Japanese ぴかぴか Edit

Hello Fayanzar, I've reverted your recent change at ぴかぴか. While you are correct that /p-/ shifted to /f-/ at one point in the history of Japanese phonology, your edit was incorrect about the timing. Initial /p-/ is reconstructed for Old Japanese, with most linguists agreeing that this shifted to initial /f-/ in most phonological contexts, perhaps as early as the Heian period. However, various words, mostly 擬声語擬音語擬態語 (giseigo, giongo, gitaigo, onomatopoeia, imitative words, mimetic words) later saw a re-introduction of initial /p-/ starting from some time in probably the Muromachi period, with this process continuing through the Edo period. For the specific term ぴかぴか, we can only reliably date the term's existence in texts to 1595, when it was clearly recorded as ficafica (using the Portuguese-based romanization of the time), so the shift to modern pikapika would have happened later.

Feel free to contact me with any questions. You're probably best off writing on my Talk page, as my "ping" queue is quite backlogged -- other responsibilities IRL are keeping me busy. Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Komi templates Edit

I've standardised the Permic templates (except for Udmurt, because I haven't gotten to it yet). I don't see why they should look the same as Finnish ones. Thadh (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. The vibrant green colour is very distracting, contrasts really badly with green and makes everything kinda hard to read.
2. You can take a look, for example, at Sámi or even some other non-Uralic ones, and you'll be able to see that they all share a similar structure with rather neutral colours and whitish borders (as opposed to yours, with black borders)
3. After making that initial edit of mine, I modified the colours so they don't look exactly like Finnic ones.
You are surely welcome do to as you wish, as you were the one to standardise them, but IMO, it would be better if these templates aligned with others a little better. Fayanzar (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scottish Gaelic inflection tables Edit

Hi, the inflection table templates that you helped edit seem to follow documentation from Colin Mark's 2003 Dictionary, however there seems to be missing the table for Type 5(d) nouns [those which add -ad in the genitive]. Despite this, there is usage of the term type 'Vd' used on the page for bràigh, (which indeed falls into this category). Did you happen to have made the 5(d) template, or does it need to be added? Many thanks. JosephBw (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I think I decided not to add it because there are only three nouns: tràigh, bràigh and teanga, which belong to this declension, according to this dictionary; and what's even worse, teanga has its final d lenited in both gen. and dat. sg.: teangaidh. If you'd like to create the corresponding template, please go ahead, but I honestly suspect it will be of little to no use. Fayanzar (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]