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
Proto-Germanic - 'Landawulfaz'119:39, 2 July 2018
Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme1421:50, 25 June 2018
Woe/boe112:03, 8 June 2018
Module:el-translit200:42, 6 June 2018
!important600:40, 6 June 2018
{{temp|el-decl-noun}}019:16, 23 May 2018
zǫbъ, źambas1113:29, 19 May 2018
The genitive of the Turkish noun ''su''106:37, 14 May 2018
Hebrew roots.1006:48, 6 April 2018
(s)teg-203:11, 1 April 2018
Noone011:25, 29 March 2018
template:rel-mid014:59, 16 March 2018
German words from Low German916:30, 7 March 2018
kweern217:08, 7 February 2018
escolhos001:00, 3 February 2018
Re dôre, door, Tor010:20, 2 February 2018, 29 January 2018
*madeh / *matadak112:31, 28 January 2018
The pronunciation of Old English hnīgan210:12, 16 January 2018
gebaarde116:51, 14 January 2018
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Proto-Germanic - 'Landawulfaz'

Hi Rua,

I just wanted to turn your attention to this page that was created by an anonymous user. As I'm not a moderator or administrator, I've never known how to propose a page be deleted (I left a message on the talk page but so far nobody's seen it). Regards --Theudariks (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

19:31, 2 July 2018

Rua is inactive. When you see an anon create a reconstructed entry with no descendants, you can put the template {{d}} on it (with that as the first parameter).

19:39, 2 July 2018

Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme

The purpose of including reconstructions in Wiktionary is not to posit them with some claim of certainty, nor is it to say “here is a theory the details of which are unilaterally agreed upon,” but rather more along the lines of “there is evidence for the existence of this, though as a reconstruction it is by nature hypothetical,” as disclaimers such as {{reconstruction}} are clear about.

I fear that you are letting your personal range of experience and particular set of opinions get in the way of constructive discussion. The theory of Altaic for one is certainly not unilaterally accepted either, nor are the particulars of the phonetics of Proto-Sino-Tibetan or Proto-Afro-Asiatic, or even Old Chinese—hell, there is still much disagreement about PIE—but in the same sense that settling on a particular phonological model for the time being shouldn't prevent Wiktionary entries for these languages from existing, neither should disagreement about families like Altaic prevent there from being any inclusion of them, as is evident already. If the assumption is that there is something inherently wrong in describing such hypotheses, what is it that is wrong? This is not a matter of whether a scholarly interest exists (it most certainly does) nor a matter of whether there is consensus among any subset of scholars working on the areas in question (there is); instead, you are in danger of now turning it into an issue of neutrality. You did not provide any rationale for the deletions either in prior discussion or retroactively (and I can only guess that your expectation was that I come to you). Other than useless deletionism I do not see any grounds for it. It is not in the same ballpark as modifying or deleting PIE paradigms in favor of alternative models: in this case your choice has been to wipe the (only) information out of existence without hesitation. Regardless, I can only hope that future incidents of this form do not take this path.

 — J​as​p​e​t

01:51, 7 December 2017

I suppose the reason for deleting them is that the reconstructions are founded on poor scholarship using questionable methods which very few people believe. Other than that, the entries are fine, I guess...

04:41, 7 December 2017

“poor scholarship”

Such as what? And in what sense? Quality? (If so, what specifically?) Quantity? (If so, I agree that it is lacking. But there has been a considerable amount of work done since over century ago.)

“questionable methods”

Again, such as what?

“very few people believe”

That may be so. Sadly very few people, relatively speaking, have any knowledge of or interest in comparative linguistics. But, assuming you are referring exclusively to comparative linguists, I would like to know what counts as “very few”. Not that I am contesting that there are few: I would simply like a genuine reference point on which to base the observation of how many of the whole agree with the methodology used and conclusions drawn, and which whole. I don't expect that there have been many surveys on comparative linguists' opinions at large; however, as for the number of linguists who have worked on the areas in question, is it any less than for protolanguages such as those of Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian or “Altaic”? In each case the picture is overall the same: two, maybe three, large works which are regarded as the standard, separate and collaborative efforts among a handful of well-known names, and other small contributions by a larger number of lesser-known names. (Of course this description then also leads to the issue of defining “well known”: how much?, and, more importantly, by whom?) Whether the opinions of those who do not study these areas is just as relevant as the opinions of those who do is another question, though perhaps more relevant to the philosophy of ways of knowing. Both you and Rua are evidently very experienced, in the areas relevant to what you have studied, but there seems to be no objective manner in which to discern whose beliefs matter to what—other than the principle that Wikimedia administrators are granted the unquestioned last word!

I would be delighted, anyway, if Rua has any input to add.

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:26, 7 December 2017

If the community approves of the addition of those languages, and assigns them a language code, then you are free to add entries.

Rua (mew)

19:35, 7 December 2017

Ah, thank you!

I understand the issue now: One must first request a code, and hope the dice roll in their favor.

Hopefully the opposite logic won't then be invoked, i.e. “Why create a language code for something with no entries?”

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:40, 7 December 2017

I don't know a single linguist who regards Nostratic as anything more than a bad joke. I think you're aware that there might be a reason almost nobody takes it seriously. But yes, it's definitely the work of a shady cabal of Wiktionary administrators trying to keep the truth locked away...

19:42, 7 December 2017

Well, it sounds like you might benefit from expanding your knowledge of linguists then. :)

As for your implication that I regard this as some sort of conspiracy, thanks for the laugh! In reality, though, work on the theories of such families as Nostratic and Indo-Uralic continue regardless of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia have to say on them (which are, respectively, nothing and almost nothing).

 — J​as​p​e​t

19:47, 7 December 2017

People working on these theories is not the same as these theories being accepted as mainstream. I've seen enough hooey from the Nostratic camp to make me quite leary of anything coming from there.

00:17, 8 December 2017

In this edit you added a Limburgish sense of woe, while adding an example using Maastrichtian (?) boe.  --Lambiam 14:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

14:43, 7 June 2018

Please note that Rua is inactive and likely will not respond to this message. As for the issue at hand, I think that the usage example, though suboptimal, is fine. As always, usage examples can be improved by replacing them with quotations from books.

12:03, 8 June 2018


Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 00:42, 6 June 2018

I'm reluctant to edit this myself, please can you help again. el-translit allows for letter combinations at the beginning of an entry - but not at the beginning of a word preceded by a space (illustrated by:

μπανάνα μπανάναmpanána banána

). μπ and ντ are affected. Many thanks!

06:30, 29 October 2014

I think it should be fixed. It still won't work after anything other than a space though.

13:40, 29 October 2014

Thanks - as usual :)

18:33, 29 October 2014


Hi. You recently added !important to a lot of declarations in Common.css. Why?

This is bad practice in general. It buggers up accessibility for users who have to apply their own user CSS in the browser to be able to read. It overrides inline styles, for example where it has neutralized the display of italic letters in the tables in Appendix:Russian alphabet and Appendix:Ukrainian alphabetMichael Z. 2013-09-08 05:50 z

 Michael Z. 2013-09-08 05:50 z

05:50, 8 September 2013

I had hoped that it would mean that those declarations would apply even if another element would override it. Essentially I wanted it to mean "always apply this, prevent it from being italic under any circumstances". That didn't work, though, so I think it can be removed?

11:19, 8 September 2013
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 00:40, 6 June 2018

Well, !important makes a declaration take precedence over all other declarations that select the same element. But the cascade still continues to work for elements contained within the selected element.

So .Cyrl { --- !important; } will trump the more-specific i.Cyrl { ---; }, but not neuter all declarations for child elements like .Cyrl i { ---; }.

The CSS3 spec[1] implies this, but doesn’t say it explicitly. It does, however, list some situations where !important could be useful.

Yes, these !importants should all be removed. Because !important breaks the normal cascade, it makes debugging a nightmare. It should only be used for outstanding circumstances, not as a shortcut for appropriate more-specific selectors.

You could use the following, although it may fail in various ways (e.g., an English phrase that contains italics quoted within a Russian paragraph):

i.Cyrl,  .Cyrl i,
em.Cyrl, .Cyrl em
{ font-style: normal; }

But because the language attribute is inherited by child elements, the right way to do it is for each language:

i:lang(be), em:lang(be),
i:lang(ru), em:lang(ru),
i:lang(uk), em:lang(uk),
{ font-style: normal; }

CSS ignores the rest of the language code beyond the first fragment, so :lang(sh-Cyrl) or :lang(*-Cyrl) selects nothing. This may seem unfortunate, but we really should be simplifying the code instead of complicating it as browsers’ language support improves. The typographic ideal is one font-family and font-size for all languages, rather than one for each language.

 Michael Z. 2013-09-09 15:08 z

15:08, 9 September 2013
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 00:37, 6 June 2018

You could also use the universal selector to explicitly select an element and all of its descendants. Is is simple and will override unanticipated italics in elements other than i and em, but still can be overriden by still-more specific declarations and in inline CSS. It could still break in nested languages.

.Cyrl, .Cyrl *
{ font-style: normal; }

 Michael Z. 2013-09-09 16:28 z

16:28, 9 September 2013

That seems like a good idea. Can you make the change?

16:44, 9 September 2013

Will do. Michael Z. 2013-09-10 02:12 z

 Michael Z. 2013-09-10 02:12 z

02:12, 10 September 2013

I did this. Now very tired. Please proofread my code changes when you have a chance. thanks.

 Michael Z. 2013-09-10 05:44 z

05:44, 10 September 2013


Edited by another user.
Last edit: 19:16, 23 May 2018

Please comment at Template talk:el-decl-noun#Changing the format if you have any views — Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

05:26, 4 May 2012
Edited by author.
Last edit: 21:31, 27 July 2013

Hi! Would you mind adding sources to those protoforms? I want to mention them in the etymology section of Latvian zobs, and it would be better to mention sourced reconstructions so that I can footnote them. Thanks in advance!

21:28, 27 July 2013

I thought that was one of the better known reconstructions. I don't have any sources on hand, but it could hardly have been anything else...

21:29, 27 July 2013
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 13:29, 19 May 2018

Well, if they are better known reconstructions, then they are published somewhere, right? I mean, you saw at least zǫbъ somewhere, didn't you? And you checked it when you created the page (say, to avoid misspellings), didn't you? Can't you say where?

As for źambas, when you say it "could hardly have been anything else", am I correct in assuming that you've done the reconstruction yourself (i.e., made yourself the step of saying it's PBS), rather than having seen it done/claimed by someone else?

21:34, 27 July 2013

I found a source: Rick Derksen, Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon. It gives the form *źombos, but that's the same because o and a merged in Balto-Slavic. I'm not sure why he chose o and not a as the product of the merger, because as far as I know all of the evidence and consensus agrees with a. The same entry also gives zuobs as the Latvian form...?

21:38, 27 July 2013

The Latvian letter "o" is used to represent the diphthong [úo] (actually more like [úə]), which Baltic specialists tend to retranscribe as <uo> so as to stress the fact that it is a diphthong. It's normal practice, like also adding intonation markers to Latvian (and Lithuanian) that are not part of standard spelling, as well as (for Latvian) also using some device to mark the difference between /e/ and /æ/ (both spelled <e> in Standard Latvian), e.g. <ę> for [æ].

If your source mentions *źombos rather than *źombas, then how do you know *źombas is really better? If the 'evidence and consensus' etc. point to it, then there should be something that can be cited to support that, right?

Look, I'm not trying to be a spoilsport or something. I am just not a Balto-Slavicist, and I feel confused and less likely to trust what I see (since I'm not familiar with the Balto-Slavic literature -- which is certainly the case of most Wiktionary users) if I see unsourced reconstructions or divergences/variations. Wouldn't it be a good service to the average user to add this information to the PBS, PS (and PIE for that matter) pages? I mean, Wiktionary is also about giving the best possible information, right?

21:47, 27 July 2013

I agree, but the difference between źombos and źambas is really trivial. o and a were the same phoneme in Balto-Slavic, so they are two letters for the same reconstructed sound. The only case I can think of where the difference between them would be significant is for a sound change that affected o and a differently. There is in fact such a change, Winter's law, which lengthens the vowels to ō and ā (which don't merge), showing us the distinction. But the only conclusion you can draw from that is that Winter's law occurred before the vowels merged. As far as we can tell, the merger happened before Balto-Slavic split apart, because all Balto-Slavic languages show only a single reflex of both original vowels (a in Baltic, o in Slavic but with evidence of an earlier a > o change in Middle Common Slavic), and there are no post-Balto-Slavic sound changes that require or show evidence for a distinction between a and o. The conclusion then is that they must have been indistinct in Proto-Balto-Slavic itself, and that any difference between them is purely notational.

21:58, 27 July 2013

The genitive of the Turkish noun ''su''

The declension table for the Turkish noun su (water), using the template call {{tr-infl-noun-v|u}}, lists its genitive as sunun. The genitive of su is, however, actually suyun.
    This is one of the very rare exceptions in Turkish; su is the only word in which the regular buffer consonant n between vowels is replaced by the consonant y. It also applies to the possessives; e.g., the 3rd-person-singular is suyu, not *sunu. Examples: suyun tadı = "the taste of water"; maden suyu = "mineral water".
    Can you think of a way to fix this, so that the correct form is displayed?

05:34, 14 May 2018

Rua has quit the project. You'd do better to ask at WT:GP.

06:37, 14 May 2018

Hebrew roots.

Dear (Mr. CodeCat),

Thank you for your message. It is not right for me to assume an evolutional root for present words from a pre-Babel language. It is a known fact that most of the dialects around Caucasus are entirely distinct. One of them has been stated to be the origin of the Basque grammar; but that is beside the point. No one can prove that many language heads did not start up at the time of the confusion of languages. I, personally like to cite a word that is attested for a stock root, rather than making up a conjectured one. I have had to research into pre-Aryan languages, such as Basque and Finnish, in order to decipher some of the words of unknown origin. To provide an example of an unintelligent conjecture that I made, regarding the origin of Basque for 5 as 'basti', and 'nilar' for 4; but that was just ignorance. The nearest to the stock root is Turkish BESH, (long E). The nasalised Indo-European root, PENKWE answers to most European forms, but Finnish VISI is ultimately allied with Basque BOST. An old Semitic word for 5 is MACH, and they all answer to a stock root, MESH in Hebrew CHAMESH, probably from its usage, in spite of all having distinct languages at the time. Another common Eurasian prefix is MAN, implying habitation in various contexts. This answers to Hebrew MAON (den, or habitation). I have had discussions on this subject with a friend who has a degree in ancient languages.

18:16, 11 August 2015

For starters, not Mr. CodeCat. Don't assume.

You'll have to clarify what you mean by "pre-Babel" language or "pre-Aryan", those are not terms I've ever come across before. But what you're doing now is basically pseudoscience. You can't just compare two random words in widely different languages and say that they're related. English is not related to Hebrew, Indo-European is not related to Finnish and not to Basque.

If your friend really has a degree in linguistics, and accepts all of this, then I honestly worry for their contributions to science.

18:27, 11 August 2015

Thank you for your message. I fully realise that two similar words of similar meaning belonging to diverse language families cannot be merely connected without an older stock root from a parent language or analogous words retained in the minds of such speakers. My usage and style was NOT derived from my friend, otherwise I can sympathise with your last sentence. I learned most of my pre-research of ancient languages from 'the Loom of Language' by Bodmer. By pre-Aryan, I was referring the the older family stock of Finn-Ugrian that includes Magyar, parent of Hungarian and Finnish, that as you state, are outside of the Indo-European family. However there was a period when only one language was spoken, that I wrongly believed to be Akkadian as being the first Semetic language to disappear, as well as being antediluvian. Sumerian, as one of ancient languages, was restored and in use until about the time of Sanskrit that led to Prakrit. It must also be realised that the ancient languages of Britain belonged to different families: it must not be assumed that they were all Indo-European; because, for example, the two main verbs, to be and to possess, in Pictish are strongly connected with those in Basque that is constitutionally separate in its syntax, et cetera, from all the other language heads. Indo-European, for example is, Japhetic, whereas Iberian, or Punic and Hebrew are Semetic. In Cornwall we have the Iron Age Celtic derivative 'DIN...' for a fort, from Celtic 'DUN' whence our word DOWN (hill), possibly through Old Saxon though; whereas the other preposition 'KER' = Welsh 'CAER' is akin to Punic QERETH (town or city), from another stock entirely. It is these oldest words in English that have slipped through the multitude of conquests, that have been my focal point of attention. When writing out all the mediaeval and older words in the English dictionary commencing A and B, eight years ago, I was quite free to admit that only about 0.2% did I need to change. I used the Oxford Etymological Dictionary as my base source. This was a hobbly of mine since I was seventeen.

Kind Regards,

19:23, 11 August 2015

Where are you getting the idea that at one point only one language was spoken? See w:Proto-Human language, where it's noted that this idea is seriously criticised and linguists consider it unscientific. Even smaller "macro-families" like Nostratic have not gained wide acceptance in linguistics, so Proto-Human is way out there. If we're going to discuss etymology on Wiktionary, you have to at least be aware of and speak in terms of current scientific consensus.

19:28, 11 August 2015

Thank you, and also thanks for the two messages on editors' news. Kind Regards, Andrew

19:43, 17 August 2015

Werdna, you may wish to read the article "How likely are chance resemblances between languages?" over on the Zompist blog. This addresses the pattern of correspondences you describe above.

You may also find "Proto-World and the Language Instinct" of interest. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

19:53, 17 August 2015

‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig Thank you so much for this information that I am perusing. I made sure that I perused the sites on Sound Changes, to refresh my mind on Grimm's law and other laws, before editing Talk pages on certain words. My aim is to be available towards perfecting Wiktionary etymologies of illusive words, to make sure that it is indisputably the most reliable reference. Certain Proto Indo-European roots have caused me concern, particularly that of DOWN, where the meaning changes abruptly and could well be criticised by professional etymologists. It is always safer to be able to cite a known language for the period of the unattested = * root, such as Hittite for an axe, under etymology for ADZE, that I always regarded as an Iberian word that remained through the conquests. Since the spelling changes considerably over the years, and there are a number of such words in Spanish, some of which were borrowed into Basque, two or three illusive words may have these remote connections. You may be interested that English BAD is cited in the Guiness Book of Records as the oldest English word; but I reject folk etymologies. All of what you have recommended for me will be essential if I am to edit words seriously. Kind Regards, Andrew

20:43, 17 August 2015

Don't worry Andrew, this whole conflict was worthwhile because at least SOMEBODY (me, namely) is making good use of the intelligence you have posited on here about preBabel and the Basque and Caucasian langs. Still didnt read it.. but wish me luck in finding it if you didnt post it. Hope this doesnt get my server number banned if that's possible from wikipedia, this little notage of support of sorts.

22:17, 24 March 2018

On Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/(s)teg-, you asked "why -th-" a couple of times for Sanskrit words. Why shouldn't plain "t" change to dental "t"? Danielklein (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

21:45, 6 February 2018

The question is why there is aspiration.

Rua (mew)

22:02, 6 February 2018

You shouldn't be questioning the material by asking on the page itself. If you have concerns, take them to the Tea room where they're more likely to get answered.

03:11, 1 April 2018

Hi Rua I would like to discuss your reversion of my edit on 'noone'. Do you have a competent reference/source that indicates the use of 'noone', at any time, with the meaning 'no one' (or no-one) is other than a typographic error?

11:25, 29 March 2018

Your last edit here deleted not only documentation, but the code of the template.

14:59, 16 March 2018

German words from Low German

Hi, as yet there are two etymological categories: "German words from Middle Low German" and "German words from German Low German". The words of the former category are not included in the latter one. I think there should be a category including all words from Low German, either by making a new category or by adding the "Middle Low German" ones to the "German Low German" ones. (I would prefer the latter because I've added several "German Low German" etymologies without paying attention to at what time they were borrowed.) - Could you do that? Or tell me how it could be done? Thanks.

20:39, 20 May 2014

That's not currently possible, and I don't know if it's desirable either. You should ask in the Beer Parlour what others think of it.

20:53, 20 May 2014

Why would it not be desirable?? They are all words from Low German, whether they were borrowed in 1400 or 1600. I couldn't think of one reason why there should not be a list that unites all of them... But okay, I'll ask someone else.

20:04, 25 May 2014

They're not all words from Low German if some of them were borrowed in 1400.

I imagine the confusion arises because "Low German" is, in the minds of non-linguists, an imprecise term. Some people group Dutch Low Saxon + German Low German, some people group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch, you seem to group GLG + Middle Low German, someone else might group DLS + GLG + Plautdietsch + MLG. But as a linguistic work, we can't use non-linguists' conceptualizations of these lects. After all, some non-linguists group some or all of the preceding lects into "German" (which in turn may or may not include Middle High German); they would probably expect a list of e.g. English words derived from German to include words derived from Low German. I don't know of any practical way Wiktionary could cater to such people, except the way we already do, which is that we have linguistically-based categories which people can, on their own computers, combine any way they want.

Tangentially, I note that it isn't even necessarily the case that all words derived from modern Low German varieties derive from Middle Low German: in some cases, a Low German variety borrowed a word from another language (e.g. Polish) in the post-MLG period.

17:49, 2 June 2014
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 16:30, 7 March 2018

Okay. These seem to be "international" problems that I wasn't aware of. From a traditional German dialectologist point of view, Low German means those dialects of continental West Germanic that have not undergone the consonant shift -- with the exception of Low Franconian, although the very traditional view would also include Low Franconian in Low German. (Nota bene that there is a 18th or 19th century grammar of Dutch with the name of "Nederduytsche Spraakkunst".) Low German writers of High German used Low German words in High German texts. And whether they did that in 1550 or 1650 doesn't make much of a difference in my opinion. But okay... I've been adding quite a few etymologies marking words of Low German origin as from German Low German ( {{etym|nds-de|de}} ). How should I proceed in the future? Only use this tag when the word is attested in High German after 1600? And otherwise Middle Low German? Could we at least add an info to the lists saying "see also: words from German Low German" and "see also: words from Middle Low German"?

18:29, 2 June 2014

Btw, I do "admit" that I'm not a professional linguist. But this is the normal definition of Low German. Of course, also excluding Frisian which I forgot above.

How can I group Middle Low German and German Low German together? Middle Low German is an earlier form of Low German, which later may have split into DLS and GLG.

The point is that Low German has been spoken in northern Germany from the earliest days to the present. Over time words have made their way from the various dialects of Low German (because there has never been Low German as one language) into High German and later standard German. All of these are from Low German, in my point of view.

I'm not saying that there's no difference between Middle Low German and modern Low German, but nearly all Low German words in standard German date back to 15th ~ 17th century (the time when Low German adopted standard German). We're arbitrarily splitting them into two groups, just because one is attested a few decades earlier than the other.

18:47, 2 June 2014

Yes, if a word was borrowed before 1600, it was borrowed from Middle Low German, and if it was borrowed after that, it was borrowed from German Low German. Compare how béabhar derives from Middle English while gairdín derives from English, and how trousers derives from Middle Irish while keen derives from Irish.

We could add {{also}}s to the tops of Category:German terms derived from Middle Low German, Category:German terms derived from German Low German, Category:German terms derived from Dutch Low Saxon and potentially Category:German terms derived from Plautdietsch, linking them all to each other, and then do likewise for "Dutch terms derived from..." and all the other categories. Assuming we wouldn't have to modify the {{also}}s once they were placed, that wouldn't be the maintenance nightmare it might seem to be at first glance. (In any case, it'd be less of a maintenance nightmare than trying to conflate MLG and GLG, in my estimation.)

02:56, 4 June 2014

Hi Rua ! I saw that you've added Dutch kweern to *kwernuz. Does this mean that it should be removed from *kwernō ? Please advise (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

16:43, 7 February 2018

No, I was mistaken. But wow, Germanic is such a pain with its different stem varieties...

Rua (mew)

16:53, 7 February 2018

I know...going forward perhaps I should create pages only for the bare stem, not the stem variety

17:08, 7 February 2018

Where did the information about its metaphonicity go, Rua?

01:00, 3 February 2018

Re dôre, door, Tor

I saw you added the rfe at dôre. A few sources connect either this or the German Tor to a Proto-Germanic *dauz-.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)

10:20, 2 February 2018

There's an anon editing and adding Old English pronunciations like this: [[1]].

Some edits this IP is making seem okay, but I've been reverting the ones like the above. Are they correct ? I've asked for clarification, but have got no response. It's a lot of reverting, so I'd hate to block this IP :\ ...

Any insight ?

18:57, 28 January 2018

It's probably some vague theory about the pronunciation that is given by one source. I would just get rid of it.

Rua (mew)

19:54, 28 January 2018

Thanks !

00:18, 29 January 2018

*madeh / *matadak

Entry for *madeh should be created but I have no information on it. SSA mentioned the made-mataa connection as possible, but someone had already linked them here through *madeh without remarks. Therefore I added the note in *matadak to make the connection to made visible.

00:54, 28 January 2018

Descendants should go on the actual entry for *madeh when it's created.

Rua (mew)

12:31, 28 January 2018

The pronunciation of Old English hnīgan

Hello Rua,

I'm curious in how you came to the conclusion of hnīgan having a voiced velar fricative g. Normally that sort of sound only comes when g is between two back vowels with the exception of l, r, or if the word descended that the 'g' was replaced by a 'w'.

Hope to hear from you soon.

05:57, 15 January 2018

In what way do you think I came to that conclusion? I'm not sure of the context here.

Rua (mew)

11:23, 15 January 2018

I had the impression that you assumed that Old English hnīgan's 'g' never changed into a 'back g'.

10:12, 16 January 2018

Hi Rua ! I added Etymology 2 at gebaarde, but I am not 100% certain of this. Information on this word is scant. Can you please confirm the inflected forms (plural and diminutive) ? Also, should this word for this meaning be labelled as obsolete ?

Thanks !

16:40, 14 January 2018

I've never heard of this word, I only know of gebaar.

Rua (mew)

16:51, 14 January 2018
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".