Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
nl-interj416:22, 10 July 2020
*maiwaz "gull"021:35, 6 July 2020
PGmc keluz Etym 2108:55, 3 July 2020
ghenoeghen208:43, 30 June 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/*kāsijaz718:35, 18 June 2020
Vulgar latin verbs120:34, 16 June 2020
hwalbą010:30, 9 June 2020
Hellenic daughters321:00, 3 June 2020
Zeeuws009:46, 21 May 2020
Template:prefixsee109:12, 28 April 2020
My change to *gʷelbʰ-018:57, 26 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/bō-109:02, 25 April 2020
van006:57, 25 April 2020
werpijan218:21, 24 April 2020
Synonyms for aiskōną110:25, 23 April 2020
Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/masgás310:42, 20 April 2020
Mistake with rollback on Reconstructed Terms108:18, 19 April 2020
User Talkpage Vandal016:07, 18 April 2020
Borre/brenje211:50, 18 April 2020
Kumyk noun declension template221:42, 4 April 2020
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Waarom heb je {{nl-interj}} verwijderd? Dit is verwarrend.

Alexis Jazz (talk)14:13, 10 July 2020

Het deed niets bijzonders, het is precies hetzelfde als {{head|nl|interjection}}. Normaal worden sjablonen die geen bijzondere functie verrichten verwijderd.

Rua (mew)15:45, 10 July 2020

Dat is bij zoveel sjablonen het geval. Ondertussen bestaan {{de-interj}}, {{es-interj}}, {{zh-interj}}, {{ko-interj}}, {{it-interj}} en ruim 80 andere sjablonen nog gewoon.

Alexis Jazz (talk)16:01, 10 July 2020

Ja, die zouden ook best verwijderd kunnen worden denk ik.

Rua (mew)16:03, 10 July 2020

*maiwaz "gull"

Wnat seems to be the problem, officer?

We cannot refer to a completely nebulous substrate theory and at the same time expect any alternative to derive completely regularly. So I'm sure that whatever formal problem you might see with relating avis to Lua error in Module:languages at line 453: The language or etymology language code "gmc-pro" is not valid., it's no grounds for you to deny inclusion. Having just about any IE comparison, the more the merrier, to balance the view would be prefered.

On the talk page you wondered long ago about the i-stem reflex in Old English. Any updates on this? Oh, look at that: *Hew=i-s., 6 July 2020

PGmc keluz Etym 2

Hi Rua ! I just created an Etymology 2 at Proto-Germanic *keluz (throat); however, the Inflection table insists on displaying the term as a u-stem despite the fact that I am explicitly setting the stem to "=z". Can you please check ? Thanks !

Leasnam (talk)05:04, 3 July 2020

z-stems end in -az in the nominative singular, so -uz would not match. How do you think this would be inflected?

Rua (mew)08:55, 3 July 2020


I think you are wrong here It is a quirk of Dutch orthography that [u] is written as "oe"..

Cf. en: good nl: goed de: gut

Please don't tell me they are from different origin just because of the spelling.

Jcwf (talk)20:16, 29 June 2020

Rua knows that <oe> is /u/. It's that (Middle) Dutch /u/ comes from PGem *ō, not PGem *u.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:23, 29 June 2020

Indeed, the descendant of this verb in Middle Dutch, if one had existed, would be *genōgen, whereas genoegen is a derivative of *ganōgaz. Note the difference in the vowels: ō > oe, u > ō.

Rua (mew)08:42, 30 June 2020


The entry for *kāsijaz was originally placed under Proto-Germanic since I found descendants for this word in the North Germanic languages. Here is an article by Guus Kroonen where the author discusses a reflexes of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz existing in North Germanic languages on page 21. ( The original entry for *kāsijaz included these descendants in the entry so I have no idea why you decided to move the entry to West Germanic.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)16:44, 18 June 2020

Ringe gives it as a borrowing from Latin into West Germanic.

Rua (mew)16:51, 18 June 2020

Additionally, I have just looked through Kroonen 2013 right now and as I originally suspected, the author cites North Germanic descendants of Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz on page 275 [1]


  1. ^ Kroonen, Guus (2013), “*kāsja-”, in Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series; 11), Leiden, Boston: Brill, →ISBN, page 275
Rigognos Molinarios (talk)16:54, 18 June 2020

I suggest checking the two sources I have mentioned to see whether they are worth including in the Proto-Germanic entry. If the sources are valid, then it may be prudent to restore the original entry for *kāsijaz under Proto-Germanic. Because of the large number of redirects and page edits that were necessary after transferring the entry to West Germanic, it might be easier for you to use MewBot to change the links than to manually change them individually.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)17:04, 18 June 2020

It's not so much the sources, but the question of whether the Norse forms are inherited or borrowed. Ringe thinks they're borrowed, Kroonen thinks inherited. What does Wiktionary think?

Rua (mew)17:14, 18 June 2020

I reviewed Ringe 2014 and the author did not address the descendants of the term in North Germanic. They are not brough up anywhere in the book.[1]


  1. ^ Ringe, Donald; Taylor, Ann (2014) The Development of Old English (A Linguistic History of English; 2), Oxford: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 135: “PWGmc *kāsī”
Rigognos Molinarios (talk)17:23, 18 June 2020

Um, caseus is listed as Latin borrowing into PWG, so of course that means the Norse word was borrowed.

Rua (mew)18:11, 18 June 2020

I do not deny that a Proto-Germanic term *kāsijaz would have been borrowed from Latin cāseus. I'm simply stating that the term may have been borrowed earlier that the West Germanic period since at least one author lists reflexes for the term in North Germanic languages.

I don't want this discussion to drag on too long, but Don Ringe makes no mention of West Germanic *kāsī being borrowed into North Germanic yielding Old Norse kæsir. Before assuming that Don Ringe implies that the term was borrowed into North Germanic through West Germanic at a relatively late date, keep in mind that it could also be possible that he simply does not consider Old Norse kæsir an inherited term from a Proto-Germanic *kāsijaz since there is a significant semantic shift between the Old Norse term and the West Germanic terms. The Old Norse word, kæsir, means "rennet, abomasum" rather than specifically "cheese". There is also a possibility that Don Ringe simply wasn't aware of the Old Norse term so he didn't include it in his 2014 book.

Rigognos Molinarios (talk)18:33, 18 June 2020

Vulgar latin verbs

1. Do you know any vulgar latin verb pages? So far I have only managed to find danciare (reconstruction;latin/dancio), but im looking for other verbs (like say verbs in -ire, -ēre, -ere) 2. You removed the vulgar latin essere page, why? Maybe I overlooked but I saw no reason. Is there a way I could see this page? I wasn't able to find the logs.

OudgrieksStudent (talk)19:25, 16 June 2020

Vulgar Latin is no longer considered a separate language from regular Latin, so all terms that have classical equivalents are now placed there.

Rua (mew)20:34, 16 June 2020

Hello Rua,

regarding the change of hwalbą's descendents, it is likely that Middle English wholve derives from the Norse form hválfr/hvolfr, rather than Anglo-Saxon hwealf, which would have become *whalve (split vowel ea reforms back to a). However, while it is equally likely that it was influenced by both forms, and the O could be a dialectical form of A (as was common in Anglo-Saxon, cf: mann/monn, þanne/þonne, þancan/þoncan etc.), as well as the common sound development into Modern English of eal- to become ol- (cf: eald > old, weald > wold, healdan > hold, ceald > cold, etc.), there is no sign of the intermediary al- of Middle English (cf: ald, wald, halden, cald), nor any other examples that suggest this sound change occurs without D dental stop in words with eald, where it often remains as al (cf: wealt > walt, heals > halse, sceal > shall, heall > hall) without further development into O.

My source is from the Michigan Middle English dictionary which suggests wholve to derive mainly from Old Norse rather than Old English:

You will also find that the examples there, even into late southern (i.e. less direct Old Norse influence) dialects are spelled with U (whulve), suggesting that O is the primary form, and there is no sign of an Anglian *whalve spelled with A, which must certainly have been replaced by the Norse form, rather than develop alongside it.

Consequently I conclude that Middle English wholve derives from Old Norse and not from Old English.

Arkhaeaeon (talk)09:20, 2 June 2020

Hellenic daughters

I notice you refuse to provide any argument in favour of your edits, preferring instead to edit war, and then have the audacity to block me for edit warring. I have provided my argument repeatedly: there are different opinions on what the accentuation of the Proto-Indo-European word for "daughter" was before the Hellenic branch split off from Proto-Indo-European, as explained in detail on the linked Proto-Indo-European page. Therefore, our readers are best served by an unaccented Proto-Indo-European form with a link to the page that explains the two different reconstructions of the accent placement.

The page for the Proto-Indo-European word has the accent, so that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word. The link should not display one form and then link to another. If you want to change the form, you'll need to discuss it with other editors to reach a new consensus.

Rua (mew)17:11, 3 June 2020

The page for the Proto-Indo-European word gives three different forms corresponding to three different stages of Proto-Indo-European. Obviously only one of them can be the page title, so the fact that the page title is what it is does not mean that that is the Wiktionary consensus form of the word.

It makes no sense to ban piped links, but even if it did, the link does not go to another form. The link is to the Wiktionary page for the reconstructed forms *dʰwégh₂-tr̥, *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr, which happens to be located atʰugh₂tḗr because it has to be located somewhere, and this is as good a choice as any as it is the last PIE form that existed before most branches split off. According to that page, opinions differ as to whether *dʰúgh₂tēr or dʰugh₂tḗr is the form the Hellenic forms descend from. In order to maintain a neutral point of view in the Hellenic articles, I propose to just write *dʰugh₂tēr, which covers both *dʰúgh₂tēr or *dʰugh₂tḗr without giving precedence to either. The form *dʰugh₂tēr isn't a different form from *dʰugh₂tḗr, just the same form unspecified for accent.

The consensus Wiktionary needs to reflect is that of the sources, and they differ on the accentuation of this form at the time when Hellenic split off from Proto-Indo-European. On the individual Hellenic pages, we should give *dʰugh₂tēr, unspecified as to accent, since that is the consensus pre-Hellenic-split form and there is no scientific consensus on the placement of the accent. We have no basis for electing one accent placement over the other, so the only neutral alternativeto my suggestion would be to give both *dʰúgh₂tēr and *dʰugh₂tḗr. Everyone agrees that *dʰugh₂tḗr is the parent form of all non-Anatolian and non-Hellenic Indo-European languages, but there is actual scientific disagreement, which we need to reflect, as to whether this form is also ancestral to Anatolian and Hellenic.

If you want to see the page moved to *dʰugh₂tēr, you should discuss it on WT:TR.

Rua (mew)21:00, 3 June 2020

Dag Rua, ik zie dat je vorig jaar wat basaal werk aan het Zeeuws hebt gedaan. Aangezien het lijkt voort te bouwen op het beginnetje dat ik twee maanden eerder heb gemaakt, wil ik je daar even voor bedanken. Overigens ga ik er graag nog een keer mee verder, maar ik kan weinig beloven aangezien ik offline dringender bezigheden heb.

Steinbach (talk)09:46, 21 May 2020


You seem to be the chief creator of this template. I wish to let you know that it does not, at least not always, arrange the prefixed terms in a correct alphabetic order, see uudis-.

Hekaheka (talk)09:08, 28 April 2020

The template seems to put first those terms that have been defined with "affix" and only then start listing the ones created with "prefix". I don't know whether this is an intentional feature.

Hekaheka (talk)09:11, 28 April 2020

My change to *gʷelbʰ-

Hello Rua, thanks for the advice on my change to *gʷelbʰ-, but in the entry *kalbaz a way is mentioned in which the word could have been derived from *gʷelbʰ-. That's also why I added the "uncertain" parameter.

Malcolm77 (talk)18:56, 26 April 2020

Hi Rua, I was wondering if you could help sort the descendants (in the "unsorted" group) at *bō-; I'm not familiar enough with the sound change laws. Thanks!

Julia 01:59, 25 April 2020

Not really, it looks almost like each descendant came from its own form.

Rua (mew)09:02, 25 April 2020

Hi :) It looks like somethings going wrong here. Due to the long/short vowel distinction in Old Dutch: fán=catch, fan=of. dum. "van" and decendants are derived from fané, not from fanhanã. --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)06:57, 25 April 2020

I've always observed the same, that the vowel should be 'i'. Due to the by-forms (worpio, gurpio, etc) I wonder if this is actually from *wurpijan, which I had added a few days ago. Do you think this might have been the case ?

Leasnam (talk)18:00, 24 April 2020

Quite possible. I think it should be moved and the aberrant term deleted.

Rua (mew)18:11, 24 April 2020

ok, shall do.

Leasnam (talk)18:21, 24 April 2020

Synonyms for aiskōną

I've added *frēgōną and *spurjaną as synonyms for *aiskōną. Today their descendants are used by multiple languages (e.g. German and Dutch use descendants of frēgōną, the North Germanic ones use descendants of spurjaną) to mean "to ask". Is it thus acceptable to list those words as synonyms?

RayZa (talk)09:53, 23 April 2020

I'm not sure if they were exact synonyms. *aiskōną seems to be more wanting to have something, while *frēgōną seems to be about wanting to know something.

Rua (mew)10:25, 23 April 2020


Why do you cancel edits?

Gnosandes (talk)10:35, 20 April 2020

Why do you? And why do you make edits that you know are disputed?

Rua (mew)10:36, 20 April 2020

How are they disputed? The presence of an accent paradigm d? Which you write as two paradigms b and c? At the same time, oxytone shows a good number of dialects. This is accentology ignorance. And I'm not talking about terrible etymology...

Gnosandes (talk)10:42, 20 April 2020

Also, you're very close to getting blocked again.

Rua (mew)10:40, 20 April 2020

Mistake with rollback on Reconstructed Terms

I believe the rollback you made on the link Reconstructed terms was a mistake. Romanian is also a romance language related to the other four, thus the words in that language are cognates with one another.

Harshmoney (talk)23:51, 18 April 2020

Yes, it is a Romance language, but does every single Romance language need to be listed?

Rua (mew)08:18, 19 April 2020

User Talkpage Vandal

Blocking a single IP for a year site-wide is rather pointless: this is the second IP they've used, and the range they're in is too wide to block all of it. I've started doing range blocks specific to the User talk namespace wherever they edit from, but I suspect they'll be able to get around it for a while.

Their whole game is to goad people into action and then laugh at the frustration when it doesn't work. The best response is to calmly stop up any hole they pop out of until they run out of holes. Maybe it will require an abuse filter eventually, but I'm not going to go out of my way.

I get a lot less of this kind of abuse than some of the others, and that's mostly because I don't get upset. Being insulted or pranked on a wiki talk page is not high on the list of things that bother me. I just clean it up and ignore it until the pathetic waste of their time takes its toll. I find boredom is my best weapon.

Chuck Entz (talk)16:07, 18 April 2020


Thank you for adding them correctly! :) I do see one issue. In the current form, it is not specified that the verb "borre" (intransitive) derives from od. "brinnan" < "brinnana", while "brenje" (transitive) derives from od. "brennan" < "brannijana". Is there a way to fix this? --Ooswesthoesbes (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)11:35, 18 April 2020

There is only a single entry for them in Middle Dutch, because they were no longer distinguished by that time. Presumably, one of the Limburgish words was loaned from High German.

Rua (mew)11:38, 18 April 2020

It would be highly unlikely such a difference in transitivity is loaned if it vanished early on. But I remember we already had a disagreement on a similar subject earlier on, so I will leave it to that.

Ooswesthoesbes (talk)11:50, 18 April 2020

Kumyk noun declension template

Remembering the cooperation we had on Budukh, would you be interested? See яш for an example. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahverdi Verdizade (talk)16:45, 4 April 2020

I don't really have the time/mental clarity for that at the moment. But the Budukh code is at Module:bdk-nouns. Do you think you understand it enough to make a copy at Module:kum-nouns and adjust it for Kumyk?

Rua (mew)18:00, 4 April 2020

I can make a try, or wait for someone else to help. Thanks anyway :) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Allahverdi Verdizade (talk)21:42, 4 April 2020
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page