WelcomeEdit

Welcome!

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! PseudoSkull (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

canþ ?Edit

Hi ! I couldn't help notice this in your Babel box : Þis vser canþ Engliſch wel. It's also in Emn-4. I am not familiar with this form of a verb. Do you have any idea where it originates from ? Leasnam (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Leasnam: Yes, isn't that odd? It's automatic, but I've never seen it before. Maybe its an oversight or overcorrection, treating "can" like a verb with the -þ 3rd person singular ending? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
ah, yes, perhaps. I'll try and track it down and fix it later when I have a moment. Okay Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed ! Leasnam (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
@Leasnam: Looks good--thanks! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

NorwegianEdit

Actually I think Norwegia is wrong, and it should be Norvegia. DonnanZ (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Donnanz: You're absolutely right--that was a typing mistake on my part--I just meant to fix the templates. I'll fix that. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh wait, that 'w' was there before I edited it, so that was a pre-existing error. In any case, it's fixed now. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I could see the error wasn't yours. Actually, according to Oxford there is a connection to Old Norse Norvegr (see Noregr also). You may have noticed the Latin entry lacks etymology, but this is plausible. DonnanZ (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Donnanz: Yeah, I had noticed the lack of the Latin etymology. I was going to try to do some digging on it soon (it will bear weight on some of the origins of related ME words), but I hadn't the chance. But what you mentioned, I think, is plausible. It's hard to imagine where the Latin would have come from otherwise, particularly given the "-veg-" element of the word. I think also that the Latin relationship to the word "Norman" (e.g. ML "Nortmanni") supports that hypothesis as it follows the same model with similar elements. Do you think it's worth adding, perhaps with a "likely" clause? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Alternative form entriesEdit

Hey, just a little note: our current practice is not to put headers for etymology and alternative forms on {{alternative form of}}-entries -- that information is all listed on the main entry that is being referred back to (note my edits to the alt forms of behofþe). So the alternative form entry is essentially a soft redirect with optionally some additional information that is unique to the alt-form (e.g. what dialect the alt form is from) but not much. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 02:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: Oh okay--that's good to know. I'll go back and fix those. Thank you! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it keeps everything easier to manage and amend/expand if needed if most of the info (except ofc the alt-form specific info) is in one place, i.e. the "main" entry. Also, not replicating the etymologies keeps etymological categories (such as Category:Middle English terms derived from Old French) cleaner; if the etymology is repeated for every alt-form, the categories become clogged with the same word many times over. Do note also that if you use the {{der}} template with the same language code -such as enm- twice (e.g. at simphane, previously), it places the word in the Category:Middle English twice-borrowed terms category (where in the case of simphane for example it doesn't belong).
Anyway, this is all no great matter, and I've done a bunch of the fixing for you already; thanks in any case for adding these entries and their alternative spellings. This Wiktionary can definitely use the extra activity in the Middle English department. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 02:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: I was just noticing that you had already done a lot ofit--thanks for doing such tedious pick-up after me! Sorry to have left that crumb trail in the first place. What you explained makes a lot of sense--these are the kind of internal-workings that I'm still learning, so I appreciate the help a lot. I'm glad you mentioned the {{der}}--what is the best way to format the idea that a word is derived from another word in the same language? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Just use {{m}}; typically in etymology sections, unless the context suggests otherwise or it is stated otherwise, it is assumed that the linked italicized entries are in the same language. See my edits at musiker. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 02:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Just realized I used the {{af}} template (used when a word is formed by adding a productive affix) instead of {{m}} there. Oh well, it looks much the same. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 02:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mnemosientje: Oh, I hadn't seen the {{af}} before--that's really useful. But that makes sense. I'll use those when appropriate--thank you. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor editsEdit

Hi, it looks like you have "Mark all edits minor by default" checked in your Preferences in the Editing tab. Could you please uncheck it? Starting new entries and adding new languages to existing entries really aren't minor edits. Thanks! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: Hi -- I just checked and that box isn't clicked. But I looked at my recent edits and I don't see any language heading or page creation edits marked as minor. I've tried to be careful to only mark minor where appropriate--but that's said, I could easily have made some mistakes. I'll make sure to pay more attention to that. Thanks! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I'm sorry. I was confusing the "M" I see as an admin for "mark as patrolled" with the "m" for minor edit. My mistake! —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahagaja: No problem at all--I appreciate any/all feedback, as I'm still getting my Wiktionary-legs, as it were. Thanks! --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Reflexive column of Appendix:Middle English personal pronounsEdit

I've noticed that you've created Appendix:Middle English personal pronouns. However, I believe that reflexive pronouns didn't really exist as such in the ME period; it makes more sense to analyse them as a combination of a pronoun and an adjective (as shown by the fact that they were written as seperate words), so that column should be removed and replaced by a note to that effect. Additionally, it seems that "self" could be used on its own as a reflexive pronoun. Do you have any opinions on this?

- Hazarasp (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: Hi there. It seems to me that it's fairly ambiguous what the exact status of reflexive pronouns was in Middle English--since they were seemingly developing during that time, certain compound words at certain times (such as þeself) are fairly well established as single units, whereas many others were not. I agree with you though--I think that it is best analyzed as compounds. That would also help with other uses of -self compounds, e.g. intensifiers. I was actually thinking that the column should be removed as I was preparing the table (it was part of the import from Wikipedia, so I left it initially), and I'm glad to know that you think so too. I'll see if I can smoothly remove it--would you like to write the comment you mentioned? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The column has been removed. (By the way, if you think that anything about the table could be improved (especially in terms of what terms are included or not), please feel free to alter anything. I meant the table to be a start to be improved upon to best serve the ME efforts here.) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

-licheEdit

Hi ! I think it might be a good idea to split -liche into an Adjective and Adverb section. The Adjective of course would be an inflected form of -lich, which would be the headword form. In most cases, the adjective -liche is in the dative case Leasnam (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Even better, -li & -lich (alt form) can serve as the adjective; and -li & -liche (alt form) the adverb Leasnam (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leasnam: Splitting them up is a good idea. Regarding the headword, I was seriously torn on whether to make '-ly'/-'li' the headform, or '-lich(e)'. I ultimately settled on '-lich(e)' because of its frequency and its connexion to OE; I felt that it was more helpful in understanding ME to have the slightly earlier '-lich(e)' be definitive and to point to '-ly'/'-li' as a later form where one can pretty clearly trace to ModE. I think I would most support your initial idea (adjective entry at '-lich', adverb entry at '-liche') for this reason, and because that will also allow us to distance the adverb from the adjective by entry headword. But I think both of your ideas on that are good. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Names of cases in Middle EnglishEdit

I've noticed when you've edited Middle English entries that you've used the terms "subjective", "objective" and "possessive" for the different case forms of a pronoun. However, I believe the general precedent for ME cases is to use "nominative", "accusative" and "genitive" (e.g. Template:enm-decl-noun). Do you have any opinion on this, or are you fine if I go ahead and change the relevant entries? --Hazarasp (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: Hey. Yeah, I was torn between which terms to use. The reason I ended up using the ones I did was to avoid confusion with the cases of early ME which are carried over from OE, where a possessive form may not automatically the be the same thing has an early/vestigial genitive form. The other thing on my mind was that using "accusative" is a bit misleading, since most of what we refer to as "accusative" in English is actually "oblique", i.e. a mix of accusative, dative, ablative, etc. functions--essentially, non-nominative and non-genitive. Subjective/objective/possessive seemed more authentic and unambiguous to me. That said, I have no problem with standardizing to the "nom/acc/gen" system, especially if the other way is already clearly and widely established. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, in that system, how best do we deal with possessive determiners vs possessive pronouns, e.g. in þou? Should I label them as "genitive determiner" and "genitive pronoun?" Or should I in that case keep the "possessive" label? --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I would change it to "genitive pronoun/determiner", but a case could be made for making the pronoun just "genitive" and labelling the determiner as a "possessive determiner". --Hazarasp (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Hazarasp: Okay--then I'll do nominative/accusative/possessive determiner/genitive. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Middle English etymologyEdit

Hi, the etymologies you have added should use {{der|enm|abc|word}}. You have been forgetting to add the m. Thanks. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 22:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@AryamanA: Hi--thanks for letting me know. I thought I was doing that, but I must have begun slipping. I'll make sure to be watchful of that. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to make you aware that all of your links to the University of Michigan Middle English dictionary for the "she" determiners are incorrect and are linking instead to "northende".

Odd, must have dropped a linking number. I'll fix those. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Middle English dialects and orthographiesEdit

I've noticed that you've created Category:Middle English dialects and orthographies. However, there's already Category:Regional Middle English, which is in the mould of several other languages (see Category:Regionalisms); I would suggest making the dialect categories subcategories of that category and making Category:Middle English terms unique to the Ormulum‎ directly subordinate to Category:Middle English language (this seems to be the current practice; see Category:Latin words in Meissner and Auden's phrasebook). Do you have any thoughts on this matter? --Hazarasp (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: Hi--I didn't realize that :Category:Regional Middle English exists--I'd be fine moving the dialect categories over to it. My reasoning for setting it up the way I did, however, stems from the idea that Middle English is nearly unique in the breadth and variety of its spellings, which, in many cases, are unique to a small area (e.g. Cornish ME) or even to a single work or author (e.g. Orumulum). The Orumulum isn't the one like this, and so I was trying to find an appropriate home for categories of terms that exhibit idiosyncratic spellings like that one without there just ending being a smattering of them in the Category:Middle English language bin. But since we only have one for now, I suppose it won't hurt to put it there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  Done. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Middle English totweneEdit

I want to bring to your knowledge that the etymology for some other word has been mistakenly given; so kindly do the needful changes. Thanks— Lbdñk (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lbdñk User:SanctMinimalicen isn't active anymore; I've made the necessary changes. --Hazarasp (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)