Open main menu

User talk:Rua

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


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Definitions parameter316:41, 4 January 2019
Proto-Germanic strīkaną - noun or verb216:25, 4 January 2019
Proto-Balto-Slavic adjective inflection template210:18, 3 January 2019
Template:got-compound of114:50, 23 December 2018
Definitions parameter014:51, 9 December 2018
Making Module:af-headword smarter300:15, 4 December 2018
volo - sense id321:30, 30 November 2018
bad111:24, 17 November 2018
Latin nascor and and nascere120:12, 14 November 2018
Template:etymtree/ine-pro/*wódr̥005:49, 13 November 2018
template:rfdate112:38, 9 November 2018
ety at bezwaar516:05, 1 November 2018
Proto-Samic Entries With Module Errors110:00, 17 October 2018
Category:en:Area codes522:56, 10 October 2018
*weghs323:30, 9 October 2018
"feren" as a supposed German descendent of farjaną323:23, 9 October 2018
Bot214:15, 29 August 2018
Missing documentation023:34, 1 August 2018
Proto-Germanic - 'Landawulfaz'119:39, 2 July 2018
Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme1421:50, 25 June 2018
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Definitions parameter

In your changes to this template, the parameter definitions= disappeared, as used and needed in entries such as spann#Swedish. Please fix.

LA2 (talk)14:51, 9 December 2018

Seriously? That edit fixes one page, not the broken template. What about all other pages that uses the definitions= parameter to that template?

LA2 (talk)19:34, 10 December 2018

Which ones?

Rua (mew)19:44, 10 December 2018

I have reverted your changes to the template, and it should stay that way until you fix the remaining 39 broken entries currently using the definitions parameter. You can find the list here.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:41, 4 January 2019

Proto-Germanic strīkaną - noun or verb

I guess Proto-Germanic strīkaną is a verb, and “Noun” is a mistake?

Caoimhin (talk)23:11, 3 January 2019

Yes, it looks like it.

Rua (mew)23:19, 3 January 2019

I find it strange that you did not bother to fix it. (I just have.)

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:25, 4 January 2019

Proto-Balto-Slavic adjective inflection template

Do we need to create such templates to address adjectives such as pílˀnas? I mean you don't like putting me three declensions for masculine, feminine, and neuter.

Kwékwlos (talk)00:38, 2 January 2019

Yes, there are always separate templates for adjectives.

Rua (mew)11:39, 2 January 2019

Well, there are only noun templates in Wikt.

Kwékwlos (talk)10:18, 3 January 2019

Then please repair the template so it doesn't generate "Stripped" SPANS then.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk)14:49, 23 December 2018

The code looks fine to me, I don't see the problem.

Rua (mew)14:50, 23 December 2018

Definitions parameter

In your changes to this template, the parameter definitions= disappeared, as used and needed in entries such as spann#Swedish. Please fix.

LA2 (talk)14:51, 9 December 2018

Are you interested in working on this? The rules of Afrikaans morphology and spelling are such that urineer is a regular verb, yet both participles have to be supplied. It would be preferable if the module could predict everything that isn't irregular.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:36, 27 November 2018

The same issue exists for Dutch, really. Cases like this could be handled transparently, but it could never predict everything. The problem is that the orthography doesn't distinguish between a stressed e and a schwa, which determines whether the following consonant should be doubled or not. The near-minimal pair of wervelen and vervellen demonstrates this: both have imperative forms that simply end in -el, and this is the form that becomes the present stem in Afrikaans.

Rua (mew)08:16, 27 November 2018

It doesn't need to predict everything; it just needs to predict the vast majority of what it will be used on. I don't have the ability to do it, but I know what rules we could easily implement for Afrikaans (you probably do as well, and you certainly know them for Dutch).

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds20:12, 27 November 2018

I will take your silence to mean that you are not interested in working on this, but it would have been preferable for you to communicate that explicitly.

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds00:15, 4 December 2018

volo - sense id

From this edit it seems the entry is broken, possibly due a template issue? - Amgine/ t·e 04:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Amgine/ t·e04:56, 23 November 2018

What's broken about it?

Rua (mew)14:32, 23 November 2018

Sorry about the delay. This toot has a screen cap of the issue; once the sense id was added, blank <li>s appear in the display.

Amgine/ t·e20:47, 30 November 2018

I don't really know what's causing that. Ask at WT:GP maybe?

Rua (mew)21:30, 30 November 2018

If you revert that last edit; please place the correct language in its place, since what was there is incomplete. If no one is able to do that, it just reflects upon the fallacy of the P.G. reconstructions here! You are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Andrew H. Gray 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Andrew (talk)

Andrew H. Gray11:13, 17 November 2018

That makes sense. However, although it stated "compare" that would normally use "cog", it was a comparison of its origin, however false the P.G. reconstructions are. Anyway, it is much better like it is! So thank you for adding the correct code. Kind regards. Andrew

Andrew H. Gray11:24, 17 November 2018

Latin nascor and and nascere

Why did you change the etymologies of Romance descendants of Lat. nascor to just Lat. nascor or nasci (the deponent verb), without Vulgar Lat. nascere? Are you saying they all formed simply by some conscious act of analogy later? I'm pretty sure it looks like there was some proto-Romance form they all sprung out of, at least. Also, nascĕre was attested in some Latin anyway.

Word dewd544 (talk)20:05, 14 November 2018

In past discussions, it was generally agreed that Vulgar Latin entries should not duplicate attested Latin entries.

Rua (mew)20:12, 14 November 2018

I don't know if you looked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:etymtree/ine-pro/*wódr̥ before you deleted this, but Template:etymtree has a module error now. Could you fix it?

Chuck Entz (talk)05:49, 13 November 2018

This edit of yours is categorising into an inexistent group, instead of Category:Requests for date. Why?

Sobreira ►〓 (parlez)11:29, 9 November 2018

The goal is to find all instances that currently use parameter 1. All other request templates use parameter 1 for the language code, so I was trying to bring this template in line with the rest.

Rua (mew)12:38, 9 November 2018

The template's fine with me, but is there really much to add? It looks like a fairly straightforward deverbal noun, but with a somewhat less typical gender.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)15:24, 1 November 2018

I actually think that the gender is indicative of the formation. It looks like the same formation as gedoe, but because the verb already has a prefix, it's not added.

Rua (mew)15:26, 1 November 2018

Okay, that's interesting. Are there any plans to make a template for that?

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)15:52, 1 November 2018

Perhaps it could just be indicated as being prefixed with ge-, which already has an entry for this formation. A usage note should be added that the prefix is dropped when the verb already has one.

Rua (mew)15:53, 1 November 2018

On the other hand, could it be analogous to e.g. bedrog ~ bedriegen, but without an ablaut available (due to it being a late formation)? Bezwaar doesn't seem to have ever denoted a concrete activity, unlike the verbal nouns on ge-.

←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)16:04, 1 November 2018

I wonder what the Middle Dutch situation is regarding these formations. It may give us a clue on how things evolved.

Rua (mew)16:05, 1 November 2018

Proto-Samic Entries With Module Errors

Were you unaware of these, or is there some reason for breaking a dozen entries and leaving them that way?

Chuck Entz (talk)03:54, 17 October 2018

There's a problem in the template. It should show a term request, like {{m}} does when you don't provide a term. Someone should fix it.

Rua (mew)10:00, 17 October 2018

Hi, please don't remove categories from a category unless you're going to add a template that re-adds the categories. Your edit leaves the category not included in any categories.

Purplebackpack8919:29, 10 October 2018

That doesn't matter. Categories should never be added manually to a category that uses {{auto cat}}, they should be added to the data modules instead.

Rua (mew)19:31, 10 October 2018

I disagree. And I stand by my comment that if you are going to remove the categories, you should then immediately add them to the data module. Otherwise, you're just pedantically orphaning a category.

Manually adding categories is a useful stopgap for (the vast majority of) people who don't mess with data modules. And, IMO, it's ridiculous to base categorization on something that few people other than you can understand.

Purplebackpack8919:34, 10 October 2018

Well, are you going to add it to the data module or are you just going to leave it orphaned?

Purplebackpack8921:57, 10 October 2018

Why don't you do it yourself?

Rua (mew)21:58, 10 October 2018

Because I don't know how nor do I see any particular need to have it done. You're the one complaining about how I had it AND you're the person who always codes that stuff.

Purplebackpack8922:56, 10 October 2018

I am curious what you didn't like about my edit. I cited it. Perhaps it is that I didn't use the correct formatting and templates? I find that side of wiktionary quite counterintuitive. In general the IE pages are very good, but they rely too heavily on the Leiden school, and I have been trying here and there, when I have time to make adjustments that achieve a more well rounded position. Thanks. --Tibetologist (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tibetologist (talk)06:43, 8 October 2018

Your reference said only "ibid", which doesn't mean anything to me. If it's some kind of abbreviation, it should be clarified so that everyone can understand it.

Rua (mew)09:44, 8 October 2018

I cited Watkins 1962 and gave the full bibliographical details. Please check again. ibid is a very well known bibliographic abbreviation as you could find out here

Tibetologist (talk)22:54, 9 October 2018

I stumbled across this thread, and reading through, I wondered too at your meaning. While ibid is indeed known well enough in various other works, the specifics of how Wiktionary function can make it risky to assume that ibid will always be correct in its particular context.

For instance, suppose the list of descendants were sorted alphabetically by language name. If your line for Old Church Slavonic were placed above your line for Sanskrit, the ibid ceases to make any sense. Alternatively, suppose some other language were inserted between the two, and the new line includes a different citation.

If you intended for your second citation to simply refer to the first, try using the name="xyz" attribute on the <ref> tag instead, and simply use the same value for both attributes. So long as there is one <ref> tag on the page with the same name and full details, the other instances of that identically-named <ref> tag can be empty.

What you had:

* Sanskrit [[avākṣam]]<ref>Watkins, Calvert, 1962, Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. 1. The Signmatic Aorist. p. 19 et passim</ref>
* Old Church Slavonic [[vĕsŭ]]<ref>ibid</ref>

A suggested change:

* Sanskrit [[avākṣam]]<ref name="Watkins_1962">Watkins, Calvert, 1962, Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb. 1. The Signmatic Aorist. p. 19 et passim</ref>
* Old Church Slavonic [[vĕsŭ]]<ref name="Watkins_1962"/>

This way, both citations safely refer to the same source, no matter where the individual <ref> tags appear on the page. HTH!

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig23:30, 9 October 2018

"feren" as a supposed German descendent of farjaną


the word "feren" does not exist in Neuhochdeutsch, yet you keep re-adding it to the page for farjaną (

-- 10:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC), 3 September 2018

Where is it established that it doesn't exist? I don't see a discussion at WT:RFVN.

Rua (mew)13:02, 3 September 2018

There's also no discussion at rfvn for sbgzpfnoxmtn, for the same reason: no one has ever created a German entry for it. Perhaps it's an obsolete spelling- it seems like it should have an "h" in it for a modern word. Also, see German Fähre.

Chuck Entz (talk)19:56, 3 September 2018

I must say that I dare doubt this word too, for my knowledge of German unlike with the other languages has reached a state of completion. And I cannot find usages of it in any spelling on Google Books which I should as Germany has invented printing with movable types. The lexicographic resources I have consulted for New High German and Middle High German lack it strangely too, is this possible for a word from Proto-Germanic? I could imagine it as as a dialectal word at the most. So I find a fêren “rudern” in the Swiss Idioticon the identity of which I cannot insinuate nor deny however. And why is Middle Low German varen in the descendant list when it is from *faraną, identical to the well-known High German fahren? Ghost-word alarm.

Fay Freak (talk)23:23, 9 October 2018

Hi. Can you run your bot in main namespace (Translations section) and change all "Kurmanji" and "Sorani" to "Northern Kurdish" and "Central Kurdish" respectively? These are standard terms. Thanks.

Calak (talk)14:11, 29 August 2018

I'm no longer running the bot for anything but my own purposes.

Rua (mew)14:12, 29 August 2018


Calak (talk)14:15, 29 August 2018

Missing documentation

DCDuring (talk)23:34, 1 August 2018

Proto-Germanic - 'Landawulfaz'

Hi Rua,

I just wanted to turn your attention to this page that was created by an anonymous user. As I'm not a moderator or administrator, I've never known how to propose a page be deleted (I left a message on the talk page but so far nobody's seen it). Regards --Theudariks (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Theudariks (talk)19:31, 2 July 2018

Rua is inactive. When you see an anon create a reconstructed entry with no descendants, you can put the template {{d}} on it (with that as the first parameter).

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds19:39, 2 July 2018

Unexplained deletions: continuing what appears to be a common theme

The purpose of including reconstructions in Wiktionary is not to posit them with some claim of certainty, nor is it to say “here is a theory the details of which are unilaterally agreed upon,” but rather more along the lines of “there is evidence for the existence of this, though as a reconstruction it is by nature hypothetical,” as disclaimers such as {{reconstruction}} are clear about.

I fear that you are letting your personal range of experience and particular set of opinions get in the way of constructive discussion. The theory of Altaic for one is certainly not unilaterally accepted either, nor are the particulars of the phonetics of Proto-Sino-Tibetan or Proto-Afro-Asiatic, or even Old Chinese—hell, there is still much disagreement about PIE—but in the same sense that settling on a particular phonological model for the time being shouldn't prevent Wiktionary entries for these languages from existing, neither should disagreement about families like Altaic prevent there from being any inclusion of them, as is evident already. If the assumption is that there is something inherently wrong in describing such hypotheses, what is it that is wrong? This is not a matter of whether a scholarly interest exists (it most certainly does) nor a matter of whether there is consensus among any subset of scholars working on the areas in question (there is); instead, you are in danger of now turning it into an issue of neutrality. You did not provide any rationale for the deletions either in prior discussion or retroactively (and I can only guess that your expectation was that I come to you). Other than useless deletionism I do not see any grounds for it. It is not in the same ballpark as modifying or deleting PIE paradigms in favor of alternative models: in this case your choice has been to wipe the (only) information out of existence without hesitation. Regardless, I can only hope that future incidents of this form do not take this path.

 — J​as​p​e​t01:51, 7 December 2017

I suppose the reason for deleting them is that the reconstructions are founded on poor scholarship using questionable methods which very few people believe. Other than that, the entries are fine, I guess...

*i̯óh₁nC[5]04:41, 7 December 2017

“poor scholarship”

Such as what? And in what sense? Quality? (If so, what specifically?) Quantity? (If so, I agree that it is lacking. But there has been a considerable amount of work done since over century ago.)

“questionable methods”

Again, such as what?

“very few people believe”

That may be so. Sadly very few people, relatively speaking, have any knowledge of or interest in comparative linguistics. But, assuming you are referring exclusively to comparative linguists, I would like to know what counts as “very few”. Not that I am contesting that there are few: I would simply like a genuine reference point on which to base the observation of how many of the whole agree with the methodology used and conclusions drawn, and which whole. I don't expect that there have been many surveys on comparative linguists' opinions at large; however, as for the number of linguists who have worked on the areas in question, is it any less than for protolanguages such as those of Sino-Tibetan, Afro-Asiatic, Austronesian or “Altaic”? In each case the picture is overall the same: two, maybe three, large works which are regarded as the standard, separate and collaborative efforts among a handful of well-known names, and other small contributions by a larger number of lesser-known names. (Of course this description then also leads to the issue of defining “well known”: how much?, and, more importantly, by whom?) Whether the opinions of those who do not study these areas is just as relevant as the opinions of those who do is another question, though perhaps more relevant to the philosophy of ways of knowing. Both you and Rua are evidently very experienced, in the areas relevant to what you have studied, but there seems to be no objective manner in which to discern whose beliefs matter to what—other than the principle that Wikimedia administrators are granted the unquestioned last word!

I would be delighted, anyway, if Rua has any input to add.

 — J​as​p​e​t19:26, 7 December 2017

If the community approves of the addition of those languages, and assigns them a language code, then you are free to add entries.

Rua (mew)19:35, 7 December 2017

Ah, thank you!

I understand the issue now: One must first request a code, and hope the dice roll in their favor.

Hopefully the opposite logic won't then be invoked, i.e. “Why create a language code for something with no entries?”

 — J​as​p​e​t19:40, 7 December 2017

I don't know a single linguist who regards Nostratic as anything more than a bad joke. I think you're aware that there might be a reason almost nobody takes it seriously. But yes, it's definitely the work of a shady cabal of Wiktionary administrators trying to keep the truth locked away...

Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds19:42, 7 December 2017

Well, it sounds like you might benefit from expanding your knowledge of linguists then. :)

As for your implication that I regard this as some sort of conspiracy, thanks for the laugh! In reality, though, work on the theories of such families as Nostratic and Indo-Uralic continue regardless of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia have to say on them (which are, respectively, nothing and almost nothing).

 — J​as​p​e​t19:47, 7 December 2017

People working on these theories is not the same as these theories being accepted as mainstream. I've seen enough hooey from the Nostratic camp to make me quite leary of anything coming from there.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:17, 8 December 2017
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Return to the user page of "Rua".