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

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Kroonen and Proto-Germanic110:36, 15 July 2019
boeren-007:56, 15 July 2019
Indentations in modules513:41, 30 June 2019
Oops017:22, 25 June 2019
Removing transcriptions from Middle Persian links721:59, 19 June 2019
krijgskunsten309:39, 18 June 2019
Declension for Ōs118:37, 15 June 2019
Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/agrom117:49, 14 June 2019
Saga113:55, 12 June 2019
S-mobile in proto-Slavic?214:41, 28 May 2019
My pics721:53, 27 May 2019
Edits to Appendix:Lojban/denpa bu019:19, 24 May 2019
Greek passive forms107:35, 20 May 2019
Deletions113:12, 16 May 2019
coicio revert reason320:14, 15 May 2019
winkelhaec211:49, 15 May 2019
A few cognates in etymologies110:07, 13 May 2019
Confused about "lintrum"317:42, 9 May 2019
Representation of W Frisian <tsj>110:04, 9 May 2019
"Solution not allowed"114:53, 7 May 2019
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Kroonen and Proto-Germanic

Thank you for your explanation on *kalzōną. Is there any regular way to convert between Kroonen's reconstruction and the one used by Wiktionary? Are there better etymological dictionaries to consult concerning Proto-Germanic?

Pinnerup (talk)10:05, 15 July 2019

You just change -ōjan- to -ōną.

Rua (mew)10:36, 15 July 2019
 

The element boeren- generally receives secondary stress rather than primary stress. For boerenomelet, the pronunciation I indicted is easily attested in YouTube videos.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)07:56, 15 July 2019

Indentations in modules

If I hit the tab key, the cursor just jumps to the next field. So I have to space the indentations. When I do, they look right to me. Does it make a difference in the performance of the module?

Mahāgaja · talk13:16, 29 June 2019

They don't look right to everyone, and according to WT:Coding conventions, tabs are to be used throughout all modules. I get a tab when I type tab, so I'm not sure why it's different for you.

Rua (mew)13:18, 29 June 2019

The only way I can get tabs is to copy and paste from another application, such as MS Word. Which is doable, but a rather frustrating workaround.

Mahāgaja · talk19:06, 29 June 2019
 

FWIW, I get the same behavior as Mahāgaja mentions -- hitting the tab key just causes the cursor to jump from the main editing textbox to the Edit summary textbox. I cannot enter a tab at all in any Wiktionary edit field. The only way I can enter a tab is to copy-paste from some other application.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig05:55, 30 June 2019

Could it be that I'm using the special module editor? I get the behaviour you describe when editing normal pages, but I don't need to type tabs there. When editing modules, I can type tabs.

Rua (mew)07:56, 30 June 2019

That must be it.

Mahāgaja · talk13:41, 30 June 2019
 
 
 
 

Thanks for reverting my edit at file.

I was sure that I'm making just a test of the translation adding gadget, but for some reason it was saved.

Amir E. Aharoni (talk)17:22, 25 June 2019

Removing transcriptions from Middle Persian links

CodeCat, any reason why you removed |tr=sl here?

{{victar|talk}}18:27, 19 June 2019

It was a duplicate parameter, causing it to be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.

Rua (mew)18:37, 19 June 2019
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 21:59, 19 June 2019

In this case, what you should have done is replaced {{desc|pal|tr=sl|tr=sar|sc=Phlv|sclb=1}} with {{desc|pal|tr=sl|ts=sar|sc=Phlv|sclb=1}}.

{{victar|talk}}19:28, 19 June 2019

What's ts=?

Rua (mew)19:40, 19 June 2019
Edited by author.
Last edit: 20:36, 19 June 2019

You can find it here. I believe it was added back in Match of last year and is used like so, 𐎿𐎢𐎦𐎢𐎭 (s-u-gᵘ-u-d /Suguda/).

{{victar|talk}}19:48, 19 June 2019
 
 
 
 

krijgskunsten

Hallo Rua, ik stuitte op deze Category:Dutch pluralia tantum. Daar staan een aantal woorden die ik niet herkende als plurale tantum, o.a. het woord krijgskunsten. Volgens mij is krijgskunst een gewoon enkelvoud van krijgskunsten en dat is dus geen plurale tantum. Het is mij niet helemaal duidelijk hoe die categorie gevuld is, maar waarschijnlijk via deze edit van jou enkele jaren geleden: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=krijgskunsten&diff=next&oldid=16976764. Wordt die categorie inderdaad via dat sjabloon "noun" gevuld. En de tweede vraag, hoe is dat dan te corrigeren? Ik ben niet zo thuis op Wiktionary. In de categorie staan meer woorden die er niet in thuis horen.

Ellywa (talk)14:55, 17 June 2019

Inderdaad, als er {{nl-noun|p}} staat dan geldt het als plurale tantum. Als het woord wel degelijk een enkelvoud heeft, kun je de pagina verplaatsen en vervolgens het sjabloon aanpassen zodat er in plaats van p het woordgeslacht komt te staan.

Misschien is verplaatsen trouwens niet zo'n goed idee, in verband met de audio-uitspraak die er staat. In plaats van verplaatsen kun je dit neerzetten:

===Noun===
{{head|nl|noun plural form}}

# {{plural of|nl|krijgskunst}}
Rua (mew)15:29, 17 June 2019

Dank je. Ik heb dat aangepast. Ik vind het te ingewikkeld om de andere fouten uit die categorie te halen. Hopelijk doet iemand dat nog, want een fors aantal woorden in die categorie klopt niet. Of ken jij iemand die zich daarom bekommert? Misschien kan je die persoon dan pingen hier? Met vriendelijke groet,

Ellywa (talk)22:32, 17 June 2019

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Lambiam zijn de meest actieve Nederlandstalige gebruikers op het moment.

Rua (mew)09:39, 18 June 2019
 
 
 

Declension for Ōs

Hey Rua,

Why did you remove my tables for reconstructing the rest of the declensions of Ōs?

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk)18:14, 15 June 2019

Because it was a huge mess of code that was triggering errors.

Rua (mew)18:37, 15 June 2019
 

Reconstruction:Proto-Celtic/agrom

Hi Rua. Could you take a look at the inflection section of Proto-Celtic *agrom. I'm no expert on Proto-Celtic, but the table appears to be from the wrong word. I could be wrong, but as you were the creator of the page (albeit about 3 years ago), I thought you might have some better insight. Thank you!

MacTire02 (talk)17:07, 14 June 2019

Yeah, it was wrong. I fixed it now.

Rua (mew)17:49, 14 June 2019
 

Concerning [1]: I take for granted that you understand why I made my edit. Do you have any better solutions than mine? The probleme with t:senseid is that only one definition under Etymology_2 i highlighted.

Jonteemil (talk)13:53, 12 June 2019

The solution depends on the problem we're trying to solve. If the goal is to guide the user towards the right section, then {{senseid}} could probably be used in the etymology section instead of next to a sense.

Rua (mew)13:55, 12 June 2019
 

S-mobile in proto-Slavic?

Hi Rua, sorry for bothering you. How should we treat s-mobile in proto-Slavic? I recently created *(s)kvьrъ and *(s)kvьrčěti which apparently exhibit s-mobile and I'm not sure if we should leave them with *(s)kv- or should stick with one of the forms, e.g. *cv-...

Bezimenen (talk)12:48, 28 May 2019

I think the current names are ok for now. I can't think of anything better at the moment.

Rua (mew)12:50, 28 May 2019

In this case, I also added *(s)klonъ, which similarly alternates between *klonъ and *slonъ. If the community settles down on the topic how we should treat these forms (in proto-Slavic), I'll edit them.

Bezimenen (talk)14:41, 28 May 2019
 
 

Your edits to {{context}} broke something — from the garbage the template was generating, it looked like maybe the <!--s and -->s were out of balance? — so I rolled them back. Might I suggest that you try out your changes on a test template instead? —RuakhTALK 20:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RuakhTALK20:59, 16 April 2012

But I don't know where they go wrong, that's the issue. Could you point me to the problem please?

Never mind I spotted it. Is it fixed now?

CodeCat21:00, 16 April 2012

If you're unable or unwilling to test out the behavior of a test template, then quite frankly, you have no business editing templates.

RuakhTALK21:32, 16 April 2012
 

I laud you for trying to simplify the code, but I'm with Ruakh, it would seem to be better to make test edits to a new template like {{testcontext}} or {{contextsandbox}}, and test-transclude that new template on pages to check that it works as expected, rather than modifying the venerable, widely-used {{context}} and hoping nothing breaks.

- -sche (discuss)21:45, 16 April 2012

All I'm doing is adding line breaks and indentation, which supposedly shouldn't change how the template behaves at all. Since we're discussing the inner workings of the template, I figured it would be a good starting point if we could all see more easily what it does to begin with.

CodeCat21:49, 16 April 2012

The fact that you made four edits to a template transcluded on hundreds of thousands of pages before I rolled them back, then another seven afterward; the fact that your first batch of edits and second batch of edits both involved edits that broke the template; the fact that you didn't notice the breakage yourself the first time, and then that it took you a few tries to fix it; does any of these facts suggest to you that maybe you're mistaken?

Note that there's a significant penalty to editing a very-widely-transcluded template even if you don't break anything.

And if your goal is just to add line breaks and indentation so we can see what the template is doing, then you don't actually need to edit {{context}} at all, because that sort of presentation doesn't need to be at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:context?action=edit. It could just as easily be at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:CodeCat/Test?action=edit or http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Sandbox?action=edit&oldid=... or even http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:CodeCat/Test directly. As far as I can see, the only reason to make these changes to {{context}} without testing them is if you really think that they might break it, and you want to see that breakage if they do. And if so, then, well, yes, you think rightly, but that's hardly something to be proud of.

(We all make mistakes, sometimes big ones, and I really don't want to excoriate you for this, but I need you to acknowledge that this was a mistake, because if you really do still think that these edits were just peachy, then I need to nominate you for de-sysopping before you do further damage. And I really don't want to do that, because in general you're a great admin, but repeatedly breaking {{context}} for no reason really is a really big deal.)

RuakhTALK22:09, 16 April 2012

I would like to be able to test the template out separately, but it's so intricate that it's very hard to do. {{context}} relies on label subtemplates, as well as several copies of itself with different names, all of which would need to be duplicated just to test it out. I honestly don't even really know where to start with it. I hoped that by making small incremental changes, it would be easier to spot mistakes as they appear and they would be quicker to find.

CodeCat22:13, 16 April 2012
 
 
 
 
 

I apologize for the undo; I wasn't aware of your motivations for rolling back to my previous edit. It looks like Lojban editors have moved on from the letteral macro I once observed them to use, and in fact most other letterals are now using, e.g., {{jbo-cmavo|selma'o=BY2}}. Appendix:Lojban/slaka bu needs some manner of update as well, given that it's using direct formatting rather than a macro for its headword line, and a number of the other letter names are not consistently formatted. Regardless, the entries are functional as they are.

Rriegs (talk)19:19, 24 May 2019

Greek passive forms

Hi - ((Notifying Sarri.greek, Rossyxan): ) - I just reverted your recent edits to λύνομαι. Some Greek passive forms have different meanings to that which usually expected from the active form. Therefore they should properly (I think) be considered a lemma. At present all the passive forms remain categorised as lemmas. Sarri.greek and I had put off (some time ago) reviewing what we should do about passive forms which should probably be considered non-lemma.

Saltmarsh.04:54, 20 May 2019

The reason I did it was that there's a non-lemma definition on the page, and it's also formatted wrong. I'm ok with it being treated as a lemma, as long as the formatting can be fixed somehow...

Rua (mew)07:35, 20 May 2019
 
Edited by author.
Last edit: 13:12, 16 May 2019

Why did you want to delete my page Rhymes:English/mən? Please leave a reasonable comment on my talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk)13:09, 16 May 2019

See WT:RFDO.

Rua (mew)13:10, 16 May 2019
 

coicio revert reason

I'd like to know the reason for the latest revert. In the future, perhaps you would consider first leaving a comment on my talk page if you need clarification on some of my edits, or after reverting to explain the reason.

Brutal Russian (talk)19:18, 13 May 2019

Your edit left the entry with two contradictory pronunciations, and yours were the incorrect ones. In the future, you should discuss problems you have with the templates so that they can be fixed.

Rua (mew)19:20, 13 May 2019

The pronunciations were not contradictory - it's impossible to determine which one is correct. -N- before fricatives is often omitted in Latin orthography, and there's no consensus on what exactly this testifies to. This webiste assumes this means a nasalised vowel, but the -N- could just as well have been pronounced fully or not at all - I left the other pronunciation as a possible spelling pronunciation. This is not a seprate word from conicio, but an alternative spelling of the same word - at the very least they have to share one identical pronunciation in addition to the spelling one. This is not a problem of the template because the a template doesn't know when an -N- is omitted and when it isn't. The -NI- spelling might be problematic for the template to nasalise because of the J/I issue - I will probably ask about that. In either case there's no reason I cannot add an explicit IPA pronunciation in the meantime. I don't see your reversals as justified.

Brutal Russian (talk)19:56, 15 May 2019

Have you discussed this with other editors? Are they ok with your additions?

Rua (mew)20:14, 15 May 2019
 
 
 

winkelhaec

The MNW actually includes a 15th century mention (Teutonista), the same source cited by Van Veen & Van der Sijs, so there is basis for a Middle Dutch stage.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)11:01, 15 May 2019

Given that we already have hake, should we be also using winkelhake? The form without schwa is a late form, and not all descendants of Middle Dutch actually lost the schwa. West Flemish and Zeelandic still have all the schwas, for example, including presumably in this word.

Rua (mew)11:38, 15 May 2019

Fine with me, it's more consistent. The MNW also uses the normalisation hake for the simplex.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)11:49, 15 May 2019
 
 

A few cognates in etymologies

Hi,

You're welcome to modify the etymologies in Slavic entries per agreed format but please don't remove selected cognates in other languages, that wasn't agreed on.

Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)02:48, 13 May 2019

I always remove cognates when they are already listed as descendants on another page.

Rua (mew)10:07, 13 May 2019
 

Confused about "lintrum"

Hi! I don't understand why my edits to the entry lintrum were reverted. If I've understood the linked du Cange page correctly, it doesn't provide any support for this as a genitive plural form. It seems to be giving it as a nominative singular form of some word, which I think would have to be second-declension neuter; but if that's too much of an assumption, I guess the page should be deleted altogether (unless you know of an alternative source that supports its existence as a genitive plural form).

Urszag (talk)17:20, 9 May 2019

It was badly formatted, there wasn't even a definition on the page, and that's the most important thing in any Wiktionary entry!

Rua (mew)17:34, 9 May 2019

OK, got it. I will improve it.

Urszag (talk)17:40, 9 May 2019
 

I don't know exactly how to define it in English, since du Cange defines it as "σϰαφή, Alveum, scafa" (without saying exactly which meanings are applicable). Am I allowed to give a non-English definition? If not, any advice?

Urszag (talk)17:42, 9 May 2019
 
 

Representation of W Frisian <tsj>

Do you have any views on what the phonemic representation of West Frisian <tsj> should be? West Frisian phonology doesn't include it but would suggest /tɕ/ (as <t> + <sj>) whereas the WFT and a few papers I ran across on Google use /tsj/.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)08:04, 9 May 2019

So far I've just used /tsj/. [tɕ] is not a phoneme for the same reason as its Dutch equivalent: the change from /t(s)j/ to [tɕ] is automatic and happens not only across morpheme boundaries, but across word boundaries.

Rua (mew)10:04, 9 May 2019
 

"Solution not allowed"

Hey, could you explain why supplying forms to declension/conjugation templates is not allowed, if anything is allowed to circumvent having to spell out notes (editing templates directly I assume?) and where can I read more about things like that? Thanks.

Brutal Russian (talk)14:45, 7 May 2019

You should never provide multiple forms as a single argument to a template. That's not just something for this particular template, but for all templates across Wiktionary. The right solution is to provide each form with its own parameter. If the Latin templates don't have a parameter to specify a second form, which appears to be the case, then that's a shortcoming in the template and you need to take it up with the author, User:JohnC5.

Rua (mew)14:53, 7 May 2019
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".