Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:CodeCat

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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Deletion and reverted edits121:48, 14 August 2017
prefix template with another template embedded216:47, 22 July 2017
Redskin222:39, 6 July 2017
Category Forests122:08, 28 June 2017
Entry Request: Proto-Indo-European *kʷerp-113:32, 21 June 2017
Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/porcas418:02, 19 June 2017
Inline translation sections118:21, 14 June 2017
Rollback error219:29, 13 June 2017
redirects016:52, 11 June 2017
1a16 edit1220:22, 6 June 2017
Demonyms612:24, 6 June 2017
Ludic119:34, 4 June 2017
top4 - mid4115:53, 2 June 2017
dungō 319:52, 1 June 2017
Removal of certain Middle Dutch variations615:32, 26 May 2017
Module:pt-headword313:58, 26 May 2017
MewBot adding lang to column templates622:48, 22 May 2017
Sloppy undoing115:45, 22 May 2017
grinden601:29, 21 May 2017
Question about splitting Dutch etymologies312:28, 17 May 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Deletion and reverted edits

Hi, CodeCat. Why did you mark for deletion the [[Category:Personal pronouns-table templates by language]] and revert the edits of the templates for this category? What's wrong? I didn't find the explanation there: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Others.

21:44, 14 August 2017

Because we don't categorise templates in such a way. There aren't any other categories like it.

21:48, 14 August 2017

prefix template with another template embedded

Hi CodeCat. Why does my etymology in unbeschulbar not display properly. If I use compound instead of prefix then this sort of clever thing works fine.

16:11, 22 July 2017

Sorry - fixed it by coding it properly!

16:14, 22 July 2017

DTHLS's version works too, and is probably recommended. {{confix}} may be deleted in favour of {{affix}} at some future time, since the latter can do everything the former does.

16:47, 22 July 2017

Hi CC. Regarding this, it is, on the balance of probabilities, unlikely. I've been involved in editing Redskin (slang) and have looked into the etymology there, extensively. The early uses of red/redskin originates as self-identification by Indians in the SE, with no indication that paint was their reason for doing so (although that is a possibility). I'm inclined to believe Shoemaker's suggestion that it comes from an origin story about god making them out of red clay, but that's not confirmed (nor is it confirmable).

Anyway, this is what the OED used to say, which supports your position: "‘Redskin’ is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who lived in what is now southern New York state and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint."[1]

They've since changed that, on the back of research by Goddard.[2]

This is what they currently say: "The use of the term redskin is first recorded in the 18th century, translating (via French) a term in the Illinois language meaning literally ‘person with red skin’."[3]

The compound part of you revert is still fair (as that's what peaux rouges literally means), if you want to retain that.

22:33, 6 July 2017

My main objection was that you removed the part which said it was made up of red + skin. Correct information shouldn't be removed, you should have added your information after it instead.

22:34, 6 July 2017

Cool, I'll redo it right then.

22:35, 6 July 2017

Also, if the term was taken from French, you should probably also add in {{calque|en|fr|peau rouge}} or similar after the compound template.

22:38, 6 July 2017

Category Forests

Hi CodeCat,

About your revert... Do you believe that (most) pages in Category:en:Forests are also wrong? Just trying to understand.

22:00, 28 June 2017

It looks like they are also misplaced, yes. We don't currently have a category for listing types of forests. There is discussion of possible solutions at WT:Beer parlour/2017/June#Proposal: Clean up, rename and replace "en:" → "English" in all categories.

22:08, 28 June 2017

Entry Request: Proto-Indo-European *kʷerp-

Hallo CodeCat! PIE *kʷerp- (body) does not yet have an entry. I would request you to create it.

Descendants: Albanian kërmë, kurm, krep and shkep, Armenian որովայն, Anct. Gk. πρᾰπίδες (diaphragm), Sanskrit कृप् (beautiful appearance), Middle Persian kirb, Old English hrif, Old High German and Old Frisian href and Avestan 𐬐𐬆𐬵𐬭𐬞𐬀 (kəhrpa) (body) 2405:204:962C:BED7:7585:AAED:ABA4:2C2D 13:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

De Vaan gives this root as *ḱrep- instead.

13:31, 21 June 2017


ETY reconstructs the Proto-Indo-Iranian word differently. It also adds that the Erzya and Moksha words might be Finnic loans, and that the less likely theory is it being directly from PIE.

15:53, 19 June 2017

The PIE form is not disputed, as far as I can tell, there's a clear *o in the first syllable. In Proto-Indo-Iranian, *e and *o both become *a, so you get *párćas. If the Uralic terms all preserve the *o, then this would need to be explained in some way.

17:25, 19 June 2017

To be clear, in the new transcription system, it would be Proto-Indo-Iranian *párĉas.


17:36, 19 June 2017

Hmm. I think I like the old system more. At least ḱ and ć both have the same diacritic.

17:43, 19 June 2017

You should have raised the complaint before they were all moved then. See Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-Iranian.


18:02, 19 June 2017

Inline translation sections

If we're going to add a lot of definition anchors, it seems like we want to minimize senseid duplication. Have you thought about putting translations under their respective definition lines?

18:20, 14 June 2017

The idea crossed my mind recently, but it would be a big change. Maybe you could propose it?

18:21, 14 June 2017

Rollback error

Justin (koavf)TCM

19:27, 13 June 2017

Your edit was the error, it breaks all kinds of things.

19:28, 13 June 2017

Fixed it before I even saw this message. Thanks/sorry.

Justin (koavf)TCM

19:29, 13 June 2017

this is a following of [1].--2001:DA8:201:3512:CD84:BF8E:5FA5:70A7 16:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Codecat,

Just to request the reason you think the edit needed reverting,


1a16 (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

20:03, 6 June 2017

Nowhere in the entry God does it say that it refers specifically to Christianity.

20:05, 6 June 2017

God is the word used in Christianity, it is the actual word .... Allah is the actual word used in Islam

20:07, 6 June 2017

God is the word used in English, Allah is used in Arabic. When English people speak about the Islamic god, they use "God" too, just like they do for the gods of any other religion.

20:08, 6 June 2017

"Allah" is used very often in English to refer to the Islamic God! What rock have you been under?

20:12, 6 June 2017

the transliteration, is Arabic, the translation is of Arabic

the etymologies are different, the two words are of different cultures - Islam isn't Christianity because the two are religions, the original is of Arabic culture, belongs to Arabic culture:

20:14, 6 June 2017

the two words root differently by way of their different etymologies, and accordingly have different meanings which are possessed by the different pronunciations, which stem from the languages they evolved in

20:16, 6 June 2017

Ok, but if you think that "God" can't refer to the god of Islam, then you need to take that matter to WT:TR.

20:17, 6 June 2017

Islam doesn't use the word: God

20:07, 6 June 2017

Take it to WT:TR.

20:10, 6 June 2017

please see God#Etymology_and_usage at Wikipedia

20:09, 6 June 2017

Regarding this: isn't a demonym supposed to be derived from a particular place name? Slav is not from a place name. I know that Category:Nationalities does not fit well either. Nor does Category:Ethnicity. We need a category for ethnic groups like Slavs, Jews or Chechens.

19:01, 4 June 2017

Demo- just means a people, so a denonym is a name for a people. Slavs, Jews and Chechens fit into that just fine.

19:05, 4 June 2017

Not according to Wikipedia's or our definition of demonym. A better term is ethnonym.

19:10, 4 June 2017

Let me say that I find it stupid that the word has that meaning. Are we sure it's not a mistake somehow?

19:12, 4 June 2017

I did not know the exact meaning of the word either, but it appears that it refers exclusively to place-name derivations. See the last review here.

19:25, 4 June 2017

Then maybe we should make a point of renaming it to Ethnonyms? The trouble is that there's substantial overlap and it can also be quite difficult to determine. A person can be German by origin, but have a French passport. They might have even been born in France, and have some ancestors in Germany. We might agree that there are a French people (ethnonym), but were there a Yugoslavian people? Are all people born in Russia also Russians? Native Americans in the US or Canada?

19:33, 4 June 2017

Hi there. As you are in to strange languages, do you think you could add Ludic and Ludian. I have just added the German adjecfive lüdisch. I don't know if we have any words in this language yet.

16:31, 4 June 2017

I created Ludic.

19:34, 4 June 2017

top4 - mid4

Can you figure out why top4 and mid4 -templates produce inconsistent results. See for example compounds -section in salaatti. At least my browser shows seven words in the first column, eight in the second and seven in the third and fourth columns.

15:49, 2 June 2017

That's balanced, isn't it? In any case, {{mid4}} is currently empty, it does nothing. The balancing is done by your browser. So we don't have control over how good the browser is at balancing.

15:53, 2 June 2017

I have noticed you removed the attested german term 'Dung' from *dungō, why ?

Because there is no way it can descend from the older High German forms.

16:33, 1 June 2017

But even the entry of german 'Dung' says : "From Middle High German tunc, tunge, from Old High German tung, tunga, from Proto-Germanic *dungō ". So this page is wrong and must be corrected ?

Indeed, that's wrong too. There's no explanation of why German suddenly got a "d" in the word.

19:52, 1 June 2017

Removal of certain Middle Dutch variations

Hey, I have noticed that you've been occasionally removing attested Middle Dutch variants of various words, care to mention why?.

21:56, 20 May 2017

When they're just spelling variants, they only clutter up the list and add nothing. When they are real variants, I suppose the same argument can be made, though not as convincingly. In any case, I'd rather keep the descendants lists clean if possible, and list alternative forms in the entries themselves.

22:01, 20 May 2017

I disagree as well. I think all variant, perhaps short of spelling errors, should be kept and added to {{alter}}.

01:59, 26 May 2017

Only alternative forms, not alternative spellings, and only the more common alternative forms should be listed as descendants, not the really obscure ones. It clutters up the list too much.

02:01, 26 May 2017

I can conceded that obscure forms should generally be omitted, but I think a) in a period of fluctuating spelling, who's to say which is most correct, and b) making the distinction between a spelling variant and a alternative form can be blurry, and c) spelling variants can illustrate archaic forms echoing the ODut form, or the transition and standardization of MDut to ModDut.

02:47, 26 May 2017

Middle Dutch spelling is normalized per WT:ADUM. The normalisation affects only things that we know are just different ways that the same thing is spelled.

12:41, 26 May 2017

{{pt-adj}} is broken.

Roxo is displaying: roxo (masculine plural roxos, feminine plural roxas, comparable)

It should be displaying: roxo m (feminine singular roxa, masculine plural roxos, feminine plural roxas, comparable)

Azul is displaying: azul (feminine singular azul, plural azuis, comparable)

It should be displaying: azul m, f (plural azuis, comparable)

12:38, 26 May 2017

Adjectives don't have genders, so it looks right to me.

12:39, 26 May 2017

I’ll have to fix it myself then.

13:38, 26 May 2017

Nothing is broken. Adjectives shouldn't have gender tags because they do not have genders.

13:58, 26 May 2017

MewBot adding lang to column templates

Hey, MewBot's change to pages where {{l}} is used in {{der3}} is causing the full_link to be added twice. See for instance θνῄσκω (thnḗiskō).


19:38, 13 April 2017

These will be fixed, but for now I'm ensuring that lang= is always present.

19:38, 13 April 2017

Okay. I was thinking, maybe Module:columns should check if a list entry has language and script tagging and a link already, so that people can still use {{l}} in list entries to provide annotations (gender, alternative transliteration, translation). However, I'm not totally sure which annotations should be allowed in Derived terms lists.


22:53, 13 April 2017

If you're going to use {{l}} in {{der3}}, you might as well wrap it in {{der-top3}} instead now that it's autobalancing.

22:54, 13 April 2017

I no longer use {{l}} in {{der3}}, but others do, and I'm not sure if there's a policy about what sorts of annotations should be added to items in a list of derived terms (i.e., whether I should be removing the annotations that someone else has added).


23:02, 13 April 2017

When do you plan to deal with this? Currently the kludge is this.

suzukaze (tc)

22:27, 23 April 2017

When do you plan to deal with this?

For future reference, विद्या looks dreadful before the kludge above is added.

suzukaze (tc)

22:48, 22 May 2017

Sloppy undoing

See here. Vatican City is still a city. You have left Category:Tokyo under Category:Cities in Japan but now Category:London is no longer under Category:Cities in England, plus you removed useful links.

Justin (koavf)TCM

15:43, 22 May 2017

I see that as I was posting, you were still editing. Thanks.

Justin (koavf)TCM

15:45, 22 May 2017

Hi ! Here is a link to "Forgotten Words" that lists this. [[1]]

grinden st. grond, h. gegronden 1 knarsen, malen, verbrijzelen, vermorzelen • Engels grind • ~ °grand, grind, mog. ~ °grind1

23:00, 20 May 2017

I didn't find it in VMNW and MNW though.

23:08, 20 May 2017

It has no entry, but it's mentioned here [[1]] @ grind_1. A Google search for "grinden" "grond" "gegronden" also turns up a bit more (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

23:26, 20 May 2017

Ok, but for it to have a Middle Dutch entry, it would need at least one attestation. For modern Dutch, it needs three.

23:28, 20 May 2017

Right ! Okay...I will have to do some searching :)

00:17, 21 May 2017

ok, not 100% sure on this, but:

"Yegelich dbeste, dat zi konden, Van den ritter us gegronden,"

From [[1]], this is a use im Middle Dutch of the past participle ?

00:25, 21 May 2017

Question about splitting Dutch etymologies

Should verb forms that are identical to the verb stem and nouns that are identical to the stem and derive from the same verb be grouped under the same etymology or should they be split (supposing that the noun isn't inherited or borrowed from another language, like tover)?

11:49, 17 May 2017

They should be split, because they don't have the same history. One of them was surely formed from the other at some point, and this is worth mentioning. If one of them can be traced back to, say, Proto-Germanic or Proto-Indo-European, that certainly doesn't necessarily apply to the other.

Non-lemmas should always go in their own etymology section marked with {{nonlemma}}, but several can be grouped together under that etymology regardless of origins.

11:53, 17 May 2017

Okay, that's clear.

12:27, 17 May 2017

Also, the {{nonlemma}} etymology section should always go last.

12:28, 17 May 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "CodeCat".