|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Dardic||2||03:34, 12 February 2016|
|Suecophile||4||12:53, 9 February 2016|
|Mod:Template:also parameters||0||07:58, 9 February 2016|
|Slavic dupa||0||07:22, 9 February 2016|
|vale and valet||0||08:01, 8 February 2016|
|Deleted category||1||02:49, 8 February 2016|
|PIE conjugation||0||16:28, 7 February 2016|
|Middle Dutch-canuCREATEreq.page?||0||11:43, 6 February 2016|
|Papaja||0||02:41, 5 February 2016|
|lagaña (Spanish)||0||16:48, 4 February 2016|
|canu'v alook?||0||00:24, 4 February 2016|
|Suecophile||2||17:12, 3 February 2016|
|Wondering||1||11:42, 30 January 2016|
|Pluta||1||22:15, 29 January 2016|
|pl,mov2Bomenaar||0||19:42, 28 January 2016|
|*klinganą||1||14:48, 27 January 2016|
|only running MewBot 7 or 8 hours a day?||1||15:22, 25 January 2016|
|Slava, Slavonic, Slovo, Słuch||2||00:18, 25 January 2016|
|Jutro and my other etymological edits||4||00:13, 23 January 2016|
|Extension Variables||2||22:27, 22 January 2016|
The article was moved in spite probably it should not have been moved and that was made before the template was put there. The first letter as a capital letter is in line with other words like this, see Francophile and Fennophile for instance. Don't move my question to you to my talk page. Stop warring about this and discuss it instead. Lilac pig (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Lilac pig: I don't understand what you mean with "talkpage where the thread was started". From my point of view I'm writing on CodeCat's Talk page and an entry signed by you is right on top of the thread. I agree with you that it seems like a strange solution to delete Suecophile and keep suecophile, as the only BGC hit is for the capitalized form. Funny enough, we have Suecophiles unchallenged. One might also argue that neither of them is attestable (3 permanently archived citations are required), whereas Swedophile is.
Thank you for finally giving reasons for one of your reverts, o CodeCat!
Still, your revert goes against the etymology of dupa/dziupla/dno (q.v.) as given in Słownik etymologiczny języka polskiego, Wiesław Boryś, Kraków 2005, see here for this very entry or in the truncated Słownik Języka Polskiego here. In short, e.g. dno <- *dъbno -< *dhub-no- od *dheṷ-b- (/*dheṷ-p-). Ditto in (agreed, very dated) Bruckner, who is providing the cognate Lithuanian [[dauba], dubus, and dubti, while for the latter originating from *dheṷ-b-, see Bronius Piesarskas and Bronius Svecevicius: Lithuanian Dictionary and Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1963).
Do your sources claim otherwise? If so, please provide their ety. If not, please revert yourself and fix further. Chwała!
As it seems like you didn't understand the comment "PoS of an English translation does not determine Latin PoS":
The part of speech of an English translation does not determine the part of speech of a foreign word, in this case of a Latin word. Maybe this is an more obvious example for you: German "Sei gegrüßt!" literally means "Be greeted!". You can translate it with an English interjection like "Hello!", but the German still is an verbal expression (using a helping verb and a participle). Similary Latin "vale" and "valete" are just verb forms (more precisely, imperative forms) and no interjections even though they are commonly translated into English by an interjection. This also explains why the "interjection" has a singular and a plural form. Furthermore, even common dictionaries do not state that "vale" and "valete" are interjections, but simply mention that some verb forms (vale, valete, valeas) are translated as "farewell". -188.8.131.52 08:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I was just wondering why all the PIE conjugation tables were removed (at least in some articles, by you) in 2012. Assuming this was some collective decision of the Wiktionary community or some subset of it, it would be nice if the edit summaries of such mass actions included some link to said decision.
tisike (“a phthisic [i.e., one suffering from consumption or pulmonary tuberculosis”), Middle Dutch (since WT:RE:dum doesn't exist, I brought the request here); from the Latin phthisicus; blue-linked because of a Middle English entry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The page should not be moved while it's in RFV, and the RFV notice should not be removed.
Re this and other reverts.
I very rarely use the ad hominem, but recently I read the eye-opening tutorial to a- and neuro-typical aspects of Wiki editing. I shall thus risk and with a doze of trepidation ask: are you an Aspie?
If so, please (re-?)read the aforementioned guide and compare your "all or none" edits and the declared approach with e.g. the fixes made by your equally zealous Wiktionary colleagues (click), who instead of reverting such en masse, maybe grumble some, in jest and fix the codes or placement if that makes sense for the [5 pillars]' sake. I do the same to their edits, see my history herein.
Shall we thus cooperate, for Wiktionary's sake?
Probably shouldn't insert myself into this but I agree with Zezen here, reverting someone's in-good-faith work, particularly a non-IP user, is something I would generally avoid doing because it comes across as kind of hostile. I suggest either fixing it and grumbling on the person's talk page, or just pointing out the problems on the person's talk page and asking them if they could fix it. I would wait to start reverting until it's clear someone isn't willing to learn from their mistakes.
Could you have a short look if I did nothing wrong in my recent edit? Thank you and greetings
Hey, I notice MewBot isn't running 24 hours a day to deal with term/context/cx. Are you only running it when you're around to stop it if it messes up, or is this intended to reduce load of some sort?
- *slovo is a descendant of *ḱlew-os ~ *ḱlew-es-.
- *slava reflects a long vowel of unclear origin, so that would go under "unsorted formations".
- Slavonic is a non-Slavic word derived ultimately from *slava. It shouldn't go on the PIE page.
- *sluxъ reflects an s-extension of some sort, something like *ḱlow-s-os perhaps.
Наряду с *jutrо реконструируют также праслав. *ustrо на основе ст.-слав. заоустра (согласно Северьянову, — описки), а также др.-польск. justrzenka, макед. застра «завтра». Только для этого недостаточно достоверного *ustrо можно ставить вопрос о родстве с лит. aušrà «заря», греч. αὔριον «завтра», др.-в.-нем. ost(a)ra «пасха», др.-инд. usrás «утренний».
You haven't explained what happened to the -s- in Slavic. The word-initial j- is also not explained; this would normally point to PIE *ew-, not *aw-.
I saw you started a vote on installing the Variables extension. Does it mean the extension would indeed be installed if the proposal passes? We had some talks about this extensions on Czech Wiktionary some time ago (it would greatly help us too), but one editor stopped the discussion with a claim that "this extension would never be allowed on WM wikis because it would break the new parser"). Is this claim true or not? Is there a possiblity this extension could be installed on a WM wiki in some near future? If so, we'd probably want it on Czech Wiktionary too.
It looks like we will indeed not be able to get the extension, so in a way the vote is moot. However, my hope is that it will spur on a request that can get filled by something else that can do the same function (along the lines of what Tim Starling said in the GP).