• Bulleted list item

Your blockEdit

Ignoring the previous warnings issued to you, you added incorrect info at लुण्ट् (luṇṭ), even after you were told multiple times that the American Heritage Dictionary is not to be considered for sourcing an etymology. Moreover, the edit history of that page says that I had reverted another user when they added this erroneous info. You could have saved yourself from this situation by simply looking at the edit history. You also introduced an incorrect etymology at क्षण (kṣaṇa), citing Pokorny, another outdated work, which we only link out of respect on PIE entries that are backed by more modern sources.

It is clear from your edit to लुण्ट् (luṇṭ) that you do not understand Sanskrit etymology but continue to edit it anyway even after other editors have pleaded you to stop. This requires others to skim through pages of your edits to undo the bad ones.

People have been asking you to stop adding bad etymologies for almost 5 years now. You can no longer use excuses like "I'm only trying to help" or "it was in good faith". If you continue making more mistakes, I will block you for longer durations. The way to avoid this is simple: don't edit in languages/areas you don't know. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 07:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Same. I made that same mistake a few months ago. I believe that the dictionary they were referencing was referring to लोप्त्र (loptra) (which is indeed derived from Proto-Indo-European *Hrewp-), and not लुण्ट् (luṇṭ). Prahlad balaji (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Old mistakes: diffEdit

I’m not sure how many entries were affected like this, but just for your information, a Hindi learned borrowing from Sanskrit can’t be inherited from Proto-Indo-Aryan. Thanks. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 19:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


Regarding Special:Diff/66415980/66415991 & co, the template comes after the list item start (#):

# {{senseid|en}} Foo

Jberkel 01:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


Once again, your edit has rendered a page less accurate than it was before. At भू (bhū), you put in Proto-IIr and Indo-Aryan *b(ʰ)abʰúHa as the etymon but *b(ʰ)abʰúHa is the reduplicated perfect whereas भू (bhū) is the root, meaning they are not identical formally and भू (bhū) the root was not derived from *b(ʰ)abʰúHa. Per the warning given at the time of your last block, this one will be longer and likewise, in the future you will be blocked for longer durations at every successive offense. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴) 08:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong etymologies againEdit

Judging by the other comments on your talk page, it's probably best if you entirely stopped editing etymologies in languages you don't know. You just can't look at this with a straight face: Special:Diff/68483895Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to know why you removed the PG reconstruction in haar (diff). You could have inserted PWG without removing PG. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
This has been an ongoing discussion with no real consensus, see here and here. Basically, my and Victar's reasoning was that for non-English lemmas, it's probably best practice to keep the chain as direct and short as possible to avoid inconsistencies in etymologies, then add in dercat to keep the categorizations. For instance, if the PG entry were to be moved without a redirect, then you have a bunch of redlinks left in the entries using them. I guess it's really up to the editor and there's no real rule; Lingo Bingo Dingo requested that I not do this for modern Dutch, so I leave them all in there. If you'd prefer the same for modern German, I can do that. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
You obviously seem to have not learned - you can't pull etymologies from nowhere and put them on pages. STOP. Vininn126 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Root of LAMBEdit

I have been shamefully dilatory in not addressing this *h₁l̥h₁onbʰos; but I cannot understand how any other qualified etymologist could swallow such a grotesquely fabricated reconstruction. There are two entirely separate roots merged into one here. The Proto-Germanic LAMBAZ is merely a substrate from the Proto-Finnic LAMBAS and not the other way round! Just because most - if not all - of the Germanic languages contain similar forms does not mean that they are not substrates. The meaning behind LAMBAS is depicted in Old Cornish LAMM (to leap, jump, bound), which is also a substrate, as LAM (precipice). Certainly, the Old English LAMB is not a substrate in Britain; but the Celtic and Ancient Greek lexemes for 'lamb' are of Proto-Indo-European origin. No blame to you personally; but whoever concocted *h₁l̥h₁onbʰos, simply did not sufficiently take into account the meanings behind the root. It is also remotely possible that English LAM (to thrash, wallop) may also via Scandinavian initially be derived from the same root; but this is not acceptable for the main entry page! Kind Regards. ~~~~

Andrew H. Gray 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)