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! --Vahag (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for ME additionsEdit

I adore your additions to Middle English entries, a topic that is sadly often overlooked. You seem to be so knowledgeable on this and I greatly appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, how do you know all this? Do you use specific sources or books or just your memory or something?--Sigehelmus (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I mainly use the Middle English Dictionary and An Elementary Middle English Grammar, along with Wikipedia's Middle English coverage, though I sometimes depart from their choices (for example, I use the most frequently attested form of a word rather than using the MED's normalised orthography). Hazarasp (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternative formsEdit

Should probably not be chained together (alternative forms should not have their own alternative forms). DTLHS (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


hi thanks for creating entries in wiktionary


Hi ! What may be confusing about bapteme is that the pronunciations of the Alternative forms are found on this page. I think they might be better served at each individual entry. Also, the form that directly leads to Modern English baptism is baptisme, not bapteme. So from a Descendants perspective, that is also a bit confusing...would you consider moving the entry to baptisme, and list bapteme as an Alternative form instead ? Leasnam (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've generally been in the habit of putting all pronunciations on the main page; it's definitely possible that a person could write baptisme, but say /ˈbaptiːm/ or vice versa, or move between multiple pronunciations and/or spellings depending on social climate, regional accent, or even just randomly; additionally I see alternate forms as basically glorified redirects. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Is this really true ? it has always been my understanding that the differences in ME spelling were reflective of variations in pronunciation, with words being spelt almost phonetically Leasnam (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
While ME spelling was a lot more phonetic than ModE spelling, it wasn't perfectly so. For example, I don't think anyone actually pronounced the <p> in autumpne, and in Late ME the system was already starting to break down to the state we see in ModE. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I can actually see someone pronouncing autumpne or stempne with a slight intrusive p sound,...but point taken ;) Leasnam (talk) 05:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Another example would be Sathan; I doubt many said /ˈsaːðan/. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
That could be due to the fact that th was not yet solely dedicated for use as /θ/ and /ð/, but could still also represent t + h (especially in foreign words), because þ (and ð) were still in use. Interestingly, we still pronounce thyme, Thames, and Thomas like t :)
Yes, though thyme and Thames were actually tyme and Temese in ME. --Hazarasp (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I put the main page on bapteme as that was the most prevalent form in ME; there are plenty of other pages where the form listed as a descendant is actually a development from some other form. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


When you make a Middle English entry into an alt form, be sure to get rid of the etymology and descendants sections in favour of centralising them as well. (This is one of the entries that's my fault, so I saw it pop up on my watchlist.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


You've created the Middle English past participle form and assigned it to the noun ? It ends in -ed Leasnam (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That was a mistake; the correct version of the page will be up in a few minutes. --Hazarasp (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries Thanks :) Leasnam (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit on yok? It is an adjective! I have two dictionaries that state that it is. I speak Turkish. The Turkish Wiktionary page states that is. What is going on? 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary sometimes has different policies for determining the part of speech of a word compared to other dictionaries; you being a native speaker of Turkish doesn't change that fact. I don't know what Wiktionary's exact convention is here, but you should probably look at our entry on determiner. --Hazarasp (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi ! There is a Conjugation template already in use at þēon which you may want to take a look at Leasnam (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to replace that manual conjugation with a templated one ;) Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done --Hazarasp (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

aquerne and acquerneEdit

What's up with these being lemmatised at separate spellings? Are they not two senses of the same word? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who originally made those entries; I don't mind if you decide to merge them if you think that's appropriate. --Hazarasp (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I know it wasn't you; I'm asking because you edited it and I want your judgement on what to do with them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
They probably should be moved IMHO, but I intentionally left that decision for others to make. -Hazarasp (talk) 04:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Then I guess I'll do that. Do you think acquerne is the better lemma? And then there's the matter of squirel... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't really know which would be better, but what do you mean when you talk about squirel? --06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a more common synonym, which raises the question of whether a[c]querne deserves its own def at all, or just a {{synonym of}} if it's restricted to a certain area or time period. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi Hazarasp ! I see that you've created a Middle English entry at grounde. I would suggest moving the headword term to Middle English ground, as grounde is usually an inflected form--it's actually dative (coming after propositions like in, to, etc.) Leasnam (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I just followed what was already there; it was a move of the probable typo groude (though I made additions to it while I was there). I know about ME inflection (though I usually don't bother much with it since in Later ME the system had broken down). I might as well move it (again) though. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I see, no worries...I can move it if you'd like...I'll keep it the same as you've done some good work on it Leasnam (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That is true about the inflections, in later ME we begin to see dative forms (or at least the dative form spellings) being used as nominatives...I see that the MED chooses just ground for the lemma, prob a good idea if we follow suit :) Leasnam (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
If you haven't noticed, I've moved the lemma to ground; I think everything should be sorted now. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
thank you !! Leasnam (talk) 01:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT I've added a sense to it...it would be a good idea to keep something here at grounde for the case form, but point to the nominative as the main entry. Leasnam (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Hi Hazarasp ! Hey, gerunds are nouns, not adjectives, so the entry looks like it needs some cleanup. I would suggest placing any participle senses as alternative forms of stinkende Leasnam (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I can do it...one sec...Leasnam (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I've had another look at the quotes in my source and it seems to be referring to a nominal use, so I've changed the entry accordingly. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. Whenever you see that the MED has "(ger.)" it's a noun. But it's not a noun derived from the participle (i.e. the state of being stinking)...that would be be stinkingnes ;) Leasnam (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I know; occasionally though there's mistakes in the MED's categorisation (I think it labeled an verb as an adjective once IIRC} --Hazarasp (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I also think it's potentially more confusing to users who see the verb as stinken, yet the noun derived from it is stynkynge...I think it's better to show consistency between the headwords and their derivatives. Either use stinken & stinkinge, or stynken & stynkinge/stynkynge. Can you see how this just looks like a big mess Leasnam (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Same is true for the Etymology (1) of stynkynge, it says it's from stinken + -ing Leasnam (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll move stinken to stynken, but moving -ing to -yng or -ynge would be quite a large task, as there are around 100 or so pages linking to it (and a decision would have to made between -yng and -ynge; I think the second is more common, but not by a huge margin). --Hazarasp (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks man ! If you decide you want to move -yng(e) let me know, I will be glad to help out :) Leasnam (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Just curious though...what made you decide on the one with the y (stynken) ? The number of occurrent cites ? Leasnam (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes; I generally choose the most common form as far as Middle English is concerned. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
When I choose a ME word, I look for the form which is the most apparent direct ancestor of the Modern English word, which in most cases has the closest spelling to the Modern word. I like to stress the continuity of English, from Old => Middle => Modern. So, in the case of English "baptism", I would not show ME bapteme in the etymology (unless as a side-nugget) because that form is a deadend in English--it's a branch that split off and then died--the forms with s are the ones that survived to become English "baptism". We previously discussed this above on this page. I also would not have chosen bapteme as the headword for the ME entry for "baptism" for just the same reason. Just a window into my method. Leasnam (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, here's a few notes about IPA and general entry conventions that I've used for Middle English:
  1. As far as I know, the "e" in -inge/-ynge was never pronounced; I usually put both gerunds and participles in the category -ing. Even if it was pronounced, final "e" was probably a schwa /ə/ that marginally contrasted with /e~ɛ/ (I use /ɛ/ for the phoneme in kepte, bed/bedde)
I think it was pronounced, at least at some point. If the following word began with a vowel, the -e could be elided (The stynkynge is = The stynkyng‿is). But yes, definitely a schwa. thanks for the pronunciation corrections. Leasnam (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. Like in Old English, ŋ shouldn't be used except for in phonetic transcriptions (in the brackets [as θis ɛksampl̩]) not phonemic transcriptions (in the slashes /as θis ɛksampəl/). The phonetic transcriptions of course follow the phonetic transcriptions (for an example see dingen). Until the end of the Middle English period, examples of "ng" should be assumed to represent /nɡ/, [ŋɡ].
I've changed stynkynge to reflect this.
I need to make a page on Middle English phonology at some point, but that's just one of many things that need to be done as far as Middle English is concerned (like make verb conjugation templates able to display strong verb class like Old English ones do; BTW, automatically inserting the stem vowels is probably not worth it given the amount of fragmentation in ME strong verbs) --Hazarasp (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you add it to the page we already have ? Wiktionary:About Middle English ? Leasnam (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll add some guidelines there when I get around to working on i, but I intend to do a detailed overview in the style of Appendix:English pronunciation. --Hazarasp (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I look forward to seeing it. Thanks ! :) Leasnam (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

About Middle EnglishEdit

Hi There. I reverted your edit to Wiktionary:About Middle English because you removed the section on the Past Perfect construction. Also, the level of detail regarding weakening of final -e was overkill. Let's keep it simple. As for the plural genitive of nouns, I used what is available in Wikipedia here [[1]]. We cannot possibly add ALL possible variations, that would make the page too busy and uninteresting. Just the basics is all we need. If you want to delve further into how Middle English evolved maybe a separate entry dedicated to that topic would do more justice (?) Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with you removing the detail about weakening of final -en (not -e); I'll re-add that when I create a page on verbal conjugation, though the lack of explanation might confuse some people because -en of course survives in the past participles in Modern English.
That is due mainly to Scandinavian influence of Old Norse -inn. That's explained on the page. Leasnam (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
However IMHO, it's misleading to note the plural genitive ending as -e, as all the sources I know of other than Wikipedia present it as rather marginal: According to the MED, it was only present in earlier ME. Mustanoja's A Middle English Syntax (the relevant section is on page 73) doesn't even bother mentioning the plural genitive in -e, but only mentions the plural genitive in -en and -es; R.D. Fulk's An Introduction to Middle English: Grammar and Texts presents genitive -e as more of an exception than the rule. I would say that if any of the three forms deserve to be omitted, then it would be the -e form.
-e is the inherited form, and is therefore the most etymologically correct from a traditional standpoint. Certainly, as time went on speakers began making grammatical errors that accrued in -en(e) from the weak declension being moved over to the strong. That is alluded to in the blurb where it says the system broke down. I'll add a Middle English paradigm that shows what you're talking about, with confounded/mixed endings in one table. I started it earlier, but I was at work, and I just don't have the time to put into it there :) Leasnam (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that the -e ending is also quite rare, and was replaced independently of the system breaking down (just as the conflation of the nominative and accusative plural in Old English didn't indicate the system breaking down) ---Hazarasp (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question about the inflected infinitive (at Wiktionary talk:About Middle English). --Hazarasp (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought I did...I'll check in a min Leasnam (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, what's the question ? I just re-read and I don't know which you're referring to...Leasnam (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Basically, is it fine if I remove the inflected infinitive (i.e. Old English "to steppenne" etc.) from the ME verb table, as it fell into disuse very early into the Middle English period? --Hazarasp (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I answered that question. I would prefer it be left the way it is because the inflected infinitive actually did make it into the ME period. Basically, the two templates are there for comparison purposes, to support the assertion that the verbal inflection didn't see any radical change from Old to Middle English. Leasnam (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
It should be at least made clear that it was lost very early on (~1150-1200), and therefore isn't really relevant for most of the history of Middle English. Both of the later examples you gave probably represent other things: the final "-e" in Emelye..fairer was to sene Than is the lilie is probably just orthographic [representing long /eː/], and To opene my mouþ y ne dar ne may shows loss of final -n in the basic infinitive [from earlier openen]).
It would IMHO be a bit like including the plural -en ending in an overview of modern English verbal inflection, or the distinction between final and -i in an overview of Old English phonology. --Hazarasp (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right, the opene is a wrong example (I'll have to look for others when I have more time). Still, even if the to-infinitive is not distinct from the bare infinitive, why would we not want to show it ? Does it have to be morphologically different to qualify for a spot on the conjugation template ? Leasnam (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with the "to"-infinitive being shown, but given that it's just an optional element before the infinitive rather than something morphologically different like in Old English, it should be placed in parentheses before the infinitive (like "(to) been" or "(to) maken") rather than having its own spot on the conjugation table. --Hazarasp (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
But it's not an optional element, the to-infinitive is a different POS from the bare infinitive. One is a noun (to-infinitive), the other is a verb (bare infinitive). Leasnam (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The to-infinitive didn't exclusively function as a noun; even in Old English times, its ancestor (the inflected infinitive) usually functioned as a verb: "The state of affairs just described is very old. The inflected infinitive exclusively functioned like a noun after to only until Proto-Germanic times, maybe until 300 A.D. or so. By the time Old English was written down, it already behaved like a verb in the overwhelming majority of cases. That means that the whole complex, to plus the infinitive, developed from a prepositional phrase to a non-finite clause. The word to was recategorized from a preposition to a non-finite marker. And the infinitive itself changed from a nominalized gerund to a true verbal form." Even if we assume that it was a noun, it having a different part of speech isn't necessarily grounds for it being marked separately; for example, the English present participle can be used as an adjective, a noun, or even a verb form, but we don't mark it as three separate forms. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm still trying to grasp why you're so set on having it removed...it's in the Old English template, and it's a construction familiar to Modern English speakers (we use it today). OE tō bringenne => ME to bringen(e) => ModE to bring. It's useful information and it's interesting to highlight. Why should it be removed ? Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Just curious, do you also want to remove the Accusative sections of the ME Noun templates since the forms do not differ from those of the Nominative ? Leasnam (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi Hazarasp, OE ġēatan is attested Leasnam (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I marked it as unattested as the MED said it was unattested; however what the MED editors seem to have meant is that the infinitive is unattested (but of course other forms are; AFAIK there isn't any policy on what to do if only some forms are attested of a word). I'll also change ȝeten to mark it as attested. --Hazarasp (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen where they sometimes do that. But in this case the infinitive is attested (in an alternative form): he scolde þæt géten mid his writ Leasnam (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

A small request concerning JaphethEdit

Hello, I believe we talked before and I still admire your edits with Middle English very much. I've been putting all my effort into the Japheth entry, and I would humbly request if you could help a bit with its parent, Jafeth. I only know of it appearing in the Wycliffe Bible, so if you could cast your magic as you typically do with Middle English entries that would be wonderful, if not I understand. Thank you for reading!--Sigehelmus (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll do it in a minute; but I have one suggestion; I don't think Middle English Jafeth can come from Old English due to the initial /dʒ/; /dʒ/ couldn't occur initially in Old English. I believe it would be either from Middle French Japhet or directly from Latin Iaphet, Iafeth. ---Hazarasp (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I of course agree that Old English speakers would have called Japheth something like *Iafet or *Iafeþ, but said form would have been replaced with a new ME form with initial /dʒ/ (rather than /j/). --Hazarasp (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! I sadly can't seem to find a hard source for such an aspect and I appreciate your theory. I did put in my edit summary though that I would be very surprised indeed if the name Japheth in some form, and most of the OT names, did not exist in Christian Anglo-Saxon England, at least recorded in lost manuscripts. Therefore I didn't think that it would be replaced entirely by the French or Norman name, although that's possible. Oops your clarified edit addressed this haha, thank you, definitely put those in if you feel they belong.
Actually, doesn't that also mean John is not partly descended from OE Io(h)annes, was it wholly displaced? Or is that a different case? Interesting.--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your edits, this is even better than I wanted. I hope it wasn't a bother for you, this was just my current pet project and I desired it as complete as I could. I also learned something so that's a bonus too.--Sigehelmus (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

andswerian and andswerienEdit

I wouldn't consider this a conflation because I haven't seen anything that suggests they're not just variants of the same word. In order for there to be a conflation, I would say that you need two ideas that aren't the same thing but get mixed together, like Cronus and Chronos. These two just seem like spelling variants to me. Also, I can't find any sources for the reconstruction *andaswarōną. Are we sure that it's different than *andaswarjaną? —Globins (yo) 02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

One (andswarian) is a class 2 weak verb with a past participle in -od; the other is class 1 (andswerian) with a past participle in -ed; most Germanic languages have a class 1 form here, IIRC, and class 2 was considered the "regular" verb class in OE, so it makes sense that verbs would move into it. However, the discrepancy between root vowels (umlauted "andswerian" vs. un-umlauted "andswarian") suggests that the discrepancy must be old, as I don't think that umlaut was productive enough in OE at this stage to suggest that any verbs changing verbal class would be "un-umlauted", so andswarian can't simply be a derivative of andswerian. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


Hi Hazarasp ! I made a slight change to the template {{enm-adj}} to include an 'inflected form' for the adjective. Similar to West Frisian template for adj, this allow us to show the old weak declension for adjectives when they follow a definite article or possessive, etc. Unfortunately, the best place to add it was ahead of the comparative in the argument sequence. I've edited Middle English good to ensure the existing forms were still displaying there. I've also used it for leodlich, to show that the weak adjectival for is leodliche, which is how it appears in the citation. Leasnam (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I've meant to get round to doing this at some point, but have never found the time. However, I've changed it so that the inflected form is the third parameter as to not break existing pages. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer it not be the third param, as that will force us to add the first 2 to get it to display. Logically, I think it makes most sense to place it first. I can change all the few existing entries that use this template to ensure they're correct Leasnam (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok, you've beaten me to it. 3rd place will work :) Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, actually, it's messing with my mind having the params out of sequence with how they display...would you be up in arms if I made the inflected form firstplace ? Leasnam (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, IMHO there's too many entries with enm-adj (over 1,200). It'll take too long to sort through all of them to find the ones reliant on having the existing parameters (i.e. 1=superlative, 2=comparative). --Hazarasp (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think only good and badde actually had anything in those slots. I spot checked for high (doesn't exist), fer, and neere and they also do not have comparative/superlatives. I think we'll be ok. I'll not change it for now, but I'll go thru and perform an exhaustive check and let you know what I find. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Having created/edited a large number of entries with those parameters filled (e.g. royal, right, etc.), if you're looking to change it, you'll have quite a large task to deal with. --Hazarasp (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Hmm, okay, maybe I can just take a pill :p Leasnam (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I've found a way of finding them all (searching insource: /"enm-adj|"/; i.e. checking for pages with enm-adj and which have a parameter entered for it); I'll go and change them all now. ---Hazarasp (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, it's my OCD again. I won't be able to sleep at night knowing it's not , well, 'perfect' :{ :) Leasnam (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


The problem with putting the pronunciations of alternative forms at the main entry is that the user doesn't know which of the pronunciations relate to the headword. It might not always be simply the first, as a headword can have multiple pronunciations. How will they know where the cutoff lies ? Also, consider a Middle English entry for ston containing a pronunciation for stan and stain. It doesn't seem logical. Those pronunciations are best served at their respective pages. Leasnam (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

While a setup putting pronunciation on the respective entries initially seems logical, there are multiple issues with it:
  • Firstly, many words in Middle have a surfeit of alternative forms. If all alternative forms had their own pronunciation section, then it would be a nightmare to maintain, and if only some had it, then the end user would be confused as to which entries had pronunciation on them.
  • Secondly, some Middle English spellings are ambiguous, represent inverse spellings (especially in later Middle English), or otherwise don't reflect the pronunciation. For example, if a poet rhymed prone and an (northern form of oon, then we know that the poet didn't pronounce an as indicated by the spelling. Several cases like this, where the rhyme doesn't match the spelling, crop up in Middle English.
  • Thirdly, (modern) English (and other languages such as German, Chinese, etc.) already de facto uses the same all pronunciations on one entry standard; e.g. the pronunciation of often without /t/ is present at the standard spelling often, not offen; additionally terms with differing British and American spellings tend to have RP and GA pronunciation on both pages, rather than RP on one page and GA on the other.
  • Fourthly, there is no official Wiktionary policy on this (probably since Wiktionary policy is designed around modern languages, which have largely standardised spelling). I would argue that it's better to wait for an official decision to be made rather than changing everything unofficially.
  • Fifthly, I use Category:Middle English terms with IPA pronunciation as a rough estimate of how many unique Middle English terms exist, as Category:Middle English lemmas is clogged with alternative forms (and some terms are non-lemma forms). This change would leave me with no way to see how many ME headwords there was.
  • Finally, the effort required to change all Middle English entries (probably about 1/3 of the almost 3,000 ME headwords) would be immense. --Hazarasp (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Modern English places them on the same page because the spellings are largely standardised. The entry offen (sans t) should have its own pronunciation guide, because it is never pronounced /ˈɒftən/; only as /ˈɒfn̩/. However, "often" can be pronounced either way. For Middle English, we may need to distinguish between 'Alternative spellings' and 'Alternative forms'. We used to make this distinction for Modern English in the past but it was redundant. Maybe not so for Middle English. Here's a possible reason why: Certainly, ston and stoon are alternative spellings of the same term, with identical or near-identical pronunciations. However, stain and ston are Alternative forms which have their own unique pronunciations. They actually are separate, though closely related terms. The spelling ston was never pronounced /stein/, nor stain /sto:n/; /stein/ as a pronunciation should not be featured at ston. This is the reason why we link alternative entries via "Alternative forms". You can find more info on that form there. Likewise, ȝiven and yiven should share the same pronunciations, however, yiven and yeven should not, nor should the pronunciation of one be at the other--yiven is the entry, and "yiven" was never pronounced as /je:ven/. I do not suggest that we create entries for every single Middle Enlgish spelling--that would be too exhaustive (I'm not willing to spend that much time and effort...and I like doing things of that nature :] ), but we should group them by pronunciation, and if so, yiven and yeven belong on different pages and should feature their own individual Pronunciation. I believe lumping them together at one is a mistake. Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
There are still several issues that this doesn't address; e.g. spelling/pronunciation mismatches; ambiguous/unclear spellings, my usage of Category:Middle English terms with IPA pronunciation, losing the ability to get a quick overview of pronunciation variations, etc. I would suggest making an official policy proposal if you wish to see this changed, as there presently doesn't seem to be any policy on this and existing practice is inconsistent (see Help:Creating a vote). --Hazarasp (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm not attempting to create policy, nor trying to establish any rules for Middle English. You shouldn't see it as that. I am merely stating that /ˈje:ven/ doesn't belong at ȝiven, but it does belong at yeven. That is my point. I'm not taking it any further than that. :) Leasnam (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I see things differently (all pronunciations belong at the headword IMHO), and as far as I know, neither of us are likely to change our mind; so I believe changing policy would be the only way to enforce your will. --Hazarasp (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Hey Hazarasp. I didn't know that you were interested in setting FWOTDs! The one you set wasn't quite ready (no quote), and I'd rather save it for a false friends focus week, but in general, I'd be very grateful to get some help. Are you looking to get involved? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly; I'm in two minds about whether I should get involved in it; on one hand, it's another thing that I have to do, but on the other hand, I see that the situation with FWOTDs is very tight right now (in terms of having no backlog, etc.) --Hazarasp (talk · contributions) 02:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you want an intermediate level of involvement, you could start by finding interesting entries, say in Middle English, that could be featured. The biggest issue, as you rightly noted, is lack of backlog to work from. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
You're a life saver. I'm really struggling in terms of keeping up with all my commitments at this point. I appreciate the help a lot. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion of User:Silent Sam's deletion of the "Hyponyms" section in the entry for lineEdit

The removal of the "Hyponyms" section was justified. User:Sae1962 has a long history of adding pointless sections, and this was his work. Every one of the many terms in it was already listed in the "Derived Terms" section and there tends to be no reliable logic to his selections of terms for particular sections. You should undo your reversion. -- · (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"wahtuh" etc.Edit

Two people clearly think that stuff must be removed. Please engage in the discussion on the Tea Room at water. Equinox 03:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Made hogshead wotdEdit

Just letting you know I made hogshead the word of the day for 2019 October 13th; great nomination! Piparsveinn (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FWOTD focus weekEdit

Hey, thanks a lot for setting the foreign words of the days. If you want some respite, the focus week for terms from English is imho ready for use. It includes nominated terms from some rarely featured languages. I have also set a six-day focus week with German-derived terms for late September and early October (with an interruption), but you probably noticed that. If you want to extend that to seven days, I'd recommend setting the Italian or Ido term for the 29th of September.
I'll work on expanding the backlog for constructed languages by the way. They used to be featured once or twice a month, so the backlog is still quite small. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will borrow this thread if you don't mind. I saw you nomed a bunch of Azerbaijani words yesterday, maybe you can notify my a few days prior to when you plan to set them, so that I can pimp them up. Ketiga123 (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi. It seems that Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2019/August 31 was set by an unauthorized user. Would you be willing to consider this entry instead? KevinUp (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've added citations to the entry for 双極性障害 and set merdeka as the FWOTD of August 31, 2020 instead. KevinUp (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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

Being an adminEdit

Hello! Are you interested in being an administrater? -- Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at the moment; Wiktionary isn't something that I'm really focusing on right now, and becoming a admin feels like too much of a commitment for something which isn't a focus of mine. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

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


The retention of this lexeme was most likely influenced by the Old Norse form, but not from it, due to the early English form "AGAR", possibly hardened to "ACKER" (obsolete form meaning a ripple on a puddle et cetera). All I know is on its discussion page. Andrew H. Gray 19:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Andrew (talk)