Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Mahagaja

(Redirected from User talk:Angr)

Holz - Derivative termsEdit

Hello Mahagaja. You deleted the Related terms section of the entry Holz moving all the compound terms back into the Derived terms list leaving a message that these all look like derived terms to you.

Well, this is what I thought quite a long time as well until I recenly discovered that compounds are not considered to be derivations:

Looking up Derived terms at Wiktionary:Entry layout I was told that Derived terms should contain a list of words that are morphological derivatives. This article (Morphological derivation) in Wikipedia however clearly states that compounds are not considered to be derivations:

Derivation can be contrasted with other types of word formation such as compounding. For full details see Word formation.
Note that derivational affixes are bound morphemes – they are meaningful units, but can only normally occur when attached to another word. 
In that respect, derivation differs from compounding by which free morphemes are combined (lawsuit, Latin professor). 
It also differs from inflection in that inflection does not create new lexemes but new word forms (table → tables; open → opened).

These rules also apply for German compounds: Derivation_(Linguistik)

Die Derivation unterscheidet sich von der Zusammensetzung (Komposition) dadurch, dass bei letzterer mindestens zwei Wörter (Grundmorpheme) eine eigenständige lexikalische Bedeutung besitzen, während bei der Derivation nur ein Wort existiert, dessen Anhängsel (Affixe) keine konkrete (jedoch eine abstrakte) lexikalische Bedeutung haben.
Beispiel eines Derivats: Frei-heit → frei ist Lexem (Adjektiv), heit besitzt abstrakte lexikalische Bedeutung, nämlich einen Seins-Zustand. Gesamtwort: Substantiv
Beispiel eines Kompositums: Haus-wand → Haus ist Lexem (Substantiv), Wand ist Lexem (Substantiv). Gesamtwort: Substantiv

W:EL also says that all words which have strong etymological connections but aren’t derived terms should be listed under Related terms. For this reason, I have moved all compounds containing the term Holz into a newly created list of related terms leaving all those terms in the derivation list where I felt a bit uncertain about.

But since it is not the first time someone reverted my derivation edits I'm hoping to get with this some clarification on that subject. ;).-- 22:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think notwithstanding all the above the established practice at Wiktionary is to include compounds under Derived terms. At any rate, this is an issue that affects the entire dictionary and so should be discussed at the Beer parlor, not my talk page. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
We should indeed discuss this in the BP because the claim that compounds are not derived is both ridiculous and does indeed contravene common practice on en.Wikt. This is honestly the first I've heard of this. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 23:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja. Yes, it it the established practice to include compounds under Derived terms and I did it myself until recently. But since I read this (Derived terms) I am a bit confused, as it seems contradictory to the practice. I think, your proposal to move this discussion to the Beer Parlor is the best thing to do.-- 23:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


Hey. You're not an admin, right? If not, wanna be nominated for adminship? --Gente como tú (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gente como tú: Actually, I've been an admin since 2011, but thanks for thinking of me! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ooh, a name change. --Gente como tú (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Irish thingsEdit

1. Sorry I haven't done anything with the adjective templates yet (aside from edit them before realizing that they're the ones we're trying get rid of); I was busy for a while, and it kinda fell by the wayside. Since doing it manually would not be fun, to say the least, I still think we should have a bot do it, even if it would be a very complicated procedure.

2. Are you sure about the /ə/ in i mbliana? I looked here, and it seems that i is generally pronounced /ɪ/ and not /ə/. Esszet (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Esszet: All the dialect descriptions I can find transcribe i as [ə]. For i mbliana specifically, see e.g. s:A Dialect of Donegal/The Consonants#237 (Ulster), s:de:Die araner mundart/Wörterbuch/b#46 (Connacht), and s:fr:Description d’un parler irlandais de Kerry/3-4#p88 (Munster). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
That's strange, the book that website is based on was written by a lecturer at Dublin City University, and other sources, such as this and this, indicate that it's /ɪ/ as well. Esszet (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
It may simply be a matter of interpretation. I doubt /ɪ/ and /ə/ contrast in Irish anyway. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know, the difference sounds pretty clear to me, check those audio files again. Esszet (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you see this? Esszet (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't see what more there is to say. Different sources say different things, but I'm still not convinced that they actually mean different things. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
That's why I said you can check those audio files, and if you want, I can take this to a forum and get opinions from a bunch of different people. Esszet (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I listened to the audio files and find them inconclusive, and I can only hear them with native English-speaking ears, not with native Irish-speaking ears. Frankly, I put more faith in the opinions of trained linguists like Sjoestedt, Finck, and Quiggin, who worked with native speakers, than in audio files recorded by people who may well not be native speakers. At any rate, if you want to add a second pronunciation with /ɪ/ I won't revert you, but at least keep the sourced pronunciation with /ə/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
1) Check those sources you gave me again; they all indicate some sort of distinction between /ɪ/ and /ə/. 2) All 3 of the speakers on the Fuaimeanna site are native speakers (go to the "The Speakers" page). 3) Maybe it is just a matter of interpretation; I guess we should leave both in for now. Esszet (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry ...Edit

... for accidentally rollbacking your edit. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 13:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Apostrophes in French and BelarusianEdit

Could we make the curly apostrophe (U+2019 and U+02BC) the standard in French and Belarusian entry titles? I don't see any good reason to keep the straight apostrophe as the standard.

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it makes any sense at all to have different standard apostrophes for different languages. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
But what if different languages do have different standards? Or is U+0027 never used as an official character anywhere? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
If we made the curly apostrophe the standard for every language, would you support it? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I would be astonished if any language anywhere on the planet had defined an official apostrophe character (punctuation apostrophe, I mean, not the letter apostrophe, which could well be officially defined). I wouldn't be opposed to standardizing on ’ instead of ' throughout Wiktionary, but I do think it's a waste of time and energy. They are semantically equivalent everywhere. Writing "j'ai" isn't wrong in French, and writing "I’ve" isn't wrong in English. I think we should spend our Wiktionary time improving the actual content of the dictionary instead of worrying about something as trivial as what apostrophe to use. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're right. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Corrections to "rhestr"Edit

Thanks for tidying up the tags and stuff on the rhestr entry. Just so you know, single-syllable words with syllabic final consonants are considered to be just that - single syllables. However, phonetically, these may or may not manifest at two syllables, hence my inclusion of the phonmeic /r̥ɛstr/ and phonetic [ˈr̥ɛstr̩]. Thanks for all your contributions to Welsh on Wikipedia. I'm trying to go round and tidy up the pronunciations at the moment. Llusiduonbach (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Llusiduonbach: Sure, thanks for cleaning that up. BTW when you add pronunciations for Welsh, please be sure to use the IPA character /ɡ/, not the normal /g/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 13:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Will do. I sometimes miss it as both look the same on some browsers. Thanks. Llusiduonbach (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Llusiduonbach: If you "Show preview" before saving, there'll be a little error message next to the pronunciation asking you to replace "g" with "ɡ". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Diolch yn fawr / Many thanks Llusiduonbach (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Corrections to "addysg"Edit

Hi again. Re your comment "when phonemes are neutralized, we show the one that surfaces (compare German final devoicing for example)", see pp. 212-3 of [1]. In short, in Welsh /p t k/ represent [pʰ tʰ kʰ] and /b d ɡ/ are weakly voiced [b d ɡ] or [b̥ d̥ ɡ̊]. <sp st sg> are considered to contain the phonemes /sb sd sɡ/. Note the spelling inconsistency of <st> /sd/ and the fact that in informally spelt Welsh, you do get <sd> as a misspelling of <st> or when spelling colloquial words. This spelling inconsistency is also true of <fft llt cht> /fd ɬd χd/. In fact, I contacted the author [2] last week to check the facts (and make sure my corrections on Wiktionary were accurate) and he confirmed that phonemically <sp st sg> are /sb sd sɡ/. He even favours representing them as [sb sd sɡ] phonetically. Llusiduonbach (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But there's no phonological reason to believe that what surfaces as [st sp sk] in Welsh is underlyingly /sd sb sɡ/. In that context there isn't even alternation with [d b ɡ]. It makes no more sense in Welsh than it would in English to say that desk is underlyingly /dɛsɡ/. The only reason to treat them as underlying voiced/lenis at all is the spelling, which is of course irrelevant to phonology. Nevertheless, looking through other papers on Welsh phonology, I notice that other authors agree with you, so I'll let it go, but it still strikes me as utterly foolish. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point. This made me think whether there was any real justification for the practice, and I've thought of some minimal pairs (using a southern accent):
màs caer /masˈkai̯r/ ~ màs gair & masg aur /masˈɡai̯r/
gwell twyn /ɡwɛɬˈtʊi̯n/ ~ gwell dwyn & gwellt ŵyn /ɡwɛɬˈdʊi̯n/
maes teg /mai̯sˈteːɡ/ ~ maes deg & Maesteg /mai̯sˈdeːɡ/
My point is both final examples sound exactly the same and are also distinct from the previous. You can't transcribe the final examples with /sk, ɬt, st/ without having to change the initial examples to something like /skʰ, ɬtʰ, stʰ/. Llusiduonbach (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but even that's not really different in English: the quality of the unstressed vowel really is the only thing distinguishing the sky from this guy ([ðɪsˈɡ̊aɪ] vs. [ðəsˈɡ̊aɪ]), but that's still no reason to assume underlying /sɡaɪ/ for sky. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
True. I too would like to know why so many authors go with the above system, but I don't have a deep enough understanding of phonology to enable me to work it out. Thanks again for taking the time to comment and help me understand things a little better. Llusiduonbach (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
One article I read mentioned that sb st sg are treated as /s + b/, /s + d/, and /s + ɡ/ in cynghanedd and other alliterating poetry, so that may provide some evidence. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

PGmc *strētōEdit

How does Latin strāta become *strētō in Germanic ? Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Germanic didn't have a long ā except as a contraction of aja, its earlier ā having merged with ō (which is why the feminine thematic ending is ). Its long ē was quite open, though, probably /ɛː/ or /æː/ (earlier works even transcribe it *ǣ), so the vowel of the root of strāta was reassigned to that vowel. All that said, however, PGmc ē ("ǣ") did become ā in West Germanic, and since strāta was only borrowed into West Germanic (it doesn't appear in Gothic, and the Scandinavian words are loanwords from West Germanic), it probably really was pronounced strātō by the time of the borrowing. The problem is just that we don't recognize a Proto-West Germanic language here, so we have to take things back to Proto-Germanic, and ē is how we transcribe the vowel corresponding to West Germanic ā. So I guess *strētō is sort of anachronistic, but it's what conforms to our conventions. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
But isn't it more accurate to say: Proto-Germanic didn't have a long ā inherited from PIE ? I think that in borrowed terms, especially from Latin, they could work out the sound as-is. It just seems incredible to me that they would change ā to ē to fit a rule applicable to normal development from PIE. Leasnam (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said, at the time of the borrowing it probably really was /aː/, because by that point the ē inherited from PIE was itself pronounced /aː/. I suppose it had merged with the rare ā from *aja anyway. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay, so should we leave it *strētō or maybe change it back to *strātō/*strāta ? Leasnam (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not *strāta; it was clearly assimilated into the feminine ō-declension. I guess *strātō would be OK, especially if when the entry is created it's labeled {{lb|gem-pro|West Germanic}}. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you ! Leasnam (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


There is no phonemic difference between /ɑ/ and /ɒ/ either, but we still use them to distinguish UK from US accents. I follow the OED and British Library in using /a/ for the TRAP vowel in British English (which is really much closer to the phonetic reality). But anyway this is a long-running debate here so ideally editors should not try to force the issue by changing existing information. Ƿidsiþ 11:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But we aren't the OED or the British Library. We have our own conventions at Wiktionary, which until relatively recently didn't include using /a/ for RP. And in fact the vowel that most educated Southern British speakers use (for example, in the sound file at chav) is phonetically closer to [æ] than it is to [a]. The only reason /a/ has become popular in recent British publications is that it's typographically easier, not that it's phonologically or phonetically more accurate. We should avoid it in RP because it's so very different from the true /a/ that's found in accents like Eastern New England (for PALM/BATH/START) and Scotland (for TRAP/PALM/BATH), or for that matter the starting point of PRICE in RP. The OED doesn't make an effort to transcribe different accents of English, but we do, which means we have to be more careful in how we transcribe them. (That's why I eventually gave up my opposition to using /ɹ/ instead of /r/ in English transcriptions.) Incidentally, there is a phonemic difference between GenAm /ɑ/ and RP /ɒ/, because the former is also used in PALM words, while the latter isn't (in GA, father and bother have the same vowel, but in RP they don't). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 11:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
In fact the OED *does* distinguish between different countries' accents, and they continue to use /æ/ when transcribing US English. The change to /a/ is of course not driven by typographical convenience, but by the argument that British English has shifted so that the TRAP vowel in most of the country is much more like the Scottish vowel than the old-fashioned RP pronunciation. This argument has been made forcefully (and in my opinion conclusively) by Clive Upton, and it was his suggestions that were adopted by the OED (and others). Ƿidsiþ 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
And yet when I hear the British pronunciation in the audio file at chav and my own American pronunciation in the audio file at chavs, I hear no significant difference in the vowels. Of course many Americans do have a much higher TRAP vowel than most Brits, but that isn't so much because the British vowel has moved significantly south of /æ/ as because the American vowel (for many people, especially from the Inland North and Northeast) has moved north of it, to something like [eə̯]. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a bit of both. Even John C Wells – who is the biggest defender of the older status quo /æ/ – has conceded that "It is well known that the quality of the RP bat vowel has changed since the 1930's. It is now more similar to 'cardinal [a]' than it used to be". For many of us Brits this is one of the most conspicuous differences in UK/US pronunciation (as well as between modern speech and "old-fashioned" 1940s BBC speech) and it's at best a bit confusing when the symbol is the same. Anyway this argument has been rehearsed a hundred times here, all I wanted to suggest is that until there is a clear consensus it's politer if we don't go around making these changes unilaterally. Ƿidsiþ 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
It's amazing to me that "one of the most conspicuous differences in UK/US pronunciation" to British speakers is something that Americans—even trained phonologists like myself—can barely detect, unless the American accent you're comparing your own pronunciation to is one of the ones with thorough æ-tensing. And I'm sorry if it seems impolite for me to be unifying the transcriptions, but it really rubs me the wrong way to see TRAP words transcribed differently for RP and GenAm when I know that if I were to hear a recording of someone saying The cat sat on the mat I wouldn't for the life of me be able to tell you if he was British or American. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
That's incredible to me! I think a single word "man" would usually be enough. I don't think you're being impolite, and I understand the impulse to unify where appropriate, but it also rubs me up the wrong way to so often have this conversation about how British English should be represented with people who do not even speak British English. For me, the /æ/ realisation is something I associate either with American, or with very extreme/old-fashioned forms of RP – you often see here that when cartoonists, say, want to parody the accent of the royal family they write this sound as <e> – for example "demmit". And yes, partly it's because older RP and modern American are in fact more close than /æ/, but another part of it is that most modern British accents are considerably more open. I personally think that using /a/ and /æ/ is a good way of representing this distinction. Ƿidsiþ 15:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, man is more likely to be different because there's more tensing in AmEng before nasals than before oral stops. Even California English, which also lowers /æ/ toward [a] before most consonants, has tensing/raising before the nasals. And I don't know how accurately the actors in The Crown portray old-fashioned RP, but the TRAP vowel I heard when I watched the show is something I would transcribe with [ɛ], at best [ɛ̞], not with any kind of [æ] at all. And you're right that I don't speak British English myself, but as I live in Germany I probably have more contact with it now than with American English: for the past 20 years the majority of my English-speaking friends have been speakers of British English (though not necessarily educated Southern British). So I do hear a lot of British English, and I like to think I have a good ear and that my years studying phonology and phonetics stand me in good stead. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I think what we need is an unbiased tie-breaker where people who don't speak any variety of English listen to the American pure non-tensed short a and the Southern British short a and make the decision for us. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Or better yet a statistical analysis of a representative sample of spectrograms. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Is that "show" parameter in the invoke:family tree also to hide/collapse the tree? How to change? If not, is there a way? Sobreira ►〓 (parlez) 14:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I think it's there to show language families and their corresponding protolanguages separately. I'm not really sure, as I don't know how to script modules. You could ask at Module talk:family tree. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your pizza edit.Edit

Hi. I am agree that "ts" is not really an afficate, but I think you shouldn't erase both Recieved Pronunciation and General American pronunciations(I mean, combining them into one). I think the two must be there. FanNihongo (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Why? There's no significant difference between them. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good point, I am not sure if I must accept it in this case. But well, now I will answer to you question: Why? because I think that it is the more correct way to do the things as Received Pronunciation and General American are two different dialects of the same language.
Besides you have written to the user "Darxus" this "I've cleaned up the example words in your table." including pizza. Changing this "t͡s" into this "ts", all correct until this point. But you did also did what I've explained above, which seems to me like something wrong and a contradiction because I clearly see that in the English pronunciation appendix the "i" in Received Pronunciation and in General American are different.
And it is not the only place that say they are different. Here Recieved Pronunciation it says that RP has short and long vowels. And here General American it says that vowel leght is not phonemic.
I hope I've made my point clear. FanNihongo (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It's true that vowel length isn't phonemic in GenAm as it is in RP, but I feel like the difference is so minimal in the case of /iː/ it's hardly worth writing two different transcriptions for. In a word like beater, on the other hand, where we have to transcribe GenAm and RP separately because of the /ɚ/ vs. /ə/ difference, then I'd probably leave the length mark out of the GenAm line and write GenAm /ˈbitɚ/ vs. RP /ˈbiːtə/. So I'm not saying it's wrong to transcribe the GenAm word as /ˈpitsə/, but rather that having separate lines for RP and GenAm in a word like that suggests a more significant difference than actually exists. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Very good, thanks for your explanation. FanNihongo (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

IPA greekEdit

Dear Mahā @Mahagaja:. Thank you for your corrections (prosody marks at ἐρχόμενα forms). I copy and use (as guide). Question about greek IPA: (seeing your vi.θizˈme.nos correction). Is it 'obligatory/a general policy' to mark syllable boundaries? I omit them when I am unsure of the onsets and codas and all that (I am NO phonetician). At -zmenos words, I tend to say (i'm a native speaker) .ˈzme.nos but I wonder if it is also: vi.θi-z-ˈme.nos. Most dictionaries/textbooks I have seen, avoid the problem altogether by writing: viθιzménos. Same uncertainty with (-γκ- /ŋˈɡ or ˈŋɡ/). I am looking into this (contacting greek phoneticians, but I predict their answers sibyllic). I do mark them when reader might be confused: e.g. /a.i.ði.a.ˈzme.nos/ not /ai.ðʝa.ˈzme.nos/. P.S. I love your zombie language. Why not publish it? We already have 3 attestations!! sarri.greek (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek: No, syllable boundaries are not obligatory, and if I'm honest I find them kind of misleading, especially in languages like English that often don't have unambiguous syllable boundaries. All I did at βυθισμένος was use {{grc-IPA|period=byz2}} to automatically generate the 15th-century Constantinopolitan pronunciation, then pasted that in as the modern Greek pronunciation. If you as a native speaker feel that the syllable boundary is in the wrong place, feel free to change it, or to remove the syllable boundaries altogether. As for zombie language, I do find some hits for it at Google Books, but not being used in the sense I defined on my user page. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mahagaja".