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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
MewBot verb form categorisation109:52, 25 April 2019
*buþlijaną and *bōþlą219:37, 18 April 2019
Dulle115:09, 17 April 2019
Closing RFDs321:36, 16 April 2019
Origin of *strowéyeti?410:48, 16 April 2019
Use of semicolons in definitions420:55, 15 April 2019
Manding languages1323:54, 14 April 2019
Truncating West Frisian etymologies410:32, 12 April 2019
About 'Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/libjaną'100:22, 8 April 2019
Cornwall812:49, 7 April 2019
Thanks023:17, 6 April 2019
{{temp|etyl}}019:45, 6 April 2019
goodein114:58, 6 April 2019
Small edit119:44, 5 April 2019
Reverted changes519:11, 5 April 2019
Recent revert for root 317:50, 4 April 2019
FYI see CAT:E111:34, 4 April 2019
Template:given name without lang005:04, 1 April 2019
speaking122:22, 30 March 2019
Level of further reading from 3 to 4413:27, 30 March 2019
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

MewBot verb form categorisation

Edited by another user.
Last edit: 01:41, 25 April 2019

Why is User:MewBot removing templates which encode English conjugational categories (e.g. Category:English past participles)? While there are some flaws with the categorisation system for English verb forms, I think removing all the categories and plonking everything in Category:English verb forms is tantamount to the deletion of information that could be potentially very useful for some Wiktionary users.

Hazarasp (talk · contributions)00:24, 25 April 2019

They were voted for deletion.

Rua (mew)09:52, 25 April 2019

*buþlijaną and *bōþlą

What exactly was incorrect about my latest edits to those entries? You don't seem to have a problem with the already existing part of "From *buþlą, *bōþlą (house, dwelling, farm)", and *buþlijaną is derived from *buþlą and *-(i)janą, is it not?

As for the *bōþlą entry, it is not the only entry to have a Related words section. See *agaz, it has a related words section that you've apparently deemed allowable.

Lowena (talk)19:26, 18 April 2019

You shouldn't remove request templates until the request has been resolved. Doing is very bad form and is considered an obstruction of the normal working process of Wiktionary.

Rua (mew)19:27, 18 April 2019

Alright, I'll leave it. You didn't have a problem with it till I made edits though, and the etymology without references was added in May 2014. Also, removing the template was a separate edit, so you could've just undid that instead of my correct edits too.

Lowena (talk)19:36, 18 April 2019

What's with your revert of dulle? Do you want me to supply a source or more to Danish dictionary recordings of the term? dulle sig op even links to the page.

Luka1184 (talk)14:26, 17 April 2019

I removed it because it didn't look like a normal dictionary entry. Instead there was a big block of text below the definition that shouldn't be there, and the headword line was also missing (which our edit filters tagged as an error).

Rua (mew)15:09, 17 April 2019

Closing RFDs

I appreciate you closing RFDs, like for those redundant Vulgar Latin reconstructions, but you need to remove all links to them as well. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Reconstruction:Latin/essere, for example, which still has a bunch of links.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:13, 16 April 2019

Ok, done. Keep in mind, though, that there is no problem with having red links in entries, they're obviously all over the place. So there is no urgent need to remove such links. Of course, there is the principle that if an entry should not/never exist, links to it shouldn't either, but we don't have a concerted effort to remove invalid links all over Wiktionary yet. Maybe something we should get started sometime?

Rua (mew)21:28, 16 April 2019

Most red links go point to pages that should exist. It's worth the effort to remove those that don't. As for a concerted effort, I'd support it, but it sounds challenging given all the kinds of entries that shouldn't exist (failed RFD/RFV should be findable, but most such links point to entries that were never created).

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:32, 16 April 2019

It is probably very hard to do in general for all languages, but it may be easier to do for something like Proto-Indo-European. I've noticed a lot of entries linking to PIE reconstructions that are obvious rubbish/outdated. It may also be easier to weed out incorrect links to English, given that our coverage of English is huge and not a lot of red links will be left. Though I may be wrong on that.

Rua (mew)21:36, 16 April 2019

Origin of *strowéyeti?

Hi, Rua. I saw your remark about the translation of *strowéyeti. Indeed, I botched it up.

What I'm writing for is in regard to the origin of *strowéyeti. Given that it is reconstructed only on basis of Germanic and Slavic, we cannot safely deduce that it originates from *strew- (to construct). It could easily be from *srew- with an emphatic -t- added to the cluster *sr-. This seems to be the case at least for Slavic *strujiti (to gush, to generate flowth, to scatter (liquid)) and its derivatives. I see that Kroonen derives Germanic *strawjaną (to strew) from *streh₃- (to spread, to stretch), however, in this case it is not really a cognate with the Slavic data. Do you think it's OK to leave the current reconstruction as it is?

Bezimenen (talk)19:38, 15 April 2019

PS I see that ЭССЯ /Trubačev O. N., editor (2003), “*obstrujiti”, in Etimologičeskij slovarʹ slavjanskix jazykov [Etymological dictionary of Slavic languages] (in Russian), volume 30, Moscow: Nauka, page 84/ considers both possibilities, i.e. both from *strew- and from *srew-, so there may be some basis for reconstructing pre-Slavic *str-... In any case, this reconstruction is not 100% certain.

Bezimenen (talk)19:51, 15 April 2019

*strawjaną is reconstructed from *strew-, per the sourcing on the former page. I'm not sure where you got *streh₃- from.

You're right that *srew- is possible as well, in terms of shape. However, the meaning of the words doesn't match: *strew- is given here with the meaning "spread", which perfectly matches *strawjaną, while *srew- means "flow", which does not match the meaning.

Rua (mew)20:12, 15 April 2019

Sorry, I meant *sterh₃-. I found it in Kroonen's proto-Germanic dictionary [p. 483]. He explains *strawjaną and its PIE origin *strew- as a "back-formation" of forms of the root *stṛh₃-. My point was that the Germanic term is indeed reconstructed as proper *str-, not as *sr- with emphatic -t-.

My concern, though, is more about the Slavic data. All forms of *strujiti > *ostrujiti (to liquidate), *nastrujiti (to adjust flowth), *zastrujiti (to initiate flowth), etc. are (probably) from *srew- (to stream, to flow), not from *strew- (to strew). Of course, as I pointed in a post-scriptum, ЭССЯ does not rule out a possible influence of *strew- on some meanings of *strujiti. If you don't find a problem, I'll just add (probably) comment next to the Slavic data in *strowéyeti. Also, I'm going to create the page of *strujiti and will explain the two possible etymologies there. This should suffice to address any concerns like mine.

Bezimenen (talk)10:31, 16 April 2019

I think you're better off taking it to WT:ES if you want more input. I can't really say much useful on the matter at the moment.

Rua (mew)10:48, 16 April 2019

Use of semicolons in definitions

Hi ! The reason I use semicolons is to be consistent in the manner in which I write all my definitions. I use semicolons to separate different synonyms or items in a list of meanings, because sometimes a synonym or item will itself contain a comma, so the use of commas can be confusing as to where the break takes place. Semicolons are more explicit :)

Leasnam (talk)20:24, 15 April 2019

That's not the standard format in most Wiktionary pages though, so it's likely to confuse others as much as it has confused me.

Rua (mew)20:27, 15 April 2019

Going forward I'll use it only when absolutely necessary. In the case of "brave, keen, strong" there really is no need for it...but in a case like "brave, keen, especially when one is fighting, strong" it's helpful to separate the parts => "brave; keen, especially when fighting; strong"--clearer right?

Leasnam (talk)20:32, 15 April 2019

In that case, yes, although I might opt for () instead.

Rua (mew)20:35, 15 April 2019

Noted :)

Leasnam (talk)20:55, 15 April 2019

Manding languages

Greetings, Looks like you reverted my creation of Category:Manding languages for the Mande languages in that group. May I ask what your reasoning was?

A12n (talk)16:32, 14 April 2019

There is currently no recognised language family on Wiktionary with that name.

Rua (mew)16:34, 14 April 2019
Edited by author.
Last edit: 16:41, 14 April 2019

How to get it recognized? It is so on and on Reason being it is a recognized subgroup of Mande (and indeed the reason for the existence of N'Ko). These languages (or dialects, or perhaps more usefully, varieties) are to varying but significant degreess mutually intelligible.. This means that from a practical point of view on WT, it is useful to be able to access their respective categories from a subcategory of Category:Mande languages.

A12n (talk)16:37, 14 April 2019

English Wikipedia says its language code is man, but that appears to refer to a single language on Wiktionary. If you want this changed, you'll have to request it on WT:GP.

Rua (mew)16:39, 14 April 2019

You're confusing Manding and Mandingo, it seems. Rua, you don't need to revert someone's good-faith work just because you don't know what's going on. We can just add it as a family.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:41, 14 April 2019

I'm not going to make any statement regarding the correctness of the family, but the fact that we don't have it yet suggests it needs someone with better knowledge/discussion to look at it. That's why I deleted it. It shouldn't have a category until it has a valid code, obviously.

Rua (mew)16:45, 14 April 2019

The code man is a macrolanguage for a subgroup of Manding (a sub-sub-group of Mande, if you will, including several varieties of Mandinka & Maninka). There is no ISO 639 code for the entire group of Manding languages (covering man + others like bm, dyu, and kao'). The lack of a relevant ISO 639 code shouldn't IMO prevent addition of this category (even if that might not fit conveniently with the cat boiler system (as I understand it).

A12n (talk)16:52, 14 April 2019

Metaknowledge, thanks. Will follow up on discussion page there.

Rua, wrt valid code, I think there are some instances where departing from that convention would be useful, tho obviously not without sufficient justification for such exceptions. One of those, I would contend, is "Manding" (of which Mandingo "man" is a subset), and this assertion is based not only on linguistics but also the way this set of languages (or varieties of a language) are perceived by at least a large number of its speakers. A topic for further discussion elsewhere, of course, but please undderstand that my initial edits in this regard were not lightly considered.

A12n (talk)21:38, 14 April 2019

Truncating West Frisian etymologies

Thanks for your recent work on West Frisian, but why did you remove source words at iisberch and geslachtsryp?

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)13:01, 10 April 2019

Because that just duplicates the information from the Dutch entries. It's a West Frisian entry, so we shouldn't be explaining the origin of words in all kinds of other languages.

Rua (mew)13:57, 10 April 2019

How does that differ from tracing an etymology via Latin to Greek in the entry of some modern European language?

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)14:06, 10 April 2019

It doesn't. You have to think about how many times you're going to have to copy that information, and that each copy has to be kept in sync with all the others. That's why duplication should be avoided. In any case, I consider a borrowing a more significant node in the history of word than mere inheritance. Inheritance basically means "nothing special happened, it just kept existing". That's why I don't find the Middle Dutch form important enough to warrant duplication.

Rua (mew)16:09, 10 April 2019

I'd say the duplication argument isn't that pressing for etymologies as the risk of incorrect divergence is in practice smaller than in definitions, though duplicating morphologically identical etymologies (e.g. just an older orthography) should be avoided. There certainly doesn't seem to be any harm in having older etyma when there isn't a dispute about the direction. In any case the older stage in geslachtsryp was also a calque, so that's not mere inheritance.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)10:32, 12 April 2019

About 'Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/libjaną'


I saw you corrected the page Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/leyp- to deinclude "Proto-Germanic/libjaną".

I'm okay with it, but the latter page still mentions :

"Etymology From Proto-Indo-European *leyp- (“leave, cling, linger”). "

So what should we do ?

Chezmaxime (talk)22:39, 7 April 2019

The problem was not so much that you included the Germanic verb, but where you included it. You placed it under the derivation of a root present verb, while this is definitely not a root present verb. I'm not entirely sure about the formation for the moment, but it's fine if you include it under "unsorted formations" on its own line. Then someone else can place it somewhere better later, if they know where it goes.

Rua (mew)00:22, 8 April 2019

Maybe you don't, but you're not giving me a chance to see if it works. If you don't restore it I will have to.

DonnanZ (talk)12:05, 7 April 2019

What do you mean by "works"?

Rua (mew)12:06, 7 April 2019

At the moment it is showing in Category:en:United Kingdom but not in Category:en:England. The categories for Greater Manchester and London appear in both categories, and as those categories have two parents, I think Cornwall should too.

DonnanZ (talk)12:16, 7 April 2019

Yes, that's why I removed Greater Manchester from the United Kingdom category, because they are a subdivision of England specifically and not of the UK.

Rua (mew)12:17, 7 April 2019

That hasn't made Cornwall appear in the England category, and Greater Manchester is still there.

DonnanZ (talk)12:26, 7 April 2019

It takes a while for categories to update. Do a null edit on it and it will fix itself.

Rua (mew)12:27, 7 April 2019

Thank you for deleting the redundant line over Vilamovian. I forgot to do it ;).

I'm sorry for this ugly line I put xD.

Chezmaxime (talk)23:17, 6 April 2019


Edited by 0 users.
Last edit: 18:39, 5 April 2019

Thanks. I will adapt. --Abraham (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Abraham (talk)18:39, 5 April 2019

According to Wiktionary:Entry layout, "Alternative forms" is placed before the main entry.

SemperBlotto (talk)14:53, 6 April 2019

Both placements are allowed, per the same page.

Rua (mew)14:58, 6 April 2019

Small edit

Hello. Excuse me if I'm missing something, but why did you bother to make this change? I've come across pages which are linked and which aren't, and the net result is the same.

Pious Eterino (talk)19:36, 5 April 2019

It's cleaner and there's no reason to have the extra link if you're just linking the whole term.

Rua (mew)19:44, 5 April 2019

Reverted changes

Hi, I just tried to correct some reconstructed data I found (, I got a code error, and before I was able to find what the error was, you reverted my edit. Would you like to tell me why? I have referencess based on which I made the correction.

Also: what would be the Old Polish language code? The template was not able to process the one given here

Trollsdottir (talk)17:46, 5 April 2019

You mistyped it, it's zlw-opl and not zwl-opl. But I also reverted it for another reason, namely that people have in the past removed words just because they don't think they exist in their own language, when further examination shows that it actually does/did, just very rarely. I wanted to guard against that happening again.

The proper way to challenge the existence of terms is at WT:RFV. It's not usually used for entries that haven't been created yet, but it should be fine to use it to verify/challenge the existence of any term, whether there is already an entry or not. After all, a general rule is that if a term is shown to be invalid, it should have no links that point to that entry either, as such links can never be valid if the entry will never exist. So you can use that to challenge the validity of the link.

Rua (mew)18:12, 5 April 2019

I have been reading the dictionary by Derksen cited as a source. I am also a native speaker (and a linguist) and I noticed that that particular dictionary has not been proof checked by someone eith better background in Polish. Thus, I checked both, that is a dictionary by Polish Academia of Science (our highest authority in ant type of science and humanities), and haven't found it. Then I went to sjp.pwn, which is the biggest commercial ditionary, and none information was there, in Doroszewski's dictionary neither (that is a standard for modern Polish before 1990). Google search linked me to Old Polish dictionary, where the word is still used. I wrote that in change description.

I guess I should just add paragraph below as a justification then? It's my first contribution, so I want to get it right.

Trollsdottir (talk)18:59, 5 April 2019

Yes, what you wrote is good for WT:RFV. You don't have to provide a super strong justification, as RFV assumes terms don't exist until it is proven they do. If nobody else has proof, the link can go.

Rua (mew)19:02, 5 April 2019

Thank you for your kind and swift asistance.

Trollsdottir (talk)19:09, 5 April 2019

I noticed you added the {{RFV}} template to Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sočiti. But you are not asking to verify the existence of *sočiti, but rather of soczyć. Since that page doesn't exist yet, you don't have to put the template anywhere, you can just start a discussion on the RFV page.

Rua (mew)19:11, 5 April 2019

Recent revert for root

Hi, thank you for the changes. I just wanted to understand the reverts: 1 and 2. According to edit, gʷerh₂ is an alternative reconstruction of gʷreh₂. Also, Eymonline mentions, quern to be related to gʷreh₂

Ankitdimania (talk)17:39, 4 April 2019

I don't understand the PIE pages on this point either. The Germanic form can't reflect *gʷreh₂- because that would result in *krō- or in zero grade *kur-. If there are sources that state that *kwernuz really is from this root, then they also need to explain how that is possible. I suggest bringing the matter up in WT:ES so that others can also contribute.

Rua (mew)17:43, 4 April 2019

I believe this is your page for edit. You are in the history of the edits (original author). Just to clarify, would you recommend reverting this edit?

Ankitdimania (talk)17:49, 4 April 2019

I'd recommend discussing it before reverting anything.

Rua (mew)17:50, 4 April 2019

Just FYI ... your changes to Module:headword and Module:script utilities have introduced a bunch of errors.

Benwing2 (talk)07:17, 4 April 2019

The errors are caused by having more transliterations than headwords. Headwords and transliterations are supposed to occur pairwise, with each headword having a corresponding transliteration.

Rua (mew)11:34, 4 April 2019

I noticed you added tracking for {{given name}} without a language code in |lang= and it's filling up pretty fast, but here's a list from the latest dump (March 20th) courtesy of my template-grabbing program, if you want to use it.

Eru·tuon05:04, 1 April 2019

You know what...after reading the usexes for Etymology 1 more closely, those seem to be attributive uses of the Noun 'speaking'...would you agree ?

Leasnam (talk)21:54, 30 March 2019

For the most part I don't believe in attributive uses of nouns, I consider them to be the modifiers in a compound noun. Other Germanic languages have the same structure, but we call them compounds, so there's no reason not to do the same for English.

I only consider the first and third adjective sense to be a compound, judging by the usage examples. In both usage examples, the word speaking has a genitival meaning: voice of speaking, part of speaking. This does not work for the other two, which are uses of the participle, adjectival in nature rather than nominal. In sense 2 there isn't even a modification of a noun, so it can't be a compound, and the presence of more flags it as clearly adjectival.

In sense 4, there's two different usage examples, but these are syntactically different. In speaking parrot and speaking clock, it's just the standard use of the participle to qualify a noun, which all present participles can do and is thus not special. The examples for the subsense "in compounds" seem like uses of the participle directly as the head of a noun-participle compound, along the lines of food-eating, latte-sipping, house-building, rocket-launching, Wiktionary-editing and a near infinite number of other noun-participle combinations one could think of. All of these compounds have a meaning in which the modifying noun is the direct object of the verb it's attached to.

So I think sense 4 shouldn't even be there, it's a transparent and predictable use of the participle. Senses 1 and 3 reflect the gerund, so they probably shouldn't be there either. Only sense 2 appears to me to be clearly separated from the meaning of the verb.

Rua (mew)22:06, 30 March 2019

Level of further reading from 3 to 4

Please do not switch the level of further reading from level 3 to level 4 unless you have established consensus for that. Thanks.

Dan Polansky (talk)13:22, 30 March 2019

No thanks.

Rua (mew)13:22, 30 March 2019

Please don't. I don't want to revert war. Level 3 for Further reading is an established practice.

Dan Polansky (talk)13:25, 30 March 2019

Yes, but I found that it makes more sense at level 4, so that's what I'm doing. Besides, "Related terms" at level 4 is also established practice.

Rua (mew)13:25, 30 March 2019

It makes more sense at level 3 to me, so please, do not change Czech entries I just created to level 4.

Dan Polansky (talk)13:27, 30 March 2019
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".