Open main menu

User talk:Mahagaja


Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

About the entry arglosEdit

Hi! :-) I just wanted to note that Arg (in the etymology for "arglos") doesn't have a German definition in that entry, and that only the lowercase version has a German definition. Could a German definition possibly be added to the page for Arg? And which specific historical version of German does the word "Arg" come from? - Sir Beluga (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sir Beluga: It's after 12:30 in the morning where I am and I'm just about to go to bed, but you can see the noun definition at de:Arg if you'd like to add it yourself. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into it. - Sir Beluga (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


Regarding your comments on the pronunciation: The IPA from my source is a Oceanic linguist's interpretation of data from 1946. [ø] also appears in the data, and is written as <ö>, so I don't think it's /ø/, rather an allophone of /e/. There's not much data but I tried to analyze it here if you want to take a look (it's all guesswork; I only had the IPAs and glosses to go off of). However, it's strange to indicate allophones in orthography. – Gormflaith (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's /æ/, or maybe it's /eː/? Also, Wikipedia describes /ø/ as central, not front, so maybe it's actually /ɵ/. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
I was just coming back to say it could be /æ/. /eː/ would also make sense but then what would /eë/ "fire" be? /eːː/? I think it makes more sense as /eæ/ given that all its cognates (unless it's not from *hapuy) are two different vowel sounds (compare Pohnpeian /ɐːi/, Māori /ahi/, Rapa Nui /ahi/, Samoan /afɪ/), but it's going in the wrong direction (close-mid to near-open rather than open/near-open to close/near-close). Unless metathesis? Idk. – Gormflaith (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Never mind, there's conflicting data for (/eø/ vs. /eë/). The orthography suggests /eë/ but the IPA suggests <eö>. I'll look into it – Gormflaith (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Appendices on ga.wikitionary.orgEdit

Hi there, Mahagaja, I think you've seen the appendices I've been adding for Irish nouns, adjectives and verbs. They were inspired by your originals for first and second declension nouns.

I've been translating them for the site. Although it's been very quiet over there for the past 10 years, a lot of good work has been put into templates etc.

Is it okay if I take your originals (1st and 2nd nouns), and translate them for the ga site?

Marcas.oduinn (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course; it's a freely licensed wiki! ☺ —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
... but it's always polite to ask! Thanks. Marcas.oduinn (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi there. This word seems to be used as a taxonomic epithet - e.g. Cocconeis disculus, Codiopsis disculus and Navicula disculus. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to add that. I just wanted to get an entry started, I'm making no claims regarding its completeness! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 06:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/, Special:Contributions/

You might want to check these edits... —Suzukaze-c 05:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: The Burmese edits look OK to me. Chuck Entz blocked them, but not for anything relating to Burmese I guess. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 07:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, this user has been known for making terrible edits... the edit tag "-th" was specifically made to catch them. If these edits are OK, that is good. —Suzukaze-c 17:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The tag just shows that it's a Thai editor from within certain IP ranges editing in other languages. There may also be a competent Thai editor who knows Burmese- I'll have to be more careful about intervening when all the edits are in southeast Asian languages. The last Burmese -th edit I remember before this was removing an existing pronunciation to add {{my-IPA}} with no parameters. They really like auto-IPA templates, even in languages such as Arabic where it's impossible to accurately derive pronunciation from the entry name and they obviously have no clue about the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Romanizations for non-attested lemma forms in GothicEdit

Hey Maha, first of all thanks for getting so much work done on Gothic, it's good to have a fellow editor chipping away at Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry. I have however one small request: when creating a lemma entry for a word that is only attested as a non-lemma form (e.g. recently at 𐌱𐌹𐌳𐍉𐌼𐌾𐌰𐌽 (bidōmjan)), could you also create a romanization page for the lemma form when you do, so there's no redlink on the main lemma page and so it can be found more easily by users? I have for some time now been creating those romanizations for pages you create in your wake (and it's not really a big thing at all, takes me very little time and effort) but it'd be nice if you did it yourself, otherwise I might miss one here and there. (Note that typically other editors have also created romanizations for participle pages where only inflected forms of the participle are attested, e.g. at 𐌼𐌹𐌻𐌹𐍄𐍉𐌽𐌳𐍃 (militōnds).) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 17:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and keep up the good work! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Celtic diphthong notationEdit

Hi, I saw that you've moved *bāws to *bāus. However, the inflectional table still shows *bāws. Quite awkward ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Done. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Ah, OK. Didn't know the issue could be so easily solved. Inflectional table templates make me unsure ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait wait waitEdit

According to Ó Dónaill, the genitive masculine singular of ildiach is ildiach, not ildiaigh. And what do you want to do with |sp= in {{ga-decl-adj-1a}}? Esszet (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Esszet: Then we don't use |3=ach for things like ildiach. We can either specify everything manually, as here, or we set a new |3=iach for it (just as {{ga-decl-adj-1a}} uses |2=ia). As for |sp=, if you're feeling adventurous, you can build it in to |3=ach of {{ga-decl-adj}}, or we can wait for someone who can write modules to write us an Irish adjective declension module. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Angr. As the resident Welsh expert, can you please look at the cach that I just made and check if there's anything wrong with it. If so, perhaps I should seek a doctor rather than an an amateur lexicographer... --Genecioso (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for cleaning it up. I may have a problem though... now I made cac'h. --Genecioso (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That one I can't help you with. I don't know Breton. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
      • It's easy, dude! You just copy everything from the Welsh entry, change "cy" to "br", and pronounce it with a French accent while drinking chouchen. --Genecioso (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


I should have explained, if you type گياه you are sent to گیاه now automatically, that's why a redirect is not needed. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 12:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Southern American pronunciationsEdit

Hi, do you know of any unique Southern American pronunciation differences/lexical incidences, considering your edit on naked. I do know of the Dialect Survey of US Pronunciations, but naked is not listed on any of the entries. And yes, would you mind if you also tell me where you got that pronunciation for naked? — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 00:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Southern pronunciation is far too complex of a subject to pick up from a web page, or to have explained on a talk page. As for where he got it from: he's from Texas, so he's a native speaker. If you want evidence, here is an old comedy routine about the word. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Haha, I see. In that case, maybe he can give me some pronunciations he uses or hears and/or an idea of how common these pronunciations are still used - but I was thinking he got it from an academic journal or some linguistic website. But thanks for that tho!— oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
[1]Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "artisanal"Edit

Years ago you edited the article on "artisanal" adding a pronunciation that is supposedly the general American pronunciation. But it doesn't sound right to me, with three unaccented syllables after the accented syllable, two of them with schwa. Do you have a source for that? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. So according to your links, the American Heritage dictionary gives "är-'tĭz-ə-nəl, -'tĭs-, 'är-tĭ-zə-nəl, -sə-" and the Merriam-Webster gives " ˈär-tə-zə-nᵊl, -sə-, -ˌza-; är-ˈti-sə-nᵊl". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Etym at EboracumEdit

I noticed you reverted an anon's reversion of another anon's edit, which made this change. I reverted that initial anon's similar change at [[Efrog]], as they were making dubious edits in JA that I could evaluate as awful, and I thus assumed that their other work was similarly suspect.

Now, [[Eboracum]] and [[Efrog]] disagree. Which one is correct? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the revert was about the content- the second IP added an image while they were undoing the first IP's edit. It doesn't seem like much when you just look at the diffs, but on the page it was huge and extremely obnoxious. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Eirikr, Chuck Entz, see York. --Victar (talk) 05:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The latest Proto-Brythonic form would be *Eβrọg (as at York), so I'd prefer to say that Latin Eborācum was borrowed from Proto-Celtic *Eborākom since it keeps the old form of both the vowels and the consonants. *Eβorọg is either a transitional form or an anachronism (depending on the the relative timing of lenition and syncope, which I don't know). —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 08:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
For all intensive purposes, *Eborākom can equally represent Pre-Brythonic. *Eβrọg is the stage between it and the Welsh form. --Victar (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I hope you meant those first four words as a joke. At any rate, our tradition here is generally to give proto-language reconstructions in the latest possible form, so *Eβrọg is the form that we would list as a Proto-Brythonic entry, and *Eborākom is what we would list as a Proto-Celtic form. Of course there's a continuously variable spectrum between the two forms and the two languages, but we should stick to our conventions. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 10:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
You misread me. I'm not necessarily saying that *Eborākom should be a Pre-Proto-Brythonic entry -- I'm just saying that, for all defensive porpoises, you could say that that PC word is of the Brythonic dialect of PC, as it exhibits the Brythonic a-umlaut on the *u. I'd say there's actually an argument for reconstructing it instead as *Eβorāk or *Eβorāg, in Early Proto-Brythonic, akin to what we've done for many personal names. --Victar (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Has there been any progress towards (or rejection of) getting that other Hebrew shva added to Unicode? - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it totally slipped my mind. Michael Everson said we should gather bibliographical information on as many published books that distinguish between the two kinds of shva (and the two kinds of dagesh, if we want that added to Unicode too) as possible. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Hey Gaelic editor. Is McGovern correct? Probably needs better linking, formatting etc. --XY3999 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@XY3999: According to w:McGovern (name) it should be Irish Mág Samhradháin, though that looks weird to me. I've seen many variations of mac in my life, but never mág with a long vowel before. (I only know it as the word for 'paw'.) But it's apparently correct. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


I saw you adding Hunsrik in some places as a descendant of Central Franconian. I didn't know the language, to be honest. But I now see that it must be a descendant of Rhine Franconian. It uses "das, was" and hardens Germanic *b to [p] in coda position while maintaing [v] vowel-internally (Leib, pl. Leiver). Both of these are typical of Rhine Franconian, while Central Franconian would be "dat, wat" and "Leiv/Leif" > "Leiver" (cf. Luxembourgish Läif). Is there a quick way to change this? Or are there any sources that say it's Central Franconian? Because they must be mistaken. The "offical" isogloss between Rhine and Central Franconian is the so-called Korb/Korf-line; and Hunsrik has "Korreb". Thank you.

I was just following the family tree shown at Category:Hunsrik language. If you think it should be changed to indicate that Hunsrik is a descendant of Rhine Franconian, I'd suggest taking it up at the Beer parlour. You can also ask Montoya2002 and Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV as they seem to be our main Hunsrik editors. That said; Wikipedia's article on Hunsrik says it comes from a Moselle Franconian dialect, specifically the Hunsrückisch dialect, and Moselle Franconian does belong to Central Franconian, not Rhine Franconian. I don't know anything more about it than what I read there. I see that WP's article on Hunsrückisch dialect does say it uses wat, not was, so maybe Hunsrik in Brazil has some influence from High German varieties that Hunsrückisch in Germany doesn't have. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 14:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Mahagaja".