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! Ƿidsiþ 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Woah there. Your entries have several problems. Apart from the formatting issues, this has no decent definition, and you are certainly wrong in listing English human as a derived term of Persian. Have a look at some of the links above, and preferably at some other members of Category:Persian nouns to see how it's done. Ƿidsiþ 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you speak any Persian, or are you just creating this for the Indo-European cognates? BTW if you repeatedly ignore those who leave messages for you, they may get a bit annoyed. Just saying... --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Unattested formsEdit

For Proto-Indo-European terms, the usual format is {{proto|{{subst:langrev|Proto-Indo-European}}|the term here|the meaning here|lang=two or three letter language code here}}. This is undeniably a bit complicated; at the very least, don't link to unattested terms (WT:CFI#Attestation). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


Renegade5005 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Hello there,

I am sorry for not responding to your messages earlier. I was completely lost in the website and did not know how to respond. I did not intend on offending anyone at all. I looked for a way to contact one of the volunteers through email but did not succeed. Again I apologize that my entries were not formatted properly. I will be going through the tutorials.

Oh don't worry about it; didn't really want to block but since you weren't replying I didn't see a good viable choice. So, here comes the quick tutorial
In {{proto}}, use only valid appendix titles like skid- (no asterisk) not skid-, skei as that should be too appendices. Also try copying work across from another appendix, such as Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/skid- which I've fixed up, though CodeCat (talkcontribs) is our leading proto expert. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks for your help and advices. Actually so far I have doing the same thing i.e. Copying from other pages. Hopefully I'll learn how to edit properly soon.


Hi, you added Danish "sövne" as a descendant in Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/swep-, but there is no such word in Danish. Your source probably doesn't use "ø", in which case it is "søvne", an archaic word for "expire", "pass away" or a variant of søvn ("sleep"), i.e "i søvne" ("in your sleep"). I'm guessing "søvn" is the best bet, but your other Germanic descendants seem to indicate sove ("to sleep").--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 07:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC) hi, the sources I used are etymological dictionaries and are written in the standard phonetic symbols. A for word "sövne" you are absolutely right. The actual daniss word is indeed søvne. Thank you for the information. I will change the word right now. If you see other entries by me which are not entirely correct don't hesitate to edit them.
Another comment, please write the words in the actual script that language uses, not the Latin script. If in doubt, write in the Latin script but don't link and use {{rfscript}}. Hopefully someone will then add the right script, and then you can link (um, obviously). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

etymology of omnisEdit

Hello Renegade5005, I have a question about the etymology of omnis: in this edit, you say that omnis stems from PIE *eum- and is related to PGmc *ium-jan. On what dictionary is that etymology based? Pokorny (p. 780) assumes it is derived from the PIE root op- ("to work, to perform") but the Pokorny book is rather old... Greetings, MaEr 10:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, this particular etymology is based on Nostratic Etymology. According to Pokorny 1355 page 780, op-1 is related to the Latin opus, Old Iranian ápas, Avestan 𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬯(apas) 'religious work', Ancient Greek ὄμπνη (ómpnē), 'nourishment'. According to Pokorny the root might be related to the Latin omnis.

Hello Renegade5005, I still would like to know on what dictionary the Proto-Indo-European etymology eum and the Proto-Germanic one ium-jan is based. You just said, it's nostratic.
And I would like to know on what modern words ium-jan is based. I mean: which are the descendants in English, Dutch, German, Old Norse, Gothic and so on.
Greetings, --MaEr 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, this is the information I was able to find:

Old High German: wiumen, Middle High German wimmelen modern german wimmeln, Gothic iumjōns and dutch wemelen. Also check the proto-indo-european *ṷebh-2 (pokorny 1210). I hope that will be helpful.

Here are some of the references I have used:


Sergei Nikolayev's IE dictionary

Pokorny's Indogermanisches woerterbuch


Renegade5005 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)I forgot to thank you for correcting/completing some of entries.

etymology of similisEdit

Hello Renegade5005, in similis you say that Latin similis stems from Ancient Greek homos. Are you sure about this? If it was borrowed, it shouldn't be similis but **omus or **homus. According to my sources, similis stems from *semilis, while homos stems from *somos. Different root vowel, different suffixes. Or do you want to say that the Latin and the Greek word are cognates? Greetings, MaEr 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, They are actually cognates. That was one of my first entries and the mistake is due to the fact that I couldn't edit wiktionary entries properly yet. Thanks!

Maybe you could go through your first edits Special:Contributions/Renegade5005 and check if you can improve some articles. This wiktionary can be quite complicated sometimes and I think that you have some more experience now.
By the way: Do you know that Proto-Indo-European *skid- has been nominated for deletion?
--MaEr 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, but the same person who was planning on deleting it already fixed it and I have spoken to him about the matter. I am not sure if he is still planning on deleting it or not. I am currently going over my previous contributions and trying to fix them.

Categories of PIE entriesEdit

When you make PIE entries, could you please add them to a category? I see you've missed quite a few so far, and we prefer not to have entries without categories on Wiktionary. Adding something like [[Category:Proto-Indo-European root|(sorting order of the entry)]] is enough, although you should of course replace 'root' with something more appropriate if you can. :) Thank you! —CodeCat 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed you added numbers to some of the names. I'm not sure what those mean, could you explain that? —CodeCat 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Hey there, what numbers are you talking about? Also would you please explain how I should add the PIE entries to categories please? Give me an example please. I am still kind of new to Wiktionary.


Oh ok sorry. There are usually two ways to add categories to an entry. The simplest way is to write something like this on the page (usually at the bottom):
[[Category:(put the name of the category here)]]
If that works right, then when you preview or save the page, the category's name will appear at the bottom. If its name is red, you might have made a mistake though so you'll need to check if the category exists then.
The second way is to use a template. A template is a little piece of code written {{like this}}, and it adds the template to the page right there. Often, templates add categories to entries as well. And if that's the case, then you don't really need to add the category yourself. The template will do that for you. But you have to make sure that at least one category is added, so if the template didn't do it, then you need to instead.
For Indo-European entries, we normally add an extra 'sorting' to the categories, because we don't really like how all the strange characters in PIE are alphabetised. They all begin with Appendix:, so unless we do something to fix that, they are normally all sorted under A. So to make a PIE entry sort properly, you add the category as you normally do, but you add a little bit extra at the end, with a pipe character | in between, like this:
[[Category:(put the name of the category here)|(put the name to sort the entry under here)]]
The sorting name is usually different from the entry's name itself. For PIE entries, what you do is try to translate all the special characters into characters that are on a normal keyboard. You can read a little bit more about how we do that here. There is also some information about how to name PIE entries. For example the name Template:termx isn't how we would normally name an entry, it would be called Template:termx instead.
Now, as for the numbers, I'm talking about entries like Template:termx. I don't really know why you added the 2 there, and there are some others with 1 and 2 at the end as well. —CodeCat 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the help. The numbers are based on Pokorny. Certain PIE roots have different meanings and are in fact different roots. For instance lei-1 means to bend, lei-2 means to eliminate, lei-3 means to glide, etc. Instead of putting the meanings all on one page as some of the PIE entries on wiktionary are, I put them separately according to Pokorny.

On Wiktionary, if a single word has more than one meaning, we just list them on the same page one after the other. You can see how this is done on the Germanic entry Template:termx. There is a single header for the language's name, but then there are two part-of-speech headers. —CodeCat 21:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 21:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Oh ok, that's how I will be creating the entries from now on.
Hi. Could you please add {{rfscript|Armenian}} in your PIE pages with Armenian descendants, so I can find them and add the script? --Vahag 23:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Sure thing!

etymology of satisEdit

Hi Renegade5005, I'm a bit surprised about this edit of yours. Do want to say the Romans borrowed words from the speakers of Sanskrit? I think you'll have to change that.

By the way: writing Sanskrit words in {{term|...|lang=sa}} is a good idea. If you don't know the correct form in Devanagari script, you can leave it open like this:


This will appear as

tr means "transliteration". See Template:term for details. Then you should add {{rfscript|Deva}} (not only for Armenian). Greetings, --MaEr 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 18:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, I actually meant to say possibly related to the Sanskrit word. This is also one of my older entries. I didn't realize it when I was editing it again. In beginning I was mostly copy/pasting from other entries.

etymology of fragenEdit

Hi! It's me again :)

Something has gone wrong in the etymology of German fragen: in this edit. The modern German verb fragen is not the continuation of the Middle High German noun vrage, and Old High German forsca is not a parent but a cognate (a very distant one). I guess you have taken this etymology from the material of Pokorny. For the path from modern German to MHG and OHG, you better use an etymological dictionary of German. All of these dictionaries, also Pokorny, must be used very carefully because they are not very user-friendly/readable. It's easy to mix-up cognates and parents and this gives rather bizarre etymologies.

Now something else: may be you know this already, may be not:

They aren't easy to find, and it took a while till I have found them. They contain some PIE related material, and maybe you find them useful.

In the dictionary entry of Latin ago, you have changed the PIE root from h₂egʰ- to agʰ-, probably based on Pokorny. This is not wrong... But here, many contributors seem to use laryngalistic PIE forms, with h₂e where non-laryngalistic forms have a. See also w:en:Laryngeal theory. When adding material from Pokorny, you have to keep in mind that Pokorny is not that "laryngalistic" and describes many roots in a different way.

Greetings, --MaEr 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I second the suggestion to use laryngeal forms of the reconstructions. Some of your sources such as Pokorny and Bartholomae are painfully obsolete, and the etymologies listed there that you reference have been superseded for some time. There are many sources for PIE etymologies that you can find on the Internet which make use of modern theories. I suggest that you study them a bit first, before making further contributions in that area to Wiktionary. (I recommend textbooks by Benjamin Fortson and Robert Beekes). Adding etymological information is a laborious and time-consuming task, which demands both a knowledgeable editor that can impartially estimate plausibility of individual etymologies, as well as thoroughly covered sources in order to ensure the consensus on the matter among the relevant experts. I admire your enthusiasm, but please take some time to familiarize yourself with the field, because our standards are pretty high, and sooner or later somebody might justifiably block you because you made a mistake of replacing a more "correct" reconstruction (or genuinely more correct etymological explanation) with a obsolete or (which is more worse) a fringe one, or simply because your edits keep ending up on somebody's cleanup list. --Ivan Štambuk 20:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, I hope you had a good weekend. The main reason I usually use Pokorny is because his dictionary is a very well known one but I do have many other resources. I have been using Wiktionary's own PIE list for many years. Do you think it would be a good to use those roots? Thanks
That list was originally compiled on Wikipedia on the basis of Pokorny and others. Lots of false friends, fake cognates etc. were weeded out, reconstructions modernized, but it's still ridden with many, let's call them so, errors and simplifications. That list should be phased out in favor of individual appendix pages which are more much reliable, easier to browse etc. Feel free to use it as a starting point, but please do check other sources as well. There are lots of scanned books (textbooks, dictionaries) and free chapters of books containing usable content available for everyone wasting enough time googling them. Please don't add etymologies if you don't at least partially understand sound changes mapping the reconstruction to attested form. It's not rocket science, but it's not trivial either :/ --Ivan Štambuk 22:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Something in particular to watch out for is long vowels and vowels other than e in the root. Roots with non-e in them were few, most occurrences of such vowels are from a laryngeal. Roots with an underlying zero grade (which could display i or u rather than ey or ew) are also very rare, but "become" is a known example. Long vowels were also nearly absent in roots, most long vowels were because of a following laryngeal merging with the previous vowel. —CodeCat 23:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Renegade5005! in this article you have inserted a link to a source you have used, A handbook of Germanic etymology by Vladimír Orel. The source is interesting, but I hope you don't use it too often, because the plain text version is full of (scan) errors, beginning already in lines 5 and 6, and this is just English text without any special characters.

Here some suggestion: in Talk:pulcher, you asked some question, which has been answered meanwhile. Next time, if you want to make sure that your question is read by more users, you may want to include the discussion page in Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. The procedure is described there, or see the examples.

Greetings, MaEr 17:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 18:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, I'll take note of that. thanks.
Renegade5005 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Another quetion: What are the numbers in green or red, negative or positive next to the entries on the watchlist section? Thanks!
The green and red numbers in the watchlist: it's the number of characters someone added or deleted. And if someone adds or removes many characters in one edit, the green or red number is displayed in bold, in order to say: "attention, this is a greater change". --MaEr 18:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nostratic etymologiesEdit

In general, we don not approve of them. The whole Nostratic thingy is too fringe for our taste. Connections with words of other language families on the basis of loose phonetic correspondences are valid in case of words which are provably borrowed, but with no known mediator. E.g. in case of asinus which you recently etymologized. But to even mention the word Nostratic would imply that we accept it as a genetic grouping of languages, which we do not. So it's best to avoid it altogether. Also, keep in mind that the databases at the "The Tower of Babel" website are, in case of at least PIE etymologies, compiled on rather obsolete material such as Pokorny, lacking the modern nomenclature such as laryngeals. --Ivan Štambuk 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dutch naaf and navelEdit

Hi Renegade,

I just added a Dutch "navel" descendant to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/h₃nobʰilos, as Dutch (my mother tongue) seems to have two, both naaf (meaning hub, axis) and navel (as in navel). Are they actually descendants from h₃nobʰ and h₃nobʰilos resp? Or was there only one word in Germanic and is this a later development?

Jcwf 23:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

-il- was a common diminutive suffix in Germanic, so it was probably formed that way. A 'little hub'. :) —CodeCat 00:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 04:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC) yes as far as I know they are both descendants of the same root. I usually try to add only one of the descendants. Thanks for adding the word.

Indo-European entriesEdit

Could you please pay a little more attention to how existing entries are formatted? When you add descendants, you often make some words italic (with {{term}} and {{termx}}) and some words not (with {{l}} and {{lx}}), and you link some words but leave others unlinked. You also link to proto-languages with {{proto}} even though that template is meant only for etymology sections. You also don't seem to check the descendants you add, and in one case I even found a Greek letter delta in an Old Norse word. I would normally be a bit more patient with new editors but you've made a lot of edits since then and I keep having to fix them, but you don't seem to pay any attention to the fixes I or any other editors make to your entries afterwards. You just make the same mistakes over again. —CodeCat 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You can see the changes I've made here. I've removed the Germanic descendants altogether because there was just too much to clean up (Old Middle German??), and the page Template:termx has them anyway. I fixed the link to Proto-Germanic, as well as the word itself (where you got the original word, I have no idea!). I changed the heading to "adjective" and added the language header. I also moved the page to Template:termx because that is the proper nominative form of this adjective. I added a headword template below the adjective header. I removed the entry from "Proto-Indo-European roots" because it is not a root, since it contains the suffix *-yo-. And then I linked the Celtic forms. —CodeCat 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Persian and AvestanEdit

Hi. Persian and Avestan are both Iranian languages, but Persian is not descended from Avestan. This edit is probably wrong. --Vahag 14:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Renegade5005 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, Yes I originally wanted to put them as cognates but I made a careless mistake.