Talk:kar
Turkish kar = a Neanderthal Word? edit
kar (Turkish) = kar (Proto-Basque) > karroin (Basque)... This word (which means "snow, ice") came from the Neanderthals!!! (from the Ice Age!) Böri (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- What, did you find some Neanderthal writing? What did their alphabet look like? —Stephen (Talk) 10:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Neanderthals had a language! (Some words that we use came from them!) Böri (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know? Did they leave some documents written in stone? There is no evidence of what you are claiming. No matter how many times you repeat it, it means nothing unless you have proof that we can accept. We both know that there is no such proof. —Stephen (Talk) 08:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Neanderthals died 30 000 years ago... And you know that they didn't write anything. But this word (kar) is the proof. Also ar (in Basque) = er (in Turkish) = "man, male" and you are using it in English... "-er" part of worker, etc. Böri (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense. Though Steven Pinker in his book 'The Language Instinct' does mention the concept of Proto-World; a hypothetical proto-language that's the ancestor of all the other hypothetical proto-languages! Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Neanderthals died 30 000 years ago... And you know that they didn't write anything. But this word (kar) is the proof. Also ar (in Basque) = er (in Turkish) = "man, male" and you are using it in English... "-er" part of worker, etc. Böri (talk) 09:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know? Did they leave some documents written in stone? There is no evidence of what you are claiming. No matter how many times you repeat it, it means nothing unless you have proof that we can accept. We both know that there is no such proof. —Stephen (Talk) 08:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The Neanderthals had a language! (Some words that we use came from them!) Böri (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Rfv-sense "vocative singular of karš". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
log edit
Rfv-sense "vocative singular of logs". TBNL. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Combining this with the one above, as they can be considered together. I don't think there is, or should be, a requirement for inflected forms to be verified separately from lemma forms, however unlikely it may be that someone would be speaking directly to war or a window (perhaps in poetry?). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, but are these properly-formed vocatives? The tagging commenter suggests they're not. @Neitrāls vārds. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, well, in that case, an RFV is definitely in order. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Imo they can be removed without worry as masc. monosyllables that are commonly used addressing people (dēls, tēvs, etc.) will be barely attestable with the -s dropped in voc., let alone someone addressing a window or war in this form. I think Pereru suspected this as many masc. monosyllables have black links in voc. sg. while all the other forms are blue links. I have added additional parameters (with CodeCat's help) to lv declension templates to handle irregular vocatives. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. I have made use of the parameter you added. :) - -sche (discuss) 07:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Imo they can be removed without worry as masc. monosyllables that are commonly used addressing people (dēls, tēvs, etc.) will be barely attestable with the -s dropped in voc., let alone someone addressing a window or war in this form. I think Pereru suspected this as many masc. monosyllables have black links in voc. sg. while all the other forms are blue links. I have added additional parameters (with CodeCat's help) to lv declension templates to handle irregular vocatives. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, well, in that case, an RFV is definitely in order. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, but are these properly-formed vocatives? The tagging commenter suggests they're not. @Neitrāls vārds. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)