Last modified on 7 April 2014, at 22:32

User talk:CodeCat

Return to "CodeCat" page.
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Edits on Dutch pronounciation523:18, 28 September 2014
Why did you remove the Sexagenary cycle category I created?1003:37, 28 September 2014
More words with no head407:31, 26 September 2014
“Alternative forms are no longer categorised per a previous discussion.”121:22, 21 September 2014
Proto-Indo European pronounciation102:01, 21 September 2014
Category:Systematics and Category:Taxonomy are backwards118:37, 20 September 2014
Phrasebooks211:44, 20 September 2014
Unused babel boxes523:05, 19 September 2014
MewBot019:23, 12 September 2014
Crīmen from cernō402:34, 12 September 2014
Sant Bhasha words deleted123:55, 10 September 2014
-poly123:42, 9 September 2014
Arabic defective verbs711:38, 31 August 2014
Category:Norwegian Bokmål past participles218:45, 28 August 2014
User:CodeCat/lookup language519:54, 24 August 2014
mewbot mistake315:53, 24 August 2014
Status of the Finnish templates1116:20, 23 August 2014
Proto-Finnic declension301:29, 23 August 2014
Module:category tree/topic cat/Etymology522:48, 20 August 2014
Category:Ice cream322:07, 19 August 2014
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Edits on Dutch pronounciation

Hi Codecat, though undoubtedly well-intended, I believe your changes to the pronounciation of Dutch words constitute a Netherlands-centric bias / pov. Dutch does not have a standard pronounciation that covers all regions; Dutch is a pluricentric language. The recommended pronounciation of standard Belgian Dutch (e.g., the highly-regarded "VRT-Dutch") is markedly different in several ways from the recommended pronounciation of standard Netherlandic Dutch. I propose to undo all your recent edits concerning the pronounciation of Dutch words.

Morgengave (talk)22:14, 28 September 2014

Dutch is not a pluricentric language at all. There is only one standard, the one regulated by Taalunie, and it only regulates spelling, not pronunciation. There is no standard for pronunciation at all.

What is standard, though, is the common phonemic system of the majority of more-or-less mainstream varieties of Dutch. That means, specifically, that regardless of where you go, the language has the same set of phonemes, even if they are pronounced differently in different areas. See w:Dutch phonology for more details. Many Wiktionary entries currently give the different regional pronunciations as phonemes (with / /) as if the phonemic system is somehow different between Belgian and Netherlandic. But it's not of course, /ç/ and /x/ are really the same thing, so we should not write them differently if we are writing the phonemes, which concern only the underlying structure of the word (that is, which distinguishing sound-pieces is it made of).

CodeCat22:20, 28 September 2014

Hi Codecat, I never said there are Dutch pronounciation "standards", I did refer to pronounciation "recommendations", which de facto exist, which differ between the regions, and which are the closest Dutch has to pronounciation standards. Not entirely certain where you are heading towards, but it's common practice to recognize pronounciation differences in IPA, see for example English military or mandatory. Equally, the English language appendix on this makes note of the differences in pronounciation between the varieties: Appendix:English pronunciation. Opting for one IPA-recognition, and preferring the Nothern-Dutch variant, constitutes a pov. Indeed if we opt for one IPA-transliteration, we could opt for the Southern-Dutch variant as well (which to be clear, is not my suggestion either).

Morgengave (talk)22:41, 28 September 2014

I'm not preferring any variant. There is no such thing as "northern Dutch", "southern Dutch", "Netherlands Dutch" or "Belgian Dutch" to begin with. There are just different regional varieties, and choosing a single particular variety as "the" standard for either the Netherlands or Belgium, like you are suggesting, would be POV. Recommended pronunciations can be included of course, that's not a problem. But what I disagree with is labelling them simply "Netherlands" and such. That's just wrong, but moreover it horribly skews the picture that readers might get. Contrasting "Netherlands" versus "Belgium" gives the impression that the national border is a linguistic border separating these two varieties, which is not true of course. But contrasting "north" and "south" is not much better. What about northwest versus northeast? Or southwest versus southeast? There are big differences in pronunciation there too. We shouldn't be using labels that give an overly simplistic picture of things.

That said, the one thing that all these varieties generally do share, is that they have the same set of phonemes. Whether someone says /ç/, /x/ or /χ/ doesn't matter, anyone anywhere in the Dutch language area would understand them as being the same. Maybe the article w:Diaphoneme would be useful to you.

CodeCat22:51, 28 September 2014

Hi CodeCat, then you would not mind removing the Northern variants and keeping the Southern ones? I do not believe normal users would read the IPA in terms of phonemes - this is certainly not the common practice on Wiktionary - see for example cancer. Hence, most/all people would read this as what are the common and standard ways of pronounciation, and hence excluding the Southern pronounciations remains a pov. To reply on your other point: as you likely know, there is not an official American pronounciation, and in the UK, RP is a recognized practice, rather than a standard. That does not stop contributors from labelling certain IPA's as UK or US. I am equally open to be more precise. But again, let us keep the different IPA's... I also highly recommend not to continue removing IPA's - this is not constructive as long as we do not have a consensus. If need be, we can consult some of the contributors to the English IPA page.

Morgengave (talk)23:11, 28 September 2014

I'm not sure why you think I'm excluding southern pronunciations. I'm not including or excluding any pronunciations at all, I'm just removing misleading information and using a single common phonemic system for Dutch. As I said, labelling pronunciations as "Netherlands" is misleading and POV, especially when they contain features that are only found in a relatively small amount of speakers. We shouldn't be labelling pronunciations unless the label is accurate and neutral. I will continue to remove the labels "Netherlands" and "Belgium" as these are not correct.

CodeCat23:18, 28 September 2014

Why did you remove the Sexagenary cycle category I created?

Can you tell me why?

Fumiko Take (talk)12:15, 27 September 2014

The category structure is stored in a number of modules, Module:category tree/topic cat and its subpages. This is done so that all languages can easily share the same tree structure and there is no redundant information. If you add categories manually then it bypasses that whole system.

Also I wonder why you created the categories if they show errors like that.

CodeCat12:17, 27 September 2014

I'm no real Wiki guy, so I ain't real good at Wiki stuff. I've done a few discussions and seen a lot, but most of them came to a dead end, unless someone just stood up and did something. So I just created the categories, and hoped that anyone who sees the errors would help me fix them.

Fumiko Take (talk)13:06, 27 September 2014

I can help but I would need to know some things first. What parent category should Category:vi:Sexagenary cycle appear in? Also, why is the second word in "Heavenly Stems" and "Earthly Branches" capitalised?

CodeCat14:10, 27 September 2014

I just typed the terms in the way the Wikipedia suggests. You can check out these articles w:Sexagenary cycle, w:Celestial stem, w:Earthly Branches. The Sexagenary cycle category should be a child category of something related to the w:Chinese zodiac, or something related to the way Asian people mark years or times of a day.

Fumiko Take (talk)14:21, 27 September 2014

I've been reading up on this since I saw the new categories: basically, the sexagenary cycle is a a Chinese system for naming units of time that has the 12 Earthly Branches as the low-order cycle and the 10 Heavenly Stems as the high-order cycle- though I'm unclear as to how this adds up to 60 rather than 120. At any rate, the 12 can be times of the day (corresponding to 2-hour periods) with 10 days of the week, months of the year, or years. The 12 Earthly Branches as applied to years are better known in the West by their animal symbols- I believe we're currently in the Year of the Horse. Apparently, the Celestial Stems can also be used anywhere arbitrary names are needed in ordered lists, in the same way we use letters, and the 12 Earthly Branches are used to label compass points.

In modern usage, though, the sexagenary-cycle-based calendar has been replaced by the Gregorian calendar for day-to-day and official purposes, so it mostly survives as the basis for religious/folk beliefs.

All of this means that it's very hard to assign a single parent: in the West, it's mostly known as a sort of astrological cycle applying to years, but it could just as easily apply historically to times of the day, days of the week, and months of the year. As for capitalization: title case seems to be the norm in actual usage.

Chuck Entz (talk)16:37, 27 September 2014

I notice we also have Category:Chinese months. Are those different?

CodeCat17:32, 27 September 2014
Edited by author.
Last edit: 03:37, 28 September 2014

Indeed you got it mostly right. I might add that the Heavenly Stems usually go with the Earthly Branches when it comes to naming years. For example, this year is called "Giáp Ngọ" ("Giáp" is a stem and "Ngọ" is a branch). The next year is "Ất Mùi", in which "Ất" follows "Giáp" and "Mùi" follows "Ngọ", and so on. By the way, I wonder if anyone of you can create a category for this kind of page, such as giờ Mùi, giờ Tuất, giờ Hợi, etc.?

Fumiko Take (talk)02:37, 28 September 2014

More words with no head


DTLHS (talk)20:34, 25 September 2014

Is that a list of all entries which contain the sequence \n''' or \n; ?

CodeCat20:35, 25 September 2014


DTLHS (talk)20:37, 25 September 2014

I'm surprised, I thought there would be more. Thank you!

CodeCat20:38, 25 September 2014

I fixed the Finnish terms on the list. I agree with CodeCat: the list is suspiciously short.

Hekaheka (talk)07:31, 26 September 2014

“Alternative forms are no longer categorised per a previous discussion.”

Please provide me with a link to this discussion.

 — I.S.M.E.T.A.21:18, 21 September 2014

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/December#How useful is Category:Alternative forms by language?. Following that discussion, {{alternative form of}}, {{alternative spelling of}} and {{alternative capitalization of}} no longer categorise. It would be rather strange if {{alternative typography of}} did categorise.

CodeCat21:22, 21 September 2014

Proto-Indo European pronounciation

I have a question about PIE, how is *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ pronounced?

Moonspell Bloodlines (talk)01:29, 21 September 2014

There isn't a clear consensus about it. See w:Laryngeal theory. Personally I think they were something like [h] or [x] for *h₁, [χ] for *h₂, and [xʷ] or [ɣʷ] for *h₃.

CodeCat02:01, 21 September 2014

Category:Systematics and Category:Taxonomy are backwards

Of course they are wrong. Please answer on my talk page.

DCDuring TALK18:21, 20 September 2014

From what I gather from the Wikipedia articles, neither is a proper subfield of the other. They stand beside each other?

CodeCat18:37, 20 September 2014


I put ποικιλία in that category because, although it isn't in the phrasebook at the moment, I thought that it should be.

Saltmarshαπάντηση05:30, 20 September 2014

But that's not the phrasebook category. It's Category:Greek phrasebook.

CodeCat11:25, 20 September 2014

Oh dear me, auto-pilot again! Sorry to have bothered you.

Saltmarshαπάντηση11:44, 20 September 2014

Unused babel boxes

If you don't like unused babel boxes, nominate them for deletion. Don't just delete.

WikiTiki8922:51, 19 September 2014

Egyptian hieroglyphics as native script? You really think there's any reason to keep that?

CodeCat22:52, 19 September 2014

That only applies to one of the templates, and even so, you should have nominated it before deleting.

WikiTiki8922:53, 19 September 2014

Speedy deletion is for completely uncontroversial deletions. I judged this to be uncontroversial.

CodeCat22:55, 19 September 2014

That's fine. But after that I restored them, making it clearly controversial.

WikiTiki8923:04, 19 September 2014


CodeCat23:05, 19 September 2014


How do you feel about this? I suppose you probably don't agree but, if you opened admitted it I wouldn't be surprised either.

Renard Migrant (talk)19:23, 12 September 2014

Crīmen from cernō

Hello! Regarding Latest revision as of 01:19, 12 September 2014 on "crīmen" my alteration was referenced with dictionaries indicating the root cer-. Crīmen would be formed as κρῖμα. Was your removal's cause that crīmen does not come from cernō or that it comes directly from the PIE root *krey- or what? Thank you.

GuitarDudeness (talk)02:03, 12 September 2014

It was specifically the reconstructed form, *cernimen. That just doesn't make sense.

CodeCat02:21, 12 September 2014

Well, it was not my fabrication, it is on that referred dictionary (on which for discrīmen indicates from *discerimen, should this seem more plausible). But could you not just have deleted the *cernimen form instead of the whole etymoloy?

GuitarDudeness (talk)02:26, 12 September 2014

I guess I didn't need to delete all of it. From what I can see, it goes back to Proto-Italic *kreimen, from a PIE form *kréy-mn̥ (oblique *kri-mén-), but I don't know if that form can be reconstructed for PIE itself.

CodeCat02:30, 12 September 2014

Good. Can you in the least add the etymology with that information, even if just the root and its relation to cernō and cribrum?

GuitarDudeness (talk)02:34, 12 September 2014

Sant Bhasha words deleted

An entries for these words under Sant Bhasha are deleted ਸੋਚੈ ਸੋਚਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਸੋਚੀਂ ਲਖ ਵਾਰ ਚੁਪੈ., 10 September 2014

I deleted them because they were very badly formatted and would basically have to be redone. But more importantly, Sant Bhasha is not a language that's currently recognised on Wiktionary, and Wikipedia suggests that it's a constructed language like Esperanto. Languages that are not in Wiktionary's list of languages need to go through some kind of discussion process to assign them a language code, on WT:BP. But more importantly, minor constructed languages (which this seems to be) are not permitted at all.

CodeCat23:55, 10 September 2014


I think it was a mistake to move -opoly to -poly. Every word with those definitions ends not just in -poly, but -opoly. Many of the Monopoly derivates are SOMETHING-opoly, with the dash included. You also should have left a redirect behind.

Purplebackpack8923:01, 9 September 2014

Just because they all end in -opoly doesn't mean that's the form of the suffix. We have the entry -o- for this very reason.

CodeCat23:42, 9 September 2014

Arabic defective verbs

I just realized that your change to this category isn't quite right. Arabic defective verbs aren't "defective" in the sense of missing parts of their conjugations; rather, "defective verb" is here used in a special sense to mean verbs that have a w or y as their last radical, which causes all sorts of irregularities in their conjugation. If you're familiar with Hebrew, they are like Hebrew lamed-he verbs.

Benwing (talk)23:20, 30 August 2014

That is a bit confusing. Is there no term that could be used instead? If we have categories with the same names that mean different things in different languages, it might mislead people or cause other problems later, so we should avoid it if possible.

CodeCat00:39, 31 August 2014

They are called "final-weak" verbs in John Mace "Arabic Verbs" and "verbs with weak final radical" in Haywood + Nahmad "A New Arabic Grammar" (with "defective verbs" as a subtitle). Properly speaking, "assimilated" verbs should be "initial-weak" verbs, and "hollow" verbs should be "middle-weak" verbs, but both of the above references use the terms "assimilated" and "hollow". Both references also use "doubled" in place of what we term "geminate". If you want to rename "defective" to "final-weak" (and possibly also "geminate" to "doubled"), go ahead. Keep in mind there isn't just Category:Arabic defective verbs but also Category:Arabic defective form-I verbs, Category:Arabic defective form-II verbs, etc., and subcategories which place themselves underneath these various categories. If you rename these categories then Module:ar-verb needs to be appropriately changed and so does Template:ar-weakrootcat and possibly other places.

Benwing (talk)09:55, 31 August 2014

I don't know anything about Arabic, so I can't really say. w:Defective verb does have a section on Arabic though. Does that describe what you mean?

CodeCat10:41, 31 August 2014

No, that section describes actual defective verbs in the sense of missing parts of their conjugation, not in the sense of "having a weak final radical" (where "weak" here specifically means w or y). There's only a couple such verbs in Arabic missing parts of their conjugation. So yes the fact that "defective verb" can mean two different things is confusing and I suggest you go ahead and rename "defective" -> "final-weak" in all of the places I just mentioned. You can probably do this easier than I can.

Benwing (talk)11:22, 31 August 2014

But maybe it should be nominated at WT:RFM first?

CodeCat11:27, 31 August 2014

Category:Norwegian Bokmål past participles

Hello CodeCat,

please re-open the following category:
Category:Norwegian Bokmål past participles
Reason: it has a member now.

-- Cadfaell (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Cadfaell (talk)08:47, 20 August 2014

I regularly check the wanted categories list and use a bot to create any that appear there. So if you add something to a category that was deleted before, it will be recreated automatically after a few days.

CodeCat11:33, 20 August 2014

Thank you. I found it re-opened now.

Cadfaell (talk)18:45, 28 August 2014

User:CodeCat/lookup language

Since you asked for feedback, some nitpicks in no particular order:

  • You will be better off enabling JSHint options that I recommended. Especially undef.
  • You declared a dependency on LegacyScripts, but you are not using it anywhere. LegacyScripts should not be depended upon anyway. Having (new) scripts depend upon it defeats its only purpose: to make it possible to be disabled.
  • The callback function could be integrated straight into the .done() handler; well, unless you plan to call it from somewhere else.
  • I tend to keep one long-lived mw.Api object instead of creating a new one every time I need to call the API. Repeatedly constructing and destroying objects costs some time.
  • { 'a': 'b', } may not work in some IEs IIRC, some of which we might want to support. I do not really remember which.
  • If you had the form as a raw DOM node instead of a jQuery wrapper, you could access fields like: langcode = form.inputName.value (where inputName is the name property of the field). Though see below for an alternative, I think a less fragile one.
  • Some error handling would be nice. And more features, like looking up scripts, and reverse lookup (i.e. by name). And why force people to navigate to a specific page to use this? Though I realise this is just a prototype. Right?
  • xte has a similar feature already, implemented a bit differently.
  • I think Module:languages/JSON repacking one abstraction into another abstraction shows how the whole object-orientation business imposed upon Lua is silly.
  • Placement of {. Nearly every serious JS library (and some non-serious libraries) follows (Crockford's variant of) K&R here.
  • I really dislike jQuery. This may be just my taste, but I find that library too bloated, and I avoid using it unless 1) MediaWiki forces me to, or 2) I think I would end up writing a half-hearted reimplementation of something jQuery does already anyway if I avoided using it. I never use jQuery for constructing DOM — I tend to use the el function I copy everywhere (I really need to put it in a library), which is similar to newNode we have in LegacyScripts. You give it arguments describing a DOM element, and it returns a fully-formed node. The main advantage comes when you combine that with assignment-expressions:
var target = document.getElementById('mw-content-text'); // or sth
var input, button;
target.appendChild(el('form', [
	el('fieldset', [
		input = el('input', null, { type: 'text', value: 'boo' }),
		button = el('input', null, { type: 'submit', value: 'doit' }, {
			click: function (ev) {
], { 'action': 'javascript:void document.validity;' }));
// now input points to the input node, and button points to the button node, so callbacks work correctly
The code can be written quickly, executes quickly (almost at the speed of calling DOM methods directly; no string parsing voodoo like jQuery does), and when you get a bit used to it, is quite readable.
  • Also, if you use jQuery anyway, please be consistent — either use jQuery or $.
Keφr07:57, 24 August 2014

I used the newNode function before, but then I switched to just writing out the HTML directly and didn't need it anymore, but I forgot to remove it.

I used { 'a' : ... because the key is named "class" which is a keyword. I assumed that would mean I couldn't use it.

I didn't add error handling for now because it seemed to work fine even without it. It was only a simple prototype anyway, more of a proof of concept that could be worked out and improved further. I am hoping that it could eventually become a fully fledged search engine for our data, allowing you to query and pattern match against it. I don't know if I will have the time or motivation to finish it, but even in this simple form it may be useful to some people?

And I don't really have a problem with jQuery, so I'll keep using it until I find out what reason I should have to dislike it.

CodeCat17:28, 24 August 2014

You want to use jQuery — fine. Just use it sensibly. Building DOM is actually more direct — HTML has to be parsed, and parsing is costly. DOM nodes can be put into variables to be later used directly (instead of going through a jQuery wrapper object, often completely unnecessary), like I showed; putting everything into one long string and later plucking out interesting fragments complicates things. Also, carelessly manipulating the markup instead of DOM can lead to problems, like it did at MediaWiki:Gadget-FastRevert.js.

Time to start building a library, it seems. Rather easy to start: just create a gadget in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, and set the |skins=none option to hide it from Special:Preferences. Then use it just like you did with LegacyScripts.

About the fifth point, I was referring to the comma, not the apostrophes. (Quoting keys is actually necessary for compatibility.)

Keφr18:35, 24 August 2014

What would I use instead of the comma then?

CodeCat18:53, 24 August 2014

Nothing? Comma is a separator, not a terminator.

Keφr19:49, 24 August 2014

Oh I see now. Some languages allow a comma at the end of the list, I know both Python and Lua do. Since I prefer to place the actual terminator of the list on the next line by itself, putting a comma after the last element looks a bit more consistent. It's more a matter of code style than it really being useful for anything. If not all browsers support it I won't do it for JS.

CodeCat19:54, 24 August 2014

mewbot mistake

diff, not sure how many other pages there are.

DTLHS (talk)02:23, 24 August 2014

That's certainly annoying. I don't know how many other pages there are either. Would you know of a way to find out?

CodeCat12:52, 24 August 2014

Looked for lines starting with "=" and ending with "}": faccia, torni, liberi, veda, liberate, adori, viva, figli, celi, voglia, capitate, disputi, venite, levitate, levi, cremate, vada, dori, rida, desista, distingua, germinate, resista, conservate, rubate, dorma, rompete, rada, capisca, dica, trasporti, interessi, falsi, modelli, validi, impari, canzoni, limiti, abiti, lavori, accusi, ricompia

From the 8-19 dump, so some may be missing depending on when you ran your bot.

DTLHS (talk)15:45, 24 August 2014

Thank you for making the list, that saves me a lot of trouble. I'll work on fixing them.

CodeCat15:53, 24 August 2014

Status of the Finnish templates

You asked recently whether everything is Ok with the nominal templates. Well, I have a suggestion for further development. It would be good if there was a feature which would check that the inflection template produces a correct form in nominative singular. Currently it only checks that the editor has added a correct number of parameters, but it basically accepts any set of parameters. Thus, there is a risk that a typo goes unnoticed. Another useful feature would be a check of inclusion of the pos=adj definition in an adjective entry. In order to facilitate inclusion of exceptional cases, these features could only warn the editor.

Hekaheka (talk)05:30, 20 August 2014

I could do your first request, but not your second. Templates and modules can't "see" the rest of the page that they are included on. So they can't check if they are in a noun or adjective entry.

CodeCat11:31, 20 August 2014

OK. Another possible approach is that a suspicious inflection would result in a notification on the "Finnish terms needing attention" -page. If the editor finds that the inflection is correct after all, he could circumvent the notification procedure by adding parameter nocheck=1 to the template. Which ever is easier to program will do.

Hekaheka (talk)13:48, 20 August 2014

But what is suspicious? I think simply checking that the lemma of the template matches the page name is more effective at least in many cases.

CodeCat13:52, 20 August 2014

By "suspicious" I meant a case where the nominative singular and pagename do not match, i.e. the same that I wrote of in the opening comment of this chain. The difference between the two possible approaches is in what happens after a mismatch has been detected.

Hekaheka (talk)14:12, 20 August 2014

I've created Category:Finnish entries with inflection not matching pagename. But I haven't got it working right quite yet, so right now it contains many pages that don't belong there. I'm trying to find out what's wrong.

CodeCat14:13, 20 August 2014

I think I fixed it now, but I do have a question. Are there any nominals in Finnish that don't have a nominative form? Or verbs that have no first infinitive?

CodeCat14:20, 20 August 2014

Proto-Finnic declension

In reply to your comments at Wikipedia:

  1. Yes, *s : *h is not attested in radical gradation at all. It only applies as suffixal gradation, i.e. regardless of syllable closure (hence essive forms such as *hambas : *hambahe-na > Fi. hampaana). I believe this had at the PF level already been analogically extended to trisyllabic forms like *kuniŋgas. OTOH *mees-nä > miessä has been attested for "man", so this root seems to have remained non-gradating for some time.
  2. Chronologically *-t- has been proposed to be more original, but per Lauri Hakulinen in Suomen kielen rakenne ja kehitys, also *-tt- must've existed in Proto-Finnic already. He mentions a derivation based on forms where *-tt- is segmentable, with the 1st *-t- being from the stem.
    (The causatives with *-tt- are not related — these are either from PU *-pta, or from stacking two instances of PU *-ta, as in Fi. mätä ('rotten') → mädätä ('to rot', itr.) → mädättää ('to rot', tr.))
  3. An interesting idea. Hakulinen reports some similar effects from the plural genitives of *k-stems, such as *estek-ten > estetten (modern Fi has *estek-i-ten > esteiden, and the analogical esteitten). This is well into OR territory though, and it's a problem that stem-medial *-kt- > *-tt- in South Estonian does gradate (*vakto-n > vatu, vs. Fi. vaahdon).
    (I think this would even fit well into an article I am working on. It's not likely to come out in a few years, but I'll take a mental note to credit you if this turns out to not have been noticed before!)
  4. It's possible that we might need to still reconstruct *-sna for (Middle) Proto-Finnic, yes — especially since the variant *-hna is also attested from the Southern Ostrobothnian dialect of Finnish (alongside *-ssa there). I'd want to see some sources for this though, since I don't know what South Estonian does for the potentials and essives of *s-stems (as in Fi. pestä : *pes-ne-(pi) > pessee; *tois-na > toissa). It's possible that rather than a cluster simplification, this involved the influence of the gradation *s : *h, perhaps via a contamination with the illative (*-zen, *-sna > *-zen, *-zna > *-hen, *-hna).
  5. The conditional is a relatively complicated issue, as one needs to account for the Samic languages having the supposedly innovative form with *-ńćə- (and not *-k-ńćə-). I don't think though that an imperfect conditional has been attested anywhere in Finnic.
    — OTOH yes, Hakulinen reports that 1PP -meˣ and 2PP -eˣ (and even -maˣ and -aˣ with an open vowel!) in the imperfect and conditional are attested from Finnish dialects.

Other comments that come to my mind:

  • The present passive originally ended in *-k-sen (according to Hakulinen, per Estonian, Votic and Veps), with *-(t)ta-hen in Finnish being a later innovation formed after the imperfect and the participles.
  • Marking half-long consonants with an apostrophe seems confusing. I suggest either sticking with traditional t̆t or IPA /tˑ/.
  • You'll probably need to add consonant-stem partitives for words like *hooneh 'room' (> *hoonehta). The Finnish forms like huonetta are remodelled after the *-k-stems, as are many other parts of the *-h-stems' inflection.
  • If we're working with Middle Proto-Finnic, the abessive ought to still be *-ktA.


Tropylium (talk)23:44, 21 August 2014

If *s : *h gradation is suffixal rather than radical, then that means the rule is that it weakens at the beginning of every non-initial odd-numbered syllable, right? But then, as you say, it was analogically extended to trisyllabic forms, and it apparently was extended to *mees as well. On the other hand, when I applied the older radical gradation rule for *s, out rolled the illatives *kuninkasehen and *kuninkasihen, which explain -s- of the Finnish forms kuninkaaseen and kuninkaisiin very well indeed. So in this case, the *-s- cannot have been gradated and must have remained. If that's true, then it begs the question why *s was analogically gradated to *h in all the other cases but not in this one. I really wonder what rules, if any, applied to *s : *h gradation in Proto-Finnic times.

I've now added alternative forms of the passives with both *t and *tt in the ending, and applied syncope to the former one as usual. But the present passive connegative is a bit tricky. If the regular present passive was *-ksen, then the expected equivalent form of the connegative would be *-ktAk. Is this right?

As for gradation of tt < *kt in South Estonian, that could very easily be analogical. After all, *ht : *hd in Finnish is analogical as well, isn't it? I don't think you can put too much weight on that.

I don't know a lot about the inflections of other Finnic languages than Finnish and Estonian. I know that Finnish has a potential, but I thought it was a typically northern feature, so is it attested in South Estonian at all? Also, was contraction of *-sen- > *-sn- > *-ss- regular in the inessive? Given that it was regular in the potential, I assume so.

When I created the conditional forms, I assumed that the sibilant in the mood marker was *c and that it may have formed through assibilation. But I did that because otherwise, with the radical gradation of *s, it would end up as *h more often than not. If *s was not subject to radical gradation after all, then *s could of course be the real phoneme here, rather than *c. But Sami has what seems to be a precursor to *c, so is *c right after all?

I've now adjusted the non-present 1pl and 2pl ending to have a single consonant instead of a geminate. But of course, the single *t in the 2pl would have triggered syncope of a preceding *e. This would include at least the optative *-tedek > *-t'ek, and the potential *-nedek > *-ndek. But of course if the *-n- of the potential marker also contracts with the preceding consonant in some cases, so what would happen in this case? *-lndek, *-nndek, *-sndek don't seem like allowable combinations, so they must have either simplified, or contraction of one syllable must have blocked the other from doing the same. What do you think is most likely here?

How regular was contraction of *-het- (< *-šet-) and *-ket-? In Finnish it rarely appears at all, only clearly affecting tehdä and nähdä. Is it safe to assume that contraction of at least *-het- > *-ht- was regular?

CodeCat00:31, 22 August 2014

The illatives of *s-stems are actually from forms like †kuninkaasen < *kuninkahe-sen with the stem in the weak grade as expected, and hence the ending in the strong grade. The long-vocalic endings -seen, -siin are by analogy to diminutives like punaiseen < *punaise-hen.

The sibilant in the conditionals has certainly been *-c-, yes. The mood marker ,has been explained to have developed from the continuative verbal suffix *-ice-, as in ilo 'joy' : iloitse- 'to revel'.

On syncope:

  • I'm not sure what you mean by "contraction in the inessive". We have no evidence of any former vowel between *s and *n in the ending.
  • Loss of two subsequent vowels is not attested anywhere, no. I guess the analogy of the other personal endings would have kept the 2PS potentials from contracting.
  • IIUC there is no original *-te- element in the optatives: the long vowels are shaped after the relatively frequently used 3PS forms. Hence *-gotek, etc.
  • I think *-ht- < *-šet- is pretty much regular, yes. Though of course this is not found in the inflection of words like hanhi or karhi where another consonant precedes. CCC contracted forms like *kante-ta- > *kantta- > *katta- 'to cover' were fossilized already by Proto-Finnic.
  • Syncope before *k is exceptional and indeed does not seem to have occurred anywhere else than in nähdä, tehdä and their passives nähnyt, tehnyt. I wonder if the fact that all other -ke-stem words are back-vocalic (e.g. lukea, pukea) or nominals (e.g. mäki, väki) has something to do with this. It may also be relevant that these verbs have an exceptional inflection in Livonian, based largely on the monosyllabic stems nǟ-, tīe- (which look like as if they were from *näxə-, *texə- and not *näkə-, *tekə-).
Tropylium (talk)01:02, 23 August 2014

Thank you for your answers. I meant essive not inessive, sorry about that.

For *s : *h gradation, should I apply the following rules?

  • If the stem ends in -Vse- and the nominative ends in -s, then it always weakens when a vowel follows it. The following illative -s- will appear in the strong grade.
  • In all other cases, the illative -s- weakens to -h-.

Would these rules give the correct inflections, or are there other considerations? What about verbs with -Vse- stems?

CodeCat01:29, 23 August 2014

Module:category tree/topic cat/Etymology

Um, you removed an actual page from the category tree and replaced it with a redirect.

Purplebackpack8922:26, 20 August 2014

Which page?

CodeCat22:34, 20 August 2014
Edited by author.
Last edit: 22:40, 20 August 2014

Category:Biblical derivations. Per its text, it should be empty, and near as I can figure, the only to way to empty it is to remove it from Module:category tree/topic cat/Etymology and add the thing it redirects to, which is what I was trying to do.

Purplebackpack8922:36, 20 August 2014

Not at all. What you did was, in fact, to add categories named Category:en:Terms derived from the Bible by language and such, which are not what you want.

The only way to empty the category is by editing the pages it contains and remove the category from them manually.

CodeCat22:39, 20 August 2014

Um, pretty sure that's not the case, because the category isn't on any of those pages; it is categorized that way due to the module. And, since redirects shouldn't really be in the category tree anyway, Category:Biblical derivations should be removed from the module even if nothing is there to replace it.

Purplebackpack8922:42, 20 August 2014

But Category:Terms derived from the Bible by language already exists and has existed for a while now. So I'm not sure what the "rename" you're performing is supposed to achieve. As I said, the only way to empty out the subcategories of Category:Biblical derivations is to edit each entry and rename the category in the entry.

CodeCat22:48, 20 August 2014

Category:Ice cream

While I have not reverted your edit to the category tree, I believe you were in error in removing ice cream from the dessert category, as ice cream is nearly always classified as a dessert, is mentioned as a dessert in the definition, and appears categorized this way at Wikipedia.

Purplebackpack8922:00, 19 August 2014

A dessert is any food that is eaten at the end of a meal. Thus, any food that is eaten like that is a dessert. If I eat steak after a meal, then steak is a dessert. So dessert is not a good way to categorise foods as it contains things that are typically eaten as desserts. But you probably know that this can vary widely by culture. Pancakes are eaten for breakfast in the US, while in the Netherlands they are eaten as dinner, for example. So I think that the category "Desserts" is too vague and should be changed into something more objective and culturally independent.

CodeCat22:04, 19 August 2014

If you truly think that, nominate Category:Desserts for deletion, or discuss it at the beer parlour.

Purplebackpack8922:06, 19 August 2014

I just did.

CodeCat22:07, 19 August 2014
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page