Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Rua

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

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
The pronunciation of Old English hnīgan210:12, 16 January 2018
gebaarde116:51, 14 January 2018
'autocat'115:59, 13 January 2018
Latin reconstruction pages323:06, 9 January 2018
Re: diff 48378753 -- "glosses should not use Template:l"120:42, 6 January 2018
hur'ri318:55, 4 January 2018
gegevene215:48, 2 January 2018
uitrijden113:32, 28 December 2017
stokken020:36, 25 December 2017
iets220:00, 25 December 2017
rollbacker114:45, 25 December 2017
Sant Bhasha words deleted216:49, 19 December 2017
Parameters question100:42, 16 December 2017
smaak323:54, 14 December 2017
Borstelig523:23, 14 December 2017
Request222:55, 12 December 2017
Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme1414:53, 12 December 2017
Rollbacks to list of English words ending in "-sis118:47, 11 December 2017
Format of entries016:16, 10 December 2017
rhymes on -ɛi̯ɣən722:31, 9 December 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

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
 

Hello, I have seen on the talk page for 'PulauKakatua19' that you recommend to him to use 'autocat' to create a category. I didn't know about this, should 'autocat' always be used? Thank you in advance.

15:55, 13 January 2018

If you want.

Rua (mew)

15:59, 13 January 2018
 

Latin reconstruction pages

Hello. I wonder what's your yardstick for judging whether a reconstructed entry should be kept or not. Personally, I think we shouldn't have reconstructions when they only trivially differ from attested words. But I'm not always sure myself what would count as "trivial". *circlus seems totally useless, while *padule is already a bit more interesting. What do you think?

21:58, 9 January 2018

If they are alternative forms of attested words, they shouldn't be created. Only actual unattested words should have entries.

Rua (mew)

22:24, 9 January 2018

All right, that makes sense I guess. So you wouldn't keep *padule either, right?

22:45, 9 January 2018

No I wouldn't.

Rua (mew)

23:06, 9 January 2018
 
 
 

Re: diff 48378753 -- "glosses should not use Template:l"

In the edit summary for diff, you mentioned that "glosses should not use Template:l". I seem to have missed that memo. I've been quite active in using Template:l to specify the language of the linked term, in part due to various usability issues people have reported over time, such as when using tabbed languages.

Is there a specific reason not to use Template:l?

20:38, 6 January 2018

The TabbedLanguages issue no longer applies since changes were made to its code. It now defaults to English or Translingual.

Rua (mew)

20:42, 6 January 2018
 

Can you give some extra clues or citations for hurri ?

19:53, 3 January 2018

I've added Álgu links for both of the senses.

Rua (mew)

20:00, 3 January 2018

Thanks alot. Do you have any idea of the age of the word? Would it be out of question that the Finnish word was derived from it?

17:27, 4 January 2018

I don't think they're related. The "newcomer" sense is actually a bit vague, Álgu gives a more precise sense of someone who doesn't know how things are done. I'm not sure how that relates to the Finnish sense at all.

Rua (mew)

18:55, 4 January 2018
 
 
 

Can you define gegevene? -

03:38, 2 January 2018

I don't think you should be editing Dutch anymore. You make too many mistakes.

Rua (mew)

11:46, 2 January 2018

Which mistakes have I made on this one? -

15:48, 2 January 2018
 
 

Could you review this entry? -

03:14, 28 December 2017

Fixed. It was pretty bad, to be honest. The definition was totally wrong.

Rua (mew)

13:32, 28 December 2017
 

According to this, stokken can be translated as balk. -

20:36, 25 December 2017

Besides functioning as a pronoun meaning something or anything, can the word iets be used as an adverb? How would you best translate the phrase "een iets recenter verschijnsel"? -

19:52, 25 December 2017

As "somewhat". I think it is an adverb, yes. Similar to ietsje.

Rua (mew)

19:53, 25 December 2017

Thanks. I've added that adverb definition to iets.

20:00, 25 December 2017
 
 

rollbacker

Hello Rua, i need rollbacker rights.

14:45, 25 December 2017

Why are you asking me?

Rua (mew)

14:45, 25 December 2017
 

Sant Bhasha words deleted

An entries for these words under Sant Bhasha are deleted ਸੋਚੈ ਸੋਚਿ ਨ ਹੋਵਈ ਜੇ ਸੋਚੀਂ ਲਖ ਵਾਰ ਚੁਪੈ.

23:50, 10 September 2014

I deleted them because they were very badly formatted and would basically have to be redone. But more importantly, Sant Bhasha is not a language that's currently recognised on Wiktionary, and Wikipedia suggests that it's a constructed language like Esperanto. Languages that are not in Wiktionary's list of languages need to go through some kind of discussion process to assign them a language code, on WT:BP. But more importantly, minor constructed languages (which this seems to be) are not permitted at all.

23:55, 10 September 2014

A bit late now, but Sant Bhasha is just a liturgical variant of Punjabi (code pa). I've remade some of the deleted pages.

 
 

Parameters question

What's the point of having default values for required arguments?

00:41, 16 December 2017

The default value is used on template pages, where the requirement check is bypassed.

Rua (mew)

00:42, 16 December 2017
 

Also, in smaak, are you saying I am using {{inh}} incorrectly, or instead or additionally, that the derivation is not from *smakkuz? I was hesitant to work on the verbs (smaken, schmecken) because they have complexities which I thought nouns did not. If the problem is only the template, please tell me if my current understanding is correct: I should only use {{inh}} once per etymology section, for the most recent inheritance in the current chain. Thanks for helping me with these; it took you and JohnC5 a while to get my Latin etymologies to look right, an I'm afraid Germanic is more complicated.

23:12, 14 December 2017

{{inh}} was fine, it was *smakkuz. Modern long vowels come from either Proto-Germanic long vowels/diphthongs, or from short vowels in an open syllable. In Middle Dutch, these two types of long vowels are still different (we write the former as â ê ô and the latter as ā ē ō) and some dialects such as Limburgish still keep them apart. From a Proto-Germanic short vowel + geminate consonant you'd expect a short vowel in modern Dutch.

Since the modern word has a long vowel, it can't come from *smakkuz but must come from a form that satisfies either of the long-vowel criteria. Sadly, Limburgish has lost the word, and has borrowed smaak from Dutch, so it's no help here.

As for schmecken, it's from Proto-Germanic *smakjaną, a class 1 weak denominative verb.

Rua (mew)

23:19, 14 December 2017

@Isomorphyc, FWIW, the *smakkuz entry suggests this became Old Dutch smak, matching the closed-syllable pattern of a short vowel, and this then turned into Middle Dutch smake. That -e on the end suggests that the term might be parsed as sma + ke phonologically, making the a now an open syllable.

@Rua, am I parsing that correctly? And is the Descendants list correct as shown in the *smakkuz entry?

23:53, 14 December 2017

But then the question is where the extra vowel came from, and why the k was degeminated.

Rua (mew)

23:54, 14 December 2017
 
 
 

Are you sure {{affix|borstel|-ig}} is an etymology, not a surface analysis? This is why I used the form I used.

22:49, 14 December 2017

I don't see how it could have been formed any other way.

Rua (mew)

22:52, 14 December 2017

Does using the affix in the modern language preclude Middle Dutch borstelich, for example (excuse the likely random spelling)? I am always reticent to use {{affix}} without a corpus or a reference because of this problem.

23:03, 14 December 2017

Borstelich was formed from borstel + -ich, of which the modern descendants are borstel + -ig. Since the original formation of the word is still clearly analysable, it's given in its modern Dutch form.

Rua (mew)

23:07, 14 December 2017

So basically I can be relatively cavalier about surface analysis for highly generative affixes in both modern and middle Dutch, when my main aim is to provide a hyperlink to more information. I appreciate this, thank you.

23:15, 14 December 2017

Basically, if the word was formed in Middle Dutch or earlier using a derivational process that is still recognisable in modern Dutch, then use the modern Dutch forms to indicate the morphology. If the form is opaque in modern Dutch, then use the morphology of the language in which it was formed.

Rua (mew)

23:23, 14 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 

Could you please verify if this conjugation is correct? -

21:23, 12 December 2017

Fixed.

Rua (mew)

22:25, 12 December 2017

Thank you.

22:55, 12 December 2017
 
 

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
 
 
 
 
 

Rollbacks to list of English words ending in "-sis

What was wrong with my additions to the list of English words ending in "-sis"? Instead of rolling back all the changes, why not just correct them? However, I don't see anything incorrect with adding to the list. The list was small and very incomplete.

--RSvK

18:43, 11 December 2017

It's not a list of words ending in "-sis", but a list of words suffixed with "-sis". The difference is that the former is merely a surface feature of a word, while the latter is about the origin of the word. Such categories should never be added by hand, but always by an etymology template such as {{affix}}.

Rua (mew)

18:47, 11 December 2017
 

Format of entries

You used to have a userpage with an example of your ideal formatting (i.e. without numbering of etymologies, etc.) Where is it?

16:16, 10 December 2017

rhymes on -ɛi̯ɣən

bedreigen, bestijgen, verkrijgen and verzwijgen do rhyme with -ɛi̯ɣən. I'm not sure why you removed them?

19:48, 9 December 2017

The edit summary did not say that you added those rhymes.

Rua (mew)

20:07, 9 December 2017

No I was mistaken about that. I assumed you removed those as well. You did remove aantijgen and opstijgen. They obviously rhyme.

20:39, 9 December 2017

No they don't.

Rua (mew)

20:44, 9 December 2017

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

tijgen and stijgen are both listed as rhymes. I simply added those two with a prefix.

Why would they not rhyme?

20:50, 9 December 2017

Because the stress is on the prefix. If you don't know Dutch, why are you adding rhymes?

Rua (mew)

21:50, 9 December 2017
 
 
 
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".