Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Crom daba

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --WikiTiki89 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Slavic/gromъEdit

Thank you for adding this page. Just a tip: adding transliterations in the {{l}} template for most Cyrillic languages is no longer necessary because they are now automated. --WikiTiki89 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Language codeEdit

I've come across some edits where you have ge as the language code for German, instead of de. It should have been obvious that something was wrong, just from the red "Module error" in place of the template in the entry. I would strongly recommend clicking the "Show preview" button and checking for errors before clicking on "Save page". I catch all kinds of typos and absent-minded errors in my own edits by doing that.

As for the language codes, they're listed at the List of Languages. You can verify by hovering over the link to see what comes after the "#", and by looking at the categories on the bottom of the page for those templates that add categories. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I always searched for language codes in the ISO 639 appendix pages, this should save me some time. Crom daba (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

germanizmiEdit

Ako želiš mogu generirati listu svih germanizama u sh-om iz HJP-a, skupa s kosturima članaka (izgovor, etimologija, fleksija ali bez definicija). Uglavnom su to regionalizmi koje je zeznuto prevesti pa ih ja (kao chief sh editor, jelte :D) izbjegavam stvoriti... Vidim da si zapeo za to područje, pa ako ti se radî na tome samo javi. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Zvuči dobro, no reci mi, kako da se uključim u to automagično generisanje članaka i slično, osećam se kao da jedini obrađujem motikom zemlju dok su svi oko mene upregli volove odavno. Crom daba (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Ma nema opcije za automagično generiranje članaka - većina su ovdje programeri pa im nije problem napraviti takve alate. Ja mogu takve članke ili 1) izgeneriti preko bota da izgledaju poput ovih: cijeđ, oplećje, rubnik, rucelj - dakle sve osim definicija fali (koje bi ti onda nadupunio); ili 2) wiki kȏd članaka prebaciti na neku pomoćnu podstranicu odakle bi ti radio copy/paste u članke u glavnom namespace-u. Ne znam što ti više odgovara? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Kao što bi statistika mogla predvideti, ja sam takođe programer(mada početnik), baš sam pre koji dan gledao format direktnog linka na natuknicu u HJPu te da li bi se mogao automatski referensirati kako je to slučaj sa duden.de citatima. U principu nema razlike da li ću to raditi preko podstranice ili drukčije, učini kako god ti je zgodnije; no biću zauzet idućih dana pa ne počinji još (ili počni ako tebi zjapeće stranice bez definicija kao gore priložene ne izazivaju egzistencijalnu strepnju).
Nego nevezano za ovo, postoji li način da se mongolsko pismo ubaci na stranicu? Trenutno kada ubaciš unikod karaktere iz raspona za mongolski u {{term}} tag koji ih ište, izađu ti nekakve rune i akronimi na arkanom jeziku vikiadministracije, jel potrebno da administrator dozvoli taj raspon unutar {{term}} taga ili šta? Znam da je ovo pismo tehnološki nezgodno zbog smera pisanja, ali kužim da bi bilo dobro imati te reči makar kao niz karaktera koji će jednog lepog dana biti prikazan vertikalno kako je tengri zamislio. Crom daba (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Imam cijeli HJP sajt skinut lokalno (i štoviše konvertiran u DSL format kojeg može čitati GoldenDict) tako da već imam spremljena mapiranja između ID-ova i lema. Moglo bi se automatski referencirati tako da napravim ogromnu hash tablicu u Lua koja bi sadržavala to mapiranje (nekih 116k lema) i koja bi se pozivala iz šablona - no za tim nema potrebe. Ako želiš mogu ti poslati pa da se sam igraš s tim. Trebalo bi ti znanje regularnih izraza za lakšu manipulaciju stringovima a za upload članaka imaš već gotove biblioteke (ja sve radim u C#). Izgenerirat ću pa ti javim kad bude gotovo.
Administratori samo mogu brisati stranice i blokirati korisnike, ne mogu ništa drugo. Ne prikazuje im se ništa drukčije nego drugima. Što se tiče mongolskog ne znam točno na što misliš - može neki primjer? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Zanimljivo.
Recimo da imaš [script needed] (køkygyr, cowhide water- or wine-cask)) i misliš ubaciti ᠺᠥᠺᠦᠺᠦᠷ u dotični tag, ali kad to učiniš javlja se nekakva greška koja te privremeno blokira od editovanja stranice, pretpostavljam zato da neko ne bi ubacivao neke nasumične unikod karaktere, ali ako je moguće koristiti klinasto pismo pretpostavljam da nije teško ni za mongolski. Crom daba (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
ᠺᠥᠺᠦᠺᠦᠷ (køkygyr, cowhide water- or wine-cask) - pa meni se ovo normalno prikazuje, isto kao i ᠺᠥᠺᠦᠺᠦᠷ. Ne vidim gdje je problem :/ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Doista mi radi normalno sad =\ Greška mi se bila javila na یاسا, možda sam ukucao neki parametar šablona pogrešno... Izašla mi je poruka od abuse filter-a da je to situacija "strips L3" bez ikakvog linka na to šta bi taj strips L3 bio, proguglah to i nađoh samo ovu stranicu http://www.cooldictionary.com/words/Special%3AAbuseFilter.wiktionary koja opet vodi na nepostojeću wiki/ stranicu. Biće verovatno da mi je unikod iscureo iz || zagrada te da je to napravilo grešku.
Ajd drago mi je da smo razriješili taj mistični problem. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, bude večeras. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Popis germanizama je tu i tu (razbijeno na dvije podstranice inače baca grešku oko potrošnje memorije). Budem ja to poluautomatski izgenerirao tijekom vikenda pa ti obrati pažnju na sve stranice kojima fale prijevodi. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

U vezi ovoga - kontekstne labele trebaju biti u istoj liniji s prijevodima, te ih je potrebno duplicirati za svaku liniju čak i ako se odnose na sva značenja. Format je fiksiran, botovi to validiraju, a uniformnost je važna jer podatke iz baze reiskorištavaju i ostali (za custom rječnike, strojno prevođenje itd.) Vidim da ti dobro ide, dodat ću malo kasnije još članaka da ti ne bude dosadno... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

U redu. --Crom daba (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

-лахEdit

Me and Metaknowledge have fixed your entry some. —CodeCat 15:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It's hard to get around these templates and such after a long hiatus.
Tangentially related to this, I could use some help with this template I put together, how can I prevent the entry using this template from being added to lemma categories? It would be nice if only the canonical variant was listed so as to avoid cluttering categories with harmonic variants.Crom daba (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Though I'm not sure what lemma categories you mean, I'm going to guess that the "harmonic variants" category is the culprit. This is because you used the template {{deftempboiler}}, which is old and a bit rickety. I've updated your template now. —CodeCat 16:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort, but it's not exactly what I had in mind. My idea is that -лэх, for exaple, should not be placed in Category:Mongolian_lemmas nor Category:Mongolian_suffixes but only in Category:Harmonic_variants or something to that effect, same as findere belongs in Category:Latin_non_lemma_forms and Category:Latin_verb_forms and not in Category:Latin_verbs Crom daba (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
All entries should be in either the "lemmas" category or the "nonlemmas" category, and which category an entry goes in is determined by the part-of-speech category. The template {{mn-suffix}} includes the category Category:Mongolian suffixes, and "suffixes" is a lemma category, so that's how it happens. To resolve this, you'll have to use a different template, and choose another part-of-speech category to put these entries into. Category:Mongolian suffix forms seems to fit fairly well. —CodeCat 16:20, 15 August 2016 (UT
I suspected this was the case but made a false conclusion. So how does the head template work, can I put anything as a part of speech or will only arguments from a given set pass? And if arbitrary arguments are allowed, how do I indicate that it belongs among non-lemmas? And finally, is there a rule against putting 'suffix' in the heading and using a head template other that 'suffix' (for example 'harmonic variant')
Anything will work, but the template prefers names it knows and will put entries in Category:head tracking/unrecognized pos otherwise. An unrecognised part-of-speech, naturally, can't be categorised as either a lemma or nonlemma, which is why this cleanup category exists. A list of valid lemma/nonlemma categories is found at the top of Module:headword.
There is no strict rule against a mismatch between header and category, since for example we still have "verb forms" under a "Verb" heading like the Latin example you gave. But it's definitely preferred to use existing categories: categories which {{poscatboiler}}/{{auto cat}} recognise, and for which a "by language" category also exists, like Category:Verb forms by language. "suffix forms" is recognised by both Module:headword and by {{poscatboiler}}/{{auto cat}}, so you can use that. —CodeCat 16:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, that's all I need to know. Thanks.

-зүйEdit

If you want a page deleted please mark it with {{delete}}, otherwise it's likely nobody will notice it. DTLHS (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks!Crom daba (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Relation between Mongolic -мал and Common Turkic -mïšEdit

Hi do you have any source about etymology of -мал? it seems to sound close to -mïĺ, so called earlier form of Common Turkic -mïš. See Turkish -mış, -miş which has the same, actually even more functions, and is also mainly used for evidentiality. Could there be a relation? --Anylai (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some notes on the suffix
  1. The Written Mongol form is -mal (rather than -mil)
  2. Original semantic was probably closer to result nouns than adjectives
    barimal and bicimel originally meant 'statue' and 'scripture', but came to mean 'moulded' and 'written' (from bari- 'mould' and bici- 'write')
  3. In some cases b- in suffixes may surface as m- and -r- may surface as -l- so the original form could potentially also be bal/bar/mar
  4. Barimal is also supposedly a (Para-)Mongolic borrowing in Turkic as *balbal, attested in eight century Old Turkic already, and also present as a Bulgaric loan in slavic as bъlvanъ/bal(ъ)vanъ
  5. There's another suffix, -buri, that forms process nouns that can also potentially surface as -мал in Khalkha, but it is obviously unrelated

If there's a connection it would have to be very ancient. Crom daba (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Just comparing it with -лаг, are you sure then it is from -lïg? As for -mïš, you can find many types of words created with this suffix. Adjectives being nouns is very typical in Turkish, so you get both nouns and adjectives. Such as geçmiş meaning "past" (noun) and "previous" (adjective), it is also evidential form for geç-. I am inadequate at why Mongolic l would surface as r, or vice-versa. So -лаг can also be from -rag? --Anylai (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
There's a (soft) restriction on having two р (r)s in a word see Poppe, it only applies to some derivational suffixes however. So for example it doesn't occur with instrumental -аар (-aar) or -втар (-vtar, -ish), but it does with -уур (-uur) for example, and probably also sporadically in lexical items. Similar phenomenons also occur in Georgian and Latin. My idea of -мал potentially coming from *-мар is just speculation, such a development is theoretically possible but nothing seems to suggest it.
Claus Schönig connects -lïg with ᠯᠢᠭ (lig) in "Mongolic languages" (edited by Juha Janhunen), I don't speak Turkish, but on the face of it, the phonology and semantics match.
Mongolian also has a very weak line between nouns and adjectives (at least according to traditional analysis, Janhunen argues differently), but some words are obviously more commonly used attributively (as an adjective) than substantively (as a noun). In the case of -мал, words built with this suffix used to be more common as substantives in older Mongol, but are mostly used as attributes today.

Moves and DeletesEdit

Hello. Just an FYI, in situations where you think a word should be deleted (like this), please add the {{rfd}} template to the existing entry and create an entry on the Request for Deletion page indicating your reasons for deletion. That way others will have an opportunity to weigh in on the topic. In the case of moves (like this) you should use the move feature rather than creating the new entry and requesting the deletion of the old. The reason for this is that the move feature maintains the edit history, which is required by the content licenses we use. If you copy the content to a new page without attribution we are violating the rights of the content creators. Thanks! - TheDaveRoss 18:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know.Crom daba (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

HonorificsEdit

How do honorific nouns and verbs work in Mongolian? If it's like Tibetan, perhaps it would be good to set up a version of the infrastructure Wyang recently created; see a page like མགོ (mgo) for an example. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

They are more marginal than in other East Asian languages, most grammars and course books don't have anything about them. They are mainly (but not exclusively) used in religious contexts (not only Buddhist, Bible translations also use them), so I don't think we would benefit much from marking them specially. Crom daba (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:sh-nounEdit

It now automatically transliterates, without having to resort to modules. See superlativ and its Cyrillic counterpart. —CodeCat 01:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

What sorcery is this? What does SUBPAGENAME do? Crom daba (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It gives the page name, but if the page is a subpage of another page, it only gives the subpage name. You could use just PAGENAME, but SUBPAGENAME makes it work also with reconstruction entries. —CodeCat 01:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Well thank you, I certainly had no idea that this could be handled like this. Crom daba (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm now working on cleaning up the parameters some. For now, I'm only moving the 3rd parameter (transliterated+diacritics) over to the 2nd, since it has the same effect. Later, we can see about removing the rest. I want to analyse the existing uses first. According to the documentation of {{sh-noun}}, some words shouldn't have transliteration as they're encountered in one script only. —CodeCat 01:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that no-transliteration rule is still in effect, we have Croatian Serbo-Croatian and even Kajkavian (just a few of those) terms in Cyrillic for example. Crom daba (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The only exception I can think of is, non-native Roman spellings (in loanwords) should only have native spellings in Cyrillic. Eg both "Washington" and "Vašington" should have "Вашингтон" as the Cyrillic form.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat I could hardly find any such cases (but I think they do exist, of course). Perhaps existing Roman forms without Cyrillic equivalents could be added to a track category for checking by editors. As for Roman variants like "Washington" (borrowed)/"Vašington" (native), the native respelling should be used for Washington#Serbo-Croatian for conversion, something like {{sh-proper noun|r|g=m|phon=Vašington}}, which should produce Cyrillic "Вашингтон".
Of course, care should be taken for Roman lj, nj and dž, which can result in pairs љ/лј, њ/нј and џ/дж. Yes, all dialectal forms should have both Roman and Cyrillic forms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't implemented the transliteration module, it was already there. I just made {{sh-noun}} use it. —CodeCat 13:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
My original idea was to separate the letters of a potential digraph with ` like so: {{sh-verb|head=nad`žíveti}}, which is why sh-translit substitutes backticks into empty strings. But дж, нј and лј are so rare that we might as well format the headwords containing them the hard way. Crom daba (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's such a bad idea. We already do similar things in the transliterations of Chinese and Japanese whenever there is ambiguity. —CodeCat 15:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat Do you think it's a good idea to add tracking to terms with possibly ambiguous transliterations (Roman to Cyrillic)? I agree with using ` to separate digraphs. What about implementing alternative native forms to force a correct Cyrillic transliteration as in the Washington/Vašington example above? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 19:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I found a problem, terms with several heads transliterate only one of them, see kalodont. Crom daba (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
{{sh-noun}} doesn't support multiple heads yet anyway. I'll work on that too. —CodeCat 20:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev Many words are apparently missing the first and second parameters. I converted {{sh-adverb}} to Lua and a lot of module errors are now showing up. What should be done about these? —CodeCat 20:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat You seem to be on top of it now. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've left the ones I'm unsure about. —CodeCat 00:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
What happens with genders for various PoS? I don't see the auto-transliteration either? Are you doing the cleanup first? --00:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The autotransliteration isn't done yet. First, I want to test the automatic code against the manual parameters to see if the results ever differ. That would help spot potential problems. —CodeCat 00:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see, thanks. I think this discussion should be public. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I did the checking and fixed up most of the transliterations in entries, but I wasn't able to fix them all. They are at [[1]]. —CodeCat 15:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat Thanks. Can you implement Crom daba's suggestion to use "`" to separate ambiguous digraphs? E.g. in`jèkcija, nad`žíveti? Also, for terms like Microsoft, you can try my suggestion to use a native Roman spelling, in this case "Màjkrosoft" to convert to the correct Cyrillic form "Ма̀јкрософт". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it would be simplest if the transliteration, when necessary, would just be specified with tr=, a parameter name that people are surely familiar with. For Microsoft, there'd be tr=Ма̀јкрософт then. I don't think there's any need to respell the Latin script version unless it's actually going to be displayed somewhere. —CodeCat 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@CodeCat I see that automatic transliteration is turned off again, can you get it back on? Crom daba (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. There's lots of errors now, because the first and second parameters are no longer used, but I have a bot running to fix them all, so it'll take some time. A transliteration can still be specified, but using the tr= parameter, like I added on Microsoft. —CodeCat 13:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Karakhanid textsEdit

Hello, may i ask where you find the Karakhanid texts? I have not been able to learn the Arabic script yet, is there a place I can copy texts? --Anylai (talk) 09:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I only transcribe Clauson's transcriptions of Kashgari's texts back into Arabic (I feel that this is safe because Kashgari has a consistent orthography and always uses the diacritics, see Clauson -Studies in Turkic and Mongolic linguistics for details). See if you can get B. Atalay, Divanü Lugat-it-türk Tercumesi, 3 volumes and index, Ankara, 1940-3, it's what Clauson cites but I have no idea if the relevant parts are transcribed or given as in the original (I wasn't able to find a copy). Crom daba (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Atalay contains both the transcription and the original script. It is available at http://turuz.com/. --Vahag (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Vahag! Crom daba (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both! --Anylai (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear @Vahagn Petrosyan, I am having hard time reading the Arabic transcriptions in this book. Can you possibly help me with how word initial short /a/ is transcribed by Kasghari? It seems like /اَ/ to me but I can not find such a thing, or is it /آ/? By the way most of the stuff (diacritics and such) in his entries seems to be ignored by many languages. Why does Arabic do this? for example take a look at اَلْآخِرَة (al-ʾāḵira), when you click on it, it creates something that looks like a dumbed down version (الآخرة). What should be done for Karakhanid lemmas in this case? I have also created an entry you can check it out. --Anylai (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Anylai, I don't know anything about Karakhanid. I can't help you, sorry. --Vahag (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks anyway Vahagn, I actually need some help with the script rather than the language itself. Now I am confused as to what diacritic I should use for rounded vowels. I can swear that what I see in B. Atalay's book is /ۥ/ for round vowels, but sometimes I see / ُ/ instead. Couldnt be sure if it was due to low resolution. I am not really familiar with the rules of writing in this script. Perhaps Crom daba can help but he seems to be on some kind of vacation from wiktionary. --Anylai (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on Karakhanid (and Sakha) @Anylai you'll overtake my work on Santa lemmas after some 30 entries more.
Arabic (and other languages using the Arabic script) is usually written without diacritics, with them usually being added when the text needs enunciating. Kashgari added diacritics to all the words, but this was presumably because he was writing a dictionary, presumably the other Karakhanid (Xakani) text Clauson mentions did not have them, so we should probably move the pages to diacriticless forms (keeping the diacritics in the head template), at least for consistency's sake and so that common Perso-Arabic words are on the same page.
The 'initial short a' is alif with a fatha, the Arabic script doesn't recognize vowel initial words so all such words are written with an alif representing an initial glottal stop, so short initial a/e is اَ and short initial u/ü is اُ, long initial u/ü is او, but long initial a/e has a special diacritic called w:maddah.
Round vowels are written with a dammah, I haven't encountered that other symbol, unicode recognition tools say it's "small waw", but I doubt it's what Atalay uses.
Another thing to pay attention to is that there are two variants of kaf and ya encoded in Unicode, the Arabic and the Persian one which are only differentiated in the isolated and final forms. Kashgari (or at least Atalay) seems to use Persian ya (no two dots below in final form) but Arabic kaf. Crom daba (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Crom daba. Arabic has templates for diacritics, couldnt figure it out how to do the same for Karakhanid without templates. --Anylai (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
If you mean how to strip diacritics from links, this is how you do it, I undid it for now since it made current Karakhanid entries unlinkable. Crom daba (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ali_TarimEdit

Could you review the etymologies that this user has added (if you feel comfortable doing so)? Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It mostly appears to be StarLing material, I don't like it but it's referenceable. Crom daba (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:DTLHS/calquesEdit

Here's a list of pages with explicit calque categorization, if you're interested. DTLHS (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Crom daba (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Tupian and language modules.Edit

Having "tup" as the family is sufficient to establish "tup-pro" as the ancestor, so I'm going to revert you changes to the language modules as they are redundant. Sorry for the spam. —JohnC5 18:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I was just thinking "why the hell isn't this automated" while doing it. Crom daba (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, you're aware of WT:ANC, right? —JohnC5 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't, good to know. Crom daba (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

aggiornareEdit

I can understand making absent-minded typos, but I don't understand how you could leave an entry with a big, ugly red module error- do you even look at the entries after your edits? Or maybe you could preview first, so you can fix your errors before saving them. I'm posting this because it isn't the first (or second) time I've cleaned up one of these from you. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to work on a lot of entries at the same time (fixing minor things on a number of pages or propagating changes to all variants of Serbo-Croatian words), so some slip through. Crom daba (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Synonyms and antonyms at илEdit

Hi, could you group the synonyms and antonyms by sense please? —CodeCat 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Using the new templates or the old way? Crom daba (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Either way is fine. I asked specifically so that I could get rid of the {{syn-top}} and {{ant-top}} templates. —CodeCat 15:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Are the antonyms the same for all three senses? —CodeCat 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

шаманEdit

Hi Crom daba. Would you be willing and able to create an entry for the Evenki шаман (şaman, shaman), including its declension, please? (Currently, the link is blue because the page has Russian and Serbo-Croatian entries.) I assume you have the skills because of Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/January#So I made an Evenki transliteration module. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, it must be the most internationally relevant Evenki word, I'll see what I can do. Crom daba (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on сама̄н (samān) et al. — it's good to have 'em! Re its declension, I think its nominative plural form is сама̄сал (samāsal) — that's my assumed transliteration of samaːsal, anyway; I don't know about the various cases. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a list of n-stem case suffixes in Vasilevič, G. M. (1958) Evɛnkijsko-Russkij slovarʹ [Evenki-Russian dictionary] (in Russian), Moscow: GIS, but I'm not sure if the quality of the entry would be much improved if I were to add my attempt at the declension. Crom daba (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Is your concern with factual or presentational shortcomings? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I feel that the (slight) chance of a factual mistake outweights the marginal usefulness that having a declensional table would bring. I'd imagine that people who care about the Evenki elative already know how to form it.
If you feel otherwise, I guess I could do it anyways, maybe numerous cases might attract someone to study it. Crom daba (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I got a lot more interested in Basque when a declension table in an entry I saw introduced me to the fact that the language has eighteen cases. I suppose that, the more kinds of information an entry presents, the more "hooks" it has with which to catch a reader's interest. Accordingly, yes, I think numerous cases might indeed attract someone to study Evenki. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add them. Crom daba (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that’s a lot of cases! Thanks for adding the table. You did warn me that there was a slight chance you’d make a factual mistake, and whilst I’m hardly sufficiently familiar with Evenki to correct you, I notice that the plural you gave conflicts with the one given in Lenore A. Grenoble’s and Lindsay J. Whaley’s “The Case for Dialect Continua in Tungusic: Plural Morphology”, which I cited above. Evenki is presumably an LDL, but I nevertheless find it persuasive that google:"самансэл" yields no hits, whereas google:"самасэл" yields twenty-one. Besides Grenoble and Whaley on the one hand, and the Google-hits comparison on the other, see ru:саман#Эвенкийский, which features what I assume to be an Evenki example sentence, viz. «Север кэтэдын тэгэлдун тырганитыкин итыл овувдявкил тэдечэдерилди самасэл ачирдутын.», translated by the Russian «У большинства народов Севера повседневные обряды совершаются верующими в отсутствие шаманов.» (which Google Translate Englishes “Most of the peoples of the North have daily rituals performed by believers in the absence of shamans.”). Accordingly, I don’t think the -н- (-n-) is maintained in the plural, and that the plural is сама̄сэл (samāsəl), not *сама̄нсэл (samānsəl); presumably, the case suffixes concatenate accordingly. I don’t know why the -н- (-n-) gets dropped, but I note that the same seems to happen with [script needed] (bajan, rich person) [pl. [script needed] (bajasal)] and [script needed] (aβlan, field) [pl. [script needed] (aβlasal)]. Also consider самасик (samasik, shamanic robes) which, though a derivation of сама̄н (samān), does not have that -н- (-n-) either. Thoughts? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, I managed to track down G.M. Vasilevič’s 1958 Эвенкийско-Русский Словарь which, even though I can’t understand Russian or even Cyrillic very well, has been useful. Do you know where I can track down a PDF copy of Olga A. Konstantinova’s 1964 Эвенкийский Язык? I have read that pages 45–60 thereof explicate the Evenki declension suffixes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym You are correct about the unstable-n, I copied the mistake into all the plural cases, sorry for taking so long to correct it.
Konstantinova's book can be found at the usual place, but you probably found it by now.
Crom daba (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction:Proto-Mongolic/köküürEdit

Hi. Would you help me to add the other Mongolic descendants listed in Nugteren? --Vahag (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Is the link to *-xur instead of *-xür in the etymology section deliberate or a mistake? --Vahag (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I classify all suffixes under a back-harmonic variant, see Category:Mongolian words by suffix. Crom daba (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I see. --Vahag (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Serbian Cyrillic fontsEdit

Hello! I hope you are having a good morning up there! If you are able to, can you please explain what happens when a font has Cyrillic support, but does not have Serbian Cyrillic italics? Will the designers still use it? and does it irk Serbians off? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 09:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Good evening down there.
I'm guessing you are referring to this?
For one my own computer doesn't seem to support Serbian italics and I haven't noticed it until now so I guess it's not a big deal, however my computer just displays italics as sloped block letters and it would probably look weird if it displayed Russian semi-cursive.
Going through the books on my shelf I can't find any with incorrect italics except for one which lacks the overline on г.
Note however that we don't use Cyrillic in Serbia as much as you'd expect, labels and unofficial signage are almost always in Roman and we generally use Roman on the Internet unless we want to seem patriotic or official.
Crom daba (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant with the Cyrillic forms. However I thought that Serbian was always written in Cyrillic as much as Russian, and the Latin transliteration was just a scholarly romanisation — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 07:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Latin is more common than Cyrillic in popular media, it's a point of national shame for some people so you don't hear much about it. Crom daba (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Mongolian phonology overviewEdit

Hi Crom daba!

  1. I wonder how stress in Mongolian actually works? Is it unpredictable as Serbo-Croatian pitch accent or does it follow any rules?
  2. Are there any words (i.e. loanwords) that 'break the rules', not just in stress, but with using different sounds than usual?

Sorry for seeming to be ambiguous here, but these are just questions that I only need to get an overview with. Feel free to clarify with me — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 15:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The stress completely predictable i.e. nonphonemic. There is disagreement on what the stress rule actually is, one view (the one I subscribe to) is:
  1. The rightmost nonfinal long vowel (or diphthong) gets the stress.
  2. If all but the final vowel are short the stress is ultimate.
  3. The stress is initial otherwise.
Stressed vowels in Russian are usually borrowed as Mongolian long vowels so the stress rules aren't broken anyway.
Mongolian is phonotactically relatively strict (vowel harmony, no initial consonant clusters, ...) and lacks natively some phonemes found in Chinese, Russian or Tibetan like /f, z, ʒ, k, ɬ/, so the loans often go against the tendencies of Mongolian phonology and are thus adapted to them to a greater or smaller extent depending on the familiarity of the speaker with the source language.
As an example this paper shows some Russian loans respelled phonemically (it's in Russian but I think you should be able to figure it out), some of these spellings made it into official language while some keep their Russian spellings or are adapted only partly.
If you're interested in the subject, get The Phonology of Mongolian (2005) by Svantesson et al. Crom daba (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Баярлалаа, Цром даба!AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
On that note, I did some research, and if you really want to know what Mongolian actually sounds like, check this out on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/magauchsein/search?query=easy+mongolian . Trust me, it sounds really guttural and hissy! — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 23:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for showing me that.
If you want to learn Mongolian the textbook way, I'd suggest Bayarmandakh & Gaunt, it has audio tapes too. Crom daba (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

KhamniganEdit

Belatedly following up on both the old BP thread and the RFM thread about it, I've added a (full) language code for Khamnigan Mongol, xgn-kha. It can now be used instead of the etymology-only code bua-xmn. I went with the name "Khamnigan Mongol" because it seemed to be used more often than bare "Khamnigan" and offered better distinction from Khamnigan Evenki; "Khamnigan Buryat" does not seem to be used. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's great.
This probably means I should stop using Damdinov's pseudo-Buryat orthography now, I guess I'll use Janhunen's romanization (plus Written Mongol). Crom daba (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Silent vowels (а)Edit

Sorry to irk you again, but when I was browsing the Mongolian transcriptions, it seems that some vowels, especially а, are silent. Is there a logical reason to why that is so? — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 11:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Orthographical silent vowels either:
  1. Distinguish between /n/ (preceding a vowel) and /ŋ/ (word finally) or between /g/ and /ɢ/ in back-vowel words.
    алаг /aɮəg/ ~ алга /aɮəɢ/, шална /ʃaɮən/ ~ шалан /ʃaɮəŋ/
  2. Uphold the (orthographical) rule that б г р с д н м л must be adjacent to at least one vowel letter. Some word-final clusters are phonologically valid but orthographically (usually) impossible, like /ɮb/ or /ŋg/.
    алба /aɮb/, өнгө /oŋg/
  3. Serve to differentiate homonyms, but this is very rare.
    I don't have an example for this, but I remember there was one word meaning dog-shit or something along those lines so the other word was spelled with an extra vowel, not sure if that was even official orthography tho.
Crom daba (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
It can't be that these vowels are purely orthographic. Was there a historically a vowel there? --WikiTiki89 14:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
It's orthography with a historical basis, there indeed was a vowel there, /n/ merged with /ŋ/ word finally and new word-final /n/ was produced by apocope. The analogous thing happened with (back vowel word) /g/ which split into /ɢ/ and /g/ in original pre-vocalic and coda positions respectively. Crom daba (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit wary of helping with a pronunciation module if there's not a subject matter expert on available. That's why I stopped working on one for Lithuanian: too many of my questions were not sufficiently answered by Awesomemeeos or my own research. —JohnC5 14:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think it's a good idea, there are too many unclear things at the phonetic level and the phonetic level can be tricky as well. Crom daba (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Commenting noteEdit

This is off-channel, but, for future reference… Using nonce email addresses, or none at all, will land your Wordpress comments in the moderation queue. On the other hand, if you stick to a single address (it may need to be syntactically legitimate, but does not have to actually exist), Wordpress will after 1-2 comments start auto-approving your comments. --Tropylium (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks for the info, sorry for making you moderate it. Also sorry for flooding with off-topic digressions. Crom daba (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

परशु#SanskritEdit

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/परशु#Sanskrit

There it says, the root is of Akkadian origin, but ultimately of Sumerian origin. But the proto-Tungus form is of Indo-European origin? where is the sense? Comparisons between non-related language families (i.e. Altaic and Indo-European) should be seperated as well, except if there are sources. Also pay attention to balta, of the same root. Chegemoy (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, welcome to Wiktionary, it's good to have another editor working on Altaic matters.
Yes, the word is a classical wanderwort, so classical that the Wikipedia page uses it as an example, while criticizing the Akkado-Sumerian connection.
The (hypothetical) connection between these words is established in the literature, check out Sevortjan, E. V. (1978) Etimologičeskij slovarʹ tjurkskix jazykov [Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages][2] (in Russian), volume 2, Moscow: Nauka, page 57-58.
Also note that the Turkic word is not attested in the earlier inscriptions and is mostly limited to Kipchak and Karluk, so it could be a substrate borrowing from the same Western substrate as Proto-Mongolic *haluka.
Crom daba (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't read your link to "ESTJa", so I have searched for different sources and found following instructions:
  1. "... [Proto-Slavic] *molt' "hammer" (Turk. balta, baltu "axe"). These terms, of course, may also represent even older Indo-European borrowings in Turkic.", in: Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aeivi [i.e. Aevi]., Volume 10, Otto Harrassowitz, 1999, page 77.
  2. "Turkic balta and Mongolian aluka < haluka < *paluka can, together with Chuvash purta, be traced back to a Semitic word which occurs in Akkadian as pilakka (stem p-l-k 'cut'); cf. Greek πέλεκυς (pelekus) 'axe'. The word, which denotes the most important tool and weapon of the Bronze Age, was brought to the Turks and Mongols through the mediation of different Iranian languages at different times.", in: Routledge Language Family Series 2015: The Turkic Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató, pages 78-79.
The Tower of Babel lists two different root words: Proto-Altaic *pằluk`V ("hammer") and Proto-Altaic *màli ("stick, cudgel"). On the one hand Altaic *pằluk`V is, as I understood, regarded as a Western isogloss, an old "Wanderwort", with reference to PIE *pelek'u-. Both Doerfer (MT 22) and Rozycki (78) consider Altaic *pằluk`V as a loan, however Ramstedt (7), Poppe (11) and Tsintsius (1984, 30-31) don't. On the other hand, with reference to Poppe (1953) and Menges (1953), Altaic *màli is regarded as a loan from Iranian or Akkadian. According to the Tower of Babel this case, however, seems improbable and regard its Altaic origin as quite possible. At least, we can conclude that the sub-Altaic forms *bAlka/*haluka/*paluka should be seperately handled from the sub-Altaic forms *baltu/*milaɣa/*mala/*már, even though etymologically linked.
If it comes to my own opinion, it seem quite probable that the Semitic-Akkadian pilakka was loaned from an ancient Altaic source. Possible answers can be gathered from this paper: "Similarity Between Turkish & Akkadian Based on Rules of Inflective & Agglutinative Languages", by Elşad Allili, Osman Çataloluk. Chegemoy (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Just looking at the abstract, " It is accepted as the ancestor of all the Semitic languages" is simply not even remotely true. It shows a complete ignorance of Semitic and Afro-Asiatic historical linguistics, and the article seems to be using agglutinative structure as a way of implying that Akkadian is somehow more Turkic than Semitic- which is silly, given the fact that such structure is found in completely unrelated languages throughout the world. One could just as easily use that test to show that Turkish is like Cherokee. Chuck Entz (talk)
Sorry, I fixed the reference to ESTJa.
Keep in mind that Altaic is not a mainstream linguistic theory, and we only cite it with reservations around here.
pilakka seems to mean spindle, so all of this probably has nothing to do with Akkadian. Crom daba (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The paper in question seems to conflate Sumerian with Old Turkish with "Turanian" and Akkadian with Proto-Semitic, and claims that Indo-European core vocabulary was borrowed from Old Turkish into Akkadian before being borrowed into Proto-Indo-European. Even most Altaicists would consider this to be amateurish bunk. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Crom daba, the link still doesn't work, I would really like to read that source before judging. Of course Altaic isn't a mainstream linguistic theory, and we can only cite it with reservations, I fully agree with you. Chegemoy (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Chuck Entz, I think I understood the matter now properly. Year 1889: let's make a short voyage into a long forgotten book... Altaic Hieroglyphs and Hittite Inscriptions:

  1. "... the only difficulty lies in distinguishing in some cases the Semitic and the Altaic names, ..., and because the Semitic languages absorbed a great many Altaic words, as has been recognised by great authorities." (p.137)
  2. The author's letter to the Chairman of the Palestine Exploration Fund, publicated in the Times of 26th February: "... and to have identified the language of these texts as belonging to the family of Ugro-Altaic dialects, of which the Proto-Medic and the Akkadian are, perhaps the oldest known examples." (preface viii)

When looking at the "amateurish bunk" referring to a ´language spoken in the very early days of Akkad´ and comparing it to a long forgotten book from 1889, it becomes quite clear to me why not only ´Assyriologists at present ignore it´ but also certain Joe Bloggs'. Meanwhile I would advice to focus on the matter in question with the presented material from Archivum Eurasiae, Routledge Language Family Series and The Tower of Babel, since PA *pằluk`V ("hammer") and PA *màli ("stick, cudgel") are two different root words. Chegemoy (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a reason that book is forgotten: it may have been in the leading edge of scholarship in its day, but it's basically mistaken. the Hittites spoke an Indo-European language, not Altaic. Akkadian is a Semitic language, not Altaic. The "Altaic Hieroglyphs" are Anatolian hieroglyphs, which only began to be deciphered correctly in the 1930s, with work in the 1970s conclusively proving that they were used to write Luwian, an Anatolian/Indo-European language related to Hittite, also written in cuneiform. Works from back then often have lots of useful data, but many of their theories have been proven since then to be completely wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
After a little more digging, I think that what Conder refers to as Akkadian is really the Sumerian language. It was known at the time, but not completely deciphered. It's definitely not Semitic, but that's not saying much: there have been many, many unsuccessful attempts to link Sumerian with other languages, but it's still considered a language isolate. Back in the 19th century, when no one had done any real comparative work on languages such as Basque, Etruscan, or Sumerian, it was quite reasonable to look at their agglutinative typology and suggest that they might be related to other agglutinative languages- but then people tried to establish a connection and found no evidence for one. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We can debate on this subject for many hours, I have many sources on the subject, but after all speculations from our sides, I want to stay real, it doesn't really matter of which Altaic source the Akkadian word originated. Keep in mind there was a people before the Indo-Aryan Hittites, the non-Indo-European and non-Semitic Hattians with remaining uncertain affiliations. The arrival of the Hittites in Anatolia in the Bronze Age was one of a superstrate imposing itself on a native culture (in this case over the pre existing Hattians and Hurrians), either by means of conquest or by gradual assimilation. Fact is, the word has two special characteristics:
  1. a western isogloss
  2. and a rich, solid and deep Altaic etymology
Quotes from The Tower of Babel: *màli ("stick, cudgel"); *pằluk`V ("hammer")
  1. "Both Iranian and Akkadian origins of Turk. *baltu (see Poppe 1953, Menges 1953) seem improbable and its Altaic origin quite possible."
  2. "... (although, despite the two latter authors, in this case one can hardly think of a loanword [into Altaic])."
This should be mentioned for sure. Chegemoy (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It can only be considered rich and deep by standards of EDAL reconstruction which is too flexible to be useful. Here are problems with the given reconstructions:
"*màli"
  1. Turkic features a non-existent suffix *-tu (perhaps I'm wrong, but Clauson doesn't list it).
  2. Mongolic features non-existent *-xa.
  3. Mongolic initial *ï is explained by reconstructing *i in the second syllable which:
    1. Is supposed to be conserved in Tungusic and in their own reconstruction we find *a instead of *i.
    2. Is improbable because nothing points to such umlaut phenomena in Altaic and no-one but the EDAL crew claims they existed.
  4. Manchu and Solon look like late Mongol borrowings and two languages are not enough for a reconstruction.
  5. Udihe doesn't follow usual sound changes (some sort of relation is likely however).
  6. Can't comment Korean, but EDAL doesn't check Old Korean as a rule and semantics don't look too good.
"pằluk`V"
  1. As I noted, Turkic is limited in Time and Geography so reconstructing it for Proto-Turkic is shaky.
  2. Tungus and Mongolic are almost identical, making loaning very probable.
  3. Existence of similar words in IE, including its easternmost parts makes loaning a strong possibility.
Of course, the Turkic term is certainly related somehow to Mongolian, which is why I put as the first cognate, but I do not think we can gain much by involving Tungusic and Korean in this case. Crom daba (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Crom daba".