About dunque and unque edit

Discussion moved to Talk:dunc.

Welcome edit

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! Vininn126 (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does *farβātos exist? edit

Hello, I am curious about your recent edit to the etymology of barbātus which removed the derivation from *farβātos. If the Proto-Italic form existed at all, it seems it must have been the ancestor of the Latin word, since we say it is "reconstructable back to a Proto-Indo-European **bʰardʰéh₂tos". Is there some issue with the Proto-Italic reconstruction? Thanks! Urszag (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Urszag: Ack! You caught me red handed immediately! Oh well...
The thing is, here on Wiktionary Proto-Italic is currently a mess: not only our spellings are very inconsistent, and when they are consistent they are not very smart (why *β for example? it's *f! our WT:AITC should be updated), but the main problem of most of the Proto-Italic entries is the misconception of what the term even refers to.
Proto-Italic is “the reconstructable ancestor of the Italic languages”, that means that our entries should be reconstructions based on what we can deduce from the several attested forms in Latin and all the Italic inscriptions, a.k.a. from the bottom. What actually happens most of the time, is that PIt entries have Latin as their sole descendant, and can be reconstructed not with Italic terms, but with other Indo-European ones, a.k.a. from the top. That makes our PIt entries just pages with objectionable spelling and no valuable information, except for the link to the Latin entry, and that of the PIE one. Just useless in-betweens that offer nothing but clutter and confusion.
These reasons are why I'm planning to start a mega-RFD with all of the PIt entries of this kind (followed by a reasonable spelling reform), so that we can make sense and value of this. A mega-RFD takes time to put together (no, I'm just procrastinating), and I promised myself that until I start it I won't touch PIt entries, but here I fell into temptation: not only we have Latin as the sole descendant, but we're also reconstructing an initial *f- (which though it is most likely to have been pronounced that way by speakers of PIt) irregularly changed into *b- in Latin, thus making it impossible to reconstruct a PIt *f- just with Latin. So we have a reconstruction page that (1) has only one descendant, and (2) doesn't even reflect that.
Thank you for reaching out and not reverting me immediately. I'll try not to do anything more to PIt until I'll do the RFD and reach consensus. Catonif (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. And in fact, you did not touch the reconstruction page yet. I did see that the PIt form had Latin as the sole descendant and wonder about that too. I think your plan of addressing all such Proto-Italic cases at a single time is a good idea. I see though that de Vaan refers to forms like "PIt. *farfā-", despite it apparently not being directly attested in any Italic branch aside from Latin.--Urszag (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Urszag: Thank you for understanding, and yes, de Vaan likes to do that, for some reason. Probably because he's more interested about the external proof, i.e. the relationship with PIE, rather than the internal Italic one. As I defined it before, he "reconstructs from the top". About *farfā in particular though, we actually have farfecchia so I think it should be kept. Catonif (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing Template:deverbal edit

Hi. I have changes not-yet-pushed that convert uses of id2=deverbal into {{deverbal}}. I notice you made the opposite change in some cases. The problem with your change is that it removes the category CAT:Italian deverbals, which I think is more important than noting whether a given word is derived from the suffix -o, -a or -e (which should be self-evident from the ending of the word). Benwing2 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benwing2 Hello! If we want those entries to end up in CAT:Italian deverbals we can set CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -a (deverbal) and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -o (deverbal) as subcategories thereof. I think that the categories should stay separate, just like CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -are and CAT:Italian terms suffixed with -ire are separate. Catonif (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still not sure I see the point of this; the reason for distinguishing -are from -ire is that they have entire distinct conjugations below them, but there is nothing of the sort for -o vs. -a vs. -e deverbals, which don't seem to have semantic distinctions among them. But if you really want those categories, I would suggest we create a specialized etymology template something like {{it-deverbal|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o}}, which automatically converts to something like {{deverbal|it}}, from {{af|it|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o<id:deverbal><pos:deverbal suffix>}}. The code you've been adding like From {{af|it|abbagliare|t1=to dazzle|-o|id2=deverbal|pos2=forms deverbals}}. is long and redundant and is likely to lead to all sorts of inconsistently formatted etymologies if we don't clean it up. Benwing2 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, the {{it-deverbal}} idea sounds good. Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Benwing2 Catonif (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benwing2 I made {{it-deverbal}} and tried it out on sferra, abbaio and pago and placed the two categories in CAT:Italian deverbals. Catonif (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Italic question: *opeō edit

Discussion moved to Reconstruction talk:Proto-Italic/opeō.

disabled rhymes edit

Hi, I see several pages where you disabled the rhyme in {{it-pr}}, e.g. trabalzone, zozzeria, zozzezza and several others. I'm removing these because I don't understand why we would want to disable the rhyme. I think it's reasonable to do so for proscribed pronunciations but not standard ones. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Benwing2 Hi, those date back to when I planned to sort out the rhyme categories. You see, rhyming a word with another word with the same suffix is somewhat an impure rhyme, so if you wanted to rhyme mangiare you'd be looking for words like mare, chiare etc. but the category is currently bloated with all the other -are verbs. Same things goes for all highly productive suffixes, like -ezza, -one (augmentative), -eria, etc. I was thinking to remove such affixed terms from the category, and then placing the entire category [Term suffixed with -...] (or in -are's case, CAT:Italian verbs ending in -are) in the appropriate rhyme category. But I've practically given up on that project so you can put them back in the rhyme categories. Catonif (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. You'd definitely want to do something like that semi-automatically if you wanted it done. Benwing2 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zuccu edit

If a quote uses a certain form of a word, you can't just go and modify it even if the change you want to make is grammatically and morphologically correct. It's falsifying a quote and not permitted. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robbie SWE Oh you're right, sorry, I forgot I added a quote there and from the diff I presumed they just changed a collocation. Catonif (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inconsistent use of Template:tr-def-suffix form edit

Your template {{Template:tr-def-suffix form}} is used inconsistently. The definition line for -lı does not have the number "1." before it like it should. I can't have the template emit "#" because on the -sız page the # is already there and I would get "1. # ...". Can you go through the uses and make them consistent with each other and with our entry layout guidelines?

I fixed another bug by changing a regular space to a non-breaking space. The regular space was eaten by template processing. "&#32;" is not special, it is the same as typing a space. You have to write "&nbsp;". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vox Sciurorum The template is supposed to only be used in definition lines (i.e. after #), misuses seem to have been introduced by Orexan. I will gladly fix them in my next slice of free time, though I'd like to make clear that I'm not responsible for this. Thanks for fixing the spaces thing, didn't realise. Catonif (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catonif I meant to fix the head templates from suffix to suffix form on a bunch of entries but I broke other things apparently. I try to make the morpheme forms look like -uk, -keç, -kün etc, not the template by itself without a # but kinda like a sub-head, and then the definition is below, numbered. This makes sense to me but I have a suspicion that the feeling isn't mutual. Orexan (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Orexan, and first of all thank you for your excellent contributions! Now, about this: it seems a wise choice to centralise most information, most importantly definitions, but also IMO etymology, only in the lemma form. This is comes in handy when, say, a user wants to edit a definition, and doesn't have to go through the hassle of copy-pasting his change on the other 3~7 entries: information that is duplicated on more entries is bound to get out of sync, and hence hard to maintain. The template's scope was exactly that of giving a practical way to provide soft redirects, as we call them. Therefore, the definitions, which would indeed appear as subsenses, are best omitted entirely from non-lemmas.
While we're on the subject, it should probably be also decided on where to lemmatise, if at the fronted ⟨e i⟩ or if at the back ⟨a ı⟩. Possibly worth a BP discussion. Catonif (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catonif Possibly. Though I don't see a lot of BP discussions coming to conclusion on Turkish, and the category for Turkish morphemes is a dumpster fire that every time I look at it it gives me a headache and a sense of despair that nothing good is ever gonna happen.
I'll check the edits on the suffix forms I made around the time I broke -lı. Orexan (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'grc' language code for Dacian edit

Hi,

I see that you changed the Dacian translation at [[bryony]] from the language code 'xdc' (meaning Dacian) to the language code 'grc' (meaning Ancient Greek), with the comment 'on purpose'. [diff] Can you help me understand what this is about?

Thanks in advance!

RuakhTALK 05:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Ruakh!
The thing is, the word is Dacian but it's attested only in a Greek text, which doesn't make our work much easy. Saying {{t|grc|κινούβοιλα}} (= κινούβοιλα (kinoúboila)) was needed for the Ancient Greek CSS to kick in (that is, the right font and size), as {{t|xdc|κινούβοιλα}} looked like κινούβοιλα. The technical problem with this is probably the term showing as a yellow link (which, it doesn't on my end, even though it should. Does it show as yellow to you?) for which the solution would be {{t|grc|{{ll|xdc|κινούβοιλα}}}} (= κινούβοιλα (kinoúboila)).
This was the technical side of it, but if you question was more "why are we lemmatising this term under Dacian then", the answer is, well, there's no established way of dealing with these things. See for example Talk:κινούβοιλα, with much hesitation even pre-dating my change, or Talk:𐤊𐤋𐤌, where Fay Freak even normalises these attestations into a native script (while noting that it couldn't be done with Dacian and Thracian). A Greek grammarian saying "the Dacians say κινούβοιλα" doesn't mean that the word was ever actually "borrowed into Greek", nor that it was ever a "Greek term", so saying ==Ancient Greek== ===Etymology=== {{bor+|grc|xdc... is IMO misleading.
Admittedly, κινούβοιλα and sinupyla were my first Paleo-Balkan contributions, which is why lemmatising them under the donor language seemed most appropriate, Note however that continuing editing for Paleo-Balkan, I eventually settled at keeping them under their attestation language, such as Δευάδαι (Deuádai), βάρυκα (báruka), etc. because this double-nature of the terms is hard to maintain. So yes, I would make κινούβοιλα ==Ancient Greek== if I were to do it now. :) Catonif (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for explaining!
If there are Dacian words known only from mentions in Ancient Greek sources, and we want to use those spellings (which sounds reasonable to me), then I think we should configure to Dacian to be a language that we use multiple scripts for, rather than marking those words as "Ancient Greek" when we've no reason to think they were ever used in Ancient Greek.
No?
RuakhTALK 01:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ruakh Yes, that was my original thought as well and definitely the most straightforward solution for neat cases like κινούβοιλα~sinupyla, but the distinction between the Trümmersprache and Graeco-Latin isn't always so neatly defined. Should sabaia be made into ==Illyrian== ? haliurunna into ==Gothic== ? βρά is reportedly Elean Greek, but Latte reads Ἰλλυρίων instead of Ἠλείων (cod. Ιλειων). There are many different cases with different problems, some more appropriate to have the native L2, others best kept under Graeco-Latin. There's no established policy, and if there were it wouldn't be very practical, as the situation is full with edge-cases, one solution can benefit in one case and backfire in another. @Mnemosientje rightly calls this an "awkward tension", and may have some comments on this. I'd even support having a big box template (in appearence along the lines of {{reconstructed}}) to place under the Graeco-Latin L2 to warn "this is a gloss, not a loan". Catonif (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While a satisfactory one-size-fits-all solution for words like these is difficult to find and there ought to be room for evaluation on a per-case basis, my preference is generally to add them as words in the language of the text in which they are mentioned. I agree that it is a good idea to place some sort of disclaimer, usage note, or other clear indication that explains the difficulty and that the word is not to be viewed as a loanword proper. But again this is probably not optimal in every case and there are many cases in which I am just completely unsure what to do (e.g. basically the entirety of Category:Vandalic lemmas).
An example of why I am reluctant to add them under the presumed "real" language header is that a big concern with words like these in my experience is that the language they are ascribed to by the author of the text in which they are mentioned may simply not be quite accurate, or their definitions may be different from ours. Greek and Roman authors, for example, are notoriously inclined to miscategorizing aspects of 'barbarian' culture and language. What one author calls Gothic or Dacian or Persian may in fact refer to a dialect or language that is quite different from the languages we associate with these words.
To use an example mentioned by Catonif: when Jordanes calls haliurunnas a Gothic word, does he refer to the same language as Ulfilan Gothic, or does he simply share a bunch of related East Germanic dialects and languages under one and the same umbrella term that differs significantly from our idea of Ulfilan Gothic? (Compare the case of Procopius, according to whom Goths, Visigoths [mentioned separately from "Goths"], Gepids and Vandals all spoke the same language called "Gothic" - but we consider Vandalic at least to be a separate language on Wiktionary! And consider the tendency of Greeks and Romans to dismiss everyone on the Eurasian steppe as "Scythian", even up to Byzantine times - "Gothic" in some contexts may similarly have been a catch-all term imposed out of convenience or intellectual laziness/disinterest by outsiders on a heterogeneous group speaking heterogeneous languages and dialects, including but far from limited to what we consider to be "Gothic".)
I therefore usually prefer to err on the side of caution and, following the example of many modern Latin and Greek dictionaries, generally put them under a Latin or Ancient Greek language header, unless the case is clear-cut. But I am not sure if that is the right approach, and am open to a well-reasoned general solution if one can be found. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mnemosientje I wholeheartedly agree. We could try to formalise some of our points into guidelines/suggestion in the WT: namespace (no strong policy of course, given the great wobble).
About the particular example of the Vandalic lemmas, aside from the eils / scapia matzia ia drincan and some reconstructions, they seem to be mostly given names, which I'm assuming appear as Latinised in otherwise fully Latin text, like Liburnian Vescleves- is (if on the other hand they appear isolated then ignore the following). These seem to me not only lemmatisable under ==Latin==, but even treatable as proper loans. My rationale is modern given names from actually attested languages work the same way, so Nguyen and Rossi have an ==English== as well. Hyperbolically speaking, I could even claim that someone possessing a name of Vandalic origin must not be assumed to even speak Vandalic.
As for eils / scapia matzia ia drincan on the other hand, I'd definitely be bummed if it appears as ==Latin==, as it's good proper Vandalic running text, not glosses. It's a shame the source just calls them Gothi... If the corpus however more or less amounts to this we could even make Vandalic (maybe together with other East Germanic lects) an etym-only language code of Gothic, and the words could be placed under ==Gothic== with a label (most likely Vandalic) vel sim., which would of course categorise accordingly so the Vandalic lemma category wouldn't be lost. Catonif (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proto-Indo-European *leyd- edit

Buongiorno. You recently created a page Proto-Indo-European *leyd-, and I copied the information into Bunadas (my network database of cognate words, with the emphasis on Celtic). What this threw up, though, as seen in this tree generated by Bunadas, is that the Old Irish words laíd/laídid are indicated by other Wiktionary pages (Latin laus, Proto-Germanic *leuþą) as being from “From Proto-Indo-European *lēwt-, *lēwdʰ- (“song, sound”), from Proto-Indo-European *lēw- (“to sound, resound, sing out”)”. Any thoughts on this? I am not a historical linguistics expert myself, and so am unable to voice an opinion. --Caoimhin (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hòigh @Caoimhin! I as well don't have the knowledge to voice my own opinion on the etymology of the Irish word, but I can report what I can find on the sources I have access to. The connection with Gmc. *leuþą is favoured here,[1] but it seems that all of the notable later sources,[2][3][4] although with some uncertainty, connect the word with L. ludo rather than laus (for which I rewrote the etymology). Connection with laus is explicitely rejected here,[5] and is left unmention in all of the following works I checked. In any case, those trees (I played around with the site a bit) are very interesting. Catonif (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Caoimhin, I cleaned up *leyd-, and I also agree, the Celtic doesn't look to belong there. I also don't think the Albanian is related either, which, if so, would make this a Balto-Slavic-only root. --{{victar|talk}} 05:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victar As far as I can see, the sources which you kept on the entry go against your edit. A separate root for "to play" seems to go back to Pokorny, and I imagine that Mallory, to which I don't have access, endorses it as well, but are you single-handedly dismissing the more recent Rix and all of the Leiden linguists? I'm ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing. Catonif (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most recent ≠ most right. Also note that Rix marks all of his reconstructions on his entry as uncertain. It's a theory he published, not fact. --{{victar|talk}} 17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Victar It's comparative linguistics: everything is a theory, nothing is a fact. That said, there are four cites on the entry, none of which are minor or outdated sources, all explicitely agreeing on a single root "to let; to let go". You are free to doubt whatever you will, yet, in your words, "deleting sourced reconstructions is unprecedented and counterproductive to the project". Again, I am ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing, while by far all you've provided is "doesn't look like it belongs here", "I don't think", "doesn't make much sense" and "I really doubt". Whenever you'll feel like elaborating on your doubts, feel free to do so in WT:ES or on the entry's talk page. Catonif (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Catonif if you think that *leyd- (to play) should be merged, you need to start a WT:RFM or WT:RFD the second meaning. Please do not start deleting sourced content and wheelwarring simply because you disagree. @Chuck Entz, Mahagaja. --{{victar|talk}} 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi again, @Victar.
  1. You, endorsing a Pokorny theory, removed a root which, although you keep claiming is only supported by Rix, is widely supported by modern sources. And now you accuse me of deleting sourced content. What was the content that you deleted unsourced?
  2. I remerged the roots, again, per sources, while being careful at keeping all of the work you did on the entry I deemed appropriate. You, on the other hand, compulsively reverted my edits without even looking at them (besides other things, the most blatant example is you removing dial. Alb. le and the missing asterisks you reinstated). And you accuse me of wheelwarring.
  3. I asked you to provide proper reasoning and sourcing, and you've yet to do it.
Please address each of these points. Catonif (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References edit

  1. ^ MacBain, Alexander; Mackay, Eneas (1911), “laoidh”, in An Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language, Stirling, →ISBN, page 223
  2. ^ Pokorny, Julius (1959), “leid-”, in Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch [Indo-European Etymological Dictionary] (in German), volume 2, Bern, München: Francke Verlag, page 666
  3. ^ Rix, Helmut, editor (2001), “lei̯d-”, in Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben [Lexicon of Indo-European Verbs] (in German), 2nd edition, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, →ISBN, pages 402–403
  4. ^ Matasović, Ranko (2009), “loyd-o-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 9), Leiden: Brill, →ISBN, page 246
  5. ^ Walde, Alois; Hofmann, Johann Baptist (1938), “laus”, in Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (in German), volume I, 3rd edition, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, page 776

Why have you removed the genitive case in albanian? edit

The genitive case is still alive and well, along with the locative, vocative and several instrumental forms, even though these last 3 are not present on the standard language.So what is the explanation of removing the genitive despite being a noun case, both present in the standard language and used actively in all kinds of speech? Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Dinamo-Barça! I removed the genitive row from declension tables because it is identical with the dative one. I left a note behind "dative" that appears whenever it is hovered with the mouse (hence sadly not visible from mobile) that explains that the genitive forms can be formed with the dative forms preceded by the linking particle. I feel like there's no reason to make Albanian inflection look more complex than it really is, and the table looks much more straightforward when it is compact. Catonif (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody said to make the declension look more complex, but you should be realistic. As an albanian native speaker, l find it concerning that some of our cases and time tenses are not present anywhere in the declension tables. They can be compound and identical to other forms but they are tought regularly in schools and used actively in everyday speech. My request to you is to leave more notes about the cases and time tenses. If you want,I can help you. Dinamo-Barça (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dinamo-Barça Thank you, I'm always open to native speakers' insight. I am aware that the 4-case system analysis for Albanian nominal inflection, which I think is more "linguistical", although definitely not mine as it is found in some recent works, doesn't conform well with the "traditional" 5-(or sometimes even 6)-case system analysis that is still found in most handbooks and taught in Albanian schools, and I see this can throw some people off, as it did to you. The point is, since I like merging table slots whenever they are always identical, and this is not just an aesthetic preference as I do find value in its straightforwardness and conciseness, there's little point to giving its own row, as it would simply make the dative row taller. One option is changing "dative" (the hovering text says "also used as genitive when with a linking clitic") to "dat./gen." (the hovering text says "dative, also used as genitive when with a linking clitic"). Having a separate footnote as the conditional tenses would be too cluttered in my opinion.
On the verbal compound tenses you mentioned, they're still visible by clicking the "show compound tenses" button. I thinking giving the option between the two possibilities, i.e. on one hand the compact and essential, and on the other hand all the completeness of the compound tenses, is the best compromise between the two things. The conditional present and perfect were reduced to a note already before me, although I think that's a very good idea. (I'm aware the active conjugation box and the medio-passive one aren't in the same style, that's something I was wishing to tackle.)
Lastly, a bit unrelatedly to the issue, it might be worth mentioning I'm rerwriting the infrascructure for Albanian nominal inflection (module, testcases) to make it more immediate and versatile, so if you have any general feedback it can be implemented. Catonif (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Catonif
Excuse me but I couldn't help but notice that you changed the etymology of the word "garë".
Now you have cited the reason of the change is "he was unaware of the italian word". To me it sounds like an unprobable mistake a linguist can make. He states sources from an abundance of languages (both spoken and dead) when presenting the cognate words, yet apparently fails to mention a from one of the most spoken languages in Europe.
Of course, Orel has his fair share of mistakes too. Since I have read his etymology book, I can tell you there are lots of etymological mistakes like the one we are talking about, so I am not saying your argument is baseless.
But again, 95% all the etymology entries here on Wictionary are linked to his work. So shouldn't we start adding more proposed etymologies from other linguists as well? Because otherwise we will have a reader who comes here on Wictionary,as it is one of the easiest sites to access, search up the etymology, read what is written here and then understand it as a fact.But you can't do that if you study linguistics.We learn that all works have their own theories and mistakes. We dont have a sacred etymology book, to which we always refer everytime we study the etymologies, but here I see that you have, and that is Orel's work.And that is confusing for people who don't have experience nor education in linguistics.
As an linguistics student in the University of Tirana,I appreciate and thank you if you consider my concerns. Dinamo-Barça (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Dinamo-Barça. I'll try to address the two points you've posited: first more generally the validity and etymological monopoly of Orel's work on Wiktionary and secondly the etymology of garë in particular.
About Orel, when you say that 95% all the etymology entries on Wiktionary are linked to his work and say that they are misphrased as if his theories are facts, you describe the unfortunate truth. The Orel-bias of Albanian etymologies has been long-standing issue many people have complained about, and is exactly one of the things that I and other Albanian editors are in the process of cleaning Wiktionary from. Whenever I can I always add more than one source and often propose different theories (although this of course needs to be done critically, by discarding the obsolete or highly improbable ones).
With that hopefully settled, now about garë. Given that the Albanian and the Italian word are pronounced exactly the same way and mean exactly the same thing, I don't think anyone would deny that they are indeed the same word, whatever may be the direction of the borrowing. Having agreed on this, if we follow Orel's etymology, the only possibility we're left with is Al. garë → It. gara, as indeed was the situation before I intervened. The theory at a frist glance may look attractive, but after critical thinking I have no doubt about it being wrong, for the following factors:
  1. Attestation: the Albanian word is not attested in any of the Old Albanian works (i.e. Buzuku, Budi, Bardhi, etc.) nor in other later more comprehensive works (i.e. Jungg, Rossi, Meyer, etc.). The earliest attestation I know of is from the FGJSH of 1954, which seems bit late for a native word of this kind. I'm aware the Old Albanian corpus is not as comprehensive as we wish it was, so I'm sure there are some native words that indeed have stayed unattested such dates, but I assume those would be relatively obscure pastoral terms or something of the like. The Italian word on the other hand has been and still is an integral part of Italian lexicon and is widely and heavily attested starting as soon as 1310.[1] The A. → I. theory would hence assume the Albanian word to be quite strong to be borrowed into Italian in a very early date, but at the same time stay under the hood until government-funded dictionaries, coincidentally right after Italian occupation of Albania.
  2. Semantics: the fact that the semantics are indentical from a language to the other — economic sense included! — also suggests the borrowing is recent, as I'd expect at least some degree of semantical evolution if we are to assume more than 700 years have passed from when the word was borrowed.
  3. Basic statistics: with the exception of a couple of animal names like zappo and manzo which are indeed usually believed to stem ultimately from some Paleo-Balkan language (I must note that these terms are attested in Old Albanian, as well as found in Romanian), there are no Albanian words into Italian I know of. On the other hand, there are hundreds of Italian words into Albanian.
  4. Unsourcedness: no linguist endorses the A. → I. theory, not even Orel himself. As far as I can see, it's something that emerged only on Wiktionary. This is why I say that Orel was simply not aware of the Italian word, as he always mentions occurrences of Albanian words (or more exactly, Paleo-Balkan substrate words akin to the Albanian ones) being borrowed into other languages (usually Romanian), as can be seen in entries like dash, këpushë, etc. so if he did know about the Italian word, he certainly would have mentioned it. I'm surprised just as you are about him making a mistake like this, but that's what happened. Also note that usually his entries have tons of sources while this one doesn't have any (he cites Pokorny and Frisk, but only to back up the derivation of χαίρω (khaírō) to *ǵʰer-, not the nativeness of the Albanian word, as neither source mentions it).
  5. Conclusion: the Albanian word is a recent borrowing from Italian. I'm not the first to reach this conclusion: "Some etymologies in Orel's dictionary are disputed or wrong. For instance, Albanese[sic] garë comes from Italian gara, ”competition, race”. It is a recent loanword."[2]
Sorry for the long answer, but I hope it clarified the situation. Catonif (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again Catonif,
I appreciate your answer and l really want to thank you for taking my point into consideration.I did not mean to say that you were wrong in the word "garë". I honestly believe in your work and I hope you, and other albanian editors who I would like to meet in person, adress the aforementioned problems Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horizontal rule edit

Am I going crazy, or are there once again horizontal lines separating language sections on pages as of late? I figured I might bring it to your attention, since you created the original vote to remove those lines.

Cheers,

Chernorizets (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @Chernorizets. If you are referring to the horizontal rules appearing on entries (but not in the wikicode) that's because for not having to type them but still making them appear we've incorporated them into the project's CSS (discussion and diff). If you are referring to horizontal lines actually in the wikicode, those should be removed. Catonif (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Catonif huh, ok, I guess I'm going crazy. For a while I thought I wasn't seeing any (CSS-driven or not) horizontal rules between per-language entries on Wiktionary pages. I'll check my eyes. Thanks! Chernorizets (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Un po' di Topalli edit

Ei! Ti lascio qui il link per accedere alle varie edizioni (se non l'hai già fatto) di "Studime filologjike".[3] Topalli ha riportato spezzoni del suo dizionario a scopo di anteprima e ho pensato potesse interessarti. Ovviamente è in albanese. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FierakuiVërtet Ottima trovata! Sia per Topalli che per tutti gli altri innumerevoli articoli, ci metterò un po' ad orientarmici. Grazie per aver condiviso! Catonif (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion edit

Before you tag pages for speedy deletion, please click on the "What links here" tool and correct any incoming links to that page. Ultimateria (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ultimateria Sorry for the slip-ups, thank you for deleting the entries. Catonif (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bartholomae's law edit

Sono solo un appassionato di linguistica, non conosco bene la legge di Bartholomae. Riporto dal testo E.CAMPANILE, B. COMRIE, C. WATKINS Introduzione alla lingua e alla cultura degli Indoeuropei, nella sezione dedicata §6.1.7.2, nel quale è spiegata in breve la legge e sono esposti alcuni esempi tipo quello che avevo inserito in बुद्ध. Nella sezione successiva invece §6.1.7.3 è descritto l'incontro di dentali ed è fatto l'esempio di infestus, il quale è referito alla suddetta legge. Per quanto riguarda la provenienza di Infestus da n̥-gwhedh-to- io ho solo un dubbio su *dh >*t che non è indicato da Comrie nella sezione dedicata alle occlusive e ai loro riflessi nelle lingue derivate. Per il resto funziona:

è sonante e ha qui il valore sillabico in-; *gwh, labiovelare sonora aspirata diventa in latino f(u), sempre da Comrie; *edh-to- è appunto il nesso consonantico interessato dalla legge che quindi diventa -sto-. Themistokl (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ciao, @Themistokl! In primo luogo, benvenuto. Ho lasciato il template {{welcome}} sulla tua talk se può servire ad orientarti. La legge di Bartholomae's riguarda le lingue indo-iraniche, quindi col latino per quanto mi risulta c'entra poco. Qui la situazione è diversa, e riguarda il gruppo consonantico TT, vale a dire due occlusive dentali, t d dʰ, di seguito, che ha come risultato regolare *ss nel ramo delle lingue italiche, il quale a sua volta in latino spesso per scambio di lunghezza in una sillaba pesante (dalla consonante alla vocale) ritroviamo come s. Ne sono un esempio lampante i participi passati dei verbi in -dĕre, come vīsum < *wid-tó-m. Ho aggiornato l'etimologia della voce per riflettere queste considerazioni. Catonif (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ciao, grazie.
Hai ragione che riguarda principalemente le lingue indo-iraniche e i suoi effetti sono in esse più apparenti. In realtà però hο trovato sul libro che ho citato, altri esempi non indoiranici. In questo caso il gruppo dentale+dentale si trasforma seguendo la legge di B. D'altronde l'esempio in avestico di ajasta, mostra che non è una trasformazione ristretta al ramo italico. Nel senso che l'incontro tra dentali di solito porta *ss nel ramo italico, è molto chairo l'esempio di vīsum, ma in questo caso l'incontro segue la legge di B. La legge è comunque ipotizzata come trasformazione del proto-indoeuropeo in generale.
Ti ringrazio per aver aggiornato l'etimologia, direi che effettivamente ora sarebbe meglio eliminare l'ultima etimologia, e riaggiungerla solo dopo che avrò trovato altre evidenze nel libro di quello che sto dicendo. Themistokl (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

changes to Module:el-translit edit

Hi. I know you would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit but the last discussion on this showed no consensus to make [4]. I would suggest you undo this, and seek consensus to make such a change or create a vote (cf. [5] where you undid a change based on there being no "valid vote" in favor of it). Benwing2 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, @Benwing2. Building on your analogy, I'll try to show you the differences between what I did to Greek transliteration and what you did to Latin verbs.
First of all, no consensus? It didn't exactly pass in the most visible of ways, but I see 6 in favour of the ISO transliteration, or more generally a more orthographic transliteration (me, Saltmarsh, Sarri, Urszag, Mahagaja, Erutuon), 3 in favour of something home-made more phonetic (you, Atitarev, Soap) and -sche suggesting we have both somehow. Note how the less accustomed a user seemed to be with Greek the more drastic innovations they proposed. In any case, everyone agreed that initial ντ and δ should not be transliterated the same, and that the issue should be fixed in one way or another. This already looks like a pass for following the transliteration standard, yet despite that, I even took the oppositions into account and didn't go all the way into implementing the ISO transliteration scheme. As you said, I would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit, as I made clear in the BP discussion, yet notice how what I instated in the module is not what should be my preference, as it's still far from the standard I was looking forward to have here. I limited myself to solve what was the pressing issue at hand, the initial ντ~δ problem, hence keeping the transliteration scheme very close to what it has always been. With the exception of a couple of native terms like ντόπιος (ntópios), initial ντ is found almost exclusively in loans. It would be hard to even notice this change for someone that isn't a Greek editor here, an assiduous reader of the Greek entries we have or someone who just went checking the translit module's edit history. And would you look at that, the resulting translit scheme ended up matching perfectly the standardised ELOT 743 transcription. Now, if I were to endorse your preferred dh~gh transcription, or my preferred ELOT 743 transliteration, that would have been definitely drastic and visible. That I did not do. To summarise, what I did was changing the translit module to get rid of a bizarre merger that no other source even imagines having, which was introduced here by mistake, as Saltmarsh and Erutuon, who were the ones to bring it, tell.
About this incident with Latin, now that's drastic and visble. There's a difference between the character sequence nt in a restricted number of entries and the full 33 characters long first/third-singular present indicative in every single Latin verb ever, cluttering the ever more cluttered headword and assuming an unreal amount of ignorance from the reader. I indeed mentioned a vote, but really, even a plain discussion would have been a huge step forward. This was introduced by consulting none of the editing communities of the countless languages this affected, merely by mutual agreement with two users in a seemingly unimportant chat under an unrelated discussion. This immediately raised great disapproval from basically every other editor. After the change I only heard bad comments about it. Not to mention how this choice is unprecedented from any other dictionary, as opposed to the Greek situation, where the unprecedented situation is what I got rid of. For each of these two cases at hand, note (1) the visual and informative impact, (2) the community's opinion, (3) the bureacracy and discussion behind the change and (4) the tradition of other linguistic sources. In all these points the two cases are completely uncomparable, and the analogy you try to make is not valid.
To conclude, I'd rather not undo my change. No matter how you look at it, a revert would objectively be a degradation, from a standardised scheme that makes sense to a flawed scheme that does not make any sense. I see no reason to reintroduce what is a plain mistake. I hope you don't wish to worsen Greek transliterations out of spite for an unrelated matter.
That said, I'm sorry for the abrupt revert. I hope we can take a step back from that and discuss this data.gloss thing with more time and calm. Catonif (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yzeír|i edit

Hiǃ I was wondering if you happen to know anything about this Albanian name that have an obvious Turkish origin. Could you provide or find any information regarding it (etymology)? It's not very popular but still... I'm curios. Thanksː) FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! :) That seems to be referring to the Quranic figure Uzayr, corradical with the Biblical Ezra. I made Yzeir. Catonif (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Grazie mille! FierakuiVërtet (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{RQ:it:Commedia}} edit

Hi, I was thinking that the years of the first edition of each canticle could be more specific than early 14th century, with something like this:

#* {{quote-book|it|year={{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=1314|pg=1316 c.|pd=1321 c.}}|author={{w|Dante Alighieri}}|title={{w|{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}} {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|pg||(Dante)}}|{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}}}}|chapter=[[s:it:Divina Commedia/{{#switch:{{{1|}}}|if=Inferno|pg=Purgatorio|pd=Paradiso}}/Canto {{{2|}}}|Canto {{{2|}}}]]|line={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:string|match|s={{{3|}}}|pattern=–|nomatch=1}}|–||{{{3|}}}}}|lines={{#ifeq:{{#invoke:string|match|s={{{3|}}}|pattern=–|nomatch=1}}|–|{{{3|}}}}}|text={{{text|{{{4|}}}}}}|t={{{t|{{{5|}}}}}}}}

I just wanted to know if you think it might be a good idea. —— GianWiki (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GianWiki Yes, it's a good idea. :) The vague date was a placeholder since I didn't know better. Catonif (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]