian terms derived from Proto-Baltic, which I really don't want to undelete. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Displaying and linking to terms in etymologies[edit]

Could you please use {{term}} or {{m}} (as you prefer), like here? I also noticed you've been adding etymologies to Latin 3rd declension words but with the accusative following without any template. Could you use the templates there too, like say {{m|la||ratiōnem}} or {{m|la|ratiōnem}}? —CodeCat 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your edit on stat to the see also section. I honestly don't know how I missed that. I appreciate it! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Friulian days of the week[edit]

Hi, I just created a list template for the days of the week in Friulian ({{list:days of the week/fur}}). Could you add the plural form and gender for each of them? Besides, where do you get your Friulian words from? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm getting them mostly from this dictionary (which actually doesn't use the standard orthography but a different one, called the Nazzi-Fagin type from the authors), but using the standard style when adding the (primary) entries. and also this dictionary which uses the normal style, among a few other sources. I learned some of the words from a great-grandmother of mine from the region who spoke it as well. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't get into the Sangiorgioinsieme website. What could I do about it? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure, here's another link to them, and here's a version on scribd Word dewd544 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Friulian Conjugation Template[edit]

I think we ought to create a conjugation table template for Friulian verbs; so first off, we need someone who is an expert in making templates like that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's {{fur-conjug}} to possibly get things started. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that definitely should be useful. Only thing is, I don't really know anything about actually creating templates. Guess we should try to find someone who does. I've been meaning to learn it anyway at some point, so maybe I'll look into it some more. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Pick me! — Ungoliant (falai) 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Were you the one who created the Portuguese and Italian conjugation templates? If so for the latter, you're welcome. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Neither. I am working on a new template for Portuguese conjugations though. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe SemperBlotto (talkcontribs) could help out? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let me know what you come up with then or if you need anything. I admit it can get to be a bit of a hassle manually doing the conjugations each time. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Send me a list of the suffixes of the primary conjugation paradigms, and what you want the table to look like. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV You could have a look at the Friulian verb curâ for an example if you want. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
What's taking Ungoliant so long to make that conjugation template? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"Old German" in etymologies, e.g. tedesco[edit]

What is this supposed to be? Is it early Modern German? Old High German? Old Low German? Just any old German? Right now, the entries with this are all categorizing it as Modern German, which doesn't look right- especially since it seems like it should be a noun, but it isn't capitalized. It doesn't help, either, that that Duden Online doesn't recognize it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I wasn't aware that was even attested either. It likely entered Italian in the early Middle Ages, so perhaps something like a very early form of Old High German may make sense, but you'd have to find a source for that. Could have been from as far back as a common continental Germanic either as far as I know, through Medieval Latin. 'theod' differs enough from the OHG descendants listed, 'diota'/'diot', anyway, and it's certainly wrong to list it as descending from modern German, though I'm not sure how to really deal with it in this case. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In general, it's a bad idea to be more specific than your knowledge warrants. In this case, I would just use the "gem" family code:
From Medieval Latin theodiscus, from some Germanic language, ultimately from Proto-Germanic *þiudiskaz (of the people, popular, vernacular), from *þeudō (people) (from Proto-Indo-European *tewtéh₂) + *-iskaz (-ish, -ic, -al) (from Proto-Indo-European *-iskos (suffix)). Compare Old English þēodisc, Old High German diutisc, German Deutsch, Gothic 𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌹𐍃𐌺𐍉 (þiudiskō).
Or something along those lines. Also, don't forget todesc and todesco, which have the same problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense actually. Forgot about the simple 'gem' family code; that works when it's otherwise ambiguous I guess.Word dewd544 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi. What is your source on this? --Vahag (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Romansch / Romansh[edit]

Please remember to use the correct spelling in translations. DTLHS (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, which one is the correct spelling? I've seen both used, and using the 'rm' language code makes it Romansch on here, but I've noticed in Wikipedia and many other places, Romansh is used more. I originally used Romansch on here all the time until I realized the other seemed more common, at least in English language documents. Word dewd544 (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You may want to comment here. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


Qu’est‐ce que cela signifie en roumain ? Est‐ce synonyme de sută ? --Romanophile (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it only refers to a subdivision of foreign money, like the American, Canadian, Australian cent, etc. It was borrowed from English and French, I believe. Another meaning has a specialized sense in referring to musical intervals, referring to a hundredth of a semitone. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Connais tu des synonymes à sută? --Romanophile (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid there are not any. That's the only word for hundred (interestingly, the only number of non-Latin origin in Romanian). If you're referring specifically to the banknote for a hundred lei as 'sută', you can use 'sutar' as a familiar synonym. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Istro-Romanian Swadesh List[edit]

I added the Istro-Romanian word nås to the Istro-Romanian Swadesh list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Germanic/þankijaną - 'dinken'[edit]

Greetings. You added the descendant dinken for Low German. I'd like to have your source for it and would like you to tell me for which dialects it applies, if you can provide that. (I'm not doubting your entry, I just ask out of personal interest.) Korn (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe I obtained that from this site, listed as an alternative to denken. It should be found in the German dialects of Low German/Low Saxon (Plattdüütsch/Nedderdüütsch). I think I also found dinken mentioned or referenced in a few old books from a century ago after searching online. But we can remove it if it doesn't have enough other attestation. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Applying a strict attestation requirement to Low German is probably counterproductive to this project. Most dialects only have oral traditions. As said, I only ask out of personal interest, since there are one or two sound shifts from /ɛ/ > /ɪ/ whose geographical extent I cannot pin down. Korn (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


I’ve never seen this Latin word before. Is it a hypothetical variation? --Romanophile (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a typo when editing it. Fixed. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, what's your source for this etymology? --ContraVentum (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Liver is not the Largest Gland.[edit]

Please see this. Also, the Picture was specifically a sheep Liver, so I have recaptioned the image. Abhinav paulite (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Etymology templates[edit]

Hi WD, could you please be more careful in the future when adding etymologies, as you've made a few mistakes with Template:etyl, getting the language codes incorrect, which means we've had to clear up a lot of entries with bad etymology, for example here. --A230rjfowe (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Qu’est‐ce que l’étymologie de ce pronom ? --Romanophile (contributions) 05:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Probablement le Latin mi. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Est‐ce l’î préfixal ? --Romanophile (contributions) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Je crois que oui.


Hi there! I've seen you working on French etymologies. Therefore: do you know anything about the etymology of this particular word? The Trésor Informatisé says that it's first attested in the 16th century, seemingly in northern France. The etymology given derives it from a Norman/Picard word meaning “little goat” (standard French chevrette) because, apparently, the animal jumps like a goat. According to French wiktionary, the Norman form for “little goat” is actually kevrette, and crevette is a metathesis thereof. — Now, in itself one may consider all of this plausible or not, but the contemporary (16th century) form of Dutch kreeft (“lobster”) is Middle Dutch / early modern Dutch crevet. There's relatively little doubt in my mind that this is the actual origin of the word. But I don't work on French and I don't read sources, so... I'd like to take yours as an expert's opinion :) Thanks in advance.Kolmiel (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

PS: If you should check, it was also myself who asked to verify the etymology on the French talk page, but that has come to naught. Kolmiel (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's more likely the Dutch (should go first), but both can be listed as possible etymologies in this situation. I don't have further information about this particular word, unfortunately. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Given that you're an experienced editor, I didn't think I'd have to tell you this, but... can you please use linking templates like {{m}} to link to terms in etymologies, rather than writing them in italic? —CodeCat 21:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Est‐ce numéral & un article indéfini ? Saludos, --Romanophile (contributions) 12:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oui. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

De quelle langue se dérive le mot Tuone ? --Romanophile (contributions) 08:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tuone=Antonio/Antoine/Tony/Anthony, it's ultimately derived from Latin Antonius I suppose.Word dewd544 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Était‐ce un mot dalmate ? --Romanophile (contributions) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Istriot "cour" < Latin "cor"[edit]

Confirmed? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It just seems to be a variation of the word. I found it in a poem from the early 19th century. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Old Portuguese names[edit]

You think they weren’t inherited by modern Portuguese? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It just seems a little uncertain that they were directly inherited, so I felt it was safer to use the {{|der}} template for now. But then again, that depends how you define borrowings. It's a name that was clearly taken from the Bible or other Christian texts, probably in Medieval times. Does that count as a borrowing or a natural evolution of a name? It gets tricky with names. Were such names often used in the Latin-speaking world, or were they adapted later from the Bible by Christians? Plus some of the sound changes you would expect from an "inherited" Latin word are not there; they seem too unaltered or close to the original form. I should correct that and say they were certainly inherited from Old Portuguese, but beyond that, it's unsure exactly. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I was talking about Old Portuguese to [modern] Portuguese step only! I don’t have a problem with the change of the Latin to Portuguese step to der. You were right to correct those, as it’s probably the safe choice. As for the lack of expected sound changes, a lot of Christianity-related words were loaned from Greek after the important Vulgar Latin sound changes had already taken place. — Ungoliant (falai) 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah sorry, I realized what you meant as I was typing that. It makes sense that some of these were loaned from Greek. Some sources may say they were taken straight from Greek, while others put a (Medieval or Ecclesiastical) Latin intermediate, without really explaining why. It be some were re-"Latinized" or "Hellenized" later to make them look closer to the original source name? I do wonder about some of the really common names like João. Word dewd544 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Que signifie ce mot istriote ? --Romanophile (contributions) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Je ne suis pas certain. Probablement, il a la même signification que l'italien largo- large. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Resources for Dalmatian[edit]

I'm interested in learning about the Dalmatian language, what resources are you using to add these words? I can find very little online, there are a few websites that seem to have disappeared, and Matteo Bartoli's 2-volume study Il Dalmatico appears to be out of print. This summer I may see if it's possible to check out the copy at University of Toronto (I live in southern Ontario). I'd also be interested to know where you're finding Istriot vocabulary. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. The majority of words I got for it were from here, and I also occasionally used this digitally archived old source, but it's harder to use, as it takes a bit of digging around. Some of the words have incorrect letters due to errors when it was compiled or scanned, so you have to try to make out what they're actually supposed to be, and the spelling isn't always consistent throughout the text. You can also use the Italian translations that they provide to help. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Tsk, Tsk[edit]

re: this.

Do me a favor and please make sure to slap yourself for me. Dear me, another module error from a hasty, unexamined multi-item edit- what a surprise. Harrumph!! As you were... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there's just so many thousands of words to go through again now that we decided to make the distinction between inherited and otherwise. I'm trying to save time by knocking out entire pages at once, but I must have accidentally moved too fast and not double-checked the language code there. I wish there was a better way to do these than just manually, but there isn't. At least with wikis, things can always be corrected. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: who pissed in your cheerios? --Romanophile (contributions) 15:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
I can understand how it can get a little annoying having to clean up errors. I'll try to be more careful and use the preview function more often. In my defense, I do usually catch a lot of my mistakes right after doing them, and correct them. For big pages though, I sometimes miss it since I'm in a rush
If you have your preferences set to see hidden categories, Category:Pages with module errors will show up at the bottom of the page. If you think about it, most of what you're doing is about categorization, so you should always check the bottom of the page anyway. That will also spot the use of a wrong, but valid code, or parameters in the wrong order. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you just did... Seriously, though, there were several clues above that I wasn't serious- how often have you seen me use "Harrumph" in a comment? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: my sarcasm detector was in the repair shop because a Haketia speaker accidentally broke it after I begged her to quit using Comic Sans. --Romanophile (contributions) 07:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


Hi Word dewd. Please try to slap {{attention|la}} or {{rfinfl|la|noun}} onto a Latin entry if you're going to create it without any inflectional information. If you don't, it's hard to find such entries, and they tend to fall between the cracks without getting the basic attention that all Latin entries should have. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good to know. Thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Using Template:m for: *terms[edit]

Concerning this diff:

It's a relatively minor thing, but you added this in the text:


I believe this would be better, if it's ok for you:


My reasons are:

  • When you add FL text and don't specify the language (Latin in this case), it gets labelled as English along with the rest of the text, and I'm told this would make screen readers read it wrong.
  • When you format a mentioned term ({{m}} = mention) as "hardcoded" italic text instead of using {{m}}, it's the same as assuming everyone wants to see italic terms, when in fact they can use CSS to change how exactly they want to see the terms. The italic style was voted in 2007 and could conceivably change in the future. (not that I want it to change, it looks good IMO) If it changes and all entries use CSS, we'll only have to edit the CSS. If the entries are using "hardcoded" formatting, we'll have to change the formatting in all entries.
  • I believe the asterisk is part of the term, too, for CSS formatting purposes. My User:Daniel Carrero/vector.css formats some terms as large text with red background so I can easily find them. When the asterisk is not inside the template, the asterisk looks tiny by comparison.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll keep that in mind from now on. I do sometimes use that method, but I've been using the two more or less interchangeably and do the "shorter" method when I'm in a rush. But if there is a better reason to do it the way you showed, then I'll do it like that from now on. Thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to Romanian entries[edit]

Hi Word dewd544! Just noticed that recent changes to etymolgy sections of Romanian entries (e.g. viezure, barză, mazăre) have caused grammatical errors. Just wanted to give you the heads-up. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. You should use the |notext=1 parameter in such cases. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay then. I might've overlooked that and caused unwanted errors when editing. I only meant to change the part that categorized the etymology, as there is no actual solid evidence of a direct link between Romanian and Dacian, at least linguistically, and it wouldn't be right to categorize it definitively like that simply based on vague or simplistic assumptions of occupying the same geographic space (and we know next to nothing of the latter language). It may sound strange coming from a Romanian, but after substantial and in-depth research, I'm leaning more toward an Albanian origin for many of the supposed "substratum" words, as the evidence is more compelling. That's what the edits were for. Anyway, that was just a slight mistake on my part; I normally add the notext when needed. Fixed now. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:DTLHS/cleanup/bad etymology[edit]

Just regenerated this, if you're interested in helping. DTLHS (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for informing about that. I'll try to address some of the ones on there that may have been accidents on my part or are relevant to the types of words I'm working on. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Inherited vs borrowed?[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to add etymologies to Catalan entries from (except when it's a dubious surface analysis...), and I'm wondering when a term is considered inherited or borrowed. Is there a certain time period that I can use for reference? They often have the date of first use. Ultimateria (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I'm not sure there's a sure-fire way to make that distinction based on dating alone, although yes, earlier words are more likely to be inherited. Some of the earliest semi-learned or borrowed terms in Romance languages may have starting entering the languages as far back as the 13th century or so; however, the majority happened later, around the 15th and 16th centuries. Some of these ended up undergoing some changes characteristic to the languages over time, especially the early ones, or were adapted to their features. What's the earliest dates you've found on there? For example, Dante introduced a fair amount of what were then neologisms in his writings, and this played a role in the later formation of literary Italian. Many entries on that language's dictionaries are dated to the 13th and 14th centuries, but they make no distinction between borrowing or inheritance. I recall Spanish and French etymological dictionaries listing even a few 12th and 13th century words as borrowings.
I agree some of the entries on that Diccionari site have dubious surface analyses. I'm still looking for a better source, but haven't had much luck yet. We can really only rely on what we know of linguistic rules of the phonetic transition from (Vulgar) Latin to Catalan, and some words can still be uncertain even then. I'm not sure if anyone's ever attempted categorizing every Romance word according to inheritance or not; it's a pretty big task. I prefer starting with what we know as inherited from some lists of a few thousand words given in some linguistic papers, and then dealing with the rest later. Also, there are words disputed by linguists too. And unfortunately, various users keep adding borrowed or dubious words as inherited, causing me to do extra work. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That was my main purpose in asking; to not make more work for you, because countless words will go without etymology for years if you're not the one to do it (no pressure though...haha). Off the top of my head I think early entries tend to be 12th-14th with a lot in the 15th-16th. If I recall correctly a handful have claimed 11th. But in cases of doubt, I guess I'll leave it formatted the old way, unless you have any objections. Ultimateria (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. And no, I didn't mean that you were creating any extra work for me. Eventually it all should be done, ideally. But yes, most entries probably wouldn't even have been edited for a long time... I just kind of wanted to get things started and was hoping other users may eventually help out and fill in the blanks, as the wiki project intended.
By the way, another caveat I thought about for this issue was that some words, even if they appear for the first time in written texts only as late as the 14th or 15th centuries, may still be inherited, but just more obscure or perhaps used more in the spoken language as opposed to proper, written language. Which makes sense. So dating alone may not be the most elucidating characteristic. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


... for your work on French doublets. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)