エリック・キィ

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

lt-noun for some nouns that need expansion

I added the template {{lt-noun}} for the oldest added Lithuanian lemmas. Have a look at my list of contributions, if thou wish. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have expanded some of the entries and I will try the rest later. --Eryk Kij (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Also added arfa. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Kikuyu etc.

Kikuyu is on my long list to learn, and Wiktionary has next to nothing of it, so thanks for your additions! Unfortunately, I'm tied up with Yiddish and will be for some time. (I intend to try to focus mostly on Yiddish until I get reasonably fluent, which will take months at least. I'm learning it in meatspace, but adding words is helpful for vocabulary retention.) After that, I want to work a lot more on major Bantu languages, and then I'll deal with those {{attention}}s you left! Also, there's a post I made at Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits#Renaming ki where you might be interesting in giving some input. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add some Lithuanian as well, but I'm still very shaky with entry formatting. Is seimas a good entry? Is there anything that needs to be fixed? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The plural isn't attested for socializmas, but I can't figure out how to get the template not to include it. Does it not support singular-only yet? (By the way, you can feel free to respond here.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. There is {{lt-decl-noun-unc}} for singularia tantum although we can find some plural forms of the term in use on Google Books (gen., ins.). --Eryk Kij (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Many of them put it in quotation marks. I suppose I will add a usage note. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Could you please help me ascertain the right declension table for knygnešys, as well as check the entry overall (IPA, etc)? Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. š is of regular paradigm, while d and t switch into dž and č respectively in many cases (e.g. žaltỹs). Perhaps the creator of those templates was unaware of this phenomenon, then I newly created these. --Eryk Kij (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I created {{nia-noun}} and added it to all the entries that were unambiguous or had mutation information. (There are still some entries in Category:Nias nouns that begin with a vowel and need mutation information.) I hope that helps. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm hoping to create a template for Kikuyu nouns soon. I have a good grammar, but unfortunately it does not discuss tones — hopefully I can find a dictionary that includes them. As for Lithuanian, can you figure out the problem with the declension of debesis? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done And I updated {{lt-noun-m-is-3}}. As you can see I edited the page once, but I was unsure of its declension paradigm like my predecessors. Balčikonis et al. (1954) shows examples with forms debesio and debesiu, putting debesỹs as a variant. I suspect that it was the cause of the confusion since debesys has debesio as gen. sg. and debesiu as ins. sg.

Are you planning to set about dealing with Gĩkũyũ? I know that Yasutoshi YUKAWA wrote some works on accentuations of some Bantu languages including Gĩkũyũ. We can find two of his works at Glottolog 3.0, but I am unsure whether they are available in English.--Eryk Kij (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! There is a great deal of good work done on Kikuyu tone in English; I expect to lean heavily on Armstrong, once I get a copy of that. The issue is that I am not sure if any of the dictionaries mark tone, and if they do not, that will limit what I can achieve. In any case, just getting the infrastructure up and building a basic vocabulary would be a very good thing, and I'm trying to achieve that for all the major Bantu languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Noun plural form of "ijisho"

Hello, is "amaso" really a plural form of ijisho? Thank you for answering. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I checked the online reference in a few of its entries for good measure. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Kikuyu tones

So it seems you got a copy of Armstrong? (If it's a PDF, I would love a copy.) I saw the pronunciation sections you've been adding, and although I'm glad they finally have tonal information, they are a bit of a mess, e.g. at riitho. I don't think we should be giving a phonetic series or non-isolation forms (unless sandhi effects are unpredictable, which I don't think they are), but merely giving the tonal melody with diacritics in the IPA itself (e.g. at Chichewa diso). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Unfortunately, I do not^{(it is not Polish Eryk Kij (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC))} have nothing but a manual copy on my notebook which I made at a library. I know that it looks quite overwhelming, but I think it is the best way, since at least four researchers have so far engaged with this topic though each of them took different way from another to express it. I am now convinced that tonal changes depending on some contexts isare^{(Eryk Kij (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC))} one of the most important feature of this language, as Clements (1984:284) states that Gĩkũyũ "[n]oun tones vary according to the context in which the noun occurs." Armstrong (1940:176–262), Benson (1964:xxi–xlvii) and Yukawa (1981, 1985:passim) have presented the three common context - in isolation, after nĩ, and after ti. They used these contexts for their classification and I regard them as indispensable parts to learn Gĩkũyũ. --Eryk Kij (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that giving phonetic series is useful for learners (and even if it were, this is not a learner's dictionary per se). As it is, the pronunciation section is making something that is not very complicated (just hard to represent) into something that is very complicated and overlong. At riitho, you have shown various sandhi effects that could be regularly predicted, and that is essentially phonetic rather than phonemic information as far as the tonemes are concerned. The only part that needs to be shown is the underlying tones for this lexical item, namely /ɾiìðɔ́ꜜ/ where the ꜜ is my somewhat nonstandard use of the downstep symbol to indicate a lexical floating L. If we had a Module:ki-IPA, which would not be overly hard to make, it could give an automatic brief explanation of that symbol's use in this context. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I admit my lack of knowledge about underlying tones and downsteps, and so on. In spite of it, I still think that most readers might not know whether it is predictable or not, so giving what Yukawa and Clements have recorded would be more practical. Moreover, I am concerned obsessedly how to express the differences which pronouns or particles next to nouns show. There isare^{(Eryk Kij (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC))} some examples where a grammatically identical word shows difference depending on what noun is adjacent to it (e.g. gĩakwa (“my”) after kĩng'ang'i /Template:Unicode/ : kĩongo /Template:Unicode/ in the same context). And riitho is pronounced /Template:Unicode/ after nĩ, though kĩhaato (“broom”) and mbũri, which each of the three researchers classifies into a group riitho belongs to, show /Template:Unicode/ and /Template:Unicode/ respectively in the same context (Yukawa 1981: 91, 1985: 197). I know that such complexity should be described theoretically and in a consice way, but a user-friendly way would be showing concrete examples, with which nature of this language is obvious at a glance.--Eryk Kij (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot explain all this behaviour to you because I really have studied little Kikuyu, and have spent most of my time with languages that have a much more straightforward tone system to represent, like Chichewa. Kikuyu tones are offset by one toneme to the right, thus requiring that we somehow show floating tones. In any case, Wiktionary is intended to document the language, not really to explain it to introductory learners. Look at a Latin entry — it gives the inflected forms, but does not explain how to use them or what they mean. A Japanese entry — it will often give the pitch accent, but not give other words with the same pitch accent pattern or explain it. In both cases, there are links to pages elsewhere, like appendices, that can actually be given over to that sort of explanation. As it is, these pronunciation sections are quite messy and unprofessional in appearance, which is why I believe we should aim for a clean linguistic explanation of the underlying tones (that is, what's actually phonemic). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I see your opinion though I still believe this complex tonal information should be documented in detail as possible. Appendices seem indeed more appropriate for this purpose as you imply. Then what do you think about {{ki-tonal classes}}? I would like to show what kind of tonal pattern every word shows for readers to pronounce it precisely though I know that this way looks quite awkward.--Eryk Kij (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s. I should tell you that Armstrong (1940) is partially available at Google Books([1]).--Eryk Kij (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s.2 Yes, it is very like you say! This system somewhat reminds me of my mother tongue and Yukawa actually employs the term アクセント to describe the system.--Eryk Kij (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

p.s.3 Now I am reading Ford (1975) and Clements & Ford (1979), in the latter of which the term ngũngũni is represented as 'Template:Unicode' 'Template:Unicode'^{(Eryk Kij (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC))} in the way like you have shown with riitho. I used this reference there, but are we allowed to apply this way to other terms that they have not directly analysed? I am quite unsure, so I still regard class-paradigms as useful clue to infer tonal patterns and as information with surely verifiable sources.--Eryk Kij (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you're reading more modern linguistic sources, because that is exactly the sort of representation that I am advocating. If you actually understand the system, it is not hard to convert as I did above from phonetic series to IPA. Remember, it is totally appropriate to reference Armstrong even if you present the data in a representation that Armstrong would not have dreamt of, so long as it is more concise and clear. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge All right, I will do it CAREFULLY. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity for further exploration.--Eryk Kij (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

ngũha

Do you think this refers to any one specific species of tick, to any tick that feeds on cattle where Kikuyu is spoken, or to some subset of the latter, such as those readily found on cattle in Kenya? DCDuring (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring To be honest, I am a bit at a loss since the only definition Benson gives for this term is cattle tick, without any scientific name shown. There is an idiom gĩathĩ kĩa ngũha (nĩ gũtũ) (“appointment/gathering of ngũha (is at an ear)”), which depicts the habit of the creature, i.e. tendency to congregate on the cattle's ears (Kiruhi 2006:117).--Eryk Kij (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

boch

I liked the layout of the images. We could make a template of such an arrangement. There are entries (like [[monkeypod]]) that would benefit from smallish images for each of the taxa that bear the vernacular name. I've never learned even the simplest CSS, so your use of it is a help to me. Thanks.

I've liked your entries for vernacular names of taxa generally. I look at them not to review them but because I like to see how many uses of the taxa are already in other entries, especially how many are not formatted using {{taxlink}}. DCDuring (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

mũcũgi

The graphics layout at [[mũcũgi]] doesn't work, IMO. The "J" pattern is worse than a vertical or horizontal bar pattern for the three images.

More than two images seems to pose a problem for one-screen no-page-down entries. DCDuring (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring Thank you for your feedback. I changed the "J" pattern into "7" (Special:Diff/50160683/next). If the problem still occurs, I would remove one with whole tree. --Eryk Kij (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

On my Chrome window (big screen, but also biggish type and two side-by-side Chrome windows), which has a right-hand side table of contents, the 7 is no help. The definition takes up five lines. To see the problem, just try narrowing the window in which the page displays. You will see how the browser rearranges things as best it can. DCDuring (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring Well, does your browser require even five lines for the definition?! It is astonishing since I also use Chrome and narrowing the window causes no problem (with a scrollbar present), only resulting in doubling the definition line with the narrowest width. Your problem, however, seems so serious that I removed one of the images (Special:Diff/50163845/next). This time I should stop persisting in what I desire. --Eryk Kij (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What you have now isn't great either, so go back to something that pleases you.

Based on what you are reporting I hypothesize that my problem is with the right-hand side table of contents ("RHS ToC") (which I find indispensable). The RHS ToC requires a gadget which may not be widely used enough to have earned a lot of HTML/CSS effort. We also have layout problems with many elements such as declension tables and language-specific tables such as appear in some CJKV entries. I wish I had the CSS chops to solve all these layout problems. DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Romanisations in Burmese entries

Hi Eric. Could you please remove the 'Alternative forms' sections where you give an alternate romanisation? Those sections are to be used for forms of the lemma itself, which in Burmese would necessarily be in Burmese script. We can't (and don't) give exhaustive accounts of all possible romanisations, so these serve no additional purpose. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I expect users who gain inaccurate romanisations from certain older literature and want to search for actual Burmese spellings. All what I listed have attestations. Shall I provide source in each entry? They will search otherwise with scientific names, so we do not need any superfluous romanisations, right? --Eryk Kij (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

We simply cannot account for all attested romanisations; ultimately, users of any Burmese dictionary have to grapple with Burmese script. They just don't belong in the entry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I've got it. I will seek other ways.--Eryk Kij (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Request

Hi Eryk. I made an addition of an English adjective form of an African word, based on a well-known author's use of the word, and provided a quotation. My Wiktionary _fu_ is not strong, and I'm sure I did it wrong. I see you've edited this Kikuyu word previously, and wonder if you would take a look, and see if it might be at all salvageable. The link is [2], and the English word form used is muthua. Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@N2e I moved the entry to another page, namely muthua. Now I wonder whether this term has any comparative or superlative form. Do you know any further attestation? --Eryk Kij (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Eryk. Great solution. No, I do not know of any other attestation for that adjective. N2e (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved ĩrĩ and mwe

I removed the hyphens from these entries because they are not suffixes. It is also to be consistent with other Bantu languages. For example, the Zulu word bili is in an entry without a hyphen, though its headword shows a hyphen. Smashhoof (Talk · Contributions) 04:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

laikmetis

I made a link for the term laikmetis at the entry amžius. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

My reason is because of The Church of Almighty God simply. --Apisite (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Mon

I have some dictionaries: [3] . About စာၚ် , two of them (พจนานุกรมไทย-มอญลพบุรี & Mon-Thai Dictionary.sqlite) said /caan/ and /caaɲ/ but the first [-n] must be allophone of /-ɲ/. One of them (พจนานุกรม-အနုသန္) said /caiŋ/ as in Myanmar (SEAlang). I only see your source said short vowel /caɲ/. Short and long vowels in Mon-Khmer are quite different. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

PS I also have more other language references if you go up the directory. --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 You are helpful. And let me ask you one more time though I will soon have to be deeply ashamed. Are Mon terms appearing in Peiros (1998: 246-270) mere transcriptions like those of Burmese and do they not stand for actual pronunciation?--Eryk Kij (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I see 'dog' spelled as 'kluiw' for example; this appears to be transcription. The actual word is ကၠဵု and there is no pronunciation like 'kluiw'. --Octahedron80 (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Octahedron80 ขอบคุณมากครับ I realized that I was unbelievably thoughtless. By the way, most of existing Mon lemma lack transliteration. Do you think that application of Peiros' manner or direct Thai-to-Latin conversion (as in พจนานุกรม มอญ-ไทย) is problematic? --Eryk Kij (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi. I would like to tell you that we do not use inline references for definitions. If you are taking the definitions from a source, then just use ===Further reading===. However, inline references can be used for etymologies; if the source you are using has information beyond the etymology, then you can simply use ===Further reading===. Thanks! ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 00:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Kikuyu numbers

Thanks for your impressive work on Kikuyu. I just added Swahili ngiri which appears to be borrowed from Kikuyu. Does your source have Kikuyu numbers that you could add to Wiktionary? tbm (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• @tbm: I am glad you are interested in Gĩkũyũ entries I added years ago. I added Gĩkũyũ ngiri now. Most Gĩkũyũ entries I have created rely on Benson (1964), most comprehensive dictionary for the language as far as I know, but my accessibility to it has deteriorated since COVID-19, so currently I have difficulty with retrieving information about pronunciation (and further details, if exist). So how about visiting your nearby library for it? Please note that it treats n and ng as distinctive letters, so you have to look on Ng section for ngiri. --Eryk Kij (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, it's sad you no longer have access. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a library. Wikimedia Foundation grants online access to some online libraries but I can't find it online. tbm (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)