User talk:Ivan Štambuk

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Bad blockEdit

I think the length was a bit harsh considering the last blocks were 2 to 3 days long respectively. I recommend shortening them to one week. Thank you. Zeggazo (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think that anything less would be appropriate due to the severity of the offense. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You have yourself said that it is unreasonable to chastise two established editors with thousands of entries, but since you doubled down on your decision I trust your judgement. Zeggazo (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ivan,

Re: your post there. I would commit to provide Russian definitions, if you generate Russian entries. I'd prefer to have them a bit simpler than Ukrainian ones, without the split by etymology. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll just group them under the same etymology so you split them if necessary. The biggest difficulty is the issue of complexity - there are too many Russian templates with too many parameters, and I have no desire to waste time pattern matching them, so I would use the plain {{ru-decl-noun}} and {{ru-conj-table}}, so you substitute them with bots or manually. For adjectives situation seems a bit simpler. Do you have some preferred list of missing words (by frequency etc.)? I see that there is a pronunciation-generating module that can be used. Any comprehensive online dictionaries that can be added as a reference? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, for pronunciation {{ru-IPA}} can be used - irregular pronunciations can be added when definitions are added. [1] is a pretty good dictionary. Perhaps it's better to skip any words with spaces for now. Using {{ru-decl-noun}} is OK for me, a specific template can be changed later. Appendix:Frequency dictionary of the modern Russian language (the Russian National Corpus) is a frequency list I added. Some words are spelled with "e" for "ё", which is also OK, can be addressed later. Appendix:Russian Frequency lists still have red links too (higher number). You probably need a simpler template for verbs as a temp solution as well. Don't load a very large number of words yet, please. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There are 5289 redlinks on the national corpus appendix page. I can start with nouns (that should account for ~50% of entries) which are the easiest, then adjectives and then verbs, ordered by frequency of occurrence. How many do you want? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
All nouns first :) but I'd like to see some samples first. BTW, that dictionary doesn't provide stresses but ru:wikt does, it's pretty reliable in this, not just for nouns and it redirects to "ё" spellings. Terms with multiple stress patterns, inflections could have two headers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry for accents - I have that covered. Can you give examples for nouns with multiple stress patterns? I can also generate definitions if the terms are linked from Wiktionary translation tables as Russian translations, together with a corresponding gloss. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Usually, it's when they are both animate and inanimate, like бычо́к(byčók) (here: same headword but two declension tables), such cases can have two headwords for multiple senses in the interim but I'll join them if appropriate. Animacy must be tricky, so just m, f, n or p will do fort the moment. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'll get back to you in a day or two once it's done. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @Atitarev: The list of missing nouns is here, and stubs (not generated yet) are here. A few hundred stubs are missing and should better be manually generated due to various conflicts. If necessary I can add the genitive and nominative plural forms in the headword as well but they seem unnecessary given the presence of complete declension. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The stubs look great! You can use them. Please add the genitive and nominative plural forms in the headword as well, if genitive=nominative, the 3rd parameter could be - and no inflection table is necessary, like "амплуа" (indeclinable), don't worry if it complicates things. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
125 nouns are missing, I'll add them a bit later since they need special attention (substanvized meanings of adjectives, proper noun conflicts, not in the database and so on). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: Words with "ё" were created on spellings with "е" by error, even though the entries themselves are spelled with ё, so they have to be moved or redirected to existing entries (if they exist). This wasn't supposed to happen and is apparently due to some behind-the-scenes normalization when uploading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! As you can see, I have already fixed a lot - added definitions and made other changes. Words with "ё" as "е" are OK. They can and probably should also have entries but I'm note too eager to work with them since they need manual transliteration. They (words with "е") can't take any stress either since a stress mark and dots over "ё" are considered accents. Note that words with "ё" don't need a stress mark (including the declension table) (that's for future loads). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Dictionaries nevertheless mark accents on "ё" but I'm fine if it's our convention. I'll clean up these entries manually. In the future stubs will have animacy marked in the gender parameter, and use {{ru-decl-noun-unc}} for uncountable nouns. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If you can determine animacy, that's great. Then I could edit using a definition wizard in many cases. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Extrapolating from the current rate of cleanup, it would take at least 20 days to empty the category. In the meantime I'll focus on other things, and when the category is emptied I'll add the missing nouns, and move to adjectives. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ivan, the nouns are all done (thanks heaps!), except for one word - копа́(kopá), which we don't know (I might delete it). Not all nouns were loaded from the frequency list but that's OK. Could you generate adjectives and adverbs, please? Please don't add stress marks to "ё". If you find adjective declension tables confusing, then don't create them, if you wish to use them I'll give you a guide. :) CC: @Wanjuscha. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll do the rest of the nouns in a few days, or start adjectives. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Atitarev: I've been caught up in the meatspace so I didn't have time for this, and won't have until the next weekend. However, I've been thinking, and bots are not really worth the periodic hassle when everything is considered. So, would you prefer a file that can be loaded into GoldenDict (the workflow would be: Ctrl+C for lookup of the selected word, copy the preformatted stub from the popup and paste into the wiki editor; could even generate inflection stubs..) or a webpage where you'd need to type the word and copy the result back? I'd prefer a more permanent solution, and not wasting time on inspecting and sanitizing frequency lists (which is editor's job). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ivan but my preference is the way you did it before with nouns. If it's too time-consuming or hard, don't worry about it. You don't have to do it. Thank you, anyway. :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Czech definitionless entriesEdit

As for diff, I object to your mass creation of Czech definitionless entries, should you consider doing that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You are free to ignore them, should I create them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian-Russian false friendsEdit


I found it amusing, although there are a lot of wrong spellings in Serbo-Croatian and some inaccuracies. Что сербу бабушка, то русскому карась. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mildly interesting :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Proto-Indo-European laryngealsEdit

I have read enough published articles on proto-indo-european to know that the pronunciation of these consonants is still disputed, but I was just citing one possible pronunciaton that Don Lists in his book. See Ringe, Don (2006) From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, Oxford University Press. Not only does he give a suggested pronunciation of bʰréh₂tēr as /b̤ráx.tɛːr/ (Note the pitch accent), He also gives a pronunciation for h₂éwis (sheep) as [xá.wis] (Again note the pitch accent). I assumed that since there was already a reconstructed pronunciation for Proto-germanic entries, it would be okay to add a reconstructed pronunciation to some of the Proto-Indo-European entries as well even though the pronunciation is not as settled as with Proto-Germanic.

Have you read what I wrote on the talkpage? It's [] not //, it's pitch accent (or tone, Ringe is silent as to what acute accent indicates) not stress, syllabification is not indicated (syllables are supraphonemic so indicating them in phonemic transcription is just wrong). For Proto-Germanic, what is indicated appears to be just phonemic transcription bijectively respelled from the reconstruction which is completely redundant. It's wrong to call such pronunciation because reconstructions are not spellings of words of actually spoken language. Given the great deal of dispute regarding the phonetic values of PIE segments, as well as notational inconsistencies (*/bʰréh₂tēr/ should really be *bʰráh₂tēr on a formal level), I'd rather that we don't add them before settling on a system first. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dan Polansky blockEdit

I think it was wrong to block Dan Polansky for a week just because he extended a vote. That seems unreasonable. Blocks should be reserved for edit-warring or vandalism. Purplebackpack89 17:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that the vote was extended in hopes that it would attract more opposing votes. One month was plenty of time to vote for anyone interested. Next thing you know he'd be reverting the redirects using the "failed" vote with 70% of pro votes as a source of legitimacy and harassing others about it, despite the fact that pretty much all of the oppose camp are clueless on Chinese and don't edit it. If the vote gets closed now by one week nobody will care about it, and we can prevent that behavior in this particular instance, and in general in the future. Better safe than sorry. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Dan was wrong. But he shouldn't have been blocked. My main issue with this block is twofold:
  1. You edit-warred with him and then blocked him.
  2. There are things that are wrong, and then there are things that are so wrong that somebody should be blocked for them. Bad closures and openings are the former, IMO.

Purplebackpack89 21:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, but but this is more about the big picture. The vote (which was started by him) and the reason why it was extended brings more needless drama around the issue that's pretty much settled by the Chinese editing community. They've done some awesome work recently and I'd hate it seeing their efforts hampered. It's best to sever the serpent's head quickly before it bites and releases its venom. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Look, I'm not a big fan of really long-running discussions either, but blocking is not the answer. Purplebackpack89 00:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

grysti or '*gryzti ?Edit

How come that we have *grysti instead of *gryzti' ?

If this is assmilated then shoud all words suffixed with *orz-, *jьz-, *vъz- be assimilated as well ?

As a mather of fact should all words lacking ь or ъ be completely assimilated ?

p.s I previously ask this at etymology scriptorium but no one seems to bother. What do you think ? 00:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither of them is wrong. *[grysti] is the phonological/surface form, while */gryzti/ is the etymological/underlying form. Some authors prefer the former form while others prefer the latter, depending on the protolanguage. In general Wiktionary prefers the surface form (except when it's against the "tradition"). Yes all reconstructions should be listed in the assimilated form, if there is assimilation. Though I'm not sure if that's such a smart thing to do since the underlying forms are far more prevalent in the literature. IMHO both should be listed in the headword line with a note, and I've added a few such to some PIE appendices where several concurrent phonological processes obscured the underlying form. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
So words such as *orzkošь could also be reconstructed as *orskošь ? or past resultative of *orsti as *orslъ alongside *orstlъ ? 01:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
A da za promjenu umjesto retoričkih pitanja mućneš malo tom praznom tikvom i zbrojiš dva i dva? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


While removing the obsolete <tt></tt> tags, I came across this etymology section of yours, which, to be frank, I don't really understand. Could you clarify what you mean by g' and the like in the entry? Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(The entry needs the same, of course.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope it's a bit clearer now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian term "prdež"Edit

A Serbian IP address visitor created prdež. Would you like to expand it if you have the time? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The entry is expanded now, with a more timely assistance of User:Biblbroks. Thank you for notifying me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI re: klopaEdit

Hi Ivan,

For your attention: Wiktionary:Feedback#chow --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've created the entry klopa but the origin seems obscure. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


No consensus about the 'Altaic/Asiatic' etymology. Would you care to leave a comment to the discussion at WT:ES? Thanks. Hirabutor (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ivan. I see you've been inactive on recently. Still, I'd like to ask you to take a look at the long-neglected article w:en:Iotation, if you're interested. I tried to rescue it and refocus on the historical iotation [2], but I'm not an expert, and I'm also a bit confused about synchronic and diachronic aspects of the feature. Thanks. No such user (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Kratko pitanjeEdit

Ovih dana s Edgarom, Ripperom i Dcirovicem je vođena diskusija oko odabira standarda za B(j)elorusiju kod imenovanja članaka i kategorija. Kojoj bi ti verziji dao prednost da baš moraš birati između dvije? --Orijentolog (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Are my recent changes to this template acceptable to you? —JohnC5 15:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because I created the template it doesn't mean I "own" it. The proper venue for discussions involving the template modifications should be its talkpage. Unless you broke something, there is no reason to assume that changes should be objectionable. That being said, now that you've actually touched the template, the curse of Monier-Williams is upon you now, and you must create 1000 sa entries otherwise you're going to receive -10k karma and reincarnate as a sea worm. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take you karmic points under advisement. I'm just trying not to step on anyone's toes. :)JohnC5 04:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sanskrit wordsEdit

I have been adding information to Sanskrit words and creating some new pages. Can you assess them and suggest me some methods to improve their quality.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rajasekhar1961: Hi. You're doing a nice job. Sanskrit has excellent out-of-copyright resources available for free in a digital form - the massive Monier-Williams dictionary (as well as several others), tagged databases of inflections, several searchable corpora... Almost all of the work could be automated using computer programs. You're probably all doing it manually, which is OK, but a programmer could tap into those resources and make a much better investment productivity-wise. So, for the time being, I suggest focusing on your native language, Telugu, which has much less resources available in English.
The only problem with your entries I see is the duplication of work for both roots and the usual citation form for Sanskrit (third-person singular present), e.g. we have both भरति(bharati) and भृ(bhṛ). Both seem having equal prominence so I'm not sure which one to standardize on. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I know the lack of good resources for Telugu language. Thereby I have requested User:Stephen G. Brown to create a template for C.P.Brown online Telugu-English dictionaries. I am very happy to work on any other online Telugu-English dictionary, If you are aware to give me the link. About the two similar Sanskrit words. I think the etymology links to be changes indicating भरति(bharati) is derived from भृ(bhṛ). Many classical Telugu words are derived from Sanskrit; hence I am linking the etymology of these Telugu words to the actual Sanskrit word. But page for that Sanskrit word is not available. Thereby I am creating that page; to make it clear their relationship. I have started using a Telugu proverbs book of 1868 by Captain M.W.Carr with the English translations: [3]. Can you make a template for this reference. Thank you for the help.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's OK to create the entries for the root. We will have to decide one day whether the root will link back to the third-person singular present form, or vice versa. Semitic languages like Arabic have stubbish entries for roots where several basic meanings are listed (like in this book), and where all of the verbal and nominal derivations are added. Perhaps something similar could be done for Sanskrit. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the template: see: {{R:te:Carr}}. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much sir. I have created about 10 Telugu proverbs and linked them to the Carr template. How are they.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
They look OK. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rajasekhar1961, Ivan Štambuk: Thought this might be related in case you're interested in doing this for Sanskrit: One thing we're trying out is floating categorizing root boxes, so that in addition to root entries, we also have root categories. We have PIE ones that can be placed in any language's entry for a word derived from PIE (see брать(bratʹ)), and we also have Hebrew ones that are only used within Hebrew itself (see גבריאל). You can use {{PIE root|sa|bʰer}} in Sanskrit entries and maybe even create a Sanskrit-specific template like the Hebrew one. --WikiTiki89 15:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That kind of information should already be available in the etymology section of Sanskrit primary derivations. The use case for PIE root template is to cross-link different languages to the PIE root, which is also redundant if that information is available in the etymology section (which it is for брать(bratʹ) and should be for any other word with a sufficiently deep etymology). What we need is per-language appendices where all of the cognate and akin reflexes in that language are listed, that are related via PIE, in a hierarchical fashion with dating labels (if they are available), not flat categories like Category:Russian terms derived from the PIE root *bʰer-. These would actually make an enjoyable reading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ideally you are right. But the difference is that those appendices would require a lot of work, while these categories are very easy to use and maintain, providing a better benifit-to-work ratio. --WikiTiki89 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a challenge. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize that my tone in the current discussion has been rather belligerent. I am entirely conducive to working out some kind of reasonable compromise with respect to terms like mahā and tat tvam asi. They are attested, and should be included in the dictionary in some form. I don't think that it makes sense to call either "English" (or in the case of tat tvam asi to have separate headers calling it English, German, Spanish, and whatever other languages it can be found in), but I am not opposed to having these as Translingual entries or as redirects to the Devanagari script entries. I just want the reader who comes across the term to be able to find it in the dictionary, with suitable etymological information. How, for example, does तत्त्वमसि come to be transliterated as tat tvam asi at all? What do the components तत् त्वम् असि mean in this context? bd2412 T 18:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, neither mahā nor tat tvam asi are proper Sanskrit on their own (though that may be ignored as poorly chosen examples). I see what you are trying to accomplish, but whomever encounters तत्त्वमसि in transcription just needs to look up tattvamasi and it'll come up thanks to the search engine improvements. Those desandhified word-separated forms that can be encountered in isolation or mentioned in FL-works are no different than dumbed-down transcription-only Russian or Arabic in "for dummies" books or tourist guides. tat tvam asi is as Indo-European phrase as you can get - literally "that you are". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It may be dumbed down, but it's a thing that exists. How about we redirect tat tvam asi to तत्त्वमसि and add a usage note or the like indicating that in some sources तत्त्वमसि is transliterated that way, although there is no formal romanization of the term? That would answer all of my concerns. bd2412 T 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
There exist formal ways of both Devanagari transliteration and Sanskrit transcription. There is even an ISO standard for that. Those redirects would sooner or later crash with existing entries, at which point they would have to be inevitably upgraded to full-blown soft-redirects. Then, someone would think "why not add inflection tables as well - they can be looked up, and should redirect to the base romanization", and after a while we'd have full-blown entries. And then, after xy years someone programmer at the WMF would finally add support for romanizations in the search-box for all non-Latin scripts, and x million entries would have to be deleted. It's just a Sisyphean effort for irrelevant % of users. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how we can gauge the relevance. In any case, I am not asking whether we can do this for all Sanskrit transliterations; just for one entry of a phrase of much higher profile than might typically be encountered. I don't see it ever conflicting with another entry. bd2412 T 02:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pageEdit

Zdravo - thanks a lot for showing me the tutorial page *handclap*, I try do do better, there are some things I do not understand, see pleas my talk page

Thanks again


Da, radio sam članke na Wiktionaryju i nakon što ste me blokirali, ne samo na tu IP adresu već i na neke druge. Svaki članak koji sam napisao a nalazi se na Wiktionary: Requests for verification pošteno sam obranio, neke pod svojim imenom, neke pod IP adresom zbog mojeg blokiranja. Nikom ne radim štetu, samo vama zadovoljstvo da možete brisati solidne članke, mnogo bolje od prosječnih na Wiktionaryju. Uvijek se vračam na neki svoj prijašnji članak u svrhu njegova poboljšanja. Wiktionary je internetski rječnik što znači da se u njemu nalaze riječi, fraze pa i rečenice. Kao što sam i prije rekao, kakve veze ima ako je neka riječ novotvorenica i ne koristi se, a nalazi se u rječnicima? Wiktionary nije nekakav popis u kojem bi neke riječi smetale i samo ga produljivale do beskonačnosti. Ja vidim cilj pisanja svih novotvorenica, složenica, rečenica, žargonizama ali ne vidim cilj njihova nepotrebna brisanja. Hvala.

kakve veze ima ako je neka riječ novotvorenica i ne koristi se, a nalazi se u rječnicima? - Ima itekako veze, jer nije svakojaki leksički otpad dopušten. Po n-ti put: pogledaj WT:CFI. Izmišljenice, babićizmi i ostalne mentalne onanije wannabe-purista na državnoj sisi stvorenih samo i isključivo u propagandne svrhe, a za koje nema dokaza da se koriste, nisu dopuštene i brišu se. Znam da si poput tipičnog balkanjerosa navikao na bezakonje i savijanje pravila ovisno o dubini poznanstva s lokalnim šerifima, ali to ovdje ne bu išlo. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ovo što sam pročitao je divno. Ja živim na području sjeverno od Save a to nije Balkan. Nemoj u ovo mješati politiku. Bez obzira na to što sam domoljub ne volim političare, Tuđmana, i 99% Hrvata, već gledam hrvatske uspjehe kroz povijest. Večina riječi o kojima sam ja radio članke su provedene na državne natječaje u 21. stoljeću i naravno te su riječi pobijedile na natječajima. Nikada nisam, nikada neću stavljati nikakav leksički odpad, ma što to bilo. Po meni leksički otpad su turcizmi i mađarizmi, a ima obilje tog otpada na Wiktionaryju. Radim samo one članke koji zaslužuju biti u kvalitetnom i skupom rječniku. Hvala.
Balkan je društveno-politički a ne samo geografski pojam. Imaš to lijepo opisano u knjigi Marije Todorove. Moš ti živit i na Mjesecu, ali ako i dalje geni kameni progovaraju kroz djela i rječi džaba sve. Lijepo se kitit perjem neke fitkivne evropske zajednice, ali kad zagrebeš oglancanu površnu i iz nje ispuže smrdljivi talog korupcije i nazadnjaštva, to je pravi indikator da se ništa nije promijenilo. Ne znam o kakvim uspjesima pričaš kad Hrvatska kao država nije postojala prije 1991. Prije toga službeni jezik je bio srpskohrvatski, prije toga srpskohrvatskoslovenski, a prije toga se pisalo i govorilo gomilom međusobno nerazumljivih dijalekata koji nasreću neumoljivo umiru. Ti natječaji za "najbolji novi neologizam" su simptom jedne dublje patologije - nemogućnost kreativnog izražavanja u javnoj sferi uslijed nesmiljenog jezičnog fašizma koje propagandiziraju legije lektora i purista, što dovodi do takvih prdaca u prazno gdje jezična praksa ne prati medijsku pompu. Ako hoćeš raditi popise jezičnih neuspješnica napravi blog; te riječi su ovdje nepoželjne iz jednostavnog razloga što ih nitko ne koristi, a korištenje je preduvjet inkluzije. Meni je zanimljivo kako su domoljubi istovremeno navodni mrzitelji "totalitarizma" i istovremeno se zdušno zalažu za istu jednoumnu politiku s drugim predznakom. Nekad su progonili hrvatizme danas jednakom žestinom i argumentima turcizme i anglizme. Džaba ste krečili petokraku šahovnicom, jednako vonja. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ovo sve si čuo od svojih roditelja ili? Vi kao da pročitate samo moju prvu rečenicu. Ne podnosim politiku, fašizam, nacizam, boljševizam, totalitarizam, komunizam, kapitalizam niti išta vezanu uz politiku. Hrvatski su tu od stoljeća sedmog. Wiktionary ima srpskohrvatski zbog velike sličnosti u volabularu, jer bi inače trebali postojati zasebni članci na hrvatskom, srpskom, bosanskom i crnogorskom jeziku. Hrvatska je imala velike vojne uspjehe od borbe s Tatarima, Mađarima, Talijanima, Mlečanima, Venečanima, Turcima, Srbima, Nijemcima, Avarima, Francima, Francuzima itd. Zanima me samo napredak, a uz politiku nema napredka kao niti uz pričanje jesili fašist, nacist, komunist ili slično što je također politika. Prvo što pogledam u rječniku su upravo hrvatske zamjene za strane riječi. Ako pričamo hrvatskim jezikom onda to mora biti suvremeni jezik s vokabularom u duhu hrvatskoga jezika. Druga opcija je da svi priamo istim jezikom iako Esperanti, Ido i Interlingua se nisu pokazali uspješnima. Upravo zbok ljudi poput tebe Wiktionaryju treba cijelo desetljeće da se poveća za milijun novih pojmova. Hvala.
Hrvati su fiktivni kontrukt, isto ko i svaki narod. Od stoljeća sedmog tu su slavenska plemana koja su izvršila genocid domorodaca, i pomalo okrupnjivala kroz političke konstrukte stvorene kako bi konsolidirali političku moć malobrojne nasljedne elite. Svaka nacija je stvorena na genocidu i propagandi. Nije to "velika sličnost u vokabularu", to je jedan te isti jezik s minornim razlikama u vokabularu (vidiš kako Okamov rez lagano razriješu tu nepremostivu dilemu). Te borbe što spominješ nije radila Hrvatska (koja tad nije postojala) nego drugi politički entiteti s drugim nazivima. Bespredmetno je retroaktivno projicirati imaginarne političke konstrukte kako bi se legitimizirala surova sadašnjost. Suvremene suverene nacije-države su izmišljene kako bi spriječile vječne bratoubilačke ratove između velikih evropskih sila, a za nacije izmišljene u 19. stoljeću naovamo (manje-više 90% njih) to je sve bajka kako se ne bi osjećali jadni i nebitni, što i objektino i jesu. Samo ti gledaj zamjene za "strane riječi" i u "duhu hrvatskog jezika" izvađene s kojekakvih jezičnih natječaja, a za koje niko nikad nije čuo, samo nemoj ostatak civiliziranog svijeta silovati s tim glupostima. Kad ih ljudi počnu koristiti onda se vrati i možeš ih dodati. U međuvremenu probaj hrvatsku kikirikipediju - tamo imaš nacionalističkih pacijenata ko pljeve koji će te primiti otvorenih ruku. Zbog ljudi poput mene Wiktionary i postoji - beskompronisnih utjerivača istine koji gaze i rasplinjuju maglu laži i obmana. Drago mi je da si se pridružio štovateljima mog lika i djela, daj mi adresu poslat ću ti potpisanu razglednicu. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Opet politika. Ti si neki bivši prosvjetljeni političar ili? Ja sam za jednu jedinstvenu naciju bez granica, bez županija, oblasti, krajina, država, pokrajina ili sličnoga ipak smo svi mi ljudi s istog planeta. Bio sam na Hrvatskoj Wikipediji pa su me blokirali nekoliko puta bez obzira na moje doprinose. Riječi koje pišem pišem iz razloga da ih ljudi počnu koristiti čim čujem neku novu riječ koja je zamjena za stranu počnem je koristiti odmah. Vidim da si anglofil i vidim da ne voliš Hrvate i bilo što slično. Predzadnja rečenica ti je urnebesna, dobro da nisi rekao da si nepobjedivi car koji vlada svijetom hobita. Puno si se zanjeo s pričanjem i koristi malo manje politički riječnik. Ako ti nešto nije jasno pročitaj moje prijašnje poruke ovdje gore i pročitaj ih ovaj puta u potpunosti. Što se tiče adrese ne hvala, a osim toga ne dobivam razglednice očiti ih poštar krade. Hvala.
Nacija je po definiciji ekskluzivna zajednica i moraju postojati demarkacijske linije, stvarne (granice) ili fiktivne (vjera). Ako i ne postoje bit će generirani od strane evolucije jer se na taj način stvara konflikt koji proizvodi mogućnost odabira (fitness funkcija). Suprotno od ljubavi nije mržnja nego indiferentnost - za "Hrvate" me boli briga koliko i za koloniju lišajeva. Drago mi je da ti se moje proročanske izjave permnanentno urezuju u pamćenje, razmišljao sam o izdavanju knjige memoara i taj paragraf je svakako u najužem izboru. Mislio sam na elektroničku adresu, pužopoštu još koriste samo zakonski obveznici i informatički nepismeni starkelje. Nismo zaboga u Hrvatskom saboru. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Molim te nemoj pisati knjigu ljudima će isprati mozak. Nisam vjernik, a I mene boli briga za Hrvate - ne. Za koloniju lišajeva ne znam. Još malo I ovako ćemo moći napisati četiri Biblije. Elektroničku adresu dajem samo ako predložim neku novu hrvatsku riječ, koju uglavnom ne private. kako biste mi bali elektronički potpis omi toga? U pamčenje mi se urezuju samo stvari koje me zanimaju ili gluposti u ovom slučaju to su gluposti. trebao bi se početi ponašati u skladu barem s prosječnim ake ne i u skladu s iznadprosječnom osobom, a ne kao Tinky Winky - kralj teletabisa.
Ne bih mogao pisati Bibliju, ne volim baš priče za djecu i pagansku povijest. Osim Grimmovih čije pak morbidne metafore o sakaćenju mi uvijek zagolicaju sociopatsku maštu. Tu kukaš a zapravo mazohistički uživaš u verbalnom silovanju. Možda je bolje da se ipak držiš izmišljanja riječi koje nitko nikada neće koristiti - ne želim zakinuti ljudsku rasu za tvoj neopisiv doprinos napretku. --Ivan Štambuk (talk)
Mogu reći da uživam u ovakvim razgovorima. Neznam što zovete verbalnim silovanjem. Nisam niti pomislio da bi smo mogli pisati Bibliju već da bi smo mogli napisati tekst duljine četiri Biblije. Isto su tako ljudi govorili da se mobiteli nikada neće koristiti, da se riječi zrakoplov, računalo, tipkovnica i pravopis neće koristiti. svako pridonosi napretku samo neki zakidaju napredak (vi) a neki pridonose napretku (ja). Ponovno ste skrenuli temu s rječi na neku 987967,95. stvar. Više razmišljajte o onome o čemu se trenutno bavite a ne o bajkama i pričama za djecu. Hvala.
Pa realno nitko ne koristi kolokvijalno te riječi - avion, aerodrom, tastatura, kompjuter se koriste 100x više. Jezični fašisti lektoriraju i lektoriraju, ali tupavi lijeni narod se ne dâ. Jedini napredak na Balkanu jest otvaranje onih imagiranih linija na karti da i ono malo pametnih što je ostalo si dâ petama vjetra, što dalje od trule žabokrečine. Pazi da se prenapregneš od tog silnog umovanja, mada mi je to sumnjivo nešto - nacionalisti i slijepi sljeditelji regula koje propisuju samozvani autoriteti nemaju odveć razvijene kognitivne sposobnosti, te se njihovo razmišljanje većma reducira ne uglavnom subliminalno opetovanje stečenog sintetičkog znanja. Razmišljanje obuhvaća isključivo kreativan čin sinteze novog i neotkrivenog, što je postupak rezervan isključivo za kognitarijat 21. stoljeća - programere i popratnu svitu. Ostali mehaničari su osuđeni da tapkaju u mraku dok se na kraju ne pretvore u humane životinje u kavezu koje bleje kroz rešetke svijeta koji ne razumiju. Slično kao kad uzmeš mobitel ili kompjuter i zabuljiš se u ekran, pa tu neki pikseli i prozorčići skaču na stotoj razini apstakcije, dok ti neki klinjo prazni kartični račun i preprodaje identitet u tamnim kutcima Interneta. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

*(dʰ)ǵʰmṓ formEdit

Howdy. I was just adding some citations to *ǵʰmṓ, and if the Celtic (and especially Gaulish) forms are to be believed, it seems like we might need to add the *dʰ back. What do you think? It would also be great if we could get work on the declension. —JohnC5 02:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Celtic *gdonyo- is not a reflex of that reconstruction, but of another derivation from the "earth" word. It should be created on a separate page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Now that you point that out, it is very clearly a *-ye/o- derivative. I must have been drunk last night. I'll fix it when I get home. Also, the LIN may have something to say on this matter. —JohnC5 12:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It indeed does: [4]. Germans are very thorough. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Could you please check this out? Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


He's finally back again. If there's anything that is obviously and demonstrably non-CFI-compliant on grounds that have already been explained to him, I'd say he needs another block in excess of 3 months. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Some of these words are legitimate, some haven't been used for a century, but some have no history of actual usage. Since he has already been told that he cannot just add words from proposed words list without researching whether they've been used, a lengthier blocks is certainly due. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for being my SC go-to resource; I can never tell what level of troll/politically-minded individual I might be dealing with when it comes to patrolling some of the languages around here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


Svi članci koje sam napravio, a vi izbrisali imali su poštene izvore na internetu. Nije moj problem što brišete članke zato što imate očitih problema, očito ste dvadeset godina čistili govna poštenih Hrvata, pa vam nisu dobro mirišala, a sada čistite govna Amerikanaca. Ali ja se ispričavam, iako ne možete govoriti o suradnicima kao u naslovu gore. Mogli ste me i lijepo zamoliti da se povučem s Wiktinarya. Puštam vas da nastavite primitivizirati Wiktionary i internet. Hvala. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 14:36, November 7, 2015.

Nema na čemu, zadovoljstvo je u potpunosti moje. Uzgredice, intelektualna koprofagija mi nije mrska; dapače. To što se ti praviš retaj ko tipični balkanjeros ("ako prođe, prođe") nakon što ti je tri puta objašnjeno da je jedini relevantan kriterij ne "izvori" već upotrebne potvrde, nije moj problem. Ako ti se ne sviđaju pravila otvori diskusiju da se promjene, inače ih slijedi a ako nećeš letiš.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Vidim opet upotrebljavaš neke balkanske izraze, pusti Balkan. Sve, u potpunosti sve hrvatske riječi na Wiktionaryju o kojima sam napiso članke ja sam upotrebljavao. Brži sam od interneta, a i točniji. Ako ti smeta to što se bavim hrvatskim jezikom, a ti očito imaš problema s Hrvatima, zanemari ih. Hvala.
Ma naravno da si ih upotrebljavao gosp. Svizac, samo si ti bitan i nitko više. Da me briga za mentalne proljeve intelektualne paprati otišao bih u Maticu hrvatsku, ali jednostavnije je pustiti vodu i pustiti da štakori odrade svoj dio posla. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Sad dosta šale, odblokiraj me i bok.
Ako želiš doprinositi na projektu moraš dati do znanja da razumiješ pravila, i da shodno istima nećeš više dodavati izmišljenice nepotvrdive u upotrebi u permanentnim medijima (što isključuje Web). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ne ću dodavati više nikakve izmišljenice, držat ću se velikih rječnika. Hvala.

A problemEdit

This edit created an error, because 35FF is not a valid page number. Would you please kindly fix it, thank you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And this edit also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And this edit also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
And this edit also. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Please kindly fix those Old-Church Slavonic entries in Category:ParserFunction errors. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ask the person who screwed up the template. When I added it, it was working properly. Also, don't make gazillion different talk page edits within a short timespan - each one produces a separate e-mail notification. It's annoying. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I apologize. But what does the "f"s mean? --kc_kennylau (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
See the usage note at f. and ff.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He did it againEdit

[5] --Romanophile (contributions) 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


May I ask you to have a look at my contribution of dosad and dosada if I made mistakes? I have added the 2nd meaning of dosada. Thank you. Rasmusklump (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

царь, cesar < 𐌺𐌰𐌹𐍃𐌰𐍂Edit

Zdravo, Ivane! Dok sam pazio zadnje promene, primetih da ovaj korisnik: (talk) je uklonio informaciju da slavenske riječi царь, cesar etc. potiču iz gotske riječi 𐌺𐌰𐌹𐍃𐌰𐍂, kako si to dodao. Hteo sam da poništim promenu, ampak sam pomislio da možda nehotice uklonim korisnu informaciju, ako ona postoji u njegovoj promeni, pa zato dodajem ovde vezu da bi mogao da središ članak. Pozdrav, The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Još puno promena ovog korisnika su bile poništene (drugim korisnicima). Možda su njegove promene većinom nekorisne (ja to ne mogu oceniti uopće)? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ostavih mu napomenu na kartici za razgovor. Ta rekonstruckija je dosta zeznuta i po pitanju oblika i porijekla, potrudit ću se ažurirati etimologiju. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Jezicni dezinformatorEdit

Ti zapravo prpovodis jezicne dezinformacije. Da li ti jos nije dosadilo? --Croq (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Em si nepismen, em čitaš bez razumijevanja. Jalovo kmečanje i frizirane optužbe neće negirati kako lingvističku realnost, tako ni tvoj nedostatak poznavanja književnog jezika. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
hahaha, see you --Croq (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

...soon--Croq (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Ivan Štambuk".