WelcomeEdit

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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@Austronesier Hi Austronesier. I've seen that you've contributed writing the article about the labiodental nasal in en.wikipedia, so maybe you an help me with this doubt of mine. I was wondering why in the Help:IPA pages for languages (such as Corsican or Sardinian) where ɱ is an allophone of m/n before f and v the symbol ɱ isn't used but replaced by a wrong symbol m, while in the same Help:IPA pages for the same languages where also ŋ is an allophone of n/m before k and g the symbol ŋ is used instead. Don't you think this is a wrong and useless distinguo? If it was for simplicity, then also ŋ should be transcribed as n (since in those languages this sound can't be found elsewhere). But this would make the transcription less accurate, then why doesn't ɱ have a place of its own in the list? It's weird to me such a different treatment... I thought you could enlighten me about this issue. Thank you if you will! Coivioco (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

panduEdit

@Austronesier Hello Austronesier. I've seen that you've reverted previous edit about pandu, because it seems suspicious. However, some Sanskrit loanwords in Indonesian are based on association of character in literature (especially Mahabharata). For example, sengkuni means person who like to agitate which is loanword from शकुनि (śakuni), literally means bird, but Shakuni is a character in literature who agitate Duryodhana. In pandu, Pandu is character who live in forest and, of course, has scouting skills, although पाण्डु (pāṇḍu) literally means yellowish white, white, or pale. —Xbypass (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Xbypass: The word pandu is found in Wilkinson's Malay-English dictionary (thus pre Agus Salim) with the meanings:
  • a guide
  • a pilot
  • the leader of a dance or first dancer
I am not sure how this really relates to Pandu. Wilkinson did not link it to Pandu, although he marked a lot of Sanskrit loanwords as such in the dictionary. De Casparis also does not list pandu among loans from Sanskrit. Anyhow, I'll the entries as they are, but keep my eyes open for a source for the etymology of pandu. –Austronesier (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of Tagalog 'sarap'Edit

Hi, @Austronesier, I saw your edit in the entry sarap where you put the etymology as a borrowing from Malay. May I ask what your basis is for this? It's because I know of no sources saying such. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mar vin kaiser! Apart from the fact that it is pretty obvious (Malay d ~ Tagalog r mostly occurs in loans; also Tagalog a ~ Malay schwa is indicative of a loan, since the regular reflex of PMP schwa is i, or u in certain environments), it is also given in Potet's Tagalog Borrowings and Cognates. I'm not convinced of all of Potet's etymologies, but Tagalog sarap < Malay sedap is straighforward. Also, there is no PMP reconstruction *sadəp (or was it intended as *sədap?). Borrowings into neighboring languages like Sundanese sədəp point at Proto-Malayic *sədəp, but probably nothing deeper than that (NB the Sundanese word is borrowed; a cognate should have become seudeup [sɨdɨp]).
I'll add Potet's book as Further reading. –Austronesier (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Mutation/Lenition/g- prefix in NHEdit

Hello! I'd like to ask about the g- prefix you mentioned in Tabaru. A lot of people call it g- prefixation (Kotynski 1988, Perangin Angin 2018 for Pagu (pg. 132), etc.). But, Kotynski 1995 calls it N- prefixation for all of North Halmaheran. And, Hayami-Allen (pg. 113) describes the process as "lenition", while mentioning that the process may historically derive from a nasal prefix. Do you have any thoughts? For entries like demo, I'd rather write something better than just "from temo", but I'm not sure what I should write instead. Alexlin01 (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: I really don't know the best solution here. Kotynski (1995) shows that there is some variation in the realization with vowel-initial stems (some have g- only, some ng-, some have both), so probably we should probably decide case by case. I think an overt affix is the better choice for Wiktionary than abtract processes like mutation/lenition which can only be captured in prose or with abstract affixes like N-. So for Galela, it would be g-, for Sahu ng-; for Tabaru, I would also stick to g- (following Kotynski 1988). Maybe we can add ng- as an overt allomorph of g-, but for actual mutation, we could still write demo < g- + temo (using the af-template).
And no, unfortunately there is no English translation of Fortgens (as far as I know). –Austronesier (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I guess I can't really speak for the rest of NH (not that I can speak much for Ternate), but perhaps we should treat it as two processes? One is a derivational prefix, creating one word from another (kuraci (yellow) -> guraci (gold)). The other appears to be mutation: si- + oma (full) -> sigoma (to make full, to fill), but not si- + goma (which is not attested as a word in Ternate). I guess what I'm trying to show with this is that, in the second process, g- prefixation is a phonological but not morphological process (mutation), and in the first process, it's both (an actual derivational prefix).
So, for guraci, I would write "From g- + kuraci". But, for sigoma, I would like to write something like "From si- + oma with initial mutation". What do you think? Alexlin01 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh and! I see that some of the Austronesian languages have prefixes like maN-. I think (at least for Ternate) that N- would be the best prefix to use. Not only do some vowels take ng-, but w and h take ng- as well (ngosa <- wosa, ngongoru <- horu) and some h take ny- too (nyonyohi <- hohi) (those h that derive originally from y, which is honestly such a strange development). Alexlin01 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexlin01: Hmm... so N- and initial mutation do the same thing, the only difference being that the former can appear by itself, while the latter only happens in combination with other prefixes? I find this a bit over-atomistic, but that's just me.
There are a number of verbs in Tabaru which have g-/mutation with and without si-, e.g. tumunu 'dive', dumunu 'come to surface', sidumunu 'dive with'. Clearly, sidumunu is directly derived from tumunu and not from "intermediate" dumunu, so sidumunu is not si + [g- + dumunu]. But saying "from si- + tumunu with initial mutation" would imply something like this wrong morpheme ordering. Actually, my preliminary analysis would be to posit a prefix sig- as a lexically (?) conditioned allomorph of si-. But this is a rather bold step :)
Austronesian *paN-/maN- works a bit differently because it often completely replaces the initial consonant, but still the idea of using N- looks good. This is something which should eventually be explained in the "About" pages. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
omg wait I was also thinking of something like sig- (or I guess siN-), but I wasn't so sure either. Why do you say lexically conditioned (and not phonologically)? But going back to si-, wouldn't we be able to say that si- just triggers initial consonant mutation in tumunu, as a purely phonological process? Alexlin01 (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexlin01: Eh no, actually it's not lexically determined (nor phonologically), it's even more complicated. Look at these derivations from Tabaru:
  • paiti 'dig'
    sipaiti 'dig with (instrument)'
    sibaiti 'bury'
  • tebini 'clean (adj.)'
    sitebini 'clean with (instrument)'
    sidebini 'clean (tr.)'
So at least in Tabaru there's si- with and wthout mutation. –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh you know, the first situation (sipaiti, sitebini) reminds me very strongly of Ternate se (under etymology 2, though apparently lua has exploded). It means with, and de Clercq 1890 says that properly, it should be pronounced si. Si is a conjunction, and so would not trigger any mutation. I'm not sure if that's what's happening here (sidumunu from above gives me pause), but it might be related.
I'll go ahead with Ternate N-, thanks for all the help! And where will I find the About page? Alexlin01 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The About pages are somewhat hidden, you have to go to the main category page Category:Ternate language, there it shines still in red in the upper right box. I think they're meant as internal how-to guide for entries, and can range from basic (Wiktionary:About Javanese) to very elaborate (Wiktionary:About Tagalog). –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh this is nice! I'll try and fill that in, thanks! :D Alexlin01 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry to bother you again, but please just take a look at N- and see if there's anything that needs changing.Alexlin01 (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexlin01: Looks fine. There is some overlap between definitions 2 and 3, and maybe later we can pin down definition 3 to be more specific, but that's only fine-tuning. –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! And yeah, I'm not really sure. I didn't want to write something like "miscellaneous verbal derivations", so I just left it like that. Alexlin01 (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of "lagari"Edit

@Austronesier Hey, I just wanted to know if you had a source for the etymology of the Tagalog word lagari as a borrowing from Malay. I don't think I can imagine the sound changes. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Mar vin kaiser! It looks wild at the first glance, but actually, it isn't: Malay gergaji is garagaji in most Malayic varieties of Borneo (e.g. Banjar, Brunei Malay) and apparently also the donor variety where Philippine loanwords originate from (e.g. Standard Malay harga > "Borneo Malay" haraga > Tagalog halaga). garagaji was first borrowed as *ragadiʔ all over the Philippines with apheresis of ga- and the usual replacement of j > d (cf. Ilocano ragadi). Tagalog (and other CPh languages) further replaced *r with /l/, and then of course pre-colonial Tagalog /lagadiʔ/ was realized as [lagariʔ] and eventually phonemicized as /lagariʔ/ in contemporary Tagalog. Sources are e.g. Zorc (1977:213) and Blust's ACD. –Austronesier (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Austronesier: Oh, I forgot to look at Blust's work. Thanks for the explanation! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser: My pleasure! While we're at it: can you have look at Indonesian obeng? The etymology was added by an IP who does really a lot bad etymologizing (bordering on hoax stuff) here and in Wikipedia, but in this case I am not knowledgeable/confident enough to assess it. There is some literature about Min Nan borrowings in Malay/Indonesian, but nothing comparable to Yap's classic for Tagalog. –Austronesier (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Austronesier: Actually, I don't consider the work by Gloria Chan-Yap as very reliable, since the work relies a lot on character combinations that seem to match the pronunciation as adapted into Tagalog, but the character combination itself doesn't exist as a word, and seems more like an invented Min Nan word. In the case of obeng, it seems like the etymology written there is the same thing, it doesn't exist, as far as I'm aware. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mar vin kaiser: Thank you for your assessment! I guessed so for the IP contribution in obeng, but it is good to know that Chan-Yap's work has to be taken with a grain of salt. –Austronesier (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Conjugation" in Ternate (and other NH languages)Edit

Hello! I was wondering what you thought about having a conjugation table for Ternate (and other NH) verbs. I think it would be really helpful for the reader. But, my question is, would the system of pronomial clitics be properly considered conjugation? Alexlin01 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: The person agreement markers are part of the phonological word, so it's just as fine to call this paradigm "conjugation" as in other agglutinative languages such as Turkish. The Ternate paradigm is quite benign, so it will be a good excercise for a start. Tabaru and Galela are much more challenging with their slight paradigmatic differences in gender/animacy/number in object and subject markers; and then there are also those irregular portemanteau slots in the paradigm... –Austronesier (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok perfect, thanks! I'll go ahead and make a table then, and I'll leave Tabaru and Galela to you (have fun!) Alexlin01 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and a quick note about Tabaru, in case you want to add more lemmas. Here is a document for Tabarus(?) in Indonesian/Tabaru, and it's also written by Kotynski. The orthography marks every glottal stop, even non-phonemic ones (which means we'll have to move the entries -______-). This is backed up by every Tabaru version of the Bible I can find online. And I remember you mentioning that you weren't sure how to write the Tobelo ʎ. The Bible versions I've seen appear to use l̄ (l with macron). Alexlin01 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexlin01: Having one task (just a presentation, but still...) off my chest that kept me busy, I'll try Tabaru. But I wait for your Ternate template so I can lazily (I'm quite a dummy when it comes to templates) make the necessary extensions :) –Austronesier (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You were part of that Symposium?? That's so cool! Was it the talk about Nias? Also, I've tried my best to make a conjugation table (still pending Thadh's seal of approval), and it should be operational soon. But, I'm not sure it'll be at all useful for Tabaru (or really anything other than Tidore), since it's so simple. Alexlin01 (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alexlin01: Well yes, there is some overlap between my research interests and the languages that I'm working on here :) The Ternate table is still useful for me so at least I can see how the syntax works (I'm not very good at syntax, at least in the progamming and the Chomskyan sense). –Austronesier (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
That's really cool!! And for sure, let me know if you need any help with the tables. :) Alexlin01 (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Etymology of PNH *baCuk ("axe")Edit

Hello! I've been working on PNH eytmologies, and I've come across a word that feels suspiciously like an Indo word, but I just can't put my finger on it. I've only been able to find three reflexes: Galela basu, Loloda bajuku, Tobelo bahuku, all meaning "axe" ("bijl, aks" in Baarda's dictionary), and I've tentatively reconstructed *baCuk, with the middle consonant undetermined. Do you know any Austronesian terms of similar meaning that could have been the donor? I'm finding Javanese bedhog and Minangkabau pakuk, but both are only somewhat similar. Thanks in advance! Alexlin01 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: The first thing that has come to mind is bacok, which admittedly is a rather brutal association. Also, it's most likely from Javanese, an unlikely source for NH vocabulary. I couldn't find anything similar to *baCuk in the LexiRumah database[1], and I also cannot think of any related terms in Sulawesi languages. –Austronesier (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I'm having a hard time too! If you find anything though, please let me know, because it could be very helpful in identifying this strange proto-phoneme in NH (since it develops into r in Sahu and Ternate/Tidore, and d in W. Makian). Thanks again! Alexlin01 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Alemannic German MolochEdit

Hey Austronesier, I'm replying to User_talk:Fytcha/2021#Moloch_(No._3?): So I didn't forget (!) and I've asked around and yes, this definitely exists and is quite widespread in Graubünden from what I can tell. Citing it as German will be hard but citing it as Alemannic might be possible as we only need one valid quote, which is what I'm searching right now! — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 18:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: Good to see that it wasn't just me being fooled by an ad-hoc pun :) The only attestation I have seen so far is here[2]. It only appears in the glossary, but not in running text. –Austronesier (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
For WT:LDLs such as Alemannic, one mention in a list suffices actually, but this one is in (Swiss Standard) German rather :( so I don't think we can use it in any way. However, I found this: [3] (I would also be happy if we could attest the -k form in either German or Alemannic) — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 21:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Malayo-Polynesian etymologiesEdit

Can you check the most recent comment on Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2022/January#langit? You seemed knowledgeable about what terms would be inherited vs. borrowed in this language family. Thank you. 70.172.194.25 23:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How to propose a proto-phonemeEdit

Hi! If I wanted to propose a proto-phoneme, how exactly should I go about proving it? With regular languages, you just show a bunch of minimal pairs, right? But if I'm the one inventing the minimal (proto-)pairs, wouldn't that cause circular reasoning? I'm fairly certain I have the necessary minimal reflexes/developments, but I'm not sure if that's enough. Thanks in advance! Alexlin01 (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alexlin01: In a nutshell, you have to start with a meticulous bookkeeping of all sound correspondence sets. In the most ideal case, every correspondence set will represent a proto-sound, but the reality is of course more complicated than that. You will have to decide which correspondence set goes back to a genuine proto-sound, and which ones must be the result of some kind of isolated, irregular sound shift or intra-family borrowing. There are no hard rules about this and sometimes, it just takes common sense to make this decision. Don't follow Isidore Dyen who was notorious for taking every correspondence set at face value and mechanically reconstructed a plethora of proto-sounds for Proto Austronesian, some of which were witnessed only by a single correspondence set.
Once you have set up a reasonable working hypothesis about the proto-sounds, you can proceed to look at the phonetic environment in which these sounds occur (just as you would do with a natural language), in order to establish the proto-phonemes. Maybe you can find that certain proto-sounds can be analyzed as allophones which are in complementary distribution. But you should only start with this second step when you have a sufficiently large corpus of reconstructed words.
Sorry, this is very dense, but feel free to ask if anything is unclear or if you need help, or just want to have a second opinion about how to deal with a specific correspondence set. –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)