User talk:CodeCat

Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Cheers!219:40, 23 September 2016
Vote about not nesting headings inside stuff004:03, 23 September 2016
Incorrect move.519:49, 22 September 2016
Did I do it well?219:26, 22 September 2016
== Finnmark ==515:30, 22 September 2016
kek013:19, 22 September 2016
Dutch phonology521:19, 20 September 2016
Dik1206:20, 19 September 2016
kōpijaną302:43, 19 September 2016
Woxtlos221:48, 18 September 2016
Good god man!821:47, 18 September 2016
boa2714:11, 18 September 2016
User talk:Sobreira/PIE-appendices209:40, 17 September 2016
STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!910:39, 15 September 2016
Why did you move it?121:10, 14 September 2016
Dutch predicative adjectives114:18, 14 September 2016
Table of votes -- module error317:40, 11 September 2016
w > gw621:18, 9 September 2016
Proto-Brythonic sound changes317:32, 9 September 2016
The dative in modern Greek112:05, 7 September 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Thanks for changing the descendant on the dubroku page, I'd forgotten to change it after realising it should be "gi" and not "ki", despite changing the page itself. For the kritta page, I just don't think of doing desctrees. I've made a note of it to remind me to do it whenever possible.

I'd also like to ask a question. Could you hazard a guess for an etymology for Arthur's son in the Welsh Triads "Amhar"?

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:02, 23 September 2016

I have no idea.

CodeCat19:08, 23 September 2016

Oh well. By the way, just wanted to check, is this Proto-Brythonic descendant form correct? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/Orbogenos

"g" definitely seems to become that sound, and the "o" becoming "u" is apparently explained in Jackson, but I don't own a copy and can't check.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:40, 23 September 2016
 
 

Vote about not nesting headings inside stuff

I created a vote for one of your recent proposals:

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-09/No headings nested inside templates or tags

--Daniel Carrero (talk)04:03, 23 September 2016

Incorrect move.

(CodeCat moved page Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/swekru to Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/swekrū: I'm guessing this is the actual form, though I don't know if such an inflection existed in Proto-Celtic) (undo | thank)


Avoid guessing, maybe? This isn't some one-off thing, sometimes the Proto-Celtic form had a shorter u, as evidenced by the descendants. Swekrù leads to *chwygr, while Swekru leads to the correct chwegr.

UtherPendrogn (talk)13:33, 19 September 2016

How do you figure?

CodeCat13:56, 19 September 2016

It's reinforced by what the addended Matasovic says, possibly even the original.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:35, 22 September 2016

How can a word for a family member be neuter?

CodeCat19:36, 22 September 2016

Good point.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:48, 22 September 2016
 

It seems likely they actually imitated the word for father-in-law, which is why it's the form it is. So swekrū is correct.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:49, 22 September 2016
 
 
 
 

Did I do it well?

Edited by author.
Last edit: 19:26, 22 September 2016

@CodeCat, JohnC5, Angr, Anglom

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/lugod

Is this okay? If there are any mistakes, could you point them out so I can fix them? I don't want you to be bothered and have to clean it up anymore, so I've decided to be a lot more careful. I've looked everything twice over and hope it's 100% fine.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:25, 22 September 2016

It looks ok.

CodeCat19:26, 22 September 2016

Great, I hope to be able to add more useful words.

UtherPendrogn (talk)19:26, 22 September 2016
 
 

I never thought you'd ever say that. Norwegian place places have always been placed in Norwegian, and not split between Bokmål and Nynorsk as I feel that they are always going to be the same in both languages. Similarly with people's names, you can't really say that they are one language or the other. Foreign country and place names can differ though in some cases. But I can make two entries for Finnmark if it keeps you happy. DonnanZ (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

DonnanZ (talk)13:09, 22 September 2016

I think if we are going to treat them as two languages, we should treat them as two languages in all cases. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

CodeCat13:30, 22 September 2016

Hmm, OK, quite a challenge. Some statistics - Norwegian proper nouns: 1931; in Bokmål: 96; and Nynorsk: 62 (at present). DonnanZ (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

DonnanZ (talk)13:59, 22 September 2016
Edited by author.
Last edit: 14:41, 22 September 2016

It should be doable. I've split the counties from Akershus to Finnmarking now, it doesn't take too much work.

By the way Codecat, since you've been busy with proto-Brythonic numerals, should the numerals from w:Yan tan tethera be included there too?

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)14:26, 22 September 2016

I think descendant lists should be primarily for actual descendants, so borrowings are just an afterthought.

CodeCat14:29, 22 September 2016

Changing the proper nouns will have to be a gradual process, I will probably tackle the foreign countries first. DonnanZ (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

DonnanZ (talk)15:30, 22 September 2016
 
 
 
 
 

This rollback [1] is unexplained

ㅋㅋㅋ can be romanized kekeke - it is contracted to kek by Korean internet users

kek#English discusses this

[2] mentions 케케케 as a Korean onomatopoeia word

knowyourmeme naver.com blog

Callinus (talk)13:19, 22 September 2016

Dutch phonology

Got another little question if I may:

Does Dutch have a phonemic distinction between clusters like /ns/ and /nts/ (Hans vs. iemands), or /ŋt/ and /ŋkt/ (zingt vs. zinkt), that is: nasal + plosive with the same place of articulation + another consonant?

(German doesn't, except by prescription.)

Kolmiel (talk)05:45, 14 September 2016

It certainly does, yes, though they can be simplified in the way you describe as well. The contraction of /ŋkt/ seems more natural to me than the contraction of /nts/, though.

CodeCat10:54, 14 September 2016

Thanks a lot! In German, Gans and ganz are homophones and either of them can be pronounced both [gans] and [gants]]]. As I mentioned, the official standard prescribes a distinction, but it has hardly any foundation in actual speech.

Kolmiel (talk)16:28, 14 September 2016

Sounds like English in this respect. At least in my speech, prince sounds like prints, both something like [pɹɪ̃ˀt͡s].

Benwing2 (talk)02:34, 20 September 2016

I think the difference in Dutch may be that in "gans" the n is articulated weakly and may become a nasal vowel to some speakers (at least for me), whereas with "gants" there is no such weakening, and it remains fully occluded.

CodeCat18:49, 20 September 2016
 

Interesting. My German prof in university pronounced these differently, as [ganz] and [gants] respectively. I don't know where in Germany she grew up. My high-school German teacher also pronounced these differently, and I think I remember her saying her family was from the old Prussian area.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:19, 20 September 2016
 
 
 

You have more knowledge of PB of course, but this seems a bit backwards? 21:04, 18 September 2016‎ CodeCat (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (360 bytes) (0)‎ . . (CodeCat moved page Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/dik to Reconstruction:Proto-Brythonic/dig) (undo | thank)


So it literally did this:

dikos > dig > dic

Why did they go back to a "k" ending?

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:38, 18 September 2016

The spelling does not necessarily reflect what we would expect. In Old Irish, it's well known that c can stand for /k/ and /g/, and presumably the same might happen to early Welsh spelling too. What matters more is the expected outcome of -k- between vowels in Brythonic. It would always become -g-.

CodeCat21:40, 18 September 2016

I know that k and g are interchangeable, but it looks backwards.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:42, 18 September 2016

Yeah it does, but it's how it is. Besides, there are examples of historically sound changes being actually undone later, rather than being purely a spelling artefact. Grimm's law in Germanic can shift PIE t to þ, then Verner's law can shift þ to d, and then the High German Consonant Shift can shift d back to t again.

CodeCat21:46, 18 September 2016

Right, thanks.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:49, 18 September 2016
 

I cannot find any descendants. Any ideas? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/banon%C4%81

UtherPendrogn (talk)22:19, 18 September 2016

If you can't find any descendants, you should probably not create the entry. That's what I do anyway. Angr or Anglom might know some.

CodeCat22:22, 18 September 2016
 
 
 
 
 

kōpijaną

Umm, yes, I do think this rollback is in error? Not sure what else to say in defence of my edit, given that you haven't motivated your revert in any way.

95.42.15.19900:28, 19 September 2016

If there is a separate verb *kōpōną, then it should go on its own page.

CodeCat00:57, 19 September 2016
 

On second thoughts, perhaps you were justified in that variant forms aren't usually indicated in that place in a Wiktionary entry, but rather a separate entry is created, and a link to it is put somewhere in the entry. However, I can't do that, since I'm not a registered user, and just removing the information I've added for formal reasons is not constructive behaviour, to say the least. The reason why I think that the presumed existence of a class 2 variant (per Orel) is important is that it might explain why the Old Norse forms are umlautless; it seems possible that they are a reflex of such a class 2 variant and not of the class 1 variant (even though the endings are actually of class 1 in Old Norse, perhaps due to contamination of the two?). In any case, simply listing the umlautless North Germanic forms as reflexes of a regular class 1 verb is begging the question.

95.42.15.19900:58, 19 September 2016

Page-creation isn't limited to registered users

Chuck Entz (talk)02:43, 19 September 2016
 
 

I have this information.

  • wox-tlo- ‘dispute’ [Noun] GOID: OIr. focull, focal [o n, later m] ‘dispute’ W: MW gwaethl [m] ‘dispute, debate’ PIE: *wokw- ‘voice, word’ (IEW: 1135f.) COGN: Skt. vā́k -, Lat. uōx, OHG giwahanem ‘recall’, Arm. gočem ‘call’ SEE: *wekwo- ‘face’ ETYM: OIr. focal, focul [o n] is often assumed to be a Latin loanword (cf. Lat. uocābulum), but the development *xtl- > *-kl- > -cul is attested in OIr. anacul < *anextlo-. The same root (*wokw-) appears in OIr. an-ocht ‘a metrical fault’ < PCelt. *an-uxto- < *n-ukwto-, parallel to Skt. anukta-, with the zero-grade of the root. MIr. fúaimm [n n, later f] ‘sound’ may be from *wōxsman-, or rather from the prefixed *ufo-woxsman-, and the same prefix would account for MIr. fúach [o m] ‘word’ < *ufowokwo-. W gwep [f] ‘face, grimace’ is often also derived from PCelt. *wekwo-, with the e-grade, and compared to Gaul. PNs such as Uepo, Uepo-litanos ‘broad-faced’ (?), as well as MoBret. goap ‘joke’
UtherPendrogn (talk)21:42, 18 September 2016

I'm not sure what you're pointing out specifically. If it's about the root: we cite bare PIE roots in the e-grade, as per WT:AINE. It can of course gradate into o-grade but the lemma form is in the e-grade, and as you can see we already had an entry there.

CodeCat21:44, 18 September 2016

I didn't know there was already an entry there.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:48, 18 September 2016
 
 

Good god man!

"This is the wrong form." "Oh right, so what's the right fo-" "DELETE!" "W-" "DELETE!" "DELETE!" "DELETE!" "DELETE!" "DELETE!"

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:10, 18 September 2016

There's a rather peculiar button so that you can move the page to the correct place.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:11, 18 September 2016

I only know that the form was wrong. I don't know what the right form is. Leaving it at the wrong form would be worse than having no entry at all (better to say nothing than to mislead), so I delete it.

CodeCat21:14, 18 September 2016

A policy which only seems to apply to me? Several other word have glaring errors in the Proto-Celtic lemmas section. One isn't even a real declension...

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:25, 18 September 2016

Such as?

CodeCat21:26, 18 September 2016

I'll make a list if you want.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:39, 18 September 2016
 
 
 
 

Why don't you put it in the right form to begin with? I'm clearing up your mess in the simplest way possible. That way, you have to put in the effort to actually fix it.

CodeCat21:11, 18 September 2016

Can you not call small errors messes?

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:39, 18 September 2016

Getting the actual headword wrong is a pretty big mess. It'd be like putting the entry for three at tree.

CodeCat21:47, 18 September 2016
 
 
 

Why odes the Finnish word "boa" inflect like "kala" although "koira" is specified? It should go like boa-boan-boaa-boaan-boat-boien (boain)-boia-boiin.

Hekaheka (talk)16:01, 31 May 2016

It's treating -oi- as a diphthong, which means it gets -hin in the plural. And there is a rule in the code: "-- If the plural stem ends in a vowel + i, then replace the i with j".

CodeCat18:27, 31 May 2016

The rule is wrong.

Hekaheka (talk)21:21, 31 May 2016

Should I remove it then?

CodeCat22:13, 31 May 2016

Yes. I browsed through the 5400 koira-type nominals we have and did not spot a word to which this rule would apply.

Hekaheka (talk)03:47, 1 June 2016

There's probably only one word with which something like that happens: poika, but it can be handled by assuming ik-j gradation. Also, there are dialects in which e.g. reikä would be inflected like reikä-reijän-reikää-reikään-reijät-reikien-reikiä-reikiin but if needed, also they can be handled using k-j gradation:


Inflection of User talk:CodeCat/boa/reply (5) (Kotus type 10/koira, k-j gradation)
nominative reikä reijät
genitive reijän reikien
partitive reikää reikiä
illative reikään reikiin
singular plural
nominative reikä reijät
accusative nom. reikä reijät
gen. reijän
genitive reijän reikien
reikäinrare
partitive reikää reikiä
inessive reijässä reijissä
elative reijästä reijistä
illative reikään reikiin
adessive reijällä reijillä
ablative reijältä reijiltä
allative reijälle reijille
essive reikänä reikinä
translative reijäksi reijiksi
instructive reijin
abessive reijättä reijittä
comitative reikineen
Hekaheka (talk)03:55, 1 June 2016
 

The difficulty is that I wrote the module so that these rules apply to all declension types. So if I remove it, it will break others as well. I'll set up some tracking to see which other terms currently are affected by the rule, and then make it type-specific.

See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/fi-nominals/i-j and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/fi-nominals/h.

CodeCat13:05, 1 June 2016
 
 
 
 

Here's a related bug I just noticed. The declension module for Proto-Finnic seems to go wrong with creating past/imperfect stems for A-stem roots with U-diphthongs. They should be determined by the stressed vowel, not by the *-u-. Thus roots with a back illabial+u diphthong, i.e. *CauCa-, *CeuCa, *CiuCa currently show *-ei- (see e.g. *jauhadak, *rauta), though they should have *-oi-.

For further reference, we're eventually going to need toggleability for this anyway, since there is a small number of word roots that have *-oi- despite a preceding labial vowel. The clearest is *soola ‎(salt), plural stem *sooloi-; compare suola, sool.

Tropylium (talk)19:06, 14 September 2016
 

It's categorised in Category:Proto-Indo-European roots because it's a transclusion of all the others? Any code to prevent categories from transcluded? Otherwise I would have to delete.

Sobreira (talk)17:26, 15 September 2016

How come the transcluded pages themselves aren't also in the category?

CodeCat17:49, 15 September 2016

Yes, they are, but only one (for that category you mention): Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots

Sobreira (talk)09:40, 17 September 2016
 
 

STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP REDIRECTING PEOPLE TO THE WRONG PAGE. THE OLD ITALIC SCRIPT LETTERS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE LEPONTIC ONES. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn (talk)22:41, 14 September 2016

Wiktionary:Lepontic transliteration is the standard name for pages explaining the transliteration of a language. See Category:Transliteration policies. The page Wiktionary:Lepontic transliteration was created over a year ago by User:JohnC5.

CodeCat22:44, 14 September 2016

You're not adressing the issues.

The letters are not the same. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn (talk)22:45, 14 September 2016
 

You're not adressing the issues.

The letters are not the same. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

UtherPendrogn (talk)22:45, 14 September 2016

Take it up with User:JohnC5 then. Regardless of what you think however, and regardless of its contents, the page should be named Wiktionary:Lepontic transliteration.

CodeCat22:47, 14 September 2016

It's not what I think. For god's sake man, it's ATTESTED as DIFFERENT. Want me to send pictures of the STONES on which the letters have been CARVED?! And again, do NOT dodge the issue at hand.

UtherPendrogn (talk)22:49, 14 September 2016

We don't write words in stone, we write them in Unicode. And in Unicode, they're the same letters. Feel free to call the Unicode consortium and ask them to add a Lepontic script block.

CodeCat22:51, 14 September 2016
 
 
 
 
 

Why did you move it?

m (CodeCat moved page Wikitionary:About Lepontic to Wiktionary:About Lepontic)

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:09, 14 September 2016

Nevermind, figured it out. Thanks!

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:10, 14 September 2016
 

Dutch predicative adjectives

Do you have any opinion on what to add to the inflection header in case the adjective is only used predicatively, like kachel?

Also, thanks for catching my error at rauzen.

Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)12:32, 14 September 2016

We already have a category for those, Category:Dutch predicative-only adjectives.

CodeCat14:18, 14 September 2016
 

Table of votes -- module error

Wiktionary:Table of votes is once again unable to generate the table and displays a module error instead: "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." I did some tests (I added and removed vote pages to see if the table would show up) and discovered that this problem is happening speficifically because of the "Dan Polansky for admin". It is the 5th vote and it has 25 people voting. Apparently, the quantity of people causes the module to crash.

I have an idea that maybe would solve the problem: I could create a data module like Module:vote table/people with the complete list of user names to be shown in the table. Pro: I could remove all the code from Module:vote table that is supposed to generate the user list by looking at each vote page. I wonder if this is an expensive task. Con: The data module would require constant updating, by design, when a new voter appears or an old voter stops voting. I believe modules are supposed to be "left alone" and not require constant updating. But I don't know what else to do. What do you think?

--Daniel Carrero (talk)08:10, 8 September 2016

I don't think requiring additional maintenance is going to work. Make it automatic as much as possible.

CodeCat10:50, 8 September 2016

I completely agree, you should try to make it as automatic as possible. Possibly you can optimize the code to make it faster; there's some way to get a list of functions and how much time was called in each, although I forget how.

Benwing2 (talk)17:19, 11 September 2016

@Wikitiki89 fixed the code of the table; it's working perfectly now.

--Daniel Carrero (talk)17:40, 11 September 2016
 
 
 

Are we sure Brythonic had w > gw? I've seen evidence that suggests otherwise. Waiting, for you response, I will revert it back to Wortigern.

UtherPendrogn (talk)20:52, 9 September 2016

What evidence is there exactly? Also, don't revert it until it's sorted.

CodeCat20:55, 9 September 2016

Then why move it before it's sorted? It seems pointless.

Any evidence. It makes no sense for it to be anything except "Wortigern", or it would never have been remembered as Vortigern.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:02, 9 September 2016

All Brythonic languages have the change w > gw word-initially. Therefore, this change happened in their last common ancestor, which is Proto-Brythonic by definition, before the language split into individual dialects. What evidence is there for a retention of w- in Proto-Brythonic?

CodeCat21:05, 9 September 2016

I don't know.

UtherPendrogn (talk)21:12, 9 September 2016

Then gw it is.

CodeCat21:12, 9 September 2016
 
 
 
 
 

Proto-Brythonic sound changes

Are these accurate?

g vocalized to /j/ > /i/ before -n-, -r- and -l-
d vocalised to /j/ > /i/ before -n-, -r- and -l-
mb > mm
en[C] > in[C] > [ɨnC]
(INTERVOCALIC AND NEAR RESONANTS (/r/, /l/, /m/, /n/, /j/, /w/):
p > b
t > d
k > g)
ai > ē > oɨ
dg > dɣ
apocope: vowels (a e i o u j y) are lost word finally from Proto-Celtic to Proto-Brythonic. The suffix os or macron a is also lost.

UtherPendrogn (talk)11:28, 9 September 2016

If there's any I've missed/that are wrong, please say so! I'd be grateful.

UtherPendrogn (talk)11:28, 9 September 2016

CodeCat may know the answer to this, but Angr is our main expert on Celtic linguistics.

Chuck Entz (talk)16:54, 9 September 2016

Ah right, thanks. By the way, this was brought up (again, without notifiying me... whatever...) on your talk page: I have added Aquitanian words to the site, but filed them under reconstruction, since their meanings are conjecture and reconstructed, and their etymologies too. However, the words have indeed been (though, latinised) recorded by the Romans. However, the Romans only wrote down names and Gods, so the words themselves are inferred from those names, and comparatively reconstructed or confirmed.

UtherPendrogn (talk)17:32, 9 September 2016
 
 
 

The dative in modern Greek

I wondered why ({{el-form-of-nounadj}} you decided to allow for a dative form. Standard Modern Greek doesn't have (AFAIK) any dative forms - such as do exist are idiomatic relics from historic forms of Greek, which can be better dealt with on a on-by-one basis. I only mention this because someone might be tempted to use it wrongly!
The way in which we might deal with Katharevousa and other non-Ancient terms is something which I have been putting off for since it draw me away from dealing with the standard Modern.

Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk05:04, 7 September 2016

I saw another editor adding archaic dative forms, and because the template didn't support them, they found a bad workaround. So I added it to accommodate them.

CodeCat12:05, 7 September 2016
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "CodeCat".