Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Rua

(Redirected from User talk:CodeCat)
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Module:fi-nominals510:51, 19 October 2017
Synonyms of luokta316:52, 17 October 2017
fiu-fin-decl woes012:01, 15 October 2017
Category:etyl cleanup/fi219:33, 13 October 2017
-ый is removed but -ий is kept005:47, 13 October 2017
mess at застреха005:38, 13 October 2017
Making up for the failed ping003:41, 13 October 2017
Template:en-rank011:08, 10 October 2017
Where is the documentation of these ids?321:01, 8 October 2017
About baltic tu "thou"919:04, 8 October 2017
Template:+obj falling short?110:36, 6 October 2017
*(hₓ)yḗkʷr̥123:08, 5 October 2017
Strong non-lemma forms716:02, 3 October 2017
Rollback on poda patti017:19, 24 September 2017
need for help on Module:it-head915:44, 17 September 2017
''Haghel''015:43, 15 September 2017
{{temp|In title}}111:52, 28 August 2017
Your signature318:24, 24 August 2017
Rollback on fagiolo110:25, 24 August 2017
Why so unhelpful?412:56, 23 August 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page


I just noticed that in Finnish we use apostrophe (’) and not typewriter apostrophe (') to mark the border of syllables in inflected forms such as raa’at. The templates Module:fi-nominals and Module:fi-verbs have been made with the typewriter apostrophe, however. Would you be so kind as to fix it?

16:33, 17 October 2017

Are you sure that this is how people actually write things, though? An official standard doesn't mean much if nobody uses it. I'd expect that regular internetters use the normal apostrophe and not the fancy one.

Rua (mew)

16:48, 17 October 2017

Internetters do whatever is easiest without knowing right from wrong, but newspapers and book publishers use the apostrophe. I must confess that I didn't know that there's a difference until recently. I modified the templates myself - your code is clear enough to figure out what to change. I'm in the process of rooting out the printer's apostrophe from the Finnish entries.

09:20, 19 October 2017

The old apostrophe should probably be kept as a redirect, so that people using it can find things.

Rua (mew)

10:29, 19 October 2017

Not necessary. I have checked that such searches get automatically redirected.

10:51, 19 October 2017

Ah ok.

Rua (mew)

10:51, 19 October 2017

Is gohppi a synonym of luokta? I came across that at the French Wiktionary.

18:08, 14 October 2017

It's translated into Norwegian as "bukt, vik", so it may have a similar meaning.

Rua (mew)

18:09, 14 October 2017

When looking at the map, it seems that they both mean "bay", but in Finland there are only "luokta" and all "gohppi" are in Norway. The Sami/Norwegian/Finnish dictionary compiled by the Troms university [1] translates both as lahti (bay).

16:46, 17 October 2017

Davvisámi-dáru sátnegirji translates them both the same way, with bukt and vik. So I guess they are just synonyms.

Rua (mew)

16:52, 17 October 2017

fiu-fin-decl woes

I don't want to discourage you too much from your work on inflection templates, but as comes to reconstructed languages, they really should be based on explicit data, preferrably from explicit sources. Also, these should not assume perfect regularity by default. This locks away the ability of other users to actually edit the inflection data in any way.

Case in point — I just removed some clearly wrong instances from PF adjectives ending in *-eda (e.g. *kankeda, *makeda, *ruskeda), where your template insisted on an oblique stem ending in *-oi-. No such thing is attested anywhere. The -oi-/-ei-/-i- alternation in plural stems is only predictable-ish for bisyllabic nominals (and even they have some quirks), not for longer ones. This is probably partly due to analogy, but also due to early vowel reduction of *-a- to *-e- in some inflectional stems (and thence *-aj- > *-ej- > *-i- rather than a diphthong). It is also not immediately clear if the original split was conditioned by the immediately preceding syllable or the stressed syllable.

I've noticed a few other problems come up too. One I can remember off the top of my head is consonant stem formations: just as e-stems ending in a coronal consonant can have consonant-stem partitives, they can also have consonant-stem essives. These have been analogically reverted away in all standard languages, but they are attested in e.g. Finnish and Karelian dialects; lapsi : *lapc-na > *lasna > lassa.

The core problem is that no comprehensive reconstruction of Proto-Finnic has been published anywhere, so work on finer details of inflection requires knowing the original research literature and the entire relevant research data — including dialect forms. There is no royal road here.

12:01, 15 October 2017

Category:etyl cleanup/fi

How does an entry end up in this category? There's no hint of what's wrong with the listed etymologies. What do you want the editors to do with this category, or are you planning to fix all 3,000+ etymologies yourself?

15:58, 13 October 2017

See Category:etyl cleanup. {{etyl}} is deprecated.

Rua (mew)

16:04, 13 October 2017

I see that the der/bor/inh/cog/noncog templates cannot replace {{etyl}} without content change because the replacement causes rewording. Shouldn’t there be a possibility to put something between the language name and the term? If there is a possibility, it is badly documented.

19:33, 13 October 2017

-ый is removed but -ий is kept

Explain this removal.

05:47, 13 October 2017

Why "Equivalent to за- (za-) +‎ стрѣха (strěxa)" was removed 1 Are you able to provide clear usage for "eavestrough"?

I have pre-reform dictionary with eaves meaning, but not eavestrough.

You also seem to share very strange interest of @Atitarev to harass users rather than do things. Especially for minor reasons. d1g (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

05:38, 13 October 2017

Making up for the failed ping

03:41, 13 October 2017

Hey CC! CAn you get your bot to remove all the Template:en-rank stuff? I've been doing it slowly for the last 10 years, but a bot would be far faster...

11:08, 10 October 2017

Where is the documentation of these ids?



is exactly what I wanted, purporting to signify denominative formation. But on which page to find out these arguments, i.e. so I will further know how to similarly categorize?

20:17, 8 October 2017

It should probably be better documented. Currently it's only mentioned on the documentation of {{senseid}}.

Rua (mew)

20:31, 8 October 2017

I understand what is written there but – yet not understanding the template/module structure of the English Wiktionary – have to ask: Why is it written there and what speaks against adding the text to Category:Morphology templates (or a higher place from which on that technique has an influence)? You should probably specify on the appropriate place (depending on what the “such” templates are that are talked about at the T:senseid) that there is an extra argument that can be assigned.

20:48, 8 October 2017

The documentation of {{affix}}, {{suffix}} and such should definitely make mention of this feature. Perhaps they could, at the very least, include a link to the section of {{senseid}}'s documentation.

Rua (mew)

21:01, 8 October 2017

About baltic tu "thou"

18:18, 8 October 2017

Rua (mew)

18:19, 8 October 2017

Ā... I understood. It's just a hypothetical form.

18:31, 8 October 2017

Yes, and all the Balto-Slavic terms are listed there.

Rua (mew)

18:34, 8 October 2017

"Balto-Slavic: *tūˀ, *tū"

Will it be ok?

18:34, 8 October 2017
  • tū is wrong, it should be *tūˀ.

Rua (mew)

18:35, 8 October 2017

Why slavic form is seperately in the section *tūˀ (, Balto-Slavic: *tūˀ

   Slavic: *ty (see there for further descendants)

but all forms together are presented in

   Latvian: tu
   Lithuanian: tù
   Old Prussian: tou
   Slavic: *ty

Slavic form is much more important?

18:52, 8 October 2017

It's because the Slavic page also lists descendants, so people can get to it more easily. If you really want, you can use {{desctree}} on the Proto-Indo-European page.

Rua (mew)

18:54, 8 October 2017

Template:+obj falling short?

An exciting template. It has been a pleasure to see your edit just because I have therewith obtained the knowledge of its existence. But I am afraid it cannot be used consistently. On one hand because I do not know what arguments it takes (and also not yet what Template:+posto and Template:+preo do), on the other hand because the Template:lb allows to express a more loose collection, e.g. if the object is optional. And yes, that is the case with the word dienen. How to express it if an object takes a specific case but is not required? I think it is confusing to read “(transitive, intransitive) to serve [+dative]”. Then there is a problem if a verb can take either an object by declining it directly or by a preposition. For me the entry صدف looks good, but of course one would like to categorize better various preposition usages. It looks to me somehow like no way is right currently right for specifying verb government. Obviously, because English does have little of it and the next popular languages likewise. Maybe some new template that is specifical for rection is necessary, so one can fill in the governed cases and adpositions together with a qualifier about their obligatorinesses, for also transitivity is a spectrum and with one word there cannot be depicted the fact if two of two possible objects are required or only a specific one of two objects or none and how much expected each object is, and of course recursively for languages that allow even more objects resp. for alternative usages. A Kantian question: Was darf ich hoffen?

Another question: How can I search well the namespaces for the usage of a specific template? It could show me things when documentation lacks. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

00:38, 6 October 2017

I'm not sure about your questions, but maybe someone in Beer parlour or Grease pit has ideas.

Rua (mew)

10:36, 6 October 2017


Hello, about the roll-back in the PIE term *(hₓ)yḗkʷr̥. Fortson reconstructs it as an acrostatic with a lengthened e grade, so does James Clarkson. Neither Beeks nor Sihler mention the ablaut but they reconstruct them with a short e grade. Plus none of them add a laryngeal at the beggining.

23:07, 5 October 2017

The entry is already sourced.

Rua (mew)

23:08, 5 October 2017

Strong non-lemma forms

Strong non-lemma forms need their own etymological information. E.g. Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/dedǭ has a unique derivation from a reduplicated form. There is no reason to have this information only in the pages for the lemma forms, which is confusing and overly inaccessible.

With all respect, 15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

15:41, 3 October 2017

It's not unique, it's shared by all past-tense forms. The practice on Wiktionary is to include the etymology for all forms on the lemma entry. In fact, non-lemma entries are kept as minimal as possible.

Rua (mew)

15:44, 3 October 2017

This practice doesn't seem to be the best approach for arbitrary, memorized strong forms like these. It is understandable for forms like "walked" to leave the etymology to "walk", but in the cases of forms like "brought", "did", "sang", where the etymology of the particular form can be independently traced back to earlier forms, this information should be more readily accessible from and noted in the non-lemma form's page.

15:48, 3 October 2017

It should be noted in the lemma form's page, as on *dōną.

Rua (mew)

15:48, 3 October 2017

Why? There is no reason for this. Each of these non-lemma forms have received individual attention from linguists through the last two centuries. They need to have this information on their own pages.

15:51, 3 October 2017

Non-lemma pages are kept as minimal as possible. Etymological information is consolidated on the lemma page. This is the standard practice for cases where a lemma has multiple distinct origins. Compare koelen, durven.

Rua (mew)

15:54, 3 October 2017

Hi, regarding this, poda patti doesn't seem like a phrase, hence replaced it with slang, as it is a slang word. The other change was modifying the Malayalam script. Which change out of these two was found questionable by you and reverted ? Thanks, King Prithviraj II (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

17:19, 24 September 2017

Hi, CodeCat. I tried to add a function on the module so to have proper nouns, too, but I must have done something wrong. May you check my mistakes? Thanks and sorry in advance ;)

Would you be so kind to reply at least to tell me if you can or not? Please…

Well, thank you anyway. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] (parla con me) 13:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unable to reply, as you know by now. Are you still having trouble with this?

Rua (mew)

14:38, 17 September 2017

Take a look at {{it-proper noun}}. I made it all manually, but is there a way to automatize the whole thing by fixing the function I added to the module?

How is this? diff

Rua (mew)

15:16, 17 September 2017


(Voor het gemak zeg ik dit in het Nederlands maar ik heb er geen problemen mee als je het liever in het Engels doet)
In het Vroegmiddelnederlands Woordenboek (1200-1300) komt het woord "haghel" 14 keer voor en is er ook nog eens 10 keer sprake van een prefix haghel-, plus èèn haghael en èèn aghel-. De spelling -gh- komt dus in totaal 26 keer voor in bronnen uit deze eeuw terwijl hagel maar twee keer voorkomt. In de periode 1250-1500 is te zien dat hagel in gebruik toeneemt maar nog steeds gelijkgaat met haghel tot ongeveer de 15e eeuw. Etymologisch Woordenboek van het Nederlands (M. Philippa e.a. 2003-2009) geeft dan ook haghel als de Middelnederlandse vorm (afgeleid van het oudere werkwoord haghelen), evenals Nederlands Etymologisch Woordenboek (J. de Vries 1971) en een paar anderen. Ik denk dat het meer is dan simpelweg een variant. Het kan best wel eens de meest voorkomende vorm uit die tijd zijn, maar het punt is meer dat haghel duidelijk de standaard was van 1200 tot 1300 en daarna slechts geleidelijk populariteit moest afstaan aan hagel. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

15:43, 15 September 2017

{{temp|In title}}

Wikipedia has this useful template. Do you think it is worth importing or can we improve on it? (it is non-Lua)

04:49, 28 August 2017

What does it do?

Rua (mew)

11:52, 28 August 2017

Your signature

I'm a little confused by your new signature here, and was wondering why you changed it.

22:02, 23 August 2017

I have a pending rename, waiting for usurpation.

Rua (mew)

22:07, 23 August 2017

Oh. That's gonna take some getting used to...

15:07, 24 August 2017

Ruakh sometimes comes to my mind when I'm reading CodeCat's new name.

18:24, 24 August 2017

Why was this done? Plenty of other pages note relevant false cognates.

09:41, 24 August 2017

{{term}} is obsolete, you linked to the page it.

Rua (mew)

10:25, 24 August 2017

Why so unhelpful?

Just write a sentence to tell me what was wrong. It says you are a native speaker of English, so take the ten seconds.

?'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'? Knyȝt

11:50, 23 August 2017
  • The things you added to the definition line should go in a usage note, as they have nothing to do with the meaning of the word.
  • Synonyms go before derived terms, per WT:EL.
  • The descendants were not formatted with {{l}} or {{desc}}.
  • Most of the descendants are not actual descendants, but rather descendants of derived terms.
12:01, 23 August 2017

What about now?

?'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'? Knyȝt

12:36, 23 August 2017

Now it's good, thank you.

12:49, 23 August 2017

Alright, thanks.

?'"`UNIQ--nowiki-00000000-QINU`"'? Knyȝt

12:56, 23 August 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".