Open main menu


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! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


Conventions from other wikis & RedirectsEdit

Please remember that people have put a good deal of work into the entries already, so it's always a good idea to find out what the current practice is and get consensus among editors working on a particular language before making major changes in format or other practices. Try to imagine the reaction if people from English Wiktionary went to Quechua Wiktionary and rearranged everything according to how we have it here. Your way may be far better than ours, but other editors are more likely to get defensive and reject your changes if you don't check with them first. I'm fairly new here, so I don't know that much about how you would do that- so I would advise asking about it at the Information Desk.

Try to avoid redirects wherever possible. You may not want a Quechua entry under a particular spelling, but there may be a dozen other languages that have terms spelled exactly the same way, and editors in those languages may not realize that we have no entry for that spelling because the redirect makes the link show as blue. When we move an entry here, we either create a simplified type of entry for that form (see, for instance, how we do it in English entries such as those in Category:English noun forms), or we delete the redirect. Since you don't have the ability to delete pages, you would have to add a template requesting the deletion, such as {{delete}}, and include a note explaining: {{delete|moved page to [[xxxx]]}}, (where xxxx is the page you moved it to) might be one way to do it.

Please read the articles linked above. Feel free to ask questions, and to look at similar entries to see how others do things. Even with experience on other Wiktionaries, there's a lot you need to learn about doing things here. Thanks for working on our entries here, and good luck! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I hope you will reconsider, based on the fact that the English Wiktionary currently has very few Quechua verbs, and had no consistency in page names with some choosing the root (e.g. "para-") and others the infinitive (e.g. "paray"). I decided to change the root-based pages to redirects for a number of reasons. The first is that infinitives are used for entries in other agglutinative languages like Japanese ("kaeru" instead of "kae-") or Turkish ("konuşmak" instead of "konuş-"). The second is that this is the form one would generally see in a Quechua dictionary, and is consistent with the only significant collection of Quechua verbs on Wiktionary at nl:Categorie:Werkwoord in het Quechua.
Sumiaz (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
In this case, Sumiaz is absolutely doing the right thing. I fully support the move to infinitive as the lemma form for Quechua verbs. This user is essentially the entire language community, and I think somebody like Stephen G. Brown (talkcontribs) would agree (but you can ask him if you want confirmation of that). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple thingsEdit

First of all, could you please look at Category:Requests (Quechua)? We have an entry (tuku) that needs attention, and some translations that need to be added or checked.

Secondly, could you please add a BabelBox to your userpage? Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you again for all your great work with Kichwa here. I just returned today from South America, where I heard Kichwa spoken for the first time. It was really exciting to see it as a vibrant language, used for shop signs, museum labels, and even graffiti (although I'll own up to the fact that I only used Spanish when talking to them...) Anyway, I'm glad to see that we've caught up to nl.wikt and I hope you keep going! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Mετάknowledge, sorry for not replying to your post earlier. That's awesome that you were able to get exposure to the language! I'm still limited to written resources and the occasional Youtube video, but I hope to someday go to Peru, Bolivia, or Ecuador to get some first-hand experience. I think it's a beautiful and remarkably productive language, but it's a shame to hear how marginalized its speakers are, at least in Peru. I'm hoping that making Kichwa/Quechua more accessible on the internet will be helpful to both computer-literate native speakers and second-language learners alike. I'm going to try to get some more work done this summer, and please let me know if you have any other questions or comments! -Sumiaz (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Header levelsEdit

Category:Entries with level or structure problems is now principally occupied by your recent contributions. See WT:ELE for the correct formatting. For simple entries, alternative forms, etymology, pronunciation, part-of-speech, and reference headers are at the third level ("==="), others are usually at level four. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that! I couldn't figure out why that template kept showing up. Anyway, I fixed the problems identified by the bot and corrected the template I was using, so new "Numeral" entries shouldn't be getting tagged now. -Sumiaz (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, thanks for the new Quechua entries, and for correcting the formatting so quickly. I hope you have all of your entries automatically put on your watchlist. That's indispensable when doing any new. DCDuring TALK 03:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello! Thank you for all your work on Quechua! I see on your user page that you've opted not to include Kichwa entries (the Ecuadorian standard varieties) under the Quechua header. Is it because of lack of resources or because it is significantly different from Southern Quechua? If it's the difference, then would you be opposed if we separated the two? It would involve creating new codes for both standard varieties, since neither has an official ISO code and I would propose we use new headers (Southern Quechua of II-C and Northern Quechua for II-B). What do you think? --Dijan (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Sumiaz. I was wondering if you could check that this entry is correct, as well as antanka pampa, which is currently at WT:RFV. They were created by an editor who made a lot of poor entries, so I wanted to be sure. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly can't speak to the validity of this user's entries, mainly since I don't know whether or not these words are used by native speakers in practice. Because of this user's special emphasis on a certain mid-size Chilean city, I am suspect about their other entries and apprehensive of delving too much into them. I found trying to correct or delete this user's numerous entries too time-consuming and difficult to justify; rather, I figured I would make entries independently, linking them to these preexisting entries when possible (there has been little intersection so far). I can offer the below comments instead of a definitive answer:
Re: antanka pampa
Is it one word or two? There isn't much consistency in how modern, written Quechua treats compound words. Compare, for example, the practical treatment of a placename like Urupampa (Urubamba) versus a purported neologism like antaka pampa (which could just as well be written antankapampa or antanka-pampa). I go back and forth between positions, to be honest. On one hand, combining compounds makes for easier suffixing and recognition; on the other hand, separating components allows for easier recognition and reduces the need for remembering lengthy compounds.
  • An editor trying to pick a side should consider the differences in treatment between English compound nouns (word-by-word) and German compound nouns (single-word); in Quechua there is no official or documented practical leaning in either direction, and a native speaker has every right to choose the one they see fit. As an example, would a Quechua neologism for tree house or Baumhaus be mallki wasi or mallkiwasi?
Do Quechua speakers actually say antankapampa? More specifically, do Quechua speakers use the word antanka? Other documented words for "airplane" include awiyun (cf. Es. avión), hawatapuriqanka, and latap'isqu.
  • For these reasons, I have tried to avoid compound nouns when adding or editing entries (Quechua entries have bigger priorities at this point). Although I oppose having antankapampa as a separate entry (as long as there is a deficiency of non-compound entries), I cannot speak to how often it is used by native speakers.
Re: piqwana
Structurally there is nothing wrong with this entry, assuming that piwqay is a verb. If piqway is a motion verb referring to flight, piqwana as "projectile" is believable. However, right now, I can't find evidence for its use; it may be a regionalism, misspelling, or outright fabrication. At the same time, I can't advocate for its deletion for reasons other than that it is too specific of an entry as long as its verb root has no entry of its own.
-Sumiaz (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I missed this at the time, but thank you! I hope that less important priorities like these do get addressed someday, but for now, I think we'll just send them through RFV and I appreciate your effort in answering. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


A mistake I think? —CodeCat 22:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, definitely a mistake; that should have linked to ñaqch'a. Thanks for the heads-up! -Sumiaz (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

About Quechua impersonal VerbsEdit

Regarding Quechua impersonal verbs such as tutay, should there be a template or at least a parameter in the conjugation template for impersonal verbs? (Also, is tamyay an impersonal verb?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point, but I wouldn't bother with it now. There are still very few "impersonal" Quechua verb entries, and they are not consistently categorized anyway. Plus, I'm not sure how flexible Quechua is with impersonal verbs. Applying full regular conjugation to impersonal verbs is permitted in some languages and discouraged in others. The French pleuvioter uses a separate "fr-conj-imp" template that omits all non-3sg forms. What seems to be more common is to include the full conjugation table with a note that usually only the third-person singular form is used (e.g. Spanish llover, Hungarian havazik, Finnish hotsittaa).
On that note, tamyay probably counts as an impersonal verb, but I wouldn't do much more than mark it using the "context" template. Maybe "intransitive, impersonal" would be more appropriate?
-Sumiaz (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Plural formattingEdit

Hi Sumiaz! I'm excited to see the addition of entries in more languages that don't get enough love around here, especially Maricopa. Just a formatting note — I made a change like this to one of your entries, but I know there are a bunch more out there. We have to do this for plurals so that they categorise correctly as plurals (and as non-lemma forms). Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I'll make sure to update other entries to this form. -Sumiaz (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreign Words of the DayEdit

I thought that Quechua suruqch'i (altitude sickness) might be a good Foreign Word of the Day, if you're willing to create the entry. It needs IPA and a reference to qualify. And if there are any words that you would want to have featured in Maricopa, O'odham, or anything else, just stick on pronunciation and a reference, and we can feature them. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! I wasn't sure what was needed for WOTD entries until now, but I have definitely come across a few Quechua words that might be interesting. I will try to put together an entry for suruqch'i this coming weekend, and maybe see if I can find something from O'odham as well. -Sumiaz (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I just made the entry for suruqch'i with two references and a phonemic pronunciation. I can't immediately find a phonetic pronunciation, but it looks as if a lot of previous Quechua WOTD entries did the same thing. Let me know if you need anything added to the entry! -21:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks great! Do tell me if you come up with anything else in the languages you work on that seems interesting and is ready to feature. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
For O'odham, I was thinking maybe ha꞉ṣañ "saguaro cactus" might be an interesting one, given the plant's importance to the culture as well as its limited geographical range. That said, the name saguaro comes from another indigenous language, so O'odham is by no means alone in having a unique name for the plant. Thoughts? -Sumiaz (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
That would certainly be good. I'm just hoping to improve the diversity of terms featured with some minority languages! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Spanish word also has the meaning of "galena", and the OED gives the etymology as "name of some mineral to which mountain sickness was attributed". Does the Quechua word also mean galena? DTLHS (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the galena meaning. The references I have for Quechua don't mention anything other than 'altitude sickness,' and I can't find entries for lead ores that are close to soroche, so I wouldn't rush to include such a definition in Quechua entries. But on the Spanish side, I'm very curious as to how often soroche refers to lead sulfide. It would be worth adding to the Spanish entry (which I only created to bridge the Quechua suruqch'i and English soroche entries) if it's actually documented. The connection is pretty obvious, but I don't have any evidence for suruqch'i being used for an ore, so it may be a Spanish-specific borrowing? -Sumiaz (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I was able to find quotations back to 1792 for the Spanish term. Here is a discussion of some theories on the etymology (page 7). DTLHS (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference! I found Martha Hildebrandt's cited explanation to be somewhat lacking. The 1792 letter she mentions effectively describes altitude sickness (fatigue, headaches, nausea, etc.) but I think it mistakenly attributes these symptoms to volatile minerals in the area rather than to changes in altitude. Similarly, Inca Garcilaso attributes these symptoms to changes in temperature rather than altitude. Given the debate around its etymology, it might be premature to assert that soroche is derived from the modern Quechua term suruqch'i, but it's the closest word to soroche that I can find at the moment. -Sumiaz (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it seems very confused. From the quotations I've found it seems clear that the Spanish term for the mineral came first, then around 1850 began to refer to altitude sickness (or sickness attributed to the mineral), then shortly after was borrowed into English. But without Quechuan documents from that time period it's impossible to say where the original term came from. It might even be possible that Quechua borrowed it from Spanish at some point. DTLHS (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sumiaz! are you currently in PUCP? These days we are working on development of Quechua ASR, any help is welcome! I hope hear from you

Return to the user page of "Sumiaz".