User talk:Fay Freak

Welcome

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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; 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.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! PseudoSkull (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It's good to see you back. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, Pal. Per utramque cavernam 17:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 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)

طاووس

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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)

ترس

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’

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

Vahag: صَرْعَة‎ (ṣarʕa) 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)

Aramaic

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 Freak

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)

I thought this was an homage to Edwin Whitfield Fay, a linguist working in Indo-Iranian? ApisAzuli (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Translingual

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 falsehood

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)

amalgam

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)

Citations:evacuate

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)

selten

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)

wergeld

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)

Transliteration

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 Transliteration

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

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

Currently entries have a chronological logic

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)

پرچم

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 (talk • contribs) 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 lang

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:Zaliznyak: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)

Thai

• This too seems to agree with my notion that the original scripts should be displayed in bibliographies. Fay Freak (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• And there we have one of many upcoming cases where a duplicate reference template is created because an existing template has not been found due to its not deploying the original script. I warned people … @Vahagn Petrosyan, LinguisticMystic. Fay Freak (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (And also Template:R:fa:Hayyim, sorry I didn't read them all, by the way, referencing them by author instead of acronyms seems to be more straightforward to me, and also they should be more consistent with the language codes. I guess they should be R:[lang code]:Author LinguisticMystic (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Then the native script should be somehow added, but not at the expense of transliteration. --Vahag (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

On bibliography

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 § |lang= in {{quote-web}}. 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)

untitled

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 ل

Hi can you check out ش ع ل‎ (š-ʕ-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 Lisaan.net), 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-ʕ-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)

I like most of your additions of reference templates but I don’t see the point of your, @LinguisticMystic, removing the MENAdoc links in {{R:ar:Wehr-3}}. |url= and |pageurl= can be used parallely so one has two links to different digitizations, and the versions are different in that what you linked is Unicodized (so one can copy and paste etc. as on the web, but there might always be errors from OCR or manual transcribing) and the MENAdoc one is a scan and not irrelevantly official. Me I can’t even get enough alternative links, as for example on رُسْتَاق‎ (rustāq) and mezereon. The AECID link in {{RQ:Ibn al-ʿawwām}} uses to be of varying availability, but the reader there is good, so I have it and a back-up link of archive.org in the uses of this template used over a hundred of times.
I see you like to use HTML dictionaries, that’s why you are here. Me, I used to search out the pages of Freytag, Kazimirski, Lane and Dozy and others to create my thousands of entries, apart from using a printed dictionary … well both is good to have, page scans for most scientific accuracy and HTML versions for convenience. Fay Freak (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I put back the page urls. LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC), Certainly there are scan errors, it is not thoroughly proofread so use it at your own risk, and always double-check, or compare multiple sources. Especially the diacritics are not always consistent. By the way, are you cognizant of an Arabic OCR-ed version of Wehr-4? The http://ejtaal.net/ link is okay, but sometimes hard to decipher.

No, I do not know any. Also there is {{R:ar:Wehr-5-de}} which I of course prefer as being an original as opposed to a translation and a more recent printing which sometimes has more content.

Also, what I miss most in Arabic web dictionaries is an OCR and proofreading and even a browsable-by-root-letters scan of Freytag’s dictionary. Lane’s dictionary one has been OCRed and proofread by crowd intelligence but Freytag’s is not even known though unlike Lane’s it is a complete adaption of the medieval dictionaries and it even contains additional referenced content from the author’s literature acquaintance. Somebody should tell the guys of ejtaal.net to add it (I have not assured myself yet of the best location for the proposal, and I fear the use of an Arabic-Latin dictionary is not considered with seriousness, however I with more fluent Latin have found it more useful, while Kazimirski’s one included on ejtaal seems largely a translation of it, as I mentioned also on Wiktionary:About Arabic § What general dictionaries there are where you find by the way a listing of Arabic dictionaries a lexicographer can use). Fay Freak (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

диван and textiles

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?

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"

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)

γάντζος

@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)

-سیز

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 page

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…

• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ARequested_entries_%28Arabic%29&type=revision&diff=51718536&oldid=51631664
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3ARequested_entries_%28Arabic%29&type=revision&diff=50432778&oldid=50381277

116.127.65.26 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 transliteration

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. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/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 Emascandam

Hi,

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)

مُؤَدَّب

I added مُؤَدَّب‎ (muʔaddab) and مُؤَدِّب‎ (muʔaddib) and the root ء د ب‎ (ʔ-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 (muʔaddib) 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 (ʔaduba) has no passive participle, because passive use is rare for base stem verbs with perfect vowel /u/ and one would use مُؤَدَّب‎ (muʔaddab) 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 (ʔadab) 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 indeterminate Iranian origin, 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)

ribizli

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 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 ”, 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 Fay Freak in Zaicz, Gábor (ed.). Etimológiai szótár: Magyar szavak és toldalékok eredete (‘Dictionary of Etymology: The origin of Hungarian words and affixes’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2006, →ISBN.  (See also its 2nd edition.) 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 Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Fay Freak,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

I promised, but

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)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Fay Freak,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Semitic ass

Could you create a Proto-Semitic entry for the various "male ass" words found in the etymology for PII *kʰáras? Much appreciated if so. --{{victar|talk}} 05:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: Is it also appreciated if I contest the Semitic words’ going back to Proto-Semitic and being akin to Proto-Indo-Iranian *kʰáras? The Akkadian is a Mari word and used only in stereotypical phrases, deemed to be borrowed from West-Semitic. CAD 6 118 just says under a short entry: “various writings attempt to render WSem. ʿayr.” So put away those Akkadian spellings and see only ʿayr: From this *kʰáras cannot be borrowed, nor is it likely to be cognate.

Leonid Kogan and Alexander Militarev list the word in the “Semitic Etymological Dictionary” II (2005) on page 59, No. 50. They do not supply any more forms than the Arabic, Hebrew, Ugaritic we have but an uncommon Judaic Aramaic likely borrowed from Hebrew and Modern South Arabian forms and a Tigre ʿayro “young camel three years old” a borrowing of which from Arabic proposed by Wolf Leslau Kogan finds reasonable in “Geneological Classification of Semitic” (2015) on page 124. And it can be a picked-up word in Arabic too albeit appearing early in Arabian inscriptions. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think is best. They could also be both borrowed from the same substrate. @Profes.I. was kind enough to do the legwork of collecting them, but it would be nice if their connection to one another could be cleaned up and uncluttered from the etymology. --{{victar|talk}} 15:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

That comparison was after all only because you saw ḫârum, which looked similar, and Profes.I. added the known cognates (which I had put on عَيْر‎ (ʕayr)), that taken together do not look similar, knowing in particular that the Akkadian spellings only render them. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The comparison wasn't made by me but the sources listed. --{{victar|talk}} 18:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and then repeated, itself a comparison, I am not using the words wrong here. Fay Freak (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

LOL, always a pleasure. --{{victar|talk}} 20:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

OAT

Thanks for fixing it with regards to Persian vs. Arabic characters. I think I may have made a few misspelling in the last few entries I created too. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: I am not gonna fix the links in the deployed quotes though, you have to see them yourself, and perhaps then add {{d}} to the old names that are redirects now when they are orphaned. Don’t know how you input or see Unicode used on the page, but I use direct Unicode input (a function in my environment with character number search or character name search) for characters I don’t have on my keyboard (as I use an Arabic layout as I technically only write Arabic) and search the characters on the page in the browser search. Maybe @Erutuon knows a gadget (Firefox addon, which best?) that highlights mixed scripts (I am confident such a thing can exist at least so one can avoid to mix Cyrillic and Latin). Fay Freak (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I will wait until the issues in the quotations in these four entries are fixed before creating further entries. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade That was short, I have fixed em for you. Fay Freak (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

יַהְוֶה bless you. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Just passing by

Just passing by to say that I find your work here very exciting. It's putting Wiktionary at the cutting edge. Thank you! Canonicalization (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Fay Freak,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Kipchak as an Ancestor

Your edits at qan and къан caused module errors. When I went to Wikipedia to try to figure out what was wrong, I found confusion as to whether Kipchak is the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages, or one of the Kipchak languages in one of the branches. Rather than reverting your edits or converting {{inh}} to {{der}}, I thought it better to ask your help in sorting this out. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I just answered the arising question on Module talk:languages § Some Kipchak languages have Kipchak set as ancestor, some not. I wondered first where to post and whether I should just post it on my talk page for someone would come here to see it but it would be kind of odd and now its there. Fay Freak (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, @Anylai, @Allahverdi Verdizade, I see multiple problems about you assigning this "Kipchak" as the ancestor to (whatever) list of Kypchak languages.

One of the is that the entire premise is IMHO wrong that there existed a single language from which the modern Kypchak languages have developed. I am not aware of any Turkologists stipulating and/or supporting this premise. Please let me know if you know such.

I would urge you to reconsider this decision of yours. I bet we will be much safer if we don't introduce such new entity as "Kipchak". Borovi4ok (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Kipchak" is mostly used in etymology sections to refer to cognates found in "Codex cumanicus", a XIII century dictionary, and alike. It is of course not an ancestor of Tatar, Kirghiz and so on. Maybe Proto-Kipchak is (in the same way as Proto-Oghuz is the unattested ancestor of the w:Oghuz languages.) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade, Borovi4ok: It was set so. The more surprising it is that it was set as ancestor to Bashkir and Tatar but not Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim, Kumyk, although the general view is that Crimean Tatar is what developed in the Crimean Khanate after the Kipchak Khanate fell apart. This entity “Kipchak” is attested in various medieval works apart from the Codex Cumanicus, which is just the most popular, for example the grammar and glossary edited 1894 by Houtsma or that by Ananiasz Zajączkowski 1954–58 under the title Słownik arabsko-kipczacki z okresu Państwa Mameluckiego. Some other sources are listed by Árpád Berta Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen 1996 p. 3–7. So in the 13th century, weren’t the languages mutually intelligible? As I said Arab authors from that era consistently treat a “Kipchak” language, as in the sources I have just given. I don’t see how Bashkir or Tatar existed before this Kipchak, there is no evidence for all those individual languages but for Kipchak. So writes Wikipedia on Kipchak language: “Bashkirs […] adopted the Kipchak language in the days of the Golden Horde.” So they probably spoke a non-Kipchak Turkic language, like others who adopted this language. And Russian Wikipedia writes with a bit more expertise and footnote: “Кыпчакский язык лёг в основу кыпчакской группы языков: (крымско-татарского, караимского, крымчакского, карачаево-балкарского, кумыкского, ногайского, казахского, каракалпакского, татарского, сибирско-татарского, башкирского).” – “The Kipchak language was the basis of the Kipchak language group”, although they date it three centuries earlier than most of our sources are old (because only in the 13th century all the invasions came which made Arabs and Europeans interested in studying the language). Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

On a related note, Egyptian Arabic and North Levantine Arabic are also not strictly the ancestors of Arabic as we have it. They preserve features of Proto-Semitic that the Classical Arabic language did not have, like the lexically varying vowel in the prefix-conjugation as for example seen by the two tables on دَرَسَ‎ (darasa) (Proto-Semitic and other Semitic languages have yi- and ya-, Literary Arabic only ya- in the base stem). Yet nobody would conceive the idea of introducing an obscure Proto-Arabic we would have to derive all dialect forms from. The same way an idea of an additional Proto-Kipchak is expendable. Even if we had witnesses from the 9th or 7th centuries you would still not be satisfied and shout that this is not what Bashkir and Tatar derive from. You will always find dialectal differences. Even Proto-Turkic and Proto-Slavic are idealized abstractions. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Fay Freak, firstly, I am not shouting anything. Please watch your language.

Now, everything you are saying does not give ground to assume that there was a single parent language that gave rise to all modern Kipchak languages. Before you present such evidence (or, ideally, publish a paper supporting such entity and defend it in the Turkology community), I don't think it is appropriate to give CodCum (or any other) terms as predecessor to any modern Kypchak language. However, it would be great if you provide such terms as cognates.Borovi4ok (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok What would give you ground to assume that? You are just defending your pre-formed conception that I have already shewn to be biased, irrespectively of what the general view is. If I published such a super you would in any case say it’s just a fringe view and the Turkology community does not accept it. So why don’t you go ahead and fix the claim “Кыпчакский язык лёг в основу кыпчакской группы языков” on Russian Wikipedia if that view is so uncommon? Fay Freak (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak, Anylai, Allahverdi Verdizade, I suggest that this matter be discussed by a broader community. Borovi4ok (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok Which possibly does not exist. You know that. Few look into the materials. That’s the only people for Turkic you were able to ping, and even on Wikipedia nobody edits those pages like Kipchak language. Diachrony has been mostly ignored in Soviet turkology, one just collected all the current languages and reconstructed the Proto-Turkic at the end. That’s why you have not thought about “Kipchak” the way it is attested in. Would you ever in view of the materials earnestly reassess your conception of Bashkir? Fay Freak (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I think by Кыпчакский язык RuWiki means something different from what you mean by it. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade That’s a funny statement. Surely, we all mean something different. Fay Freak (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: No, I think we mean roughly the same most of the times. At least most of us. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: No, it’s terrible. I say “to shout” to mean rufen, but Borovi4ok understands it as schreien or even schimpfen, very different concepts. People don’t often understand it when I explain abstractly why English is a trash-tier language, but here you have it, all is loaded and ambiguous. The working language of the Wiki is a bane and a reason why I should cease to contribute to it.

You’ll have nonetheless to think about what “Kipchak” is, and what those sources represent, and hence what the language data should have and how the descendant trees should be ordered. I have shown Wiktionary to be inconsistent. My conclusion was that this Kipchak is the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages, and I laid out how I have come to this conclusion. I don’t know what conclusions you can make but the reasonings must be reproducible, and you can’t keep this bug of ambiguity for ever; somewhen it must be clear where what is ordered in. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The text of the Codex Cumanicus is the earliest attested form of Common Kipchak. Could you argue that it more accurately represents Western Kipchak? Sure, but the differences would be dialectal, if any. --{{victar|talk}} 20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello all, it would be logical for Kipchak to be the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages... But tell me, why is Old Anatolian Turkish on this dictionary set as the ancestor for Azerbaijani? This is absurd! Azerbaijan is not in Anatolia... Orkhonien (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Orkhonien: Because. It might blow your mind, but Dutch is a Germanic language, although Netherlands is not in Germany either..... Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is the ancestor of some of those, or what? The current state is the least logical. The West Kipchak group, Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim and Kumyk are more to be identified as their descendants than Bashkir and Tatar and yet the latter have it set as ancestors but not the former. Or is it some artificial language like Old Church Slavonic about which it is controversial whose ancestor it is? And for all of that “Medieval” group? Karakhanid the ancestor of nothing, Khwarezmian Turkic the ancestor of nothing, Old Turkic the ancestor of nothing? Odd, but why not. Guess we have to remove Kipchak as the ancestor of all Kipchak languages then. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen my tree here: User:Victar/Turkic? It's still a work in progress, but I would say the Kipchak branches are pretty solid. You can find some sources on the page. --{{victar|talk}} 04:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

We should also decide the position of Armeno-Kipchak. I have two thick dictionaries on it, from which I would like to add content more actively. --Vahag (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I had not seen it but it looks how I imagine it; except that “Mamluk-Kipchak” trk-mmk seems to be a synonym, meaning that same Kipchak language but recorded by Egyptians (but most of the Arabic spellings is recorded by Egyptians since some Kipchaks together with Turkmens were governing in Egypt and Greater Syria, bordering the Turkic and Mongolic Ilkhanate, that latter apparently speaking, in addition to Turkmen, Kipchak as also the Golden Horde – but that was called “Tatar” by Russians? –, but distinguished from the language in the Chagatai Khanate). @Vahagn Petrosyan Having read already this and that about Armeno-Kipchak it did not appear to me restricted to the XVIe and XVIIe secle and Poland as depicted on French Wikipedia but to be the same language picked up by Armenians and hence written in Armenian script like Ottoman Turkish was written in the Armenian script because it’s better (and had save perhaps the last hundred years more printed in Armenian script than in the Arabic script, which is not in common conscience). Fay Freak (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Yep, as far as I understand it, the Mamluks spoke a northern dialect of Old Kipchak, so yeah trk-mmk should be moved to a qwm-mam etym-only code. --{{victar|talk}} 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja did you add those Kipchak branches because of Fay's discussion above, or was there some other discussion I missed? I would have chosen different names. --{{victar|talk}} 05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar: I don't remember now, but it definitely wasn't on the basis of this thread, which I was unaware of till this moment. In fact, I'm not even sure what I did that you're referring to. But I do often sort languages into families and subfamilies in the language modules, and when I do it's usually on the basis of what Wikipedia says. If I did it wrong in this case, feel free to revert or rename or whatever. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the Mamluk-Kipchak trk-mmk code to the qwm-mam etymology-only code. I have also created the qwm-arm etymology-only code for Armenian. The labels Mamluk-Kipchak and Armeno-Kipchak categorize into Category:Mamluk-Kipchak and Category:Armeno-Kipchak respectively. --Vahag (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fay Freak Since you have used Houtsma's work as a source for several entries: 1) The Tarjuman is written in mid 14th century, and represent a sort of Middle Kipchak. Mamluk Kipchak should be viewed as exactly that, a sort of Middle Kipchak. 2) Houtsmas interpretation of the text contains numerous errors and misreadings (see page 5.), so watch out. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: Thanks, I have seen that section about the sources for Kipchak in Árpád Berta already. Apparently the most remarkable misreading is that of the year of publication, 1343 instead of 1243, mentioned also in Clauson, Gerard (1972) An Etymological Dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press, page XXV. Yet I do not know anything to follow from this for me or for us. Fay Freak (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Aramaic borrowings of پودنه‎ (pūdina)

What are your sources for the Aramaic (and Mazanderani) borrowings of Persian پودنه‎ (pūdina)? --{{victar|talk}} 05:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar Mixed, I don’t remember exactly. I use to search transcriptions (particularly concerning Middle Persian forms) but these Aramaic words are also in CAL. It’s almost always in CAL, I don’t know why ask. Mazanderani was there before and is from Irman of course. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, why do you always have to make snarky comments like "I don't know why ask"?

I ask because a) I'm trying to figure out if it's attested in Imperial Aramaic, and b) you added transliterations of questionable veracity which I can't find anywhere else. --{{victar|talk}} 16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Victar But you know that there are certain points where the transcriptions are a matter of choice? Even with vocalization, in both niqqud and both diacritic systems of Syriac script a syllable with following schwa and a syllable without following vowel is written the same, which is by the way also the case for the Ge'ez script. I have also mentioned such at Talk:ܫܝܫܠܬܐ. The main thing is that one always keeps in mind what was actually written and what is conjecture; we think both the same in this matter, hence our votes. In this case – and this is not the first time I have to remark it on CAL –, the transcriptions in CAL are of questionable veracity. They even managed to get the Arabic wrong, it isn’t fūtanj but fūtanaj according to Arabic syllabification custom, although I see they have it from Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden‎^[8] (in German), volume 2, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, page 76; I don’t know how versed Löw was in Arabic. But whoops, Uwe Bläsing transcribes the forms exactly like me! See “Irano-Turcica. Weitere iranische Elemente im Türkeitürkischen”, in Folia Orientalia‎^[9], volume 36, 2000, pages 40–42 of 33–61 – now that’s something, and another reference for your material collection, he discusses the -t- forms and argues for borrowing from a non-Indo-European source. Probably @Vahagn Petrosyan has aught to add since Armenian stuff is mentioned there. Fay Freak (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Middle Armenian պուտինա (putina) is simply a transliteration of Classical Persian. տ (t) could be pronounced as /d/ in Middle Armenian. --Vahag (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating an appendix for Kazakh verbs

I guess we have to give Kazakh verbs a sort-out, since many should be categorised as verb forms.

In the past I made many entries which were supposed to be categorised as reciprocal, passive, reflexive or causative voices. Besides, transitivity, persons, modes, aspects and tenses should also be considered altogether.

However, I do not know how to create an appendix for Kazakh verbs. Please offer me some instructions. Thank you! Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: You mean something like Appendix:Arabic verbs? Depends on what you want. I don’t really know what would avail Kazakh since I have not learned it yet. You need labels? I have added “reciprocal” a year ago in Module:labels/data, which seems to be usable only for grammatical categories that are valid for more than one language. Since you probably mean verb categories that occur in various languages it probably makes sense to add some there and add the information near verb headers with {{tlb}}? Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Thank you for your suggestions. I do want to make an appendix like Appendix:Arabic verbs. I guess that one appendix can encompass all grammatical features (voices, tenses, etc.). I want to know where to creat such an appendix. Vtgnoq7238rmqco (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vtgnoq7238rmqco The title would be Appendix:Kazakh verbs no doubt, as this is exemplary. It is also already linked from Category:Kazakh verbs (I don’t see where but Special:WhatLinksHere/Appendix:Kazakh verbs says so). Fay Freak (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What's going on there is Module:category tree/poscatboiler checks if the appendix page exists, and that counts as a link. — Eru·tuon 03:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Using sense-id or providing a gloss

Which one do you think is more preferential when giving definitions in non-English entries, and why? I tried to use sense-id to conserve space before, but it was quite bothersome since most English definitions lack ID:s, and because it entails more work for the editor. Also, without usage examples or qualifiers, the reader has to go to the English definition anyway; and since a definition link with a sense-ID looks exactly the same as one without, the user doesn't know that s/he can get more information by following the definition link. Ну и по традиции добавлю, что ожидаю лаконичный ответ на читабельном английском языке, а не простыню на трёх страницах. xoxo Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade I am not sure what your dilemma is. I use sense-IDs if there are multiple things in a language section that are sufficiently clearly defined and thus expected by me to be stable, just so people jump to the intended sense merely for their convenience, not to specify anything they would not find without it. I never added sense IDs to English entries to specify glosses, and glosses should be clear in what sense they mean without linking to any English sense. If there are only horribly polysemous words in English (which lackily enough is only rarely, not like that we always have to use English like Indians or non-Anglosaxon computer scientists) then I also do not shy away to write a German or Latin etc. gloss nearby, as professional dictionaries also do sometimes, and it also helps mnemonics, rewarding polyglots. For example in گز‎ (gez) you read the definition: “time in the sense of “one time”, “two times”, “three times” (or in other words, what French fois, German Mal, Russian раз, Serbo-Croatian pȗt)”. Specifically for this sense English and German and probably Serbo-Croatian dictionaries sometimes clarify with French fois, since English time is colorless and there is at least one other German Mal and Serbo-Croatian put has several abstract meanings. Or in یای‎ (yay): “spring, coil – Sprungfeder”. I have also read: “a spring in machinery”, but this is less iconic, and it is preferably “boom, this is what is meant”. Many people specify senses of polysemous terms wrongly. They write: “Orange (fruit)” where one has to ask: Not an orange tree? Mostly it is also an orange tree, but the editors had bad teachers. When I write “(plant)” or “(fruit)” it rather really means it is only the plant respectively only the fruit, which is distinguished depending on the plant. Same thing with the labels: In former days one used labels now reflected as “{{lb|en|botany}}”, “{{lb|en|anatomy}}” etc. excessively but those should be used only if the terms are really only used in the respective scientific fields, not to contextualize. Hence I wrote on آغز‎ (ağız) “mouth in the most primitive sense”, not “{{lb|en|anatomy}} mouth” as many people would do and which is wrong. Just be unambiguous in so far as your knowledge reaches and effective. Fay Freak (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see, it never crossed my mind that one could use both sense-id and a gloss. As for providing definitions in other languages, I am not against it in principle, I even think it is a good idea (provided that definitions in other languages are somehow marked with another font or alike; also, I think providing definitions in other languages should be restricted to a handful of relevant languages; giving a Swedish gloss in an Azerbaijani entry just because I know Swedish better than English would be weird). The only potential problem is that this approach conflicts with the main premise of en.wikt, namely that "all words of all languages are explained in English". Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade I thought about having a template called {{polygloss}} where it displays the English definition and if the reader clicks an arrow it shifts to the next language or more languages (it may be with Javascript, those with it disabled will see the English at least). This would facilitate often-demanded automatic transferral/translation (the same word trānsferre) of content into other Wiktionaries. I don’t want to learn how other Wiktionaries format their entries wholly differently (it is annoying enough how every Slavic language has randomly deviating head and declension templates), but I could give say English – German – French – Latin – Russian and other wikis can use bots to retrieve this information and create complete articles, not only pages with lacking definitions. This would also be useful for @Robbie SWE who has much more stuff on Romanian Wikipedia than here, as of course it is dullening to do all twice with new exertion. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Serbian proverb

Recently I have been studying a court case and the accused mentioned a Serbian proverb that goes, ‘Sweep the dirt in front of your own house first.’ (I supposed that the idiomatic equivalent in English would be ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones’.) I was wondering if you were familiar with that proverb or knew where to look for it. Having little familiarity with Serbo‐Croatian I don’t know how to write it. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

→ sopa rent framför egen dörr, vor der eigenen Tür kehren, etc Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Romanophile: čistiti pred svojim vratima impf / počistiti pred svojim vratima pf and mesti pred svojim vratima impf / pomesti pred svojim vratima pf, rarely instead with pred svojom kućom. Fay Freak (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

هل

Hi! Do you have a source for the etymology? I trust it, but I'd love to see where you got it from. M. I. Wright (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@M. I. Wright 😦 It is written at the bottom of the page, as is not uncommon. Since you apparently do not read German I point out that Tropper is of course not who discovered the sound changes underlying it and the change is mentioned in other treatises in other contexts. I make it bite-sized for you:

There is a phenomenon of Proto-Semitic *š, that regularly gives in Arabic س‎ (s), becoming across Semitic /h/, and also further /ʔ/; so an exception to the admirable preservation of consonants in Semitic. A well-attested example is the conditional conjunction *šim.

Another example that might interest you is the causative prefix found in the verb form IV that as you might see has the consonant /h/ in Hebrew and /ʃ/ in Akkadian. In the nonpast the prefix becomes invisible because the alif is only to fill the void / to comply with the syllabification rule that says that Arabic words cannot start with two consonants or a mere vowel (even though it is not alif waṣl). But even more interesting, it occurs that this Proto-Semitic causative prefix *š is retained regularly as س‎ (s) in the verb form X, the ت‎ (t) there being the same infix as the one in form VIII, which lets you see that the original meaning of form X is “to prompt (IV) someone to do something by himself (VIII)”.

And yes, the prefix in the Arabic masculine singular elative is the same prefix. Fay Freak (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!! I do know of the general sound change (and I only found out about the relationship between forms IV and X this last month, mind-blowing), but what happened was I mentioned the هـ‎ (h-) + لِـ‎ (li-) etymology of هَل‎ (hal) to somebody and I realized I didn't have a source to back it up beyond "it's on Wiktionary." I don't have a copy of Tropper -- nor, as you noticed, can I read German (maybe at some point lol) -- but it's good to have a citation to refer to.

While I'm here, though, can you actually comment on the plausibility of the counter-argument I got in response? It was that أَـ‎ (ʔa-) < *هَـ‎ (*ha-) is in fact unrelated to هَل‎ (hal), and they challenged the هَـ‎ (ha-) + لِـ‎ (li-) derivation because (1) it's unlikely for هَل‎ (hal) to have magically been generalized into being able to appear before nouns (considering that لِـ‎ (li-) can't precede anything but a verb), and (2) there are many records of old CA dialects where لِـ‎ (li-) never underwent the change where it lost its i vowel. Instead, they said, هَل‎ (hal) is derived from an old Semitic particle *hal used for calling attention, and it's "cognate to Ugaritic hl". I can't gauge the accuracy of this myself. Is there room for doubt? —M. I. Wright (talk, contribs) 03:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s not magical but explained as rebracketing, the ل fusing and losing its meaning; starting thus from verbal sentences and after that usable for nominal sentences (which are less default than the verbal sentences anyway). I find the thought odd that the 𐎅𐎍 (hl, “behold!”), which in the Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language is compared to هَل‎ (hal), could have acquired the meaning of introducing a polar question, which would mean such a sentence in Arabic could start without any special word and was marked only by intonation as in Spanish, with the particle later added for emphasis. Unless we should not go from the Ugaritic meaning; anyhow the Ugaritic meaning seems far to me. Don’t know what that Akkadian 𒀠𒇻 (al-lu /⁠allū(mi)⁠/, “is it not?”), (it is from the Amarna period and suspected to be a West Semitic derivation), in the DUL is but it fits phonetically apparently to neither. There are some Arabic-Ugaritic isoglosses but perhaps we shouldn’t. Fay Freak (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semitic languages' classification used in Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic descendants

I've noticed while editing some entries that each one of them uses different classifications (or none for that matter) to classify its descendants, which makes it hard to maintain in the future. I am planning on refactoring the descendants according to Hetzron 1997 classification used in here. I don't know if there are any Proto-Semitic knowledgable people in here, but your last edit on Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/θaʿlab- suggests that you know a bit about Proto-Semitic phonology. Fenakhay (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There are no classifications, nor are there any needed. I am sorry for those who believed their groupings are subfamilies. They are just groupings to help the eye con the data. An alleged split between West and East Semitic is conventional and beyond what one can recognize. The grouping of Arabic is most controversial, hence “Central Semitic” is no group. A group “Northwest Semitic” appears to make sense but Ugaritic may or may not be in it, some put it in some “North Semitic”, which in other terminology is everything not “South Semitic”, i.e. of the known ones Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian and Ethiopian, which may or may not be a group but is mostly a conglomeration of isoglosses (the cause of which does not need to be assumed a common split from a state in which the feature can be assumed to have been present already). Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think all family groups need to be genetic -- they can be areal as well, especially when you take sprachbunds into account. Southwest Iranian is a generic group, while Southeast Iranian is only an areal one. I think we just need to decide on a convention and stick with it. --{{victar|talk}} 20:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, he said “classifications”. And I at least did not classify anything, let alone genetically. Fay Freak (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I was directing my answer to both of you, but I've also been wanting to bring it up with you to brainstorm on because the Semitic entries are currently inconsistent. --{{victar|talk}} 20:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Slovene on *otava

When adding Slovene descendants, please use the tonal orthography rather than the stress orthography. —Rua (mew) 11:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Which would require first that I know the the tonal orthograph, in the tonal orthography used here. Where are you getting them from? Fay Freak (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

They are available on https://fran.si/ . Both Slovenski Pravopis and SSKJ give the tonal diacritics in brackets after the word. —Rua (mew) 12:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rua: Okay, good to know that these are the ones used here. (Because Snoj uses a different system, we know, which we have not decrypted.) Pleteršnik also has them as needed I observed. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The diacritics used here are documented on Appendix:Slovene pronunciation. We follow SSKJ in using the macron to denote either tone on long vowels, where Pravopis gives the two tones separately in such cases. —Rua (mew) 12:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Trailing glottal stop

Tbh I’ve been thinking about it and I agree with you that we shouldn’t transliterate ʾ in the Aramaic emphatic state. It makes sense for the transcription of purely consonantal writing systems like Phonecian or Ugaritic where an alef is the only means of indicating an initial or final vowel. But for languages like Aramaic where vowels are indicated by diacritical marks the transliteration of final emphatic ܐ is redundant. I’m also beginning to prefer the use of ⟨ʔ⟩ and ⟨ʕ⟩ over ⟨ʾ⟩ and ⟨ʿ⟩ for Semitic transliteration in general. I like @M. I. Wright’s idea of retaining ⟨ʾ⟩ for representing ellidable word-initial glottal stops. Rhemmiel (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Dates for quotations

See WT:QUOTE. We are supposed to have dates for quotations. For many citations there are problems with editions, orthography, copyist errors, etc. But dates or date ranges are helpful to sequence citations and to help our more normal users get some sense of the history of usage. Links to WP and to references can help users understand some of the issues in dating quotations. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Dates are impossible here; the best one can do is say "compiled 6th century" or something like that. In general, I think this is a waste of other editors' time; if you want every quotation to have some date attached to it, you might as well click through to Wikipedia and add the century of compilation yourself rather than a request that cannot be filled if interpreted literally. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I can sequence citations without it, and Wiktionary:Quotations clearly was not written with antiquity in mind, anyway nobody is supposed to do what is impossible. And it’s not usual in Classical Philology to quote with dates either, and I suppose that usually our users are not normal either, a hint on the author is enough for anyone mildly oriented in history or being able to click the link to Wikipedia. So {{Q}} does not require it either. Many much-used works are only datable very vaguely; to this date the herbal most-used in the Middle Ages Pseudo-Apuleius is only datable to “the 4th century” and it is not known whether its beginning or end. And that’s only with one herbal; with timeless religious and legal writings it is even more impossible. Some auhtors are famous, Ulpian on cancellus I could fill with some years uncertainty by searching half an hour some opinions on its dating, but the datings stay mere opinions and for earlier jurists their life data is not known, and some also is without author like Pauli Sententiae from the same century. So what, DCDuring? I tell you one cannot fill them without ridiculous inexactitude; Javolenus is {{circa|100±20 or 40}}, the Vulgate is {{circa|100–382}} (does not really differ from the Itala versions). Do you agree with such dating? I must contend though that the way dates are displayed is not most suitable for such ranges – even the templates are made not for antiquity, where vague dates are the rule. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Some editors are already wasting their time adding date and work title to the Shakespeare quotations that lack them. My plan is to economize on my time by adding the dates in batches, eg, by author using WP articles where author and work are known, by author where work is not shown using a modified rfdatek search for the pagename and the author at Google search. I have to do something different for translated works, for which we sometimes show the date of the original work, not that of the translation. Chaucer is interesting because there are three major manuscript fragments of the Tales. It would be nice to date quotations by the estimated date of the manuscripts.

@Fay Freak: Date ranges can be two years or multiple centuries (even millennia I suppose). If the standard templates don't work, one can either do a custom header or create a template for the work. Obviously, this last approach only pays if the work is the source of many citations. Obvious examples in English are the EME bibles, but see Category:English quotation templates.

Admittedly it is much easier to work with modern texts, especially those that never were revised by the authors or editors and where orthography is standardized. I am grateful that many of the authors of undated English citations from older texts (and sometimes the texts themselves) have WP articles that either have reasonable dates or can speed the search for them from other sources. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your Babel box

I don't want to cause offense, but my impression of your English is that it's closer to en-3 rather than en-4. You often phrase things in a way that is unnatural for a native speaker, and less often, but frequently enough, make outright errors that can sometimes make it difficult to follow what you're saying. Not to overstate it though—you're a lot better than en-2. I hope you don't mind me pointing that out. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Sheedy: No, because there is no room for improvement of my English, such that I rarely ever learn a new word, just like in German. You would have the same impression of my German. It’s either that I do not care whether I am unnatural or that I have Asperger’s. Fay Freak (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's ultimately up to you to decide. It's interesting that you rarely learn new words...I don't usually think of that as an indicator of fluency. I'm a native speaker and I learn multiple new words every day (but maybe it's just because I'm a voracious reader). :) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

About ferraiolo

I've never heard of that term in Morocco (I've checked with my relatives and friends as well). I asked a Libyan friend about it and he said he'll get back to me today. The term for cape used in Morocco is سلهام‎ (salhām) or برنس‎ (burnus). Fenakhay ❯❯❯ Talk 10:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fenakhay: A few Italian sources derive the Italian word from it, and the IP surely had it from Treccani. The Italians in turn have it surely from Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne (1881), “Fay Freak”, in Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes (in French), volume 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 263b, who confers his Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne (1845) Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des vêtements chez les arabes‎^[10] (in French), Amsterdam: Jean Müller, page 334, where he talks about the فَرَجِيَّة‎ (farajiyya) (perhaps the original reason why I just put the Italian in the descendants of Ottoman Turkish فراجه‎ (ferace), I don’t remember what I thought), and refers to Beaussier’s dictionary, where however the word **فَرْيُول (**faryūl) is not found either, maybe Dozy instead means the word فَرِيجَة‎ (farīja) glossed “feridja”. Maybe it is a reconstructed word some few sources claimed (starring words had just developed in 1881), because Dozy would have given a cite if he had an Arabic one. So with your asking around we shall declare this an unlikely source and a presumable ghost word. Though it is principally possible that a word has died out as clothing and household habits changed, like طَيْفُور‎ (ṭayfūr, “tray, bowl”) is now found only in Jewish Moroccan Arabic, our being able to search by the help of the internet makes us in many respects more confident than Dozy could be. Fay Freak (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nicodene: It’s unsurprising; just like you every Romanist put no diligence into assessing attestation after the limits of the language group have been reached. I have above completely outlined out the mistake by which the “citation” of this word pours in upon the public perception, and corresponding to this @Fenakhay ascertained empirically that no one in Morocco or Libya knows this word. {{R:xaa:ELA|II}}, deprecating Dozy’s dictionary in this area, also contains all attested Andalusi Arabic vocabulary and does not contain it either; correspondingly {{R:xaa:ELA|III}} containing Romance words supposed from Arabic does not contain it, which indicates that Corriente and his team found it impossible to even imagine. It is also a contradictory complication to admit the Maltese being borrowed from Romance instead of continuing the Arabic word while claiming the Romance words ultimately to derive from Arabic; Coromines II 883a basically admits the possibilities of any Arabic occurrences being borrowed from Romance as well.

So go remove the derivations from this requested word, a term request we must not fulfil!

My Ottoman derivation was in comparison of the garments and typical attestation dates and the Italian variant ferragiolo, to which the Portuguese ferragoulo is as well closer. Now the much earlier supposed Mozarabic we have to distrust as we know the uncertainties surrounding the reading of this Trümmersprache. We have less strong opinion about it though (in spite of the exaggerated commit message of 2020) than the non-existence of the Arabic, you can portray the many other etymologies, as long as based on words that exist (there are other fake forms from times when Orientalism had low standards, few being able to counter the fancy; I generally attempt to track down the source words instead of copying common references, sticking to such standard is a major reason why Wiktionary > Wikipedia). Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Fenakhay Against the notion of Maltese continuing the Arabic word directly are 1) its meaning, which is specific to a garment of Catholic clergy (unless our entry is incomplete in this regard), and 2) its phonological shape (if @Fenakhay is right that the inherited form should have been *firjul).

As for 'Mozarabic', that was a mistaken language code by me, which I have since corrected. Coromines says it is attested in a Mozarab document from Toledo dating to 1161, that is, apparently a notice of donation produced by the community of Mozarabs living there, who wrote Arabic, not Romance. So this is not subject to the vagaries of interpreting garbled, poorly recopied Romance kharjas. I do not have access to the document that Coromines mentions, unfortunately, but that may be the key to deciding this.

That the word may not, as far as our informant knows, exist in modern Arabic I do not think is any counterevidence to its existence several centuries ago. Nicodene (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nicodene: True of course, الْفَرْوِيل الأَحْمَر (al-farwīl al-ʔaḥmar, “the red …”), as it is most likely vocalized, is Arabic, but we still don’t know what item it is, as typical with list of inventory (Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII edition and translation in 4 vols. is also scanned, we both can see what text it is), and on the other hand it could be a Romance borrowing like إِقْلِيل‎ (ʔiqlīl) – just like the Maltese is from Romance! Formally problematic though to explain the longer Romance forms. Then again, why do we need an Arabic intermediate? And the alleged *فَرْيُول (*faryūl) (in the weird transcription scheme of some Romanists feriyûl, if you don’t see the identity) is still not the same word and the offending word in question which we cannot fill. You putting a term request and deriving from a word which we have shown to have no basis nor necessity. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That reminds me, I should probably add an entry for *aculeōnem.

We can add disclaimers to the effect of 'Coromines claims' and such if that would improve things - and, apparently, an asterisk for the 'vulgar Arabic' word. If فَرْوِيل does mean what Coromines thinks, I do not see further issues on the Romance side of the equation (it's nothing new for borrowings to be heavily folk-etymologized, though I must admit I'm baffled by what origin story they imagined for 'little blacksmith').

The reason to posit an Arabic intermediary, incidentally, is that in no Romance language would Latin palliolum would be expected to yield such results. In Spanish, for instance, we would have *pajuelo, in Sicilian *pagghiolu. Also the term's earlier absence, from medieval Romance, would be rather suspicious.

If you mean to suggest that the Turkish intermediary would be better (with a different ultimate etymology)- perhaps it would. But it must be admitted that the changes from an Ottoman Turkish ferace to a Sicilian firriolu would have been quite drastic (more so than the changes from farwīl to ferrehuelo, in my view). I might have expected something along the lines of *firagi, or with a diminutive and influence from the verb that you have indicated, *firragiolu. Nicodene (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nicodene: Yes I expect other Sicilian variants, just as the Italian variants habitually defalcated. The obscurity of the Arabic is no less suspicious than that of Romance – I am not even sure by now whether the latter is oftener studied. And we do not expect arbitrary changes between ل‎ (l) and ر‎ (r) in Arabic either no more than they happen in Romance. Still even if in Arabic the sound change is likely, we went from two to four syllables and a different stressed vowel by borrowing فَرْوِيل‎ (farwīl) into the Romance forms ascribed to it, apart from the vague meaning of the Arabic.

It is a known situation in any case that an etymology can depend on the interpretation of an old locus. Bielefeld may be explained by the old form in a 9th century occurrence if that is even identical, and so do we here point out the existence of a red فرويل‎ also four centuries earlier than the usual occurrences :-/ Fay Freak (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have modified the Spanish etymology somewhat. I am still perplexed at the difficulty in finding the modern Arabic word. Coromines cites Colin for it and mentions its usage in a variety of places, including incidentally Malta.

Edit: ah, he is simply talking about our firjol, which he regards as inherited from an earlier 'vulgar Arabic' form, rather than, as Wagner would prefer, borrowed from Sicilian. Nicodene (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@Nicodene: I could track down: Colin Hespéris VI 76, refers to a colloquial بَلْيُول‎ (balyūl) that is even found with one reference in {{R:xaa:ELA|II}}, while Simonet, Francisco Javier (1888) Glosario de voces ibéricas y latinas usadas entre los mozárabes (in Spanish), Madrid: Establecimiento tipográfico de Fortanet, page 416, a book I find difficult to use, in the Arabic quote has that “in Latin it is called فَالُّيُوش‎ (fālluyūš)” (if Fay Freak sees the harakat correctly); the variant in question فَرْيُول‎ (faryūl) Louis Brunot Noms de vêtements masculins à Rabat. In: Mélanges René Basset. Vol. I of II. Paris 1923, p. 125 of 87–142 (US VPN or Hathi Helper, somebody has to put the first volume on archive.org yet); again second-hand information but described as a cape worn by dirty workers (rather than clerics or similarly clean people), hundred years ago he said “on ne le connaît pas à Fès”, and I have read Fenakhay is Fasi; Brunot refers to José Lerchundi (1892), Vocabulario español-arábigo del dialecto de Marruecos 164b, and again gives the link to Beaussier 502b where I now see فَرْيُولَة‎ (faryūla); not however there is a even mention of it occurring in Andalusi, only in some special places in Moroccan. It is also difficult for it to land from Morocco in Sicily? Maybe it was the badly attested Sicilian Arabic, otherwise it is at least unlikely that this restricted word was borrowed parallelly into Italian dialects and Spanish and Portuguese. Fay Freak (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent research.

It may simply be that the word has experienced considerable shrinkage in modern Arabic but was once more widespread. As we now know that there really does exist such a modern word, that leaves Coromines' reading of the old Toledan document somewhat more plausible.

As far as Romance is concerned, certainly the Standard Italian and Spanish forms seem linked (effectively calques of each other). The Sapere dictionary describes the garment in question as 'imported from Spain', and it would be reasonable to suppose that the term for the garment came along with it.

Coromines describes the existence of an 'indigenous' Mozarabic outcome of Latin palliolum, beginning not with f but rather p, competing with an imported Maghrebi form with f, the one that he states was borrowed into Spanish. Incidentally, he vocalizes it differently than you have, adding an extra vowel, as I have now indicated on herreruelo. As a non-arabist, I can hardly judge on this matter.

It seems, if we follow this model, that the Sicilian and Maltese forms are then separately derived from Maghrebi. That is, the Maghrebi form was carried into Iberia (as would not be surprising historically), whence eventually borrowed into Portuguese and Spanish, then from Spanish into Italian as ferraiolo. Separately, the Maghrebi form was also carried into Sicily (also would not be surprising), where it was never folk-etymologized with words for 'blacksmith'. I won't judge whether the Maltese word went through Sicilian first. Nicodene (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I doubt that Italian variant you found is maintaining the original Turkish consonant. In the same text we also see gianna for expected janna, which means there's either a local shift or an orthographic hypercorrection that makes /j/ be written as gi. Catonif (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you cite these references on the entry if you have the time? Catonif (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

بوره

No need to put an asterisk on the Middle Persian word. It is attested in a Middle Persian text I saw it in the book written by Jaleh Amouzgar and Ahmad Tafazzoli.--Hamaabir (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Irman's ghost, what is the Middle Persian work where *bōrag it is attested? Even the newest literature refers to it with an asterisk. --Vahag (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

bailo

I just saw your February comments for the descendants of the venetian bailo. Any of these variants interests you perhaps? μπάιλος (báilos)? (could be written μπάϊλος too).

• Koine (but we regard Koine up to 6th century): βαΐουλος from latin
• mediaeval variants up to 1669: βάγιλος, βαγίλος, βάιλος, μπάιλος (in text, dative: μπαΐλῳ), μπαλίος, πάγιλος, πάιλος, παλίος
• modern (1700-: historical, from Koine). βάιλος, βαΐουλος, demotic: βάιλας.

‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 10:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek Thanks. You have to see yourself which it are, depending on the meaning. There are forms from the Roman Empire and there are forms from Venetocracy. Fay Freak (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

مطبوعه‎‎ (matbu'āt)

Arabic (and Persian) is a borrowing from Ottoman, right? Doesn't occur in Turkish until 1876, according to Nishanyan. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: I don’t know. Since printing did not catch on in the Arabic-writing world until about 1800, this might well be the same time when the periodical became widespread in a few years simultaneously, considering also that in the Ottoman Empire in 1800 until much longer fewer than 10% of all people could read so the market was thin. It will be a matter of few years, in which population and literacy exploded to make magazines sustainable and this word spread. Probably as terminus post quem the time around 1850 when in Europe new paper quality was invented that was cheaper but the one that caused acid decay until about 1990 (sic!). Fay Freak (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have time to create the Ottoman entry? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

плута#Bulgarian

Hallo Fay Freak, mit dieser Bearbeitung hast Du eine Ableitung eines bulgarischen Wortes vom *Mazedonischen angedeutet. In Deiner vorhergehenden Bearbeitung dagegen gab es keine Spur von so einer Behauptung. Nimm es mir bitte nicht übel, aber die Behauptung, daß irgend ein bulgarisches Wort von einer Mundart, die vor kaum 80 Jahren als eigenständige Sprache ausgerufen wurde, ist unhaltbar, gelinde gesagt. Wenn Du mehr über die Herkunft eines bulgarischen Wortes erfahren möchtest, so eignet sich das Български етимологичен речник gut zu diesem Zweck. In unserem Fall ist das Band 4, Seite 367.
Aber ich bin immerhin neugierig, ob die soeben widerlegte Herkunft in einer deutschen Ausgabe zu finden ist? Wenn ja, in welcher? Gruß, Bogorm converſation 10:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Bogorm: Das Mazedonische war schon vorher vorhanden, wenngleich es weniger als eigenständige Sprache erkannt worden ist. Aber gleich, dann ist das Wort eben dem Serbokroatischen entlehnt, ist dies leichter als ein Übergang in die mazedonische Mundart des Bulgarischen und dann ins Bulgarische? Ich verwahre mich gegen die Unterstellung, daß es ein ur- oder auch nur gemeinslawisches *pluta gegeben habe. Wie Snoj feststellt und ich herübertragen habe, ist das slowenische plúta im 18. Jahrhundert aus dem Kroatischen entlehnt worden (bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts sprach man in Kroatien plȕta, neuerdings plȕto). Wenn dies so ist, dann ist das Wort nach urslawischer Zeit neugebildet worden und alle Wörter sind Entlehnungen oder Lehnübersetzungen außer einem neugebildeten, dem serbokroatischen eben, da das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung ist und die mazedonische Standardsprache ohnehin halb und halb dem Serbokroatischen nachgeahmt ist. Ebenso wie Serbokroatisch сладолед in alle anderen südslawischen Sprachen entlehnt worden ist. Eine urslawische Bezeichnung für den Kork gab es nicht. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Bogorm: Das bulgarische Wörterbuch hat für das Wort Belege nicht älter als aus dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert, oder hast du bessere Belege für das Wort? Zu diesem Zeitpunkte kann man doch wohl einen mazedonischen Lekt erkennen, ob man ihn nun Mazedonisch oder Vardarisch nennt? Und die nicht diesem Lekt zugehörige damalige bulgarische Sprache kann Ausdrücke demselben entlehnen? Dafür kommt es doch nicht darauf an, ob etwas eine Sprache ist oder eine Mundart oder eine Sondergruppensprache. Auch ein einzelner Mensch kann von einem anderen Einzelmenschen entlehnen, ein Schriftsteller von einem anderen. Dergleichen wie “There's no thing as borrowing from Algerian Arabic [into Moroccan Arabic] since that whole region is a dialectal continuum” ist nur eine kollektivistische Sprachregelung, die davon abhält, über den Weg des Wortes zu reden. Fay Freak (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  Tja, schade, daß wir über die nordmazedonische Mundart nicht übereinkommen. Aber im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch findest Du sie (mit dieser Bezeichnung) nicht, sondern mit der regionalen Bezeichnung, d. h. mit der Erwähnung der Stadt, in deren Umgebung ein Wort vorkommt(z. B. Щип, Охрид usw.). In zwei Punkten widersprichst Du aber dem Artikel aus dem Wörterbuch, zum einen, daß es das Urslawische Substantiv nicht gegeben habe (schon gut, ich kann es aus der Etymologie entfernen und als Ergebnis wird stehen, daß das Wort aus dem urslawischen Verb mit der Substantivierung -ta gebildet wurde), und zum anderen, daß alle Entlehnungen aus dem Serbokroatischen seien. Im Wörterbuch wird ausdrücklich erklärt, daß das rumänische Wort eine Entlehnung aus dem Bulgarischen ist (steht auch im Artikel hier, wobei ich rumänische Lemmata in der Regel nicht bearbeite, also stammt von jemand anderem). Eine Entlehnung aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische wird nicht erwähnt.

  Плуто wird jedoch im Wörterbuch als Nebenform mit einer Abkürzung angeführt und Du schriebst soeben, daß es auch in Kroatien zu finden ist? Im östlichen Teil des Serbokroatischen also nicht? Im Bulgarischen doch. Könnte das darauf hindeuten, daß es ein urslawisches Wort gab mit einer Nebenform auf -o, die im östlichen Teil des Serbokroatischen nicht vorhanden ist? Ist nur eine Vermutung. Fay Freak, ich finde diese Aussage: "das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung" verblüffend. Wie kommst Du darauf? Die bulgarische Sprache wurde vor 1913 von Ohrid bis Tultscha und im Südosten bis zur Linie Media-Rhaedestus (als Grenze vorgeschlagen am Ende des Balkankrieges während der Friedensverhandlungen) gesprochen (kein geringes Areal).

  Das Lekt, wie Du es nennst, wird in der bulgarischen Sprachwissenschaft meist als südwestliche bulgarische Dialekte der jeweiligen Städte (Щип, Скопие usw.) betrachtet, die mit nordwestlichen oder nordöstlichen oder südöstlichen als ebenbürtig (ebenbürtige bulgarische Dialekte) angesehen werden.

  (Und die nicht diesem Lekt zugehörige damalige bulgarische Sprache) Das finde ich als Bulgare hinsichtlich des gerade ausgelegten Standpunktes der bulgarischen Sprachwissenschaft (über die Ebenbürtigkeit der bulgarischen Dialekte, inklusive der südwestlichen) auch verblüffend. Fay Freak, wird das in einer deutschen gedruckten Ausgabe so behauptet? Wie bist Du darauf gekommen? Bogorm converſation 12:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fay Freak, Du hast gerade (11:32 UTC) die nordmazedonische angebliche Herkunft wiederhergestellt und mit keiner Quelle versehen. Ich habe Dir gerade vorgeschlagen, als Etymologie From Proto-Slavic *pluti with the substantivising suffix -ta zu schreiben. Hast Du etwas dagegen zu beanstanden und wenn ja, aus welchem Grund (mit welchem Beleg)? Bogorm converſation 12:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  • • @Bogorm: Du haderst offenbar mit dem genauen Lesen ebenso wie mit dem unabhängigen Lesen. Zum einen habe ich über das rumänische Wort gar nicht gesprochen (es hat auch nicht in Frage gestanden, was der unmittelbare Ursprung des rumänischen Wortes sei), zum Anderen schrieb ich »das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung« und nicht »das Bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung«. Das bulgarische Wort, nicht die bulgarische Sprache! Die Groß- und Kleinschreibung ist wichtig. Ich hab nun wieder in das Bulgarische Etymologische Wörterbuch geschaut und siehe da, genannt sind vor allem Orte in Mazedonien (Щип, Охрид nennst du …), einige an der rumänischen Grenze und sogar das Banat (also Serbien?), insgesamt jedoch einige kleine Orte. Da der Balkan eben balkanisiert ist und es überall Sprachinseln gibt oder vor allem gab wo jede Sprache auf jede treffen kann, ist aber entscheidend nicht nur die Verbreitung im wörtlichen Sinne, also die Entfernung, auf die sich das Wort findet, sondern die Dichte, die Häufigkeit, in der sich das Wort antrifft. Und da siehst du, daß sich im Standardbulgarischen das Wort schwerlich auffinden läßt – eben weil es der bulgarischen Sprache fremd ist, ist der natürliche Schluß. Das Vorhandensein von Nebenformen, übrigens, wird eher als Argument benutzt, um eine Entlehnung zu untermauern (so wie in unseren altgriechischen Einträgen immer so etwas steht wie »the presence of variants points to a Pre-Greek origin«, und arabische Entlehnung aus dem aramäischen hat Fraenkel oft so begründet, und ich habe die aramäischen Lehnwörter im Arabischen abgearbeitet und kann die Richtigkeit bestätigen).

Und was von der Ebenbürtigkeit? Du hast es nicht beantwortet, ob es falsch wäre, es so zu sehen, daß ein Wort über mehrere Dialekte entlehnt wird. Worüber übereinkommen? Es ist für diese Angelegenheit wumpe, ob das Mazedonische eine Sprache ist oder nicht oder war oder nicht. Der Punkt ist (es sind nicht zwei Punkte), das Wort hat an einem Orte (doch nicht gleichläufig an verschiedenen Orten!) seinen Anfang genommen und ist in der frühen Neuzeit überallhin entlehnt worden; das gilt für dieses Wort wie für Deutsch Kork (17. Jahrhundert), Englisch cork, Arabisch فِلِّين‎ (fillīn) (kommt in der altklassischen Sprache nicht vor) und fast alle anderen Wörter in den Übersetzungen unter cork. Es ist daher auch irreführend zu schreiben “from Proto-Slavic *pluti”. Am Einfachsten ist es, anzunehmen, daß das Wort im Serbokroatischen seinen Ursprung genommen hat. Denkbar wäre auch Ursprung in mazedonischen Dialekten, doch das hieße wiederum, das bulgarische Wort ist aus dem Mazedonischen entlehnt, und das serbokroatische Wort wäre dem mazedonischen entlehnt, und Entlehnungen aus dem Mazedonischen ins Serbokroatischen kommen kaum je vor, und der Protest wäre bei dieser Annahme noch größer.

Sei vorsichtig mit rekonstruierten Wörtern, die du irgendwo liest. Einträge solcher Wörter bei Wiktionary sind schon oft gelöscht worden, wenn gleich sich ein Sprachwissenschaftler entblödet hat, eine Rekonstruktion anzusetzen. Die bezahlten und gedruckten Sprachwissenschaftler gehen genauso vor wie die Wiktionary-Autoren, die türkische Lehnwörter als Urslawisch ausgeben (auf *bъzъ hat sich ein Landsmann von dir ein urslawisches *ľuľakъ eingebildet, ich erinnere). In den gedruckten Quellen ist eben nicht alles richtig und nicht alles wird erwähnt. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fay Freak, ich muß zugeben, daß ich die von Dir zitierte Kleinschreibung übersehen habe, aber allem Anschein nach hast Du auch meine Frage übersehen, welche Quelle Du für die Entlehnung aus dem *(Nordwest)Mazedonischen ins Bulgarische hast. Ich werde das demzufolge aus dem Artikel entfernen und vorerst das Serbokroatische beibehalten, wenngleich Petar Skok in seinem Wörterbuch (Standardwerk Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika) keine Entlehnungen dieses Substantivs in andere slawische Sprachen erwähnt. Skok selbst verwendet jedoch dieses Substantiv als Maskulin, plut. Aber wenn nicht Skok, welche Quelle hast Du für die Entlehnung dieses Wortes aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische? Es existieren zumindest Entlehnungen aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische (im Unterschied zur anderen Version, die wir gerade besprochen haben). Es ist vollkommen nachvollziehbar, warum eine alte Sprache wie die Serbokroatische keine Entlehnungen aus einer als Sprache erst vor 80 Jahren ausgerufenen Mundart kennt (eben deshalb würde der Widerstand groß sein, weil das unhaltbar ist), aber das war nicht unser Thema.

(sogar das Banat (also Serbien?)) Im Wörterbuch werden nicht beliebige Orte auf der Balkanhalbinsel genannt, sondern nur Orte, wo Bulgaren oder bulgarische Minderheiten wohnen. Im diesem Fall sind das die Banater Bulgaren.

(Am Einfachsten ist es, anzunehmen, daß das Wort im Serbokroatischen seinen Ursprung genommen hat.) Dann möge diese Annahme von Dir vorerst im Artikel stehen (da Du sie in Anlehnung an сладолед aufstellst, aber Anlehnung (Präzedenz) für die andere Variante gibt es keine, zumal alle im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch aufgezählten bulgarischen Städte weit entfernt von der nordmazedonischen Grenze liegen, die Mehrheit in Oblast Widin), aber ich möchte abermals hervorheben, daß eine Quelle dafür, ein Beleg dem Artikel (und auch dieser Diskussion) zugutekommen würde. Im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch wird sie nicht erwähnt, in Skoks Etymologischem Wörterbuch des Serbokroatischen ebenso wenig. Bogorm converſation 15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

tuman

I think you'll have to elaborate a little bit if you want to claim specifically Kurdish origin of the Azerbaijani term.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: It’s not pretty far-fetched and the Persian forms do not fit – some authors even called the origin unknown because the Persian is too far while they did not know the Kurdish form. (And the ultimate Iranian origin of the word family is of course assumed without question.) In the case of گله‎ (gülle), I am sure that the Arabic word, widespread is in Syria (dialect map linked in كلة‎ (gulle) for the meaning “marble”), is from Kurdish and so is the Ottoman. The word tuman is not and never was part of Standard Turkish but is only (still) used in some areas you might list further so this is not a learned borrowing either but it appears to be from close contact. And some words must be from Kurdish, right, with its so many speakers and it being actually between Turkish and Persian? Else we should ask what @Raxshaan knows more about Iranian forms of this trouser-word, but those other Iranian languages are much smaller. What I have lets me seem Kurdish origin more likely than Persian origin, and there aren’t options really other than deeming one or the other Iranian word the origin of the Turkish and Azerbaijani word or resignating. Or what, Persian → Azerbaijani → Turkish → Kurdish? Shouldn’t be such a brain-scratcher. (We can’t reach certainty however, as we lack data what happened some centuries ago in traditional costume affairs in the Near East, that is also certain.) Fay Freak (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Mere surmise, sir. Instead of claiming the unlikely Kurdish origin, it's more plausible to posit separate borrowings from Persian → Turkish, Persian → Azerbaijani, Persian → Kurdish.

If you want a more specific explanation (which is of course equally speculative but still more plausable) , I would suggest Fa. tôbân > Ott, Az tuman > Ku. Tûman. Armenian tumban must have been borrowed separately from the later Persian form. At least in western Oghuz variaties, especially in its Eastern dialects, b > m is a common thing. I don't know about Kurdish, though.

This whole line of reasoning is based on tôbân really preceding the modern Persian form, which I did not dubble-check. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

According to Budaghyan, there is also Chagatai tuman (sense no. 6), which would exclude the Kurdish origin. --Vahag (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Are all Iranian words in Chagatay from Persian? Revealingly Budagov also sees the word as not »изъ пер.« but also »въ пер.«, so cognate. Also, I wonder if such a word can pass Azerbaijani or perhaps Turkmen → Chagatay. There were Chagatay borrowings in Anatolian Turkish from the beginning, as I am informed, and there could be the opposite, about which I am less informed. And with clothing terms always such strange things happen. We have فراجه‎ (ferece, ferace) of such a path, and if these sound changes b → m and ō → u are typically Oghuz then it is a stronger argument why the Chagatay word is from Oghuz. Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

b → m I do know, but for Persian بیشه‎ (bēša) against Tr.-Az. میشه‎ (meşə) as for Tr. منكشه‎‎ (menekşe) against Persian بنفشه‎ (banafše) this has been an argument for borrowing from another Iranian form, or wasn’t there really a “by-form *manafšak” which the Middle Persian wnpšk' (wanafšag) claims if this variation is Turkic? – on the other hand these may all be examples that the variation was there in oldest Anatolian Turkish. And there is also the ō → Turkic u to ponder, although there are also such variations within Turkic, the varying vocalism in طورغای‎ (turgay, torgay) is comparable, and I find just in my recent entries قونداق‎ (kundak, kondak), بولا‎ (bola, bula), طومار‎ (tumar, tomar) and what not (ignoring some which have o→u in posterior syllables like the descendants of شب‌بوی‎ (šab-bôy) and پاپوش‎ (pâ-pôš) since o and ö in following position are generally disallowed in Turkish so there is a natural tendency to oust o there), though I wonder why Turkic usually stalwartly preserves the Classical Persian vowels and consonantism and sometimes not? Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of "forms not matching", have a look at the Persian etymon of xəlbir. Virtually every listed descended form is metathesized, which quite unambiguously points toward an Azerbaijani intermediary. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Linking غِرْبَال‎ (ḡirbāl). So you would say most of these -lb- forms are from Azerbaijani (“Azerbaijani intermediary”)? Well, here is an Anatolian → Chagatay and Kipchak borrowing detected then I guess. Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

ϫⲉⲣϫⲏ

Hey there! About "reconstructed" template. The thing is that the word is attested in Sahidic and Lycopolitan dialects. But the Bohairic form can be reconstructed quite confidently based on toponymy and cognate words. How do i represent that? — This unsigned comment was added by ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk • contribs) at 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC).

@ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ: By writing it explicitly in the etymology section how it is attested. (If encountered in toponymy maybe it even is attested?)

If that Bohairic form is unattested you would only link it with a star prefixed, right? Because that’s how one mentions reconstructed forms and one also links like that on Wiktionary, compare any mention of a Proto-Semitic or Proto-Slavic term. And if you link it with a star the link automatically goes into the reconstruction namespace, where you can create the entry. You can as well star in {{alter}}.

Do use Crum’s Coptic dictionary with seeing the original pagination? If yes, pray use the |page= / |pages= parameters when referencing using the template {{R:cop:Crum}} so a scan of the page or pages in question is linked. I did not seek out the page and assumed that the term is attested and not reconstructed if it is supposedly included in such a dictionary. Everything other than the usage of {{reconstructed}} let it appear like the term were attested. The main issues are to star and to use the reconstruction namespace. Fay Freak (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

𒅆𒂍𒉪

Can you please clean up 𒅆𒂍𒉪. We have this user we need to watch now with Semitic entries. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

سلوى

Thank you, I actually misspelled the Syriac word. (ܣܠܘܝ) LinguisticMystic (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Tbot entries (Turkish)

Hi there. Seeing as you like Turkish and Kurdish, can you clean up a few of Category:Tbot entries (Turkish) (80 entries) and Category:Tbot entries (Kurdish) (328). --Kriss Barnes (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

Hi Fay Freak, I recently pinged you on my talk page regarding a debate between me and another Wiktionarian on accents in Albanian entries. Just checking - did you see it? I would appreciate some help/insight, as I am admittedly not experienced with the wider Wiktionary world of proposals and etc. Thank you in advance! ArbDardh (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardh

@Fay Freak - thank you for the reply.

چمچه

These forms

Kazakh шөміш (şömış), Kyrgyz чөмүч (çömüç), Bashkir сүмес (sümes), Uzbek choʻmich,

are hardly related to these:

Uyghur [script needed] (qemič), Karakhanid [script needed] (qamɨč), Tuvan хымыш (xımış), Yakut хомуос (qomuos), Dolgan комуос, Bulgar [script needed] (xumǯa),

The latter are from *kamïč, but not the former, despite semantics. See VEWT p 117, ESTJa vol. V p. 248 Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC).

@Allahverdi Verdizade: ✅. I have included the separation, I see now that these are two stems with a known suffix while Persian got its word from the former stem with a known Persian suffix. Fay Freak (talk)

Check When You Move Descendants

It may seem like nothing happens when you do something like this, but you're cutting off at the knees any instance of {{desctree}} that links to that entry. Please check "What links here" and update the desctrees so grumpy people like me won't be whining on your talk page... Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes, good you found it; my edit was correct, there was just an additional edit needed at Persian قمه‎, which contained a desctree entry which should not have been present in the first place since Modern Turkish entries rarely should have descendants nor does it seem like Persian is the source of the word (and else the page was bad for including descendants multiple times), so that that {{desctree}} use was unexpected. I often look into “what links here” but this Latin spelling kama has 100+ pages linking for various reasons. Fay Freak (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of Jamaican Creole words

Hi, @Fay Freak.

I saw your comment about the spelling of bomboclaat. (Well, actually, you edited bumboclaat, but that's okay.) I smiled when I saw the comment. Don't worry. It's not such a big deal. There isn't any standardised spelling system for Patwa / Jamaican Creole words. The main university in Jamaica is trying to get one going. But it isn't in widespread use. I'm partial to the spelling bomboclaat because that's the version I saw most often growing up in Kingston. But, as I said, it isn't such a big deal :-)

Have a good one! -- Dentonius (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: I typically check online to find out which spelling is the most popular among Creole speakers. -- Dentonius (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

radhi

Hi Fay — I hope you'll be back from your wikibreak soon. I'm a bit confused by this etymology, as the range of meanings in Lane don't seem to match the Swahili perfectly, but I am willing to attribute that to some Omani influence (and I can't find it in the Omani sources, although I do sometimes find it hard to search in Reinhardt). But I am also troubled by the shape of the imperative, where one should expect raḍ as ancestral to the Swahili form, and wondering whether I'm missing something obvious. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I didn't forget to nominate you as a template editor; Erutuon seemingly forgot to actually give you the right when he approved you. I will give you the right now, and apologies for the delay. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

whitebelly

I've altered the entry significantly because I think the attributive use is of the noun and the term's usage doesn't meet any of the other tests for adjectivity: there is probably no predicate use, nor modification by too or very, nor gradability in general, nor comparability. If you hate it, revert and I'll try RfD for the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring:: No, you are right, it is like with bluetail, I just didn’t think about what was already on the page and wanted to note that there is a noun and that it particularly often stands for the dolphin, not thinking far enough to reach the conclusion that the rest also falls under the noun. Your usex is also very good. Fay Freak (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I really should have taken this through RfD. It may be that the attributive use preceded the noun use, which would mean we should have both PoSes. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Non sequitur. One can think of a noun, or noun-sense (e.g. Persian خر‎ (xar, “ass”) meaning “big” because of an ass-load, but obviously not an adjective), which is only used attributively or in compound. Even though they do not stand alone “as noun”, which is similar to the ontological status of affixes.

We may look for enlightenment on other Germanic languages, or even the ancestors of Modern English, whereby it is formally clear that such is not an adjective, which is why Germans don’t fancy adding such “adjective” entries, because they have the comparison for how the grammar is. Although they rather reckon that bluetail and whitebelly are respectively an adjective plus a noun which should be enough, SOPish, which is why other English dictionaries also omit such “words” barring the standalone nouns. They are “words” just in the senses “anything which is written between spaces and hence somebody might look them up i.e. lexemes understood as what is entryworthy, deserves lexicographic treatment”. Which means I acknowledge the use of such lines entered into a dictionary, but I think no matter how you turn them about they are “impure” and they, being something between nouns and adjectives and prefixes, fall out of the accepted part of speech dogmatics – which differ by tradition instead of being universally fit, noting that one cannot translate our treatises about