Alarichall

Arabic page titles

may not contain diacritics. Also for Lane’s Lexicon use the template {{R:ar:Lane}} with |page= or |pages= to keep up with our standards. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Fay Freak! What I don't quite get is how we treat redlinked words that have diacritics. Should they be linked to a specific section of a page that does not itself have diacritics? Alarichall (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

You link by wrapping in templates, for example {{m|language code|word}} or {{l|language code|word}} (they differ only by the first template italicizing) and as the server knows its Arabic if you use the code “ar” the diacritics are stripped from the link by the server to link to the correct page. If there are multiple words on a page one can sometimes link with IDs, for example by deploying {{senseid}} at a sense as for example on بر and then linking with the parameter |id=. But there are rarely enough different sections to make this to be recommended. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Old English edits

Eala mann! I heard you're new to editing the Old English pages, and I can think of a few ways to improve your edits.

First of all, you ought to cite who a quote is by, which work they wrote it in, and what year it was written, if possible. People always cite that information with Modern English authors. Nobody would say, quote Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing and then only cite that they found the quote in Webster's Dictionary or "The Big Book of Quotations, 1896."

Second, I think it's clumsy to translate Old English into Early Modern English. I guess people figure that since Old English is old, the translation should be old too. But Old English wasn't old to the Anglo-Saxons; to them it had all the familiarity and clarity that Modern English has to us. That aspect of their language ought to be translated just as much as the literal sense of the words. When I see an OE sentence translated super-literally into old-fashioned Modern English, with words like selfcwalu and wēnan rendered as "self-slaying" and "ween," I think, wait a minute, the Anglo-Saxon who wrote that sentence was presumably using his language in an ordinary way, or at least saying something thinkable. So how can you represent it in Modern English with something no living person would actually say?

Third, most Old English entries have a fairly regular distinction between quotes from medieval Anglo-Saxons, which are cited as "quotations," and new sentences that people (mostly me) composed in the modern day, which are cited as "usage examples." Imo it's a useful distinction and you should maintain it like I do.

Ic eac wundrode hwæðer þu cuðe þis geþeode.

Thanks! Hundwine (talk) 07:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Eala ic nu afand þæt þu eart scolcræftiga lol

Þæt is, academisc. Ic red þine boc for feawum wicum, Ielfe on Angelseaxena Lande; heo wæs þancbæru.

Hu biþ hit to gecneordlæcenne oþþe to lærenne Englisc? Wiþ butan anne oðerne mann ic spræc se þe þæt dyde wiþ his bileofan. Hætst þu þine leorneras þæt an þæt hie þis geþeode wenden oþþe writaþ hie æfre þing mid heora agnum wordum? Hundwine (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hūru is mīn blǣd wīde gesprungen! Hit wæs geāra iū þæt ic þā bōc geworhte... Ic þancige þē þæt þū hīe rēde. Micel gamen is mē leorneras tō lǣrenne be ealdum geþēodum, swā ēac is þē, þēah þe monige georne ne swincen. Þā ic self wæs leornere, þā hwīlum wordum ic wrāt on Englisc, ac hēr on Brytene ne witon scōlcnihtas wel be stæfcræfte ond fēawe sind þā tīda hwanne ic mæg Englisc getǣcan. For þām nis meahtelic þæt mīne leorneras on Englisc wrītaþ. Alarichall (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Þæt is dysig þæt þine leorneras ne cunnon on Englisc writan, hwæt þe man sceal maran fierst lætan þæt þu hit lære. Me þyncþ þæt ælcum menn beo betere þæt he Englisc write þonne he ana ræde. Þonne man writt, þonne þencþ he eac dædlice mid his agnum wordum, na þrowigendlice mid oðres mannes. Fela worda and wisena ætiewaþ foroft on þæs mannes mode þe he seldan gesihþ on ealdum gewritum. To bysne, hwær on gewritum wolde ic metan þæt word "beallucas"? Fulneah nahwær, ac þæt word ic cann for þon þe mec lyst be beallucum writan.

Ic geseo eac þæt þu canst Islendisc. Soðlice ic wundrode hwæthwugu þæs geþeodes, hwæðer man bruce þæs werlican cynnes be uncuðes hades mannum, þe nawðres cynnes. Swelce gif hwa hlude cnocaþ þine duru and þu nast hwa hit sie, oþþe wer oþþe wif, cwist þu þonne Þú ert hávær oþþe Þú ert hávært? Ic red þæt be gemengedra hada heape man ne brycþ nawðres cynnes, ac uncuðes hades manna þa bec swigiaþ.

Æftergewrit: Ic hopige þæt þe ne sie laþ þæt ic þine gedwolan geryhte! Hundwine (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Er, do you normally go around other people's talk page comments correcting the spelling and rewriting them in your own style...? Alarichall (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(But interesting that OE doesn't use second-person plurals for singular reference: I confess that I hadn't noticed, though now I think about it, Beowulf happily chats to Hrothgar in the second-person singular. Honorific second-person plurals are so well embedded in Old Norse that I just assumed they were a Germanic feature. Alarichall (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC))

Ic ne "edwrat þine cwidas on mine agne wisan," ac ic geryhte gedwolan. Nis hit min wise, ac is Angelseaxena. Ac gea, me þyncþ þæt þe sie hiwcuðre Islendisc/Ealdnorðisc (þæt is "Denisc" on ealdum gewritum) þonne þis geþeode?

Gif þæt swa sie, I was wondering something about Icelandic. Do you use masculine for someone of unknown gender, or neuter? Like if someone knocks on your door really loud and you don't know whether they're a man or a woman, do you say Þú ert hávær or Þú ert hávært? I've read that you use neuter for mixed-gender groups, but the studies I read don't mention people of unknown gender. Hundwine (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously we rewrite each other's prose in Wikimedia articles all the time, which is how Wikimedia works, but I think things get weird if you start rewriting people's posts on talk pages, no matter how much you disapprove of their grammar... I don't mind my errors being pointed out, of course; but given a choice between displaying my dodgy, Icelandic-influenced Old English in public and being made to sound like Ælfric of Eynsham, I would choose the former. These dark corners of gendering in Icelandic (and Swedish, which I know a bit) are always a headache; in real life, Icelandic doesn't even always use neuter forms for mixed-gender groups. I'm fairly confident that if you want to describe someone knocking at your door and you don't know their gender, you either assume that you know, phrase the question so that you don't have to know, or ask first, but I welcome comments from people who have to deal with this situation more often than me... Alarichall (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wenst þu þæt ic write swa swæ Ælfric æt Egnesham lol? (Þy læs þe þynce þæt ic nu dwelode, þæt word ham wæs endungleas on anfealdum forgiefendlicum.) Hundwine (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Eala Ælric!

Wast þu hwæðer ic æfre meahte ænig feoh geearnian þurh þæt þe ic þis geþeode cann? Ic aþohte larboc to writenne, ac ic nat hwæðer hie ænig mann furðum rædan wolde þeah heo full god wære. Hundwine (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Eala eft!

Þu canst Islendisc, na soþ? Ic wundrode, hæfst þu ænigne ræd hu hit man betst leornian meahte? Hundwine (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Using templates

Hi Alarichall. When creating etymologies, please take note of how other entries are formatted, making use of templates like {{m}} and {{cog}}. See Wiktionary:Etymology and Category:Etymology templates. We also have a many premade reference templates, like {{R:OED Online}}. See Category:English reference templates. Many thanks. {{victar|talk}} 23:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, victar. That's helpful! Alarichall (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

PS. I'm not sure why you've reduced the precise definition of ōra that I included to just 'hill'? Research in recent decades has shown that Old English hill-terminology really was very specific. Why would we not want to represent that? Alarichall (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

غنا

Hi. I noticed you added the form-I verb غنا with root غ ن ي. I can't seem to find it in any online dictionary, it has either other form I, غَنِيَ (vowel paradigm is i-a instead of a-a), with its neaning restricted to "to be opulent/rich/wealthy", or غنّى of form II. Please recheck/double-check your entry just in case. I don't have that French-Arabic dictionary, unfortunately. Sorry for disturbing, and thank you for the contribution Fixmaster (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much, @Fixmaster! You're right that I had the vowel paradigm wrong: I really appreciate you checking! By the way, you can find Kazimirski's Arabic dictionary at https://archive.org/details/dictionnairearab01bibeuoft (vol. 1) and https://archive.org/details/dictionnairearab01bibeuoft (vol. 2). Alarichall (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

If you also provided the numbers of the pages, really only |volume= and |page= / |pages=, which you appear to have in front of you (as I don’t even know a text-based Kazimirski equalling Lane’s Lexicon that exists on the web by the efforts of multiple proofreaders), @Fixmaster would have found the Archive Project link by himself perhaps. I like it when one can go to a page and compare the contents of other dictionaries with a click, that’s why I am even motivated to reference them on root pages; this is also true for any referenced newer book as it will go out of copyright and be accessible this way somewhere. Also Fixmaster, if you have not noticed, Kazimirski is found below on ejtaal.net and is thus accessed very quickly, unlike {{R:ar:Freytag}}, which has almost identical content due to being based on the same medieval dictionaries (as are {{R:ar:Lane}} and {{R:ar:Steingass}} but aren’t organized by the same principle) but being in Latin is often clearest to me so I actually open the PDFs (cut together with cpdf due to two pages missing in the better scans). Slowly we include them all but then editors will still have to recheck the classical dictionaries; we have it with even supposedly well-known English words being defined in questionable fashions during the mid-2000s transcription times; and with translating what has been medieval glosses in a non SAE-language the error margin is even greater. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Fay Freak. It's a fair criticism that I am quite slack with providing references when editing Wiktionary. I should do better! Alarichall (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)