Open main menu



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 (EL) 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 for 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! PseudoSkull (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see you back. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back, Pal. Per utramque cavernam 17:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome back! —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 21:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, welcome back! (Sorry about my accidental rollback; I’ve reverted myself.) — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 11:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, welcome. --Vahag (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Any sources that discuss the etymology? It's obviously related to the Greek and Hebrew forms, but I can't tell which way the borrowings went. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Better ask @Profes.I., he apparently has better sources and perhaps he can say more about ταώς (taṓs). I don’t know what sources I miss, but I think he is from the Chicago Oriental Institute. Hey Profes.I., don’t forget to watch Category:Requests for expansion of etymologies in Arabic entries so we can write etymology stubs. Fay Freak (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Its a rather convoluted debate so I will just outline some facts to consider:
  • The earliest concrete references in Greek to the bird are found post-Persian conflict; Aristotle calls it a 'Persian Bird', Aristophanes uses them also despairingly as symbols of gaudy-dressed ambassadors, a jab perhaps also at the colorful foreign Persians.
  • τᾰών (taṓn), another word being glossed as 'peacock' was used prior, appearing even in Homer and Hesiod mean something like fair-dressed, beautifully adorned, birds in a general way for their colorful feathers, not inherently referring to a peacock. This gives it a potential to possibly not be a foreign loan, but rather derived from a precursor word that was then reapplied to a peacock in later times. ([1])
  • The Akkadian attestation of peacock is 𒀭𒄩𒉌𒄷 (Ha-ia), suggested to be named after the sound it makes, connected and written as the god linked to guarding the storehouses, keeping food supplies, perhaps the 'eyes' of its plumage linking it to a 'watcher' like in the Greek mythology. There is however a loanword from Sumerian 𒀉𒍗𒍑𒄷 (ti-uš, tius, tiuz, a bird) {[2]}, the general conception seems to be sudden in appearance, initially unseen, to swoop or come out of seemingly nowhere, to come upon quickly, to rush or dart, hence the speculated identity of an eagle or vulture. Perhaps instead a reference to the peacocks sudden opening of its plumage, being dazzling or darting up.
  • There is a Semitic root likely derived from the Sumerian loan found in the Hebrew and Aramaic verb טוּשׂ(ṭus, ṭūs, to fly, to rush, to dart, to swoop) {[3][4]} and in the Arabic ط س س(ṭ-s-s) meaning to strike suddenly, to smite, to be struck blind, to be blinded or to lose ones ability to think; hence the connection again to being dazzled; likewise Lane and others like J.G. Hava mention ط ش ش(ṭ-š-š) having the meaning of weakness in sight, to be faint.
Needless to say its very interesting and without definitive direction; the Greek could have borrowed the term from Akkadian through the Persian cultural bridging or perhaps from earlier borrowed constellation traditions; there however is a missing Persian term that would ease the mystery.
Additionally, it should be stated the whole connection தோகை (tōkai, plumage, peacock) is actually for another Hebrew term תוכי(túki, parrot, peacock) which developed semantically later from commentaries on verse 1 Kings 10:22 ([5]}; the reconstructed meaning found in many modern translation is that of baboon or monkey. --Profes.I. (talk)


You inserted {{taxlink}} in this entry, for which I thank you.

However, you did not insert the rank of the taxonomic name, "species" in this case. If you are going to verify the entry, please insert the rank.

Within {{taxlink}} you inserted "ver=180716". In this case I'd rather you hadn't. I check each new taxonomic name to see that whether is spelled correctly, whether there is a taxonomic name that supersedes it, and whether the rank of the name is correct. I don't expect others to do all that, as it can be time-consuming and has some idiosyncracies. OTOH, if you find that there is a Wikispecies entry for the taxon or that the Wikipedia article uses the taxonomic name, feel free to insert "ver=YYMMDD".

The most important thing from my perspective is that {{taxlink}} be used, because I track new entries that use it. DCDuring (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring Oh! I actually deliberated about if I should use it because if one uses the two-word form Genus species it is usually understood as species, so I thought that I have to write |2=species only when I use a species name alone. Fay Freak (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
For a general-purpose dictionary we can't assume that the user knows much more than a bare-minimum English vocabulary, certainly not much about taxonomy, however obvious it is after just a few encounters with taxa. The second parameter does not display; it categorizes and, sometimes in the case of one-part names, it disambiguates. Anyway, I'm happy that you use {{taxlink}}. There are certainly many taxonomic names that are worth entering into Wiktionary, especially the ones for macroflora and macrofauna, disease agents, newly discovered species, items of bizarre appearance, or unusual names, etc. DCDuring (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

What does |i= in diff mean? I don’t find a documentation. @DCDuring Fay Freak (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in the documentation. It puts the displayed parameter in italics. That is relevant for genus and species names and various other subgeneric taxa and for all virus taxa. The display is not as precise as the display used in {{taxlink}}, but is good for almost all cases and not too bad for the others. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea how to get it into all the places it would have to be, especially since I don't know the scope of the modules that implement the italicization. I don't know how to find the relevant author of whatever the module might be. See User Talk:Rua. DCDuring (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
{{projectlink}} probably should contain more documentation. I see only convoluted links, too. Fay Freak (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It does not seem to be much promising to ask Rua for documentation, or? I think you have noticed she is avoiding this site for months now, or no? Well umm, she apparently left because she did things that she could not made be understood. Really sad. Fay Freak (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I've never had much luck. Some others did.
For the matter at hand, I'll jury-rig some documentation. In any event, you know what it means. DCDuring (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring {{desc}} should get |i=, right? For botanical terms descending as from لُوف(lūf), isatis or whatever. Fay Freak (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggestion. --Victar (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I put italics to names of genera that are 'Translingual' descendants of terms. If {{desc}} doesn't do it and {{taxlink}} would be redundant, then I would bypass {{desc}} and use wikitext italics with {{l|mul}}. The point is that genus names are prescribed to appear in italics and most users follow the prescription. IOW, yes. DCDuring (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the case seems clear to me, @Rua, Erutuon. No exceptions to taxonomic names being in italics. I guess the function needs to be generalized to catch {{cog}} at least too, for once Beta vulgaris var. cicla is created we won’t link correctly from свёкла (svjókla), for example. (putting double ASCII apostrophes inside does not work.) Actually to every template adding a language name in front, because double ASCII apostrophes inside does not work and outside the template even the langname is capitalized. Theoretically also to other templates where the language name is not there, i.e. {{l}} and {{m}} the |i= is needed, because a module recognizes what parts need to be capitalized (not the part ”var.” and the like) if I guess right, it is just that we do not use them necessarily for Translingual but use normal Wiki links. I don’t think I am completely abusing Descendants and Etymology sections by mentioning taxonomical terms? It is just that linguists miss the whole field of taxonomical names as a research topic. Module:etymology/templates and {{desc}} need to be protected by the way. Fay Freak (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring, can you point me to a discussion where "most users" agreed to this convention of italicizing genus names in descendants list? --Victar (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Victar It is botanists’ convention. We adhere to it like we adhere to Unicode’s standards. Some things we cannot decide. Good that we do not need to think about everything but there are people like the Unicode Consortium or doing biological classification. Division of labour. Fay Freak (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, I'm aware of the practice. I'm specifically talking about how descendants of a word are treated in a descendants lists. --Victar (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Victar I have intimated it already. “It is just that linguists miss the whole field of taxonomical names as a research topic.” People here are not likely to care, but those who deal with taxonomy … just a little thought for you: If you go to Wikispecies and ask everyone how we should treat taxonomic names also in these cases, what will they very likely answer? I claim, and I doubt you will tend to disagree, they will say unanimously: “Just make it italicized always, guys!” I. e. if we include those names at all. Fay Freak (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
That's you're argument, that we should ask what the guys at Wikispecies think? The descendants section section has to do with etymology, and etymologists, by in large, don't care about italicizing genus names. Those are the people I care for the opinions of and will base my practices upon. --Victar (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
At Wikispecies, Wikipedia, and Wikicommons they are careful to properly format taxonomic names. If etymologists don't care, then the appearance of italics in taxonomic descendants shouldn't matter to them. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, he gainsays himself already. “The” etymologists don’t even care about “genus names”, taxonomical names that is to say, as I said, hence they do not have the issue in mind, i. e. they do not mind.
@Victar: Can you point me to a discussion where users disagree to have taxonomical names in etymology sections? If we have them, we will format them as it beseems. You evidently do not care about them at all anyway. Also it’s very autistic not to look outside the editors of en.Wiktionary (necessarily you retreat to such argumentation, as you are too smart not to see that they will disrespect it). What will the world think of us if we won’t italicize taxonomic names with regularity? Something that will harm the en.Wiktionary brand, corroborating the notion that this project is all a joke like Wikipedia is, the editors pointing to interna instead of common sense or scientific practices and winning with it. You still haven’t said a single reason, not to speak one of a weight that unsettles, why you don’t want that italicization. Fay Freak (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring: By "do not care", I mean blatantly disregard said conventions. --Victar (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
“Disregarding” is barely distinguishable from ”not caring”, it is roughly “to not want to care for whatever reason”. You have gone out of ideas, I see, interpreting around where the room is thin and the questions are not about language. We understood us already, though the reason will stay dark why you have tried to argue against with so much energy. Let’s have a sleep over it. Fay Freak (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I deleted my previous reply in an effort to fully disengage from you, hoping you had got the message, but apparently not. Please now take note. I do not participate in discussions with users who make petty personal attacks. --Victar (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
But I haven’t made personal attacks, neither petty ones. It is just your perception, likely because I used the word autistic: There it is you who has generalized it and other conceptions, if applicable, as an epithet of yourself rather than a term characterizing a specific state of things in context. I thought you have seen that, that it is unnecessary misunderstanding my points and amounts to gaslighting if you descend into charging with personal attacks. The only reaching-out to personalia is of course when trying to understand what motivates you, i. e. the personal concepts behind your arguments. Concepts, concepts, nothing but concepts have been treated. Is it wrong to characterize concepts aus autistic for example? That seems prescriptivist. Why do people take over characterizations of things that they have created as characterizations of themselves? It is confusing the narrator and the narrated, the significans and the significate. Fay Freak (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Arabic word for ‘epilepsy’Edit

Is there a form صرعة (ṣarʿa) beside صَرْع(ṣarʿ) meaning ‘epilepsy’? I need to account for Turkish sara and Armenian սարա (sara, epilepsy). --Vahag (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Vahag: صَرْعَة(ṣarʿa) is, apparently, an instance of epilepsy, the (single) time of epilepsy. The ending ـة(tāʾ marbūṭa) has, among other things, a singulative meaning. The term also means craze, fashion, vogue. [6] and [7]--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Anatoli and Fay Freak. --Vahag (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi. Can you create Aramaic pālaḥ? It is a noun means "servant", if I'm not mistaken.--Calak (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Calak Already there: פלחא‎ /‎ ܦܠܚܐ‎. Here on Wiktionary it can be observed that the Aramaic nouns are in the emphatic state (= Arabic determinate state) and thus bear an aleph. Fay Freak (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I add Kurdish descendants.--Calak (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Fay. Do you have any info about Arabic جَبَس(jabas, watermelon) etymology?--Calak (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

No, but I know that this word exists, I already thought about creating it as North Levantine Arabic (we are running out of Literary Arabic melon words a bit). @Profes.I. will solve it if it is possible. Somewhere in the east of Saudi-Arabia, I have heard, they also call the watermelon جُّحْ(jjuḥ). Fay Freak (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems that it is from clq. Ar of Aleppo. Compare Northern Kurdish zebeş, cebeş, şebeş, jebeş (also with b > v/w variants).--Calak (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
See @Calak, Profes.I. has kindly answered the origin up to the point of Middle Persian. Fay Freak (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--Calak (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Fay FreakEdit

I loathe your current name. I can't even take it seriously. Please stop changing your username all the time. --Victar (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Victar These are two legit English words fam. And according to the usual Germanic naming patterns, the latter part equaling German frech, i. q. keen, sprightly. Fay Freak (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You've actually made me hate your name more, "fam". --Victar (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nice name...--Calak (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Calak, there might be something wrong with your Google Translate settings from English. --Victar (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


WT:AMUL indicates that it doesn't include grammatical terms (which can have all kinds of lexical information). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I have read it and it does not indicate it, the term “grammar” does not occur in it. Grammatical terms are undertreated and underdiscussed here. I don’t know those “all kinds of lexical information”. There is only the pronunciations which are intentionally left out however according to WT:AMUL since it “varies by language” and would regularly be fabricated anyway. Your Dutch entry genitive absolute does not contain any lexical information that could not be in Translingual. It has endings like a Latin word and can be pronounced like Latin. absolute genitief and absoluter Genitiv are language-specific, genitivus absolutus is not, including in Latin it is Translingual, and still translingual when it is written “Genitivus absolutus” capitalized in German texts. We don’t add terms like Genitivus, Ablativus by the way though we add Genitiv, Ablativ. So what with “genitivus absolutus” that I find in Russian texts? Does it now mean Russian words have Latin script? (@Atitarev) It’s just taxonomic Latin, translingual grammar terms, technical Latin to classify the grammars of the world, and it seems that you should convert Dutch genitivus absolutus to Translingual. How do you distinguish code-switching from Dutch if you claim it is Dutch? There is taxonomical Moringa and an English moringa apparently borrowed from the Translingual, and I know it is English not only from the spelling but it is in wide use by people speaking English who know no science. But the grammatical terms: Those are specialist, used by people who habitually switch to Latin, even if they do not understand the Latin language in general as it is not rarely the case for taxonomists today. How do we even call it when a word permeates the barrier from Translingual to English/Dutch/German/Russian? Naively we use {{bor}} but this process is not “borrowing” as the term is generally understood in linguistics, the physical processes that happen there are dissimilar. Grammar Latin is not prescribed to use italics like biological Taxonomical Latin so this is a dark spot in lexicography. People never cared if a term is code-switching to Latin, Translingual, or native, when they used the grammar terms and lexicographers had economical reasons to leave them out, but now we have all room we eventually have to care. I the terms were more we would need at Wikigrammar in addition to Wikispecies. By the way not few English terms of grammar have become Translingual because they lack in other languages, i. e. the English terms are used in linguistics literature and I would not always know if it is code-switching to English or use of Translingual. With a greater collection of such terms I could ask the community if this grammar taxonomy is the same as biological taxonomy; it will stay a wee bit more difficult to sort out however; I can’t remember classification guides for grammar like biologists have them for such terms, those terms are scattered. @DCDuring, Atitarev Fay Freak (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Translingual is a fraught topic, but we have historically not treated such entries as Translingual, and I think it would a mistake to do so. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've wondered about whether medical and legal Latin terms shouldn't be deemed Translingual as they are included in running text in many languages. No one was interested and some were opposed, so the notion went nowhere. I would expect similar lack of interest for linguistic terms. Chemical and biological taxonomic names have international regulatory bodies whose existence is a testimony to their importance and translingual use. There may be a case for other classes of scientific vocabulary to be called Translingual, eg, geological names, mineral names, astronomical names, but I detect no potential for a consensus to treat such terms as Translingual. I'm not sure that there is any particular advantage to users in calling such terms (or even chemical and taxonomic names) Translingual. MW3 famously labelled many such terms "ISV", for "International Scientific Vocabulary". DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Historically (fifteen years …), there were many things to do first; grammar terms, like biology taxonomy, are just one of the peripheral things linguists don’t care about because they are sufficiently busy with the natural languages. Sure, sure, I agree that we all lack interest – I have too enough natural language things to do, but as I said, but sooner or later we will no longer be able to ignore the incertitude. To think for the future, now one would like to define certain terms of grammar but I don’t feel like they belong to any language and I don’t think users expect us to distinguish; nobody cares if such a term is attested in Slovenian or not, or if he does he would like to see it as a citation for Translingual. It’s about having termini technici so users who find them can put them into a Wiktionary search and get them defined. If he then reads: “Dutch – Portuguese – Serbo-Croatian” I think he will turn up his nose. Such terms are regularly even coined with the intention of being used translingually in the literatures of each national science, and intended to be the same in every language. And yes, it is also about maintainability. Now @Lingo Bingo Dingo has created a term for Dutch that, in my view, clearly falls into that International Scientific Vocabulary category and I can only recommend him to change his view over time lest a monster grow out of such a practice (I can’t be bothered about the presence of this specific term as Dutch here too much, I am just voicing a general cause of unease). Fay Freak (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
My reason for creating language-specific entries for such terms is that separate entries for are the ideal location for information about pronunciation, inflection and semantic relations (e.g. native synonyms or nativised spellings). Allowing e.g. absolute genitief but not genitivus absolutus would create a strange lacuna for what seems to be the more common synonym. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
That’s all things you could say about biological taxons (though they don’t inflect often; being inflected however does not necessarily estrange the quality of being translingual – I see though translingual medical terms (terms that physicians use in their talk) that get inflected for number). Also no lacuna if a term is present as Translingual. It sounds like you fear adding entries as translingual. The synonyms part could be solved with translation sections but languages do not seem to tend to have translations for such terms (as you have seen yourself the nativized term being uncommon in Dutch, same in German). So what’s with the pronunciation? Latin teachers say ablativus absolutus either in Barbaric pronunciation or in one a Roman would have used (it’s like with the biological taxonomy). It’s typical if languages get switched, like if one first speaks Russian and then German often the German will at first sound like Russian, or when people in Germany speak Russian and throw in German words they are pronounced either as Russian or as German. No lacuna if I don’t add all the German words Russians use in their speech here. German words being pronounced with Russian phonology and in Russian sentences does not fool me into believing they are Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
There would still be the issue of presenting gender for various languages with different gender systems. And taxonomic names rarely inflect, both for species and genera. A problem with presenting pronunciations in a Translingual section is that it prevents the entry from displaying detailed variation particular to a language, see the two possible ways of stressing genitivus absolutus for an example. This is notable because one is the default stress pattern for a Dutch adjective + noun phrase while the other indicates that genitivus is the head of the phrase. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The varying stress is the typical ”do it as in your native tongue” of Translingual Latin terms; when one incorpates words in an other language in a sentence they will usually have a peculiar pronunciation at least to fit into the whole intonation of the sentence the specific language calls for, as I have exemplified by those German words appearing in Russian speech; still not different from the biological taxonomy (back in the dark ages people did not know a “Translingual” i.e. for example reconstructed classical way to pronounce Latin). And who said Translingual terms do not have gender? It looks to me like they do have a gender if the language they are used in needs one (there is some language-specific formatting behaviour for Translingual terms, like German capitalization sometimes applies to such terms (usage varies)). And the grammatical terms surely just inherit the Latin gender even strong against language-specific habits. Fay Freak (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Call me crazy, but I think it is the task of a dictionary to indicate when common variations in pronunciation exist. Details like gender and other distinctions should be demonstrated, not assumed on the basis of (generally reliable) rules of thumb.
Look, I have no particular problem with a Translingual entry in addition to entries from borrowing languages (though it seems not very useful to me, and Translingual in mostly European languages looks like a very parochial form of Tranlingual to me), my problem is with a Translingual entry replacing them. But maybe you should first demonstrate that this form is used in a great many languages. So far I have only seen this spelling being common in English, Dutch and German (with different capitalisation). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
The page shows that fixed grammatical phrases are not yet accepted as Translingual, which I take to mean that it isn't required, referring to the "should we" in your query. Surely its absence on the about-page is an indication to say the least. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I just meant you should see what is translingual. If a term is Translingual but not specifically Dutch hence comes the conclusiong “you should”. If there is a header “Translingual” on Wiktionary it is because there are terms that are translingual independently of being mentioned on Wiktionary. Fay Freak (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

About Translingual edit summary falsehoodEdit

I can hardly be called an author of WT:AMUL as the entry history shows that I made only two changes, both minor. Please be more careful in your contributions and edit summaries. DCDuring (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@DCDuring I clearly referred to Wiktionary:Taxonomic names, that’s what I linked because it was orphaned. Fay Freak (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the "clear" referent of that essay in the edit summary other than WT:AMUL? DCDuring (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@DCDuring Apparently it would be this essay if it were WT:AMUL, but I would not call it essay either. The only thing referred by “that” and “essay” could be WT:Taxonomic names. Also I said that “here” is an opportunity to “link” that essay, so the latter could not be the same page. Had you by chance forgotten that Wiktionary:Taxonomic names exists? Fay Freak (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The content was entirely in the edit summary, which people can and usually read in isolation. Most people use the edit summary as an explanation for the change, some as an advertisement of the change; others just put a copy of the change into the summary. The link was buried in a pipe and thus only visible from the edit window or on hovering. You need to be a little more aware of how people encounter and understand what you write, or you would need to be a little more aware if you cared about the effect of your words on others in this community. DCDuring (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Your edit summary: "English: Bizarre gloss of the Ancient Greek word since revision 4844953 of 13 July 2008. That’s the Modern Greek μάλαμα User:Stephen G. Brown! Now it’s all around the web."

That "bizarre gloss" is not since revision 4844953. Nadando entered it in revision 4844874. It included a request for Greek script. All I did was provide the Greek script.
Revision 4844874: {ML.} {term|amalgama||mercury alloy|lang=la}, from {etyl|grc} {rfscript|Greek} malagma, from malassein (to soften), from malakos (soft).
Revision 4844953: {ML.} {term|amalgama||mercury alloy|lang=la}, from {etyl|grc} {term|μάλαγμα|sc=Grek|tr=malagma||gold}, from {term|μαλάσσω|sc=Grek|tr=malassō||to soften}, from {term|μαλακός|sc=Grek|tr=malakos||soft} —Stephen (Talk) 04:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see where I ever said "malagma" means gold. That was the next edit (yours). DTLHS (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Stephen G. Brown added the gloss in 4844953 while the other terms had been glossed before; only now in 2018 it has been that somebody noticed that there is a contradiction of this gloss to the other senses and bothered to check the senses. I talk in the third person because I do not see a reason to impute it to somebody. The identity of persons after decades is sparse, hence also criminal investigations have to be time-barred, and prosecuting a person for a murder thirty years ago is like prosecuting an innocent, I say this unironically; societies have made regressions in this matter. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say. —Stephen (Talk) 04:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


It is sense 5, the "voiding the bowels" sense. - TheDaveRoss 19:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm, I thought rather about something like “becoming tired”, “getting one’s force of life empty”. But this makes sense. Should the gloss be changed or amended by labels to make this usage more clear? It seems to me that this deserves a sub-sense: Sense 5 gets the label “transitive”, and gets a sub-sense 5.1 “intransitive”. Fay Freak (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Please research your edits more thoroughly. Don't add "from 20th c." when a look into the most basic of ressources (the "Deutsches Wörterbuch") would have given you a quote from the 18th century. You must have some information that a word or usage has no older attestations before you can add "from XYth c."

The frequency of it increased in that time. Before it was fringe. Wustmann observed its increasing use, listing it under “Modewörter”, and proscribed it. I remembered it from Wustmann and added from him. You will have a hard time to find uses in print hundred years before. The first use is not everything. It is also important when uses become dominating, as Dirne. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


You mentioned me in an edit summary there. The Welsh terms refer to the monetary amount and the money paid. Not sure what you wanted to do with that information. — LlywelynII 13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@LlywelynII That you have added the translation under the meaning “monetary value assigned to a person” only. As you say now, and the entries galanas and sarhad say, it is as well “the money paid itself” (which you haven’t added under the respective translation section). Fay Freak (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


Do you think the templates themselves should also be moved to the original script, and the transliterated name kept only as a redirect? —Rua (mew) 13:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Rua No I don’t. But the original name could easily be a redirect. Titles of templates are a different story (they are not visible in the created page).
I ping here @Vahagn Petrosyan because he spread those transliterated names. I know where those transliterations come from. Library catalogues. Surely this is an argument, that’s why I have kept transliterations of the titles (while not the author names because it would be ugly to have Surname (translit), forename (translit), only in the format Forename Surname (translit translit) it would be acceptable). But I underline here that transliteration of author names of book titles does not let your works appear more scientific or something like that. Librarians yore had to add foreign-script books to their index cards and computers, they could not enter Cyrillic even when they perfectly the language, and not every printer could print non-Latin scripts. Transliteration became imitated and a habit, one would be more safe to do transliterations “because it has always been done like this” and one does not need to explain to the publisher then that one needs such things (foreign scripts = copyeditor costs). But this all is misplaced on the internet or in the 21th century, and in library catalogues they should put the original script everywhere. A digital native just searches the original script, in a library catalogue or if he searches Wiktionary, it is unsensible why one should try various transliterations to find a book. And in Wiktionary we use original script almost on every occasion. Now it’s strange we use the pagename to fill |entry= but use transliterations in the rest of the reference template, and also as I have showed стакан (stakan) has lines of Persian script anyway. Naively, I created {{R:rup:Polenaković}} in the original script, Latin template name but else all original. And I am even in Germany. Even stranger it must be for Russians coming here to find bibliographic references transliterated. See also Category:Japanese reference templates, of course the templates just use Japanese script and creators did not even think to transliterate. In the non-Latin-writing countries one obviously has the original scripts in the library catalogues. Fay Freak (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that of course Ivan Štambuk entered reference template data as it was written, even in Serbo-Croatian where the transliteration is straight-forward. It is a strange idea that readers would rather see transliterations than the original title. Fay Freak (talk) 15:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I was following the standard practice in English linguistic literature, for example Leiden's IEED series. I have no strong opinion on which approach is better. --Vahag (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Urdu TransliterationEdit

Thanks for your guidance! I will try to change it. (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for support. (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently entries have a chronological logicEdit

You said "Currently entries have a chronological logic". What is your evidence? Why do you say things you do not know to be the case? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


Bro why you just reverting my edits? check this page in Persian language, I copy/paste it from there. This word پرچم is also mentioned as Turkic in traditional Persian dictionaries like معین and عمید. Can we add source to a website? like this which is for an online dictionary and word پرچم. —This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talkcontribs) at 08:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC).

@Zeos 403 Your edit was not enough. As you know Turkic you also know the etymon or comparisons. You could write something like “A {{bor|fa|trk}} borrowing, compare {{cog|az|word}}, {{cog|tt|word}}.” Writing “Turkic”, “French” and the like as general lexica often do is a failure – in this case you are supposed to give some Turkic forms. Then people are more likely to believe that it is from Turkic. I see that the dictionary you links says it is Turkic, but I don’t read Persian and don’t see Turkic words the Persian dictionary gives. That’s the information people want from you to put on Wiktionary in English! To be more accurate than the other dictionary! Fay Freak (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
True, OK, I will do more research and add it.
I did research about پرچم it seems it is from برجم and برجکم of Turkic (I don't know old-Turkic or no) the source is a book from "محمد صادق نائبی" you can download the free version from here (the first link).

xlit to langEdit

You changed a bunch of templates from {{xlit}} to {{lang}}. Please revert these as they do not perform the same function. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 15:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Victar No that was intended, see section “Transliteration” supra. Fay Freak (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Victar Apparently you cling to the twentieth century. It is the standard of the internet to give bibliographies in the main-script. The main script is the main information, and almost anyone just gives the main script. Of course {{R:be:ESBM}} has been added by @Per utramque cavernam in main script, {{R:zle-ono:Zaliznjak 2004}} created by @Vorziblix uses the original script. Whence are you taking that giving transliterations only is “is standard practice”. You are in the wrong, it is not, the opposite is the standard practice. You are deviating from the standard practice. Fay Freak (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You're completely welcome to that option, but next time, before you make a choice like that on all of our behalves, start a discussion first. --{{victar|talk}} 16:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Victar, I for example can't read Armenian script and would prefer to see the names transliterated. Benwing2 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
To me the ideal would have both the original title and the transliteration, with a preference for the former if only one or the other is included, so as to be able to easily look up the original work. However, AFAIK there’s not yet a consensus for settling on any one particular format as standard, so maintaining status quo ante for each template is probably the best option in the interim to avoid endless edit wars until consensus can be achieved. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2 What would it bring you to see the names transliterated if you do not know Armenian anyway? You can’t read Armenian script and can’t read Armenian (or is this a rare case when one is just illiterate in one script but does understand the spoken language?). And if this were an argument it would still not do away with the arguments for the original script, which would lead us to having all of main script, transliteration and translation, but then rightly @Dan Polansky dissents that this is too much clutter. Fay Freak (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh I assume I know what’s the matter. You just hate Cyrillic. Like elsewhere claiming that writing Yaghnobi in Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda. You should repent your passions and undo your deviations from the standard, either by main-script and translation (recommended) or main-script, transliteration and translation (which I would agree with, since my main issue is that you can’t find the templates in the original script without it and you force people to read transliterations). Or what am I supposed to do now? Write a vote to stretch WT:EL to an even longer proportion? I chose the most natural option, but if you want the references format dictated after this not having been felt required yet it can also be arranged.
I don’t like any of the alphabets more. But if one knows Russian one reads Russian in Russian and not in transliteration and one does not recognize the references when they are written in transliteration (one recognizes words by their written form) and one does not find them when one wants to find if a template is already in Wiktionary (potentially also leading to duplicate templates), unless one actually searches templates by insource-search. Fay Freak (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
In my case, I may well have heard of the author by name, and will recognize the name if it's written in Latin script, but not in a script I can't read, like Armenian or Japanese. If I see the name in Latin script, and a translation of the book title in English, I know whether it's an interesting book, and if so, I will go see if there's a translation in English or some other language I can read, or if not and I'm interested only in a specific entry, I will consider bugging someone (e.g. Vahag for Armenian) to help translate that entry. If the name is in an unreadable script, then none of this is possible. Note that I actually prefer to see foreign names transliterated using "conventional" instead of scientific transliteration, hence e.g. Tchaikovsky not Čajkovskij, but I lost the debate on this one ... you win some debates, you lose others, and you move on. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Benwing2 “I may well have heard of the author by name” – that’s an argument. I know another one: It is dubious how to alphabetize references if they are in multiple scripts, but computers always take the Latin first, then the Cyrillic, then the Arabic etc., i. e. go by Unicode. But that the title is translitered (not translated, that’s not my issue) does not make you know whether it’s interesting, that’s a difference here!
Furthermore, think about iconicity. I know who Трубачёв is but I do not know who Trubačov is or who Trubachyev is. However that’s not even that important or severe, that is to say, since these serve only as names and do not convey anything, I expect names there anyhow. But: Having the book-titles in transliterations only is a very grave affront. I thought I could avoid reading Russian language (the names are marginal, I mean Russian text) in transliteration. Everyone in the main Cyrillic-writing countries avoids reading transliterations of his language. I have not yet seen an argument why the book titles of Russian need to be transliterated (I wanted to appease the overloaded mind) or even the original form not given. Why so? (Plus I think you overestimate the existence of English translations of references here. And if the name is in an unreadable script, nothing becomes impossible. You can copy and past … that’s better and the original title identifies the work.)
Also, what’s up with the Japanese reference templates? In many there are Japanese titles, some give the original author’s name in transcription only, some in both transcription and original script, some only the original script name, aand the original characters are very important since there all kinds of rare characters in use for names. Isn’t that a killer argument? Fay Freak (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the book titles are given in transliteration only and not also in the original script. But keep in mind that the goal of Wiktionary is to serve **English-speaking** users, and most of them aren't conversant in any foreign scripts at all. Benwing2 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan Having Georgian names though Georgian does not employ majuscules transcribed in bibliographies with minuscules, as by {{R:ccs:Kiria}}, looks ugly as hell. Georgians themselves would transcribe their names with majuscules, and Arabic names are also never given in minuscules. One just expects names in Latin script to have majuscules, that’s what the distinction is for: everybody knows that the original script has not employed the distinction and it is introduced since it has none in the script – it is like our Latin editions rightly use punctuation and minuscules that the Romans didn’t. If the original Georgian script would come first the issue would be less irking; but even if it does not that is all too strange. And still, the fact that one has to reverse-transcribe into Georgian or Russian or whatever to find the book is annoying. Do you know understand my argument here from the difference between print and web, @Victar? Like you have seen on Wiktionary:Votes/2019-05/Lemmatizing Akkadian words in their transliteration that in print practices are kept which are rather to be avoided I recognized that bibliographies should be had in the original script. (Another thing it is of course if Vahagn can read the script but not write it well on the computer, but then I have explained why one should not be reverted if somebody adds it. It would be like removing the cuneiform from Akkadian entries under whatever title Tom 144 has planned them to be.) Fay Freak (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, I added Georgian capitals to {{R:ccs:Kiria}}, which though rarely used in Georgian, are transliterated correctly for our purposes. I disagree with having only the native script in references for the reasons given by the others. As for the difficulty of finding the native-script forms, I recall that in the past Wiktionary search used to be able to look inside the code of the templates, i.e. if you searched Ლაზურ-მეგრული გრამატიკა, you would find {{R:ccs:Kiria}}. But that is not working anymore. --Vahag (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan: You have to do insource:/Ლაზურ-მეგრული გრამატიკა/ and make sure you select Search in: Templates. --{{victar|talk}} 14:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Vahagn Petrosyan, Victar, Benwing2, Sgconlaw I would also be okay with having both native script and transcription displayed (though I am not sure in which order it would ideally be for the author names), since we have the room. There are only these few persons, you know, who go berserk on any higher informational content. In this case search does not work though apparently because of the Unicode plane now used, U+1C92–U+1CBF (as one does not type the signs in the example into search but the usual ones). I am looking forward towards a solution that would perhaps include all information but not reveal all instantly, but by a click (in fact this even works by CSS pseudo-classes, not ignoring mobile devices of course), in order that the bibliography does not look overloaded. One can easily agree that one should have all information saved in the templates in the first place: the question is how it is displayed. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
If this came to vote, I would not support this. IMO, references should solely be in Latin script on en.Wikt. --{{victar|talk}} 16:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I would support adding a tooltip to {{xlit}} that displays the native script form. @Erutuon, is that technically doable? --{{victar|talk}} 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be easy, if {{xlit}} is rewritten to use a dedicated module function. I can write it, though I don't know if there are other uses of the template in which the tooltip would be undesirable. Also take note that it may not be a perfectly satisfactory solution, because some scripts may display badly in tooltips, depending on the font the browser uses, and I think there is no way to choose a font there. — Eru·tuon 18:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I have not considered that it would be advisable to change the operation of an existing module.~I rather thought about something new, since one often needs to edit the templates anyway to add data. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

On bibliographyEdit

Fay, about your bibliographic concerns: I like to see-say-understand: original-transcription-translation. This english-wiktionary has, de facto, an international audience.
Problem w:transliteration-w:transcription. The roman alphabet does not have ʃ (sh), tʃ (ch), δ (this), θ (thin) and so on. Another problem: what is international? Why an english sh and not a german sch for ʃ ? I was thinking of non-western readers (looking at Kevin's chinese, korean, etc). They would need /laibrari/ for library, /Tsvaik/ for Zweig. We are not polyglotts! Perhaps you could develop a standard wiktionary-international-bibliographic style? sarri.greek (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek I have been exactly pushing forward somewhat of a standard wiktionary-international-bibliographic style. Because from the problems with transcriptions I assessed that one could agree upon at least having the original script names so one does not have to reverse-transliterate etc., so I tried to make this notion more public on the Beer Parlour. You see that a single user, Victar, topples this endeavour with a reference to an imaginary standard, i. e. with less reasoning but equal animosity. Barely anybody is even discussing and because of this lethargy of our personnel nothing moves forward. I wish people would think things through so to bring them to their ends – @Richwarm88, referring to User talk:Chuck Entz § Keeping good people. One might follow from this that to keep good people one needs more people, but it would already help if the existing people would agree upon conclusions. Currently we are trying to find criteria for code-switching – the hope is that people become smarter from discussions. People are repelled when the antitheses build up without decomposition. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again dear Fay. In several greek ref.templates your language code appears at the output. Could I erase it please? PS.irrelevant: the letters for arabic are so terribly small... sarri.greek (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek: Yeah, and perhaps it should be |worklang= too. They changed the back-end multiple times, see Wiktionary:Grease pit/2018/December § %7Clang%3D in %7B%7Bquote-web%7D%7D. When there was |language= and |lang= synonymous and all the module errors because templates used the full language names instead of the codes I fixed some manually before @DTLHS ran his bot. Afterwards I lost track of the parameters. I don’t know now what parameter is what @Sgconlaw. Technicians did that and this and then wrote one thing into the Wiktionary:News for editors and other things into the template documentations and also implemented different things for quotation and citation templates. Fay Freak (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the intention is generally for both the {{cite}} and {{quote}} families of templates to have similar parameters. @DTLHS has now updated {{cite-meta}} so that |language= or |lang= accepts either a language code (preferred) or a language name typed in full, and I have just added |worklang= in case editors use that parameter (it works the same way as |language= or |lang=). — SGconlaw (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


I looked at the references section only after my second edit and felt rather silly. I hadn't considered that Dozy might be a name, and I apologize for bothering you! —Suzukaze-c 02:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

ش ع لEdit

Hi can you check out ش ع ل(š-ʿ-l)? It's probably my first Arabic edit so I want to make sure I did a good job. The page was in a state that broke a simple parser I was writing so I decided to fix it up. I wanted to add references, but my Hans Wehr is "Third printing" 1960, and I can't figure out how to cite it. Polypz (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems right. @Polypz. There is probably more to be added from Classical Arabic dictionaries ({{R:ar:Lane}}, {{R:ar:Freytag}}, {{R:ar:Kazimirski}}, {{R:ar:Dozy}} I use, or the medieval originals at, but what there is looks good. For the third printing of the Hans Wehr dictionary, there has been a template once, then later the fourth printing template came, then I replaced all instances of the third printing template for the newer because you know, one is supposed to cite the newest ones, and that template camped on the name {{R:ar:Wehr}}. If you want to cite the third edition you can copy the {{R:ar:Wehr-4}} or {{R:ar:Wehr-5-de}} with the necessary data changes under the name {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} (unless you mean the German third printing, then it is {{R:ar:Wehr-3-de}}). It would now make sense to have such a template because in the meantime the publisher made the third printing available on MENAdoc and one can make it so the template links the pages numbers, if they are given. Fay Freak (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, you mean you changed citations of Wehr-3 to citations of Wehr-4? Did you check that the data was the same in each edition? Were there no page numbers in the citations at that point? Polypz (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I did look into Wehr-4, otherwise I could not have written the page numbers. No, there weren’t page numbers in the citations. There were a lot of old and badly formatted pages that could be cleaned up just by looking which pages use that template. Like verb form I and verb form II and verbal noun of verb form I under three etymologies, and under each Wehr and {{R:ar:Steingass}}. Now the recommendation is to write the page numbers so we get the links, including books not digitized or linked yet (for even if one book is now not directly accessible, in hundred years it will be, or when there is a revolution that abolishes copyright, etc.; I imagine Wiktionary for Arabic like the CAL for Aramaic), and don’t “spread” the templates of simple dictionaries all around (right, in the spreading-butter sense): If you have a root entry, you regularly don’t need the templates on each page belongining to this root. People seems to forget that we still do not “attest” senses by referring to dictionaries, these templates are supposed to be a service to the reader, and the editors have to be wary how much clutter the reader can bear. For this use of the templates it isn’t more “scientific” either if you cite the dictionaries you have consulted at every page creation, for using the templates doesn’t say state that your content is from there (which isn’t even supposed to be, you know, Wiktionary is a secondary source), and in fact you can make more errors because you lose focus by the presence of this boilerplate. @Polypz Fay Freak (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Acknowledged, thank you for the additional info. Polypz (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I finally added the {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} and added it here ش ع ل(š-ʿ-l) and in مطالعة‎ which I just created. I probably made some mistakes, so feedback would be useful. In particular I just guessed at the etymology of مطالعة‎ being "verbal noun of Form III", since the dictionary didn't tell me that information. And I just copied the example text from Reverso Context but I don't know how to link or cite for that. (I am not sure if I am really qualified to add Arabic entries yet) Polypz (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Polypz. You are careful and good at creating entries. If you have read an Arabic course or Arabic grammar you know that this is how verbal nouns of verb form III are formed, and Appendix:Arabic nominals also tells you about the forms. The template now links the scans for any dictionary page given in the template. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

диван and textilesEdit

Could you explain why диван belongs in the category of textiles? Tetromino (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Because it is mostly textile. Like a carpet with furniture under it. Polstermöbel. I played with the thought of creating a category for “textile furniture” or something like that too, to further distinguish. It would be under “Furniture” and “Textiles”. Good idea? What’s the difference between textiles and fabrics though? Fabric is defined as textile here. Fay Freak (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That is unreasonable. First of all, the Polstermöbel association works for you because you are a German speaker, but it doesn't make sense to anyone else using wiktionary whose native language is not German. (In Russian, you would often refer to a sofa as an example of мягкая мебель (mjaxkaja mebelʹ) — literally "soft furniture" — the key property is that it feels soft, not that it is covered with any specific material.) Second, in Russian you can have such a thing as пластиковый диван (plastikovyj divan) — a hard plastic sofa (google for it), so neither textile upholstery nor a soft surface is a necessary property. Third, in general, it is incorrect to put items made of X into category X. A domestic cat surely does not belong in the category of biomolecules, even though it is mostly made of biomolecules. Tetromino (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Tetromino So what is your constructive notion for further categorization? “Soft furniture”? This apparently, as I search the term, aptly comprises pillows and rugs too: They also seem to be “furniture” or no. Is “furniture” actually Möbel or rather Einrichtungsgegenstände? For the latter there is also “furnishing items”, it seems, so “Soft furnishing items”? Carpet and tapestry currently miss categorization (the latter being in “Weaving” is very bad), which the category I have in mind could solve: You get the idea? Pillows, rugs, carpets, sofas, padded armchairs meet the same needs. One could think about “Bedding” but this is more specific and does not fit крѣ́сло (krě́slo). That properties must be necessary is a controversial claim. It seems that they have to be typical, this is how language works. Those “plastic sofas” are called on the same pages скамья́ (skamʹjá): Of course in furniture there are mixed forms. The part “пла́стиковый” can also negate otherwise presumed properties. “Hard plastic sofa” seems to be an oxymoron (independently of whether it exists or not: Often contradictions are used in language). There are also “lamps” that aren’t “light sources”. Also regard that historically there has been a higher strictness of forms! @Hergilei. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand why furniture needs subcategories (there are only ~100 words in the English category), but I suppose you could split it by function: seats, beds, tables, etc. And if you don't like the example of hard plastic sofas, remember soft leather sofas, which have been used for centuries and don't have textile. Tetromino (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Did the script become larger?Edit

Dear Fay Freak, is it my browser, is it my idea, or is it true: Did the arabic lemmata get bigger letters at their headword? If yes, I am so glad!. I would like the same for el.witkionary (they are SO tiny e.g. I can see المغرب here but I cannot see el:المغرب). Do you have any idea who can tell me how to do it? (it is not urgent at all). Your sarri.greek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they didn’t, not for me, though there have been font changes on 3rd April 2019. To change on el.Wiktionary, I think you have to change el:MediaWiki:Common.css. In en.Wiktionary MediaWiki:Common.css it is the lines: .Arab,<br> /* Arabic */ .Arab, .fa-Arab, .glk-Arab, .kk-Arab, .ks-Arab, .ku-Arab, .mzn-Arab, .ota-Arab, .pa-Arab, .ps-Arab, .sd-Arab, .tt-Arab, .ug-Arab, .ur-Arab, .ms-Arab { font-family: 'Iranian Sans', 'Segoe UI', Tahoma, 'Microsoft Sans Serif', 'Arial Unicode MS', sans-serif; font-size: 133%; direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed; }
But you can’t just do that because the HTML tags around the Arabic text on Greek Wiktionary aren’t assigned CSS classes (in English Wiktionary pages <span class="Arab"></span>), for which the modular background invoked in the template el:Πρότυπο:τ must be changed. Fay Freak (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Shukran, shukran for your detailed answer. Not for you, Fay? Do you still see arabic=small المغرب, persian=bigger? آرام گرفتن. Aaaa yes. They are different. BUT why? If the persian font is bigger by default, the arabic should be arranged in such a way as to be viewed with equal size. This is very important! It ruins all your good work. Can't we make a petition of some kind? Inshallah they will change it! --sarri.greek (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Arabic غلط "error, mistake"Edit

Hi Fay Freak. Does it have an Aramaic cognate?--Calak (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently not. Nor in Hebrew, Ugaritic or Ethiopic. Fay Freak (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
So it has no clear etymology?--Calak (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


@Fay Freak! Thank you for your nice ref and ety! It would be so nice if you added it at el.wikt too? el:γάντζος. It would be nice if it had your signature (I cannot 'steal' it) It would be

as it is now.... from Ancient Greek....

Συγγενές, {{ota}} {{l|قانجه|ota}} (kanca, kance) ως {{l|γάντζα|el}}, {{l|κάντζα|el}}.<ref>[[:en:w:Henry R. Kahane|Kahane, Henry R.]]; [[:en:w:Renée Kahane|Kahane, Renée]]; [[:en:w:Andreas Tietze|Tietze, Andreas]] (1958) ''The Lingua Franca in the Levant: Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin'' (στα αγγλικά) Urbana: Πανεπιστήμιο του Illinois, σελίδες 244–247</ref> --sarri.greek (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek You can surely do it ourself. The completely different format on the Greek Wiktionary, apart from me not even understanding Greek, bewilders me.
As for the further derivation of the Venetian ganzo and Italian gancio, as it stands now on English Wiktionary at the Portuguese and Spanish gancho, it is from Proto-Celtic *ganskyos (branch). Ancient Greek γαμψός (gampsós, bent) is farer in shape and meaning from the Romance forms. Fay Freak (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I cannot copy your etymologies without referring to you. It would be as though I pretend i know so much!... Which is a fat lie. Many times, people add etys in english, and we just help with translation. We are only 5 active editors there, and no one is a linguist. But if you feel uncomfortable, that's ok. --sarri.greek (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sarri.greek The edit summary is for referring; like for example when I write [[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]] in it it even pings you. Plus you can copy them if anyway if I allow it. Fay Freak (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


Just a request for the future: when marking a redirect for deletion, can you remove the redirection? Otherwise when I click the page to delete it, it redirects me away immediately and I have to click again to get back to it. —Rua (mew) 12:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rua:: Good idea. I used to opine that one would like that the page at least fulfills a function (the one of redirecting) for the time before the deletion. Anyway, shouldn’t I be extended mover or something to leave less traces needing admin action? Fay Freak (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism in Arabic request pageEdit

You erased an enormous number of requests,
without any valuable reason,
since they are not added and the terms exist,
it's only vandalism,
may Allah Al‑quran grant you hell, inferno & neqring… Aman… 23:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

False. You just lack the necessary reason to discern the reasons, though they are not even hard to see. Reason is for all, they are already added, they will be added automatically, or they can’t be added. I should recommend you to get your head out of Muḥammad’s witless scripture to do something valuable with your life, other than exercising yourself in cursing, which is very sinful, to wit. Fay Freak (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for intimidating behaviour - three months but it's not efficient to give long blocks to IP users. @Fay Freak, do't go down to the same level when responding to threats. As for the deletions, normally red links are not removed from request pages until they turn blue but it's OK to remove non-words or otherwise terms that can't be added. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Can we clean up or delete this section? It weighs on me a bit... although divinely established scripture is technically "witless" I'm afraid for Fay Freak that someone pessimistic will read that comment and misunderstand. Polypz (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I love ambiguity and employ it very consciously. And who reads the comments? Those who do not see worth in my utterances like you do will thus not dwell on them; for the rogues usually value themselves too high to read archives if the gain is vague; it’s just us perfectionist people who use to concentrate on such inspections. If those who do ill read them anyhow, there is enough artifice already placed to play back the ball. Fay Freak (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Turkish as transliterationEdit

Why are you putting links to Turkish entries as transliterations for Ottoman Turkish terms? We treat them as two different languages. Ultimateria (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Because the Ottoman Turkish entries will stay redlinks for long. We treat them as different languages but the Modern Turkish entries do the service as substitutes. Compare w:Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. And your rule-based argument does not work, for from the general treatment as different languages you cannot infer that we cannot do that.
I could of course just write “Ottoman Turkish قباق(kabak) (Turkish kabak)” but isn’t it smoother to read “Ottoman Turkish قباق(kabak)”? The Modern Turkish spelling will almost always be the same as the transcription of the Ottoman, and I want to avoid repetition; particularly since our etymologies frequently have readability issues by much material. This of course demands that you have found out that for Ottoman links the transcriptions may be links. But there may be language specific linking practices, like for Serbo-Croatian. So what? You want to change all such links to “Ottoman Turkish قباق(kabak) (Turkish kabak)”? Well have fun with those. As I have felt it, it is easier to write and to read “Ottoman Turkish قباق(kabak)”. Another formed would be “Ottoman Turkish قباق‎ / kabak” or something with a different sign like “قباق‎ – kabak” but this is tedious to write and to read in the source code. Fay Freak (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I have to agree with @Ultimateria, that's a very bad practice and really should be abandoned. Where is the discussion where that was decided upon? --{{victar|talk}} 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
It didn’t need to be decided upon. There are various methods available to write etymology sections and display words, and this is one of them, though you have not known it.
Also there isn’t anyone to decide. There is nobody to decide either how Ottoman transcriptions should be given. As much as Ottoman is only occasionally treated here it looks like anyone can do it according to current practice. Oops, I think I have set the practice, now everyone must do like it!
Also don’t lay things into Ultimateria’s mouth that he hasn’t said. He has not said it is bad but asked. Fay Freak (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't exactly have an "argument", because, as you said, I only asked. It's unfortunate that the Ottoman Turkish lemmas will be redlinks for a long time, but that shouldn't be a factor in deciding how to format. Does a Macedonian term derived from Ottoman Turkish need to link to the modern Turkish term at all? For a parallel, look at links to modern French terms in etymologies for English terms derived from Middle French. I don't think it's necessary, but maybe that's just me. Ultimateria (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I find this practice acceptable; perhaps “Ottoman Turkish قباق‎ / kabak” would be mildly preferable. The comparison to French ignores the issue of duplicative romanisation and that old European languages like Middle French get way more attention here than those of other parts of the world. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Any "solution" that has you adding templates inside a template parameters is a bad one. I also agree again with Ultimateria that redlinks shouldn't be a factor in formatting, and why does the modern Turkish need mentioning anyhow? If you really feel it imperative, you can just use the format we use in all other etymologies, {{bor|mk|ota|قباق|tr=kabak}} (whence {{cog|tr|kabak}}). --{{victar|talk}} 07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
How do you derive that rule that adding templates inside template parameters is bad? There are a lot of cases of templats inside templates, for example the tables. The redlink isn’t a factor in formatting, it is a factor why the modern Turkish needs mentioning, or rather linking – in such a smart way it is not even “mentioned” but linked anyway. You give me yourself the reason why I use the format: So we don’t mention the Modern Turkish because people feel “it is not needed”.
“We” don’t use the format {{bor|mk|ota|قباق|tr=kabak}} (whence {{cog|tr|kabak}}) in all etymologies, that’s just your personal way. Others boo me out for using the word “whence” (it happened really, I don’t mention who unless you ask). There are a lot of other formats, one can just list the terms, if it is a cognates list, or one uses an arrow “→”, or one does what I have done for Ottoman. Formerly the U+003E GREATER-THAN SIGN “>” has been often used for these purposes. @Dan Polansky has removed it half a decade ago with AutoWikiBrowser for being ambiguous or bad typography. But I assume the format “Ottoman Turkish قباق(kabak)” is the one he finds most preferable for being minimalistic. Also note that I have not invented the format but others had it used specifically for Ottoman and I found it neat when I encountered it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
For reference, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies achieved a near-consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Tables are an exceptional case, but regardless, just because some people do it, doesn't make it correct, i.e. |t={{w|Article}}. (I also think that |t=[[]] should be forbidden.) This is why we should have discussions on special usages, and if we need a new {{link}} variant or parameter, better that than a hacky band-aide.
To say it's "smarter" is certainly a matter of opinion. I find it far less intuitive and informative to the reader than using "whence", and those are bad things, and certainly not "smart". And how is the usage of "whence" my way? It's not my coinage and search indicates that it's used somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,482 entries, which makes it highly commonplace.
But to get back to the point, show me another example of |tr= linking to a completely different language? That's like if we went around doing {{l|enm|shoppe|tr={{l|en|shop}}}}, which I think most people would find absurd. --{{victar|talk}} 17:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User EmascandamEdit


User:Emascandam has been editing a lot in Gulf Arabic and Arabic. They are using non-standard transliterations and I found other issues with edits. I can't spend too much time on the fixes right now but if you can, please do. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Atitarev I have watched all what he has done. He does awesome great moves, look for example at Ghawa syndrome, only this and that detail looks chaotic sometimes, but this probably goes away with practice. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


I added مُؤَدَّب(muʾaddab) and مُؤَدِّب(muʾaddib) and the root ء د ب(ʾ-d-b), and changed أدب‎ to mention the root explicitly. In case you have time, some questions came up: (1) for the root, I put "I2-pp=-" because the dictionary entry didn't seem to contain a passive participle (and the page I used as a template had that). (2) I think I copied the verbal nouns correctly from Hans Wehr and the root vowels but want to be sure. (3) Is there a possibility of copyright infringement from copying the Hans Wehr definitions more or less verbatim. (4) I'm not sure if there is a standard form for the preposition notations, e.g. in the root page Form V "to let oneself be guided (ب, by)". (5) The etymology for أدب‎ claims a Persian origin but I can't find a reference for this, and I don't know how to put etymologies in roots (there is no root listed for سَجَّلَ(sajjala) which I could have used as an example). (6) I want to link مُؤَدِّب(muʾaddib) to wikipedia:Muad'Dib but don't know how or if this would be appropriate. Polypz (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

>for the root, I put "I2-pp=-" because the dictionary entry didn't seem to contain a passive participle (and the page I used as a template had that)
You can’t rely on any dictionary in this case. You’d need to decide on the meaning if a passive participle likely exists. Or you can search the web. Because Hans Wehr in general does not list participles: it often only does if they are somehow independently lexicalized, not merely a form that can occur. Probably you are right that أَدُبَ‎(ʾaduba) has no passive participle, because passive use is rare for base stem verbs with perfect vowel /u/ and one would use مُؤَدَّب(muʾaddab) from the IInd stem anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
>I think I copied the verbal nouns correctly from Hans Wehr and the root vowels but want to be sure.
It’s good if you think that.
>Is there a possibility of copyright infringement from copying the Hans Wehr definitions more or less verbatim?
Yes. It would require that they reach the threshold of originality. Of course for a given word there is only a limited amount of correct glosses: people would often gloss the same way without using this dictionary, which is how you can see that the content is not original. The threshold of originality is higher in Germany, but the general advice is that you should try to use at least some own words in general, or if it is not obvious that the threshold of originality is not reached (I know no jurisprudence in relation to dictionaries), so it is less likely to be a copy and more likely to be an independent work or it is at least processually difficult to claim that this is copied: if you use own words then in court you would claim that the entry from the dictionary alleged by the claimant to be copied wasn’t even original, as proven by your coming up with a similar wording and hardly much other wording being possible.
>I'm not sure if there is a standard form for the preposition notations, e.g. in the root page Form V "to let oneself be guided
There isn’t. I often use {{+preo}} and {{+obj}} in the word pages (and they are allegedly still beta) but omit them in the root entry. Sometimes I have put something like {{lb|with|_|PREPOSITION}} in front of a gloss on a word page.
>The etymology for أدب‎ claims a Persian origin but I can't find a reference for this, and I don't know how to put etymologies in roots (there is no root listed for سَجَّلَ(sajjala) which I could have used as an example).
It’s well known to be Persian even to an averagely educated Arab in the Middle Ages, and you can see that the meanings in the root are kinda “denominal” from the one noun أَدَب(ʾadab) that got borrowed in old times; at other words you will see that apart from one word the other words are rare derivations, as with بَصْمَة(baṣma) (about which in a survey the highest share of Arabs answered that this word is native Arabic, 215 against 26 that this is Arabic, while it is a Turkish borrowing: see the 2009 paper Ottoman Lexical Obsolescence İn The Arabic Dialects Of The Galilee Region for how the common impression is fooled). But you don’t need to know this, and references are especially hard to find for Semitic languages. But I see etymologies are probably not your focus anyway, you just want have the words and their meanings, otherwise you would drift away: and luckily I have added the bulk of Aramaic derivations already, and many Persian etymologies are either already included or not often encountered, while Ottoman words rarely belong to the literary language you delve in, not to mention other Turkic words like خُازُوق‎ which are absolute exceptions. Statistics currently: Category:Arabic terms derived from Aramaic: 316, +173 from Classical Syriac makes 489, while Category:Arabic terms derived from Persian has 187, +22 of, and Ottoman gets merely 67. The Aramaic borrowings have been specifically tracked down by me for all kinds of obscure words to get the number to 500, while the Persian borrowings surely can be doubled by specifically searching for Persian borrowings in sources across ages but as I said the frequency of the words yet to be added is so that you will rarely be bothered by any new ones anyway. Modern borrowings from European languages you hardly can fail to recognize. What is left is Greek, we count right now 242 from Ancient Greek + 8 from Modern Greek, giving a round 250, and there is theoretically much more to add because of the science translation movement, but these are also often extinct and only listed in specialist works (like Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts from 2002). So you see just by the statistics that etymology is not to be feared by you. The number of foreign words already uncovered is disproportionate to the number of perfectly Arabic entries yet to be created, extremely high with about 10 % of the Arabic lemmas, unlike with the Persian language where it seems that the Semitic words alone make up 60% of the actual vocabulary.
>I want to link to Wikipedia but don't know how or if this would be appropriate.
By {{wp}} somewhere or {{pedia}} in a further reading section. Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Fay Freak. I think you answered all my questions except for the (implied) ones about the Persian etymology. I am actually interested in etymology, I just think that it should have references. Or, if I add etymology to an entry I create myself, then it would be nice to be able to cite something more authoritative than another Wiktionary entry. The statistics about origins of roots was interesting but I don't see how it fits in. I believe in learning the etymologies of words that I look up, I wish that language textbooks would say more about word etymologies when they introduce each word. Also I was looking for an example of a root entry with foreign derivation, like the non-existent س ج ل(s-j-l) for سَجَّلَ(sajjala), but browsing through the category links you provided, I can find them easily: د ر ب(d-r-b), ز و ج(z-w-j), etc. Thanks. Polypz (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
How, in your opinion, does the use of {{+obj}} differ from manually typing in [+ object], considering the fact that the template does not categorize anything? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It later should? Any way this kind of thing deserves special wiki markup, it might turn out to be useful for categorization on one hand and for display formatting on the other hand. Fay Freak (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi, the changes I made were based on an online etymology dictionary provided in the Resources section. It's in Hungarian, but even if you don't know Hungarian you can still see the spellings. If there is a resource you can provide for your version, please add it. You're right that Arabic is not the ultimate source. Panda10 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Panda10 I know what you base your etymologies on. You like to follow the sources word by word, but still languages names found in certain sources need to be translated into the languages of Wiktionary and you have to understand what the names of languages mean. The distinction is so minutes that it isn’t about “versions”. If you look a bit at the stemmata on Wikipedia (which are correct), you see that Upper German is divided in Alemannic, Bavarian, and High Franconian. German as spoken in Austria belongs to Bavarian. So what your sources call Bavarian may well not mean anything other than Austrian German. One might of course distinguish Standard Language from dialectal language, but such a distinction is moot. While there is and was diglossia in Austria and Bavaria, it is a moot question whether a plant name derives “from dialect” or “from the standard language”; it is regularly a false dilemma if one wants to say that a plant name belongs to the dialects or to “the standard language”. One can only tell if a plant name is local: sometimes the dialect exhibits a dialect-specific shape not acceptable in the written language, but that is not the case here: as you see from the IPA in Ribisel, it is pronounced identical to the “Bavarian” ribisl sometimes found in dialect dictionares. In particular however when I created Ribisel I searched the uses of the word, and it seems really restricted to Austria and Bavaria close to Austria, aside from German as spoken in what is today Czechia. Consequentially one reads also on many places that Hungarian ribizli is borrowed from the Austrian Ribisel, or this book seems to prefer Bohemian origin. But why all this? Because it is really the same language. The form that underlied the Hungarian is a German [ˈriːbiːzl̩]: It’s not a version, as I said. For me from a German perspective the further statements “it is “Bavarian” or “it is Austrian German” and “it is Bohemian German” are not distinct. Do you remember Austria-Hungary? All of Czechia and Austria were together with Hungary and reinforced the borrowing at least if it was borrowed before (since which century is the Hungarian attested? this is a more interesting question), but were at least always more close to Hungary than Bavaria. Technically the standard German Ribisel is the Dachsprache for the Bavarian, but since the word is only regionally used in the language area of the Bavarian dialects (comprising Austria and areas of Bohemia like Bavaria) it does not give any more information if you say “it is from Bavarian”, unless you want to say that it is borrowed from low registers of people who did not even know Standard German, which is a very dubious and unprovable claim, and it gives even less since you choose to link ribisl that won’t be created, as most other dialectal entries of German, instead of the existing entry Ribisel which serves the same purpose.
Long talk – said in short: Do you even know what difference it makes to say from “Bavarian German” and “from Bavarian”? Not every distinction that appears in the designations of languages is actually there.
Tell us better about when and where the Hungarian word is attested first. If one doesn’t know such details of its spread then it isn’t justified either to make such oddly specific claims like “from Bavarian registers of people who did not even know Standard German”. Then – and this what I assume, and you can see by comparing the various books – the decision of whether the term is borrowed “from Bavarian”, from “Austrian”, “from Bohemian” is arbitrary. You can also just say “from German”. However as I have said the label “Austrian” seems to be appropriate (which I employ for words I know to be of basically merely Austrian usage, like Esszeug). If you just follow some books “blindly” you of course do not realize how arbitrary claims of the linguists often are. Like here, where Bavarian ribisl and Austrian German Ribisel aren’t a different thing, which you might not realize if you haven’t heard German much. There are several such problematic claims, for example the Bavarian form of Täschel tarsoly derives from would not be different from any “standard” form, and krumpli is also problematic, in that “standard” Grundbirne and “Bavarian” grumper, krumbeer, krumpir would not sound as different as the spelling would suggest, as for example in Bavarian pronunciation voicing is lost and one distinguishes g k as lenis (unaspirated) and fortis (aspirated). For similar reason, we have keep all entries Swahili has borrowed from Hindustani as borrowed from Hindi, not keeping a borrowed from Urdu. Or we keep a Category:Arabic terms borrowed from Aramaic for terms borrowed from various ages and various dialects (the distinction of Aramaic languages is controversial and the more so is ascribing Arabic words to any dialect or stage of them). Our distinctions between languages are imperfect, and sometimes they do not even need to be perfect. And on the other hand we Wiktionary editors in 2019 might be more careful than some academic twenty years ago.
Think about this, Panda: If somebody compiles an etymological dictionary, will every etymology be equally well-founded? No, because he needs to offer a complete book to his audience, from which follows that he writes an etymology to any common word, although his knowledge is not perfect in all, and in fact because our time to study word histories is limited and we do not track down the actual reality of every word most etymologies are only good with a certain probability. This is why Wiktionary has an advantage in that editors only add some etymologies they know and leave others they don’t know unsolved or ambiguous. Or in this way the stated origin will be inexact: Hungarian ribizli is “from Bavarian ribisl” or “from Austrian German Ribisel”, it is indistinct, as some Arabic words are borrowed from the Iranian language group, without us being able to pin-point any. You just must be able to see where distinction, and adhering to the distinctions stated in some books, starts to be an inane academic sport. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, okay, thanks for the detailed explanation and clarification. It is true that I try to stay as close as possible to the referenced source. I do see other editors make changes based on new research and such, but most of the time no source is cited for those changes and they leave the original reference there. But that aside, I have two more sources. According to Zaicz, Gábor. Etimológiai szótár: Magyar szavak és toldalékok eredete (’Dictionary of Etymology: The origin of Hungarian words and affixes’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2006, →ISBN it was first attested in "1720, borrowed from German, more closely from Bavarian, compare Austrian German ribizl, riwisl, Tyrolean ribesl, Austrian German Ribisel, Ribisl. These are from the Old German or dialectal German noun ribes." The third source Eőry, Vilma. Értelmező szótár+ (’Explanatory Dictionary Plus’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2007. →ISBN provides a very short etymology, it simply says "borrowed from German, more closely from Bavarian." Go ahead and make your changes, but please remove the reference I added since the etymology will no longer match the source. I am not saying that etymology dictionaries are always accurate, but in another etymology discussion I was instructed that "if there is a reference given and we choose to refer to it, we need to faithfully adhere to whatever is given there". Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Panda10 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Which of course sounds like one has copied from the other. 1720 is however a number. @Panda10 The question about these sources would still be: What do they mean with Bavarian? That Hungarians have collected it in Bavaria, i.e. Bayern, or picked it up from people from Bayern that conversed with Hungarians in Hungaria? Or does Bavarian include Austrian? In this case I maybe was more specific, but there is always the option of quoting the crucial words of the etymologist in the reference tag so there is no mismatch (we also often add the references in the reference sections only without reference tags specifically because we do not claim exactly the same but a similar thing or a part of what is in the source). Here you see how these sources still need to be interpreted, and it is actually easy to misinterpret sources, for example as more exact than they intended to be – also the various forms given make German look more diverse than is real: they quote “Austrian German ribizl, riwisl, Tyrolean ribesl, Austrian German Ribisel, Ribisl” and from such lists one already computes a “lexical distance”, while these aren’t the relevant details (if one collected all those differences one might become like that Albanian you-know-whom-I-mean). Still, I am German and have copious knowledge of the history of German language but I don’t know what “Old German” is, which is why you don’t find a language code on Wiktionary for it – analogically, perchance what you see as “Bavarian” in sources should not be in Wiktionary as “Bavarian”. There is Old High German but that is up to 1050 AD. I have indeed looked through uses of the German word and I don’t see that “ribes” or “Ribes” (capitalization is irrelevant here) is a dialectal noun – if it does occur in text, then it is indistinguishable from Latin, like in this example from 1616. The fact of Latin Ribes becoming German Ribisel through a “German Ribes” is something hardly observable, that’s why I prefer to shortcut the etymology by saying only that German Ribisel is from Latin ribes. Well yeah, you copy what the etymologists say, but I always try to find the underlying forms, and German is very well documented and accessible, that is the most common reason why (my) Wiktionary etymologies might be adjusted or cautiously modified compared to what is found in etymological dictionaries. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Since we are not able to find a reliable source for the exact German origin and since I can't answer your question about Old German and Bavarian, how about this format: "First attested in 1720. Borrowed from German, more specifically from Bavarian-Austrian German. Compare Austrian German Ribisel." This statement is supported by the Hungarian printed sources and it also includes your previous etymology, although not as a straight borrowing, only a "compare". If you agree to this, I will make the change. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Panda10: Better write: “Bavarian-Austrian German, represented by Austrian German “Ribisel”, so we do not pretend it would essentially different (we also overuse the word “compare” for various dissimilar purposes). Or just “Bavarian-Austrian Ribisel (since the Bavarian, if distinct, can be written the same as Austrian: as I said, the underlying form is [ˈriːbiːzl̩], however one writes it). Perhaps: “From Bavarian-Austrian [ˈriːbiːzl̩]”, this IPA linking to Ribisel? Fay Freak (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I made the change. I hope you will accept it without further tweaking. :) Thanks again for your cooperation. Panda10 (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I promised, butEdit

Fay! I know i promised you (here) to do other things rather than Modern Greek etymologies, but they keep coming up (needed for affix Cats etc). A special Category is needed! Would it be realistic to ask for one? Or would it be a silly question to the ears of linguists?
The PROBLEM: As you pointed out, the Category of inherited words from previous greek phases (CAT) is too large. Many of them are 'learned internal borrowings' rather than direct inheritances. Some dictionaries mark lemmata as such, others do not. But they all refer to them in their introductions with terms like 'learned diachronic borrowings', 'revivals', 'reinvigorated words' (my translations). Distinct from 'learned borrowings' (CAT), which concern 'external learned borrowings'.
In {{R:DSMG}} the estimated [+learned] lemmata (of all kinds) are approx.30,000 and the [-learned] up to 20,000. At the moment, we add manually Learnedly, from {{inh|el|grc|....}}, or we do not add an etymology at all, avoiding the problem. In effect the 'inherited' categories have become too large. I do not know how often this occurs in other languages, but it is very frequent for greek. Should I pursue the matter or just drop it? Shukran. sarri.greek (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

If you know the origin word but not whether it is borrowed or inherited you are free to use the fallback template {{der}} – better than “not add an etymology at all”. Personally I have never used {{lbor}}, or tried to distinguish “learned borrowings” from “non-learned-borrowings”.
Clearly if you value your time you won’t go through the Greek entries to find what they are. The relevancy of that detail is much less than adding words, senses, quotes. Fay Freak (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Fay Freak".