Open main menu



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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

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

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

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

Again, welcome! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Reconstructed tagEdit

Guldrelokk, don't forget to add the

This entry contains reconstructed words and roots. As such, the term(s) in this entry are not directly attested, but are hypothesized to have existed based on comparative evidence.

tag when you add reconstructed lemmas ;) Bezimenen (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Accentuation of initial *i- and *jь- in SlavicEdit

Since you seemed to know a fair bit about the traditional accentological school, I wonder if you can help me with this. In Slavic, Balto-Slavic initial *(j)i-, *(j)ei-, *(j)ī-, *ju- all merge and become indistinguishable. Derksen consistently reconstructs the outcome as *jь-. I'm wondering what consequences this has for accentuation, since some of the original syllables were short and others long. What happens if the original syllable was long and had an acute, for example, or if the syllable receives a neoacute? Does it end up long or short? —Rua (mew) 10:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The reflexes of *i- and *jь- constitute a problem of Slavic diachronic phonology. They are usually assumed not to merge, nevertheless, as some daughter languages variably show i- and j-/∅- in a ‘weak’ position here; the reason etymological dictionaries like ESSJa or Derksen’s largely ignore this distinction is because it’s a mess. See e. g. this short article by Derksen, although much more has been written on the topic. Accordingly, one may write e. g. *i̋va, *i̋lъ, as many do – such cases are clear, as original *jь- couldn’t have an acute. Wiktionary does not in principle distinguish *i- from *jь-, however; this means also in neoacute syllables *í- shouldn’t be distinguished from *jь̀- (*íščetь ~ *jь̀metь), as it is a segmental and not an accentual difference; then, it also shouldn’t be distinguished from the (supposedly shortened) old acute, as e. g. in *jь̀metь the neoacute is definitely short. This means there should be no problem with adopting Derksen’s notation from his dictionary, writing *jь̀- for *ˈjI- of all kinds. Guldrelokk (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I was actually wondering if we should be distinguishing them, though. I'm not entirely sure what conclusion to draw from Derksen's article, but it seems that short *jь- and long *ji- can be distinguished for Proto-Slavic? —Rua (mew) 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes. There often isn’t enough data, and the distribution of different forms is not very clear, which is the reason ESSJa and Derksen’s dictionary do not distunguish them, and in my experience these are the main sources for Slavic reconstructions at Wiktionary. ESSJa was sometimes criticised for the lack of distinction. I have no opinion on this. Guldrelokk (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Guldrelokk".