Welcome Edit

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!

Usually an admin gives a welcome but I took the liberty. :-) I know we had a bit of a tiff but you seem to have the makings of a great contributor! And we only have six Gheg entries on here, compared to 5,301 Tosk. It's awesome to have a person who can create good entries in an less-documented language. Cheers, – Gormflaith (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Hmm, Gheg Albanian seems to be included as sq, using {{label}}s. (Category:Gheg Albanian). —Suzukaze-c 22:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC))Reply[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: What? Then what's aln and Category:Gheg Albanian language for? Is there a policy I'm not aware of? – Gormflaith (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've brought it up in the Beer Parlour. IMIPER, if you have any opinions on this I suggest heading over there. – Gormflaith (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Empty headers Edit

Don't add them. DTLHS (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that I should not add them. ThnxIMIPER (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsupported Reconstruction Entries Edit

Reconstruction entries without any evidence of what they're reconstructed from are subject to deletion. For proto-languages they should have descendants given. For reconstructions of unattested forms based on indirect attestation, the indirect evidence needs to be given. This is especially true for languages such as Illyrian whose relation to other languages is controversial. I'm giving you this warning as a courtesy so you don't find out about it by having your work deleted unexpectedly. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chuck Entz (talk)Is this actually how it works now in the Wiki world, threatning folks? How is illyrian "controversial"? Bc it is mainly associated with Albanian? Is this so 'controversial'? We know it belongs to indo-european. As all the illyrian words have indo-european cognates (that were attested and translated, from the few (over 200) inscriptions that Illyrians left). So, how exactly is deleting anything that has to do with illyrian ... considered being neutral? Illyrian 'rhinos' (fog/mist) HAS congnates in other i-e languages, and one cognate is f.e. Albanian "ren" (modern "re" - cloud(s) - uncountable). The illyrian word is not 'reconstructed'; it is attested - in messapic (which is seen as illyrian by most linguists). Messapic inscription: ῥινός/rinos (claimed to meant "clouds" and/or "fog/mist" - but doesn't matter; as cloudy ~ foggy are similar). Read: "Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics". Albanian "ren/re" and messapic "rinos" are cognates. Is that really a wonder? After we know illyrian/messapic ARE (or were) indo-european languages; same as Albanian and many others. You can delete the entry if you want - as this is not the first time that illyrian entries were deleted (and WITH references). Or just change illyrian to "messapic"; as messapic word ῥινός/rinos existed and was not reconstructed. Btw the Proto-Albanian words are from Vladimir Orel; still the same as the Old Albanian word and how it's pronounced in conservative dialects (Cham, Arbëreshë). IMIPER (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You misunderstand me. I have no intention of deleting any reconstruction entries, nor am I trying to coerce you. I just know that there are people here who do make a point of deleting such entries whenever they find them, and I thought you might want to know beforehand while you can still do something about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz Your wrote "unsupported". One example: "Albanian Etymological Dictionary", Vladimir Ė. Orel. Page 366. Dealing with the word "re" (Standard Albanian) ~ rê (Gheg dialect), meaning 'cloud(s)') ... it says: 》etymologically identical to Illyr[ian] 'ῥίνος(rhinos) • άχλύς(áchlýs)《. Does this sound unsupported? Using the lat.scr.; "rhinos". After all the "Proto-Illyrian" *rhinos is not even reconstructed, it's ῥίνος/rhinos + a (*) added in the front of the word, nothing changed. Then there's also Messapic ῥινός/rhinós ("fog/mist ~ cloud" - depending on which source, it meant "fog/mist ~ or ~ cloud"). Orel could have also added Old Albanian "ren". Or many forms of Tosk/Gheg subdialects (in Cham, Arbërisht it is still "ren" as innOld Alb.); there are also Gheg forms like rênj, rên, rêj, rêu, etc (nasalized vowels). Since there are tons of subdialects in Tosk and Gheg - Orel kept it quite simple. For a non-albanophone person "rhin-os áchl-ýs" might look "unfamilar". For an albanian it isn't unfamiliar at all.IMIPER (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unsupported as in having nothing to support it in the entry. A reconstruction has to be based on something, unless you're making stuff up. My point was that you need to put the information or references in the entry that you used to come up with the reconstruction. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chuck Entz I've seen tons of reconstructed latin roots - references: 0. And it's never seen as a problem. How come tho? However, I've added a reference (in which other references are mentioned btw) and the illyrian entry still seems to be a "problem". Fay Freak has a problem with it and so did another one that nominated my entry for delet. (I've removed it; simply bc it had a reference). The problem with illyrian is not illyrian - but ppl who look down on specific languages and see them as some random/irrelevant languages.
diff. Topic: if you type {{l|xil|*blahblah you have to add (*) in front of the word and "illyrian" will appear and not "Proto-Illyrian" (Proto-Illyrian would go back even further). Typing {{l|il|... this does not exist >>(Lua error in Module:links at line 75: The specified language Illyrian is unattested, while the given word is not marked with '*' to indicate that it is reconstructed). "Unattested", yet linguists actually mention and deal with illyrian words that were de facto attested. Needless to mention that you can't even add cognates to specific entries. Worth to mention that for ancient macedonian/[xmc] (also one of these "controversials") a (*) is not needed; yet for illyrian it is. The name of the illyrian king Bardillis is given as a cognate to Albanian "Bardhyll(i)" as follow. > 》{{cog| xil|*Bardillis (attested in {{w|Ancient Greek as {{m|grc|Βάρδυλλις)《. [xil] > Illyrian; [grc] > Greek. The illyrian name Βάρδυλλις was written in greek letters; but the name is certainly not a greek name, has no origin in hellenic and no etymology in Greek. The etymology for "Βάρδυλλις" goes through Albanian; hence the root and meaning of the name in albanian is "bardhë"("white"). However, that does not make the name's origin "albanian" - the name is still an illyrian name/word; which has been still preserved in modern Albanian. The ending of "Βάρδυλλις" is the real controversial part here. The Dardanians, also illyrian ppl (maybe thraco-illyrians(?)- some historians claim so, I guess they have some points), used to add an -ili (or -illi?*) suffix on a king's name. A tradition that was common among ancient semitic folks. For Semitic speakers this suffix had something like a "god" meaning. Same meaning among Dardanians. Indeed, this suffix is what semitic speakers call today "allah(the+deity), ʾilah, aláh, aláhâ, él, elohím, etc. In albanian the suffix -yll(i) can be interpreted as "(the) star"; hence the full name "the white star" (m) (-ylli seen as a folk etymolm. by Stuart E. Mann). // (*Not sure if -ili or -illi; need to look that up).IMIPER (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip
@Fay Freak 1)》The nature of Illyrian is controversial《 -- Seriously asking: according to who?? References? Who claims illyrians = "controversial"? Illyrians were CLEARLY indo-european speakers. But they were not slavic, germanic or celtic ppl, not Romans (but became Romans after being defeated), not Greeks, not baltic folks. Where's the "controversial" part here? Nowhere. Are they "controversial" bc illyrians cannot be claimed as some sort of a subdivision of germ/slav/etc. ppl? It's just a fact that some ppl (incl. linguists/historians) like to put a "controversial" lable on topics, simply bc of own interests. 2)》Random jumble《 -- Nice one, my friend. Might look "random" for a non-albanian speaker. (As far as I know ) you don't speak Albanian. So you might learn Albanian and claim again that it's just "random jumble". Vladimir Orel (a Slav) connects a specific Slavic word with Alb. "Re(n)". Orel knows that "reja" is also a found in albanian mythology. 3)》Elsewhere I read that no complete sentence in Illyrian is attested, that only some words by Romans and Greeks and personal names of Illyrian origin are known《 And where is "elsewhere"? No offence... but maybe some online portals, which are full of albanophobic trolls that still try to connect Albanians with Caucasus Albania? Still use centum/satem as a "heavy argument" against illyro-albanian... Or is illyrian "controversial" just because the name of the illyrian queen "Teuta" has the same root as german "deutsch" (german), "Teuton", or the celt. word for "tribe"? Since Germanic, Celtic and Albanian join the same language family - the cognates should not be "controversial" or a "surprise". As for Celts, they were enemies and also allies to ancient illyrians. You know what is really controversial: an albano-germanic branch.IMIPER (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip
If attested, then no star belongs in front. But apparently you cannot even make up with yourself which alphabet you use. Hence you add irrelevant obsolete spelling variants instead of actual words, as šḱip, šḱĭp, shqyp, sccyp on šḱip. And now you have added only more confused content to that “Illyrian reconstruction page”. Why does Illyrian descend from Illyrian, and Messapian from Illyrian? Fay Freak (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip
@Fay Freak Lol, ur freakin' mad ^^ ... Well, try to create an entry without using *. However, what is actually "confusing" you? That Albanian has a word with the same meaning and etymology like illyrian and messapic? xD You might be even more confused when you actually learn albanian + dig a little deeper into this stuff called "illyrian". Is stalking and observing albanian entries "your life/hobby"? Tbh, you seem like that one Wiki-guy that deleted Albanian "bashkë" (together) several times. Bc it seems to "offend" some ppl to see an albanian cognate next to Ancient Macedonian. Tragic, isn't it? A cognate between ancient macedonian and albanian :s UIIII However, I gave answers to all your questions. ILLYR RHINOS and ALB REN are ETYMOLOGICALLY IDENTICAL. Now, be so kind and tell me WHO says illyrian = "controversial"? They were indo-european speakers; nothing controversial. The "controversial" part must be that illyrians were illyrians; many different tribes with many different names. Still not controversial. It must be "controversial" bc these illyrian tribe names have been linked to albanian. It's just beyond absurd how much the word controversial has been (ab)used when terms like illyrian and albanian were/are found in few sentences. Reminder: Albanoi was the name of a southern illyrian tribe. Which other "Albanians" do we have? Caucasus "Albanians"; "Alba" = scots; there's also "Alba" in Italy. Why trying to connect Albanians with Caucasus, when Alba in Italy is actually much closer? Needless to mention that a specific italian group clusters with Albanians and Greeks very close in genetics. But I guess few common letters found in two words are "more than enough evidence" to connect Albanians with all kind of folks, as far as possible. Without giving any other explanations and it would still make "sense" for ppl like you. Since you really believe (believe - and not know) that there are "no illyrian sentences" ... what makes you now to an illyrian expert? You don't speak Albanian (let alone illyrian; an extinct branch) - yet you're still here trying to control alb. and illyr. entries. What's the point of "controling" entries about a language that is - according to YOU - "barley attested" ~ "unknown" tho? If you're looking for languages that are barley attested; Thracian and Dacian. Not illyrian, bc illyrians left inscriptions. Albanians have days names after illyrian gods. What is this: klohi zis thotoria marta pido vastei basta veinan aran in daranthoa vasti staboos xohedonas daxtassi vaanetos inthi trigonoxo a staboos xohetthihi dazimaihi beiliihi inthi rexxorixoa kazareihi xohetthihi toeihithi dazohonnihi inthi vastima{ ... ] daxtas kratheheihi inthi ardannoa poxxonnihi aimarnaihi? It's called messapic. Go ahead, claim it's not the same as illyrian. How do you wanna know? You don't speak messapic or illyrian. Nobody does. They're extinct, just like latin and ancient greek. Does this mean that a greek would not be able to understand ancient greek? You don't speak Albanian; hence you cannot even tell if it has something in common with illyrian or any other language. It's beyond your comprehension. Not a wonder that alb. words do not make sense to you. Simply bc you don't speak Albanian. What did you actually expect? It's unknown to you. I don't speak Chinese and I stay away from it and would never involve myself in Chinese business. Bc it's simply beyond my comprehension.
An example: messapic "ARAN" (accusative: sg. fem.) meaning "arable land". Here's Albanian: "arë" (nom./indef."arable land"); "ara" ("the arable land"; nom./def. - >fem.). Acc-sg.-form: ARËN > f. Does messap. "ARAN" look totally "different" to Alb. "ARËN"? Both acc/sg./f. + the same meaning. It's not only about the meaning and the word itself; it's also about grammar (which is less likely to be borrowed). Not that accusative would be such a "special" case or would not exist in many other languages... but here are the cognates to alb. "arë": 1.) Greek "ÁROURA" ("cultivated/arable land"). In acc/sg-form: ÁROURAN f. (attic+epic). 2.) Latin: ARVUM (nom./n./sg.); acc/sg: ARVUM (n.).
  1. ARAN (acc/sg/f) - illyr/messap
    ARËN (acc/sg/f) - albanian
    ÁROURAN (acc/sg/f) - greek (attic+epic)
    ARVUM (acc/sg/n) - latin
just another "coincidence", I guess. Alb again identical to messapic. What's the point of claiming "there's not enough left of illyrian" to compare it with Alb. - and later on trying to connect Albanian with Dacian and Thracian? Even IF Albanian would be, let's say, semi illyrian - thracian; or from thracian - or dacian - how would that "ruin" Albanians? I'm not here to give you some free lessons about Alb. and their many alphabets. Albanians used many different alphabet to write in Tosk and in Gheg dialect (as Gheg has many nasalized vowels that aren't found in Tosk). Latin, greek, elbasan, arabic, etc. - all kind of scripts (wiki included only 3 by now; greek/elbasan/latin). All the Albanian entries may seem "irrelvant" for you bc you're not really interested in Albanian. That's fine, you don't have to be interested in Albanian. However, other ppl are interested. Albanian is not only a language but a branch - you cannot afford to treat Albanian (Gheg+Tosk) like some "random" or "irrelevant" language. Imo there are no "irrelevant" languages at all. If you're not interested in Albanian and it seems "irrelevant" to you - then stay away from alb. Idk why ppl like you waste their time with boykotting illyrian and albanian entries. How is constantly deleteting illyrian and albanian enties even accepted? Further more, they were deleted even WITH refrences. Go ahead, delete the ill. 'rhinos' entry. I could care less about some angry wiki troll. You're not really doing Proto-Indo-European a favour, but only boycotting it. Illyrian/Messapic (extinct) and Albanian (pretty much ALIVE) are I-E branches and they deserve also the same treatment like other branches. They share the same root like Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, etc - Indo-European. There's no "I" in this I-E family - only "WE". It would still not change the fact that illyrian "rhinos/rhinós" is found as "rênjës ("of/to the cloud") in Albanian. I thought this is a wiktionary ~ dictionary? The nerve to even use the word "irrelevant". Really? "Irrelevant" when it comes to words? Or only "irrelevant" when it comes to albanian words? If you look up the references - then you would have noticed that the [q] in "sh[q]ip" represented a /kj/ sound (not c or cç). If this is not interesting for you; well then kindly back off. Deal with languages that you understand and speak. PS:
šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip - šḱip (^^)IMIPER (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple Accounts Edit

Have you been editing under more than one account, and, if so, why? Chuck Entz (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bc I need multiple mobile phones for multiple boyfriends. Jk. Is it a crime tho? (Forgot the PW for this one; SKA-SKI is my other account. Now I'm fine with this one)IMIPER (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a crime, as long as you don't use it for deceptive purposes. Thank you for being honest about it. I would suggest that you add a note to both user pages saying they're accounts for the same person. However, I am blocking you for an edit I found that you should not have made while logged out- but only for a day. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
which edit tho? The one edit where I actually corrected the Dative, Genitive and Ablative endings? A -t was missing literally everywhere, no matter if f. or m. nouns. Are you able to erase the word "the" in English? Actually no; and same goes for Albanian. Even if -t does not look like "the" - it serves like an engl. "the". Ending -t forms a definite plural form, in all cases. I am not the only one that noticed all the wrong (dat, gen, abl/definite/pl) forms and it is totally confusing for albanian and non-albanian speakers.IMIPER (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one where you removed an rfd template, accompanied by an angry, screaming, ALL-CAPS! edit summary. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, I don't remember that. I don't remember to have removed an rfd template (?)... I know that I changed colours of two templ., that I added content and fixed some typos. The only templ. that I removed was actually my own templ. I removed it and changed them with a diff. one. But I was not "angry".IMIPER (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got it; you meant the one in the illyrian entry. Well, sry about that. But "Rua" should not have nominate the entry for deletion, anyways. She/he did not even know what illyrian is (not paying attention to mynref.; later questioning the relation to other I-E languages). And "Florian Blaschke" removed my reference. Are some (in)officially allowed to sabotage/delete entries/references?IMIPER (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyone can nominate entries for deletion, and nobody can remove the nomination until the deletion debate has finished. Those are the rules. —Rua (mew) 17:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't change the fact that Wiki rules still do not explain why you nominated the illyrian entry for deletion. Could you be more specific: about your argument/motive and why it should be deleted - or are you going to avoid to answer that? A "it should be deleted JUST BECAUSE it should be delted" = an invalid 'argument'. The Wiki rules are clearly not serving as an argument in this case. The entry was based on Vladimir Orels book; in which he quoted also other linguists, the other indo-european cognates were also given. Reference was provided - but was also deleted! After all, I was not "inventing" random "illyrian" words - but this word was attested. It is also not my job to quote Orel's (or anyone else) book word for word. Wiki has also entries about illyrian and Albanian; which makes it more than clear that both are: indo-european. Except, illyrian = an extinct branch; Albanian = "living" branch, pretty much alive bc ppl speak Albanian. The thing is, you should have done your research before nominating my entry for deletion and before asking "how do we know that they are related?"
  • they ARE related BECAUSE they join the same language (I-E language) family, duh?!
  • We know that it[illyrian] was indo-european BECAUSE illyrian words are cognates to words found in Albanian branch (indo-european) and also other indo-european branches (specifically Hellenic, Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Germanic).

Orel provided also further cogantes for the Slavic (indo-european) branch (should not be that hard since Baltic is closely connected to Baltic). If the Alb. word "ren" derived from illyrian or not / transm. via subtr. or not (subtr. would not really explain why they are etym. the same) - all that is irrelevant in first line. Most important: it is indo-european. Even when illyrian has gone extinct, cognates remained. Alb. "ren" is not only a congate to the illyr. word, but etymologically identical, which is being denied by Wiki editors and not by linguists (the real experts; as noted by several linguists who are Albanologist, ppl who actually learned and studied Albanian). Also worth to mention: Alb. "ren" is mythologically connected to Slavic "perun" - which is not unknown to Orel. (Like other Albanologists) he did his homework; did his research also on albanian mythology, which is what should be studied before even creating etymologies (pagan gods became a taboo during christianization. Further more, the names were associated with negative meanings and some serve today even as insults. Such stuff is noticable among all cultures). However, thanks for banning me from the discussion about the illyrian entry. Obviously it was not appriciated to go too deep into illyrian. The demand to keep it very shallow with illyrian (and the constant exclusion from I-E) has been noticed. This deletion-mania is trully messing up P-I-E and Wiki entries. If there is a Wiki rule where it says it is okay to nominate entries (btw. with referenced) for deletion - then pls show me that. Is it supported by Wiki (and its rules) to nominate entries for deletion without having a reasonable argument? Irony: why does Wiki have "xil" (illyrian) - when Wiki editors nominate xil-entries for deletion? The nomination does not make sense at all, at least not to me. Unless you would be a little bit more cooperative (as Wiki rules advise) and explain why you thought it should be deleted? Regards, IMIPER (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:cx Edit

Hello, I noticed that you've been using {{cx}}. Please note my edits replacing {{cx}} with {{ux}} or {{suffixusex}}. {{cx}} is a deprecated version of {{label}} and is not meant for formatting usage examples. {{ux}} should be used instead. — Eru·tuon 23:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that, I'm very messy with these labels (still learning them). Thanks for the the message and edits.IMIPER (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey Edit

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey Edit

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey Edit

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your babel level is wrong Edit

You can't have 6 mothers tongue. Z.

That is actually a valid point. The Babel-template is occasionally used to find native-speaking users to act as "experts" on certain languages. It would mean a lot if you could fix those, so others know what to expect of you. See {{Babel}} for the usage of the template. Thadh (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also agree that the Babel box should be filled in correctly only. HeliosX (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resizing of "sq-conj" Edit

Hello,

I would like to strongly suggest that the Albanian conjugation table "sq-conj" is shrunk again a lot because most additions are merely constructions that have a single particle beforehand but otherwise correspond to conjugated forms that are provided by the table or they are already conceivable as regular verbal linkages in Albanian. An example of any verb conjugated is pëlqej. I am also notifying @ArbDardh, Etimo, Word dewd544, PlatuerGashaj.

The continuous tenses can be removed since they are the same as the preceding tenses except for po placed ahead of the verb.

There is no jussive as a synthetic mode in Albanian and verbal constructions with "to let" are not outlined in the inflections of other languages either. It is not right for a table to have linkages of verbs like the one with "to let", especially as there is no peculiarity in comparison to other verbs that can be linked like "to want".

The combined modes should all be taken out of the table because they happen to be concatenations that are way too long, already imaginable through resorting to underlying grammar information, which the table mostly contains, and they are not particularly related to the basic verb anymore, which should be the core of the table. HeliosX (talk) 23:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having used the conjugation tables myself, I can say they do repeat themselves at times. The continuous present can indeed just be formed by adding po, and I also agree with the confusing nature of a separate "to let" section. It's not clear to me why it's there. So I support this on the basis of making it more efficient, but I think it would also be a good idea to have some sort of automatically generated side note with the conjugation table to notify that the continuous present can be formed by just adding po? First-time users trying to figure out Albanian may just assume the continuous present forms are exactly the same as the simple present ones, although po is needed. Apart from this, I don't have many other comments to make. Thank you for bringing the topic to discussion as I think it would have been left untouched for quite a while (I didn't really notice the complexity of the table myself)! Kind regards, ArbDardh (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply[reply]