User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan


Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Thanks for your help on this and other PIE entries. I just wanted discuss the reconstructions *gʷĺ̥h₂nos/*gʷl̥h₂-eno-. You are right that De Vaan, Beekes, and Martirosyan all propose *gʷl̥h₂eno-, though this would produce neither կաղին nor βᾰ́λᾰνος (but instead should give something like կաղան and βλᾱνος/βληνος). Fortson's Indo-European Language and Culture mentions that in AG Ŕ̥h₁/Ŕ̥h₂/Ŕ̥h₃ appear to give éRe/áRa/óRo respectively; though this theory is debated. This would appear to give the only correct result in this AG etymology, but we can stick with the official etymology if you think it is more appropriate.

Also, I apologize for repeatedly being incapable of typing Old Armenian. :)JohnC5 05:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither PIE *gʷĺ̥h₂nos nor *gʷl̥h₂-eno- would give Armenian կաղին ‎(kałin). The first would yield *կաղն ‎(*kałn), the second *կաղան ‎(*kałan). Clackson 1994 reconstructs the former and explains the insertion of -ի- ‎(-i-) by analogy. Martirosyan says he accepts Clackson's explanation but unlike Clackson reconstructs *gʷl̥h₂-eno-. I have written an email to Hrach, let's wait for his clarification. --Vahag (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Woah! I didn't know you knew him well enough to email him. That's very cool. Thanks for the help―the world of Armenian etymology is still rather foreign to me. —JohnC5 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
We're friends. We meet, talk, exchange emails. Sometimes I tell him about my small discoveries in Armenian linguistics. He mentions me in his upcoming article. --Vahag (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You're so legit. I'm very impressed. May inquire as to the context and content of your article mention? —JohnC5 19:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so impressed, I'm not very important. Hrach is a very modest man, ready to engage anyone who is genuinely into linguistics. The upcoming article is an Armeno–Anatolica, a study of Anatolian loanwords in Armenian. I have helped him with minor suggestions in preparing the article, so he thanks me in a footnote :) My marginally more substantial contributions (etymological suggestions) he stores in his internal database, with my name. This constantly-growing database will serve as the foundation for a future comprehensive etymological dictionary of Armenian. --Vahag (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Martirosyan prefers the reconstruction *gʷl̥h₂-eno-, without going into details. In his opinion *gʷl̥h₂no- too would probably give Armenian *կաղան- ‎(*kałan-) because a laryngeal between a consonant and a resonant is probably vocalized in Armenian. So the mechanism of the analogical insertion of -ի- ‎(-i-) is not relevant.
I think we should mention both reconstructions. --Vahag (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! —JohnC5 10:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I don't know enough to tell if this diff is legitimate, but it certainly set my alarm bells off. Could you take a look? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's one of the traditional explanations, one among 10 sourced ones in the Russian Wikipedia. Of course it's Hirubator's favourite one. --Vahag (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you provide the exact source for Vasmer please? Thanks. --Hirabutor (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by the exact source? The source is Vasmer, his opinion, properly referenced with a volume and page number. His exact wording is "Недостоверно ввиду монг. Baigal "Байкал"" = "doubtful [the traditional Turkic origin] in view of [the existence] of Mongol Baigal". --Vahag (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean the Mongolic etymologies. Would be nice to add them. --Hirabutor (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Vasmer does not give any. Among 10 sourced proposals listed in Russian Wikipedia, Nos. 2–5 and 9 argue for a native Buryat origin. I am only marginally interested in Altaic linguistics, so I have to decline reading those sources and entering the information into Wiktionary, sorry. --Vahag (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

suspect diffEdit

This look right to you? diffקהת — 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the comparison belongs to Ačaṙean. --Vahag (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, just wanted to make sure we weren't getting more fabricated nationalist weirdness :D — קהת — 15:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Simboyd has reformed. He is reliable now :) --Vahag (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

A favour - information about a surnameEdit

Hello, I had to contact someone with the surname 'Mnatzaganian' not too long ago. I was just wondering whether it is an Armenian name and also how it is pronounced (especially the first part - is it a silent 'M'?)? Thanks for any help. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See Մնացականյան ‎(Mnacʿakanyan). It would be a cognate of Persian Mandani if you had such a surname. --Vahag (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, that is amazing! :D I wan't expecting a link to Persian. Next time I talk to her, I will be able to say her name instead of avoiding names throughout the conversation. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
That happens to me all the time :D People avoiding my name, because they can't remember Vahagn. --Vahag (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

New dictionaries (2)Edit

  • Մեր արմատները նոր լոյսի տակ (1995-1998) by Vartkes Ourishian. This is an etymological dictionary that tries to tie Armenian root words to Arabic origins. I'd be interested to see your and other linguists' opinion on this book. Սէրուժ (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    It's really unscientific, Serouj. Sorry. It reminds me of Template:R:xcl:Hiwnk. But I'm glad you made that rare book online. --Vahag (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Անգլերեն-հայերեն բառարան (2011). I like this dictionary. Unlike some other recent "new" English-Armenian dictionaries, this is not a plagiarism of Asmangulian's work with a few cosmetic changes, but instead seems to be a genuine original work. Let me know your thoughts on it. Սէրուժ (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    I have had this dictionary in print and in .pdf for a long time, but I have not used it much because I have grown accustomed to searching stuff only online. Thanks for adding this to Nayiri. You are right that it is valuable by being an original work. --Vahag (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Բառգիրք հայ-գաղղիարէն (1861). Hi Vahagn, you might find this dictionary useful for Armenian headwords. Ambrosios Galfayian is the real name of Guy de Lusignan who wrote the 2-volume encyclopedic French-Armenian dictionary of 1900-1901 (which you have requested). In a sense, this dictionary is the complement of that one. It is definitely a classic. Սէրուժ (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. It is indeed useful. The fifth image version is not working, not that it is important. PS You may consider adding this new dictionary. --Vahag (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Right, the fifth image version is not working, but not for this dictionary, rather the one I released today, no? Բառագիրք երեքլեզուեան գաղղիերէն-հայերէն-տաճկերէն (1871). I need to grab about 30 bad pages of my copy from the Ազգային Գրադարան when I go back. Սէրուժ (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Also, thanks for the link to that dictionary. About a year or so ago the author sent me the PDF. I'll bump this up in the priority queue. Thanks for your recommendation of it. Can you give me your thoughts on it overall? Thanks. Սէրուժ (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, I meant the other dictionary, sorry. Poghosyan's dictionary is important by bringing to light thousands of newly-discovered words, with attestations. Early Ašxarhabar and Middle Armenian periods lack a fundamental dictionary, the kind that NHB is for Old Armenian or ŽHLBB and Aghayan are for Standard Eastern Armenian. --Vahag (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparent mistakes in (Old) Armenian templatesEdit

OK, after looking through the warnings I got in my remove-translit code and checking the templates, the following warnings appear to be legit:

Page 183 ալ: WARNING: Value 1=ալ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-adj|ալ}}
Page 581 անատոմիա: WARNING: Value 1=անատոմիայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|անատոմիայ}}
Page 1550 բարով: WARNING: Value 1=barօv has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-interj|barօv}}
Page 2442 դժոխք: WARNING: Value 1=դժոխք has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|դժոխք}}
Page 2723 երախտիք: WARNING: Value 1=երախտ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-noun-ո-ա-pl|երախտ}}
Page 4270 ծովաշուն: WARNING: Value 1=ծովաշներ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun|ծովաշներ}}
Page 4312 կաթսա: WARNING: Value 1=կաթսայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|կաթսայ}}
Page 4356 կամ: WARNING: Value 1=''o''-type instrumentals {{term|կամով|tr=kamov|lang=xcl}} and {{term|կամովք|tr=kamovkʿ|lang=xcl}} are also attested has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-noun-ի-ա|''o''-type instrumentals {{term|կամով|tr=kamov|lang=xcl}} and {{term|կամովք|tr=kamovkʿ|lang=xcl}} are also attested}}
Page 4431 կապվածություն: WARNING: Value 1=կապուածութիւն has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun|կապուածութիւն}}
Page 4667 կինո: WARNING: Value 1=կինոյ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|կինոյ}}
Page 4730 կոալա: WARNING: Value 1=կոալայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|կոալայ}}
Page 5128 հայտարարում: WARNING: Value 1=յայտարարում has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun|յայտարարում}}
Page 6486 մեքենա: WARNING: Value 1=մեքենայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|մեքենայ}}
Page 6497 մթություն: WARNING: Value 1=մթ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ություն|մթ}}
Page 6619 մնացական: WARNING: Value 1=մընացական has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-adj|մընացական}}
Page 6687 մոտոցիկլ: WARNING: Value 1=մոտոցիկլ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun|մոտոցիկլ}}
Page 6813 յոգուրտ: WARNING: Value 1=յո՛գուրտ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun|յո՛գուրտ|յոգուրտ}}
Page 7662 պարագա: WARNING: Value 1=պարագայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|պարագայ}}
Page 7810 պողոտա: WARNING: Value 1=պողոտայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|պողոտայ}}
Page 7961 ռադիո: WARNING: Value 1=ռադիոյ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|ռադիոյ}}
Page 9639 քիմիա: WARNING: Value 1=քիմիայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|քիմիայ}}
Page 534 առնեմ: WARNING: Value 3=առնել has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-verb||արարի|առնել}}
Page 896 բանեմ: WARNING: Value 3=բանել has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-verb||բանեցի|բանել}}
Page 950 բարով: WARNING: Value 1=barօv has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-interj|barօv}}
Page 1097 գարշեմ: WARNING: Value 1=garšеm has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-verb|garšеm|գարշեցի}}
Page 1238 գործեմ: WARNING: Value 3=գործել has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-verb||գործեցի|գործել}}
Page 1513 երախտիք: WARNING: Value 1=երախտ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-noun-ո-ա-pl|երախտ}}
Page 2440 կամ: WARNING: Value 1=''o''-type instrumentals {{term|կամով|tr=kamov|lang=xcl}} and {{term|կամովք|tr=kamovkʿ|lang=xcl}} are also attested has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-noun-ի-ա|''o''-type instrumentals {{term|կամով|tr=kamov|lang=xcl}} and {{term|կամովք|tr=kamovkʿ|lang=xcl}} are also attested}}
Page 3408 մնացական: WARNING: Value 1=մընացական has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-adj|մընացական}}
Page 4899 քառ: WARNING: Value 3=քառից has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{xcl-numeral||քառի|քառից|pg2=քառաց|pg3=քառեաց}}
Page 4945 քիմիա: WARNING: Value 1=քիմիայ has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|քիմիայ}}
Page 236 դժոխք: WARNING: Value 1=դժոխք has non-Western chars in it, not removing: {{hy-noun-ի-ներ|դժոխք}}

These are likely errors where you meant to put the Armenian in a different parameter, and you might want to fix them. Benwing (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm going through the list and fixing my errors. --Vahag (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Having missed Russian classes in high school...Edit

Hi. I've noticed Starostin uses various abbreviations in this dictionary, like ПВК, ПЦ and ПАК. Now, I've managed to decipher some of it but I still don't know what the three I mentioned actually stand for. I especially need the meaning of ПАК for *did-. Since you speak Russian well, could you help me out in this? --Simboyd (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Here is the entry for *did- in Starostin. --Simboyd (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • ПВК is правосточнокавказский / Proto-Northeast-Caucasian, code cau-nec-pro,
  • ПЗК is празападнокавказский / Proto-Northwast-Caucasian, code cau-nwc-pro,
  • ПАК is праадыгейско-кабардинский / Proto-Circassian, code cau-cir-pro,
  • ПЦ is працезский / Proto-Tsez. We do not have a code for it.

See [1], [2], [3]. --Vahag (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Simboyd (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It's OK. You ran away from Russian influence too quickly. Now your people speak neither Russian, nor good English :) --Vahag (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why are you reconstructing Proto-Kartvelian when Klimov reconstructs only Proto-Georgian-Zan? Is it because the reconstruction is included in Fähnrich? I haven't read Fähnrich's introduction, does he claim that all his reconstructions are Proto-Kartvelian? --Vahag (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Fahnrich and Starostin reconstuct only Proto-Kartvelian. There are instances, however, when Fahnrich also reconstructs Proto-Georgian-Zan, but he puts it as a note in the end of each entry. --Simboyd (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that, I just read in the introduction of Fahnrich-Sarjveladze, p. 25 that whenever there is no Svan cognate indicated, the reconstruction is for the Proto-Georgian-Zan stage. You should be able to read this on page 24, Fahnrich 2007, paragraph:
Oft fehlen Angaben, ob die betreffende rekonstruierte Grundform ge-meinkartwelisch oder georgisch-sanisch ist. Auf diese Angaben haben wir verzichtet, da es ohnehin klar ist, daß es sich um das georgisch-sanische chronologische Niveau handelt, wenn es nur georgische und mingrelische bzw. georgische und lasische oder georgische, mingrelische und lasische Lexik betrifft; d. h. wo die swanische Entsprechung fehlt, kann nur bis zum georgisch-sanischen Niveau rekonstruiert werden. Das gemeinkartwelische chronologische Niveau der Rekonstruktion liegt vor, wenn es sich um georgische und swanische bzw. um georgische, mingrelische, lasische und swanische oder nur um mingrelische, lasische und swanische Lexik handelt (Klimow 1964).
Nevertheless, Starostin still reconstructs Proto-Kartvelian. But this may simply be due to the fact that he didn't know/care about Proto-Georgian-Zan. --Simboyd (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Starostin does not even have a Proto-Georgian-Zan node in his tree. And he is generally keen on reconstructing long-range proto-forms with scant evidence. I think we should move the page to Proto-Georgian-Zan. Without Svan evidence we cannot reconstruct Proto-Kartvelian. The same is true for მგელი. --Vahag (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I have also moved *ṗaṗ- and *ḳad- to PGZ. I've also made some changes in *ɣamort- for this matter. This is all due to the fact that I screwed up, as always. I now have ~200 entries to review and fix :D Thanks for bringing this up, I would have never realized this myself. --Simboyd (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing those. I still fix my Armenian edits made 7 years ago. --Vahag (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

بقراط as transliteration of ԲագարատEdit

It's the Arabized form of the Greek Hippocrates (also used in New Persian). Are you sure about your edit? (or is it a joke as well? :D) --Z 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't joke about substantive issues :) Ačaṙyan gives Arabic بقراط Buqrāṭ as an Arabic transliteration of an Armenian king-name. I find the same in Justi, but transliterated as Baqrāṭ here: person No. 9 Baqrāṭ bin Ašūṭ baṭrīq, attested in Al-Baladhuri, Yaqut al-Hamawi, Ali ibn al-Athir, Bar Hebraeus. Note also person No. 22 Baqrāṭ bin Krīkōr, attested in Hamdallah Mustawfi. I think the last one wrote in Persian, so we also have a Persian attestation. At first I thought Ačaṙyan's transliteration is a misprint, but I find other attestations for Buqrāṭ. The merging with the name of Hippocrates is probably due to folk etymology. Note how Greeks call Bagarat Παγκράτειος. --Vahag (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Could you look at this please? I might have screwed up the Armenian word. --Simboyd (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have added what I could find. Ačaṙean derived from Georgian probably because the word has a more basic meaning there and is more productive. But since ბალახი ‎(balaxi) has no known native etymology and is isoleted within Kartvelian languages, it is more probable that we are dealing with a substrate word surviving independently in Armenian and Georgian, perhaps from Hurro-Urartian. Plant names are often from substrates.
Regarding this. We have no official policy on original research. Original research is going on all the time. Almost every time you add a pronunciation, inflection or basic etymology like in თავქუდმოგლეჯილი, you are using your knowledge and common sense and not some published source explicitly proving the information. We had a long discussion in the Beer Parlour some time ago after CodeCat added some originally-researched Balto-Slavic reconstructions. Most peoplee argued that original research is allowed by knowledgeable users in non-substantial matters as long as their conslusions are supported by prior art, are not challenged by other users and they clearly mark it is their original research. So, reconstructing a PIE root without sources or putting my above theory in the mainspace is forbidden. But deriving პლაჟი ‎(ṗlaži) from Russian пляж ‎(pljaž) or Azeri balax from Georgian ბალახი ‎(balaxi) is allowed. In the latter case the word is almost certainly from Georgian because among Azeri dialects it is found exclusively in Saingilo. Also, Azeri is a newcomer in the region, whereas in Georgian and Armenian the word is attested early. Isn't this an attestation in Old Georgian? --Vahag (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

ტრაკი also needs your attention :D --Simboyd (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not find *տռակ ‎(*tṙak) / *տրակ ‎(*trak) in Armenian. What is your source? What is the meaning? These are close: Armenian տռել ‎(tṙel, to fart), Middle Armenian տռայ ‎(tṙay, a word of uncertain meaning, perhaps ass). --Vahag (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought these matters were addressed as they were on Wikipedia, where people absolutely detest original research :D Evidently, things are different here and I guess it makes sense now that you've said it. Not everything has a published source, so sometimes we have to improvise.
As for ტრაკი ‎(ṭraḳi), I found it in Klimov / Khalilov (2003), p. 104 where the Armenian word was defined as "seat". Could it be a now-obsolete Old/Middle Armenian term? Perhaps that is why you've never heard of it. --Simboyd (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure whether that is an Old Georgian attestation. If Biblia Judaica Georgica predates Vepkhistqaostani (12th century), it can technically be considered to have been present in Old Georgian. --Simboyd (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well that source is The Traditional Oral Translation of the Bible in Judeo-Georgian. and edited by Reuven Enoch xD.
But I have found it in Visramiani link, which could be regarded as Old Georgian.
Though, all of the corpuses here suggest mge.-- 15:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I now see Klimov / Xalilov derived ბალახი ‎(balaxi) from Armenian. Not cool hiding this from me. Anyway, both Armenian and Georgian attestations are old enough to exclude borrowing from Turkic or Kurdish. As to who borrowed from whom, we cannot say as long as we do not provide a native etymology or find the substrate source.
When looking for words, I do not rely on my knowledge only. I have almost all the dictionaries of Armenian ever published and they do not contain ṭraḳ meaning “seat”. There is տրակ ‎(trak, billet) < տետրակ ‎(tetrak, тетрадь) and տրակ ‎(trak, track of a caterpillar tractor). I am almost certain ṭraḳ is spurious. Klimov / Xalilov must have taken it uncritically from somewhere unreliable, perhaps Marr, who in one of his works arbitrarily analyzed Armenian աթոռ ‎(atʿoṙ, chair, seat) as ա-թոռ ‎(a-tʿoṙ) and connected it with θρ-όν-ος ‎(thr-ón-os), both from a "Japhethic" root. Maybe in another work he “modified” աթոռակ ‎(atʿoṙak) to get ṭraḳ and compare it with Georgian. --Vahag (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I would never degrade myself by deceiving or "hiding" something from a somekh :) In fact, to this day, Armos are the ones who are mastered in this field. :D
On a serious note, shouldn't we remove such etymology if our only source is clearly mistaken? Knowingly leaving false info in an entry is not very encyclopedic. Or perhaps Klimov and Khalilov actually meant տրակ ‎(trak, billet) or տրակ ‎(trak, track of a caterpillar tractor), since these are almost identical to Georgian ṭraḳ-i? --Simboyd (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't be jealous.
Yes, we should remove the dubious etymology. I now notice Klimov / Xalilov make many mistakes, one of which is the derivation of ბოზი ‎(bozi) from Armenian, and not vice-versa. --Vahag (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Is this allowed? It would make things much simpler when someone decides to change or add something, because he wouldn't have to worry about syncing every entry by making the same edits on them one by one. --Simboyd (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is something similar in Wiktionary:Picture dictionary/en:Solar System. But it's better to move the template out of your user subpage. --Vahag (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. --Simboyd (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
ტრაკი's from turkish "oturak". Abkhazian1 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Unikely. What is your source? We have to assume a “seat, stool; bottom, base” → “ass” sense development, loss of o- and -u- and Turkish t, k becoming Georgian ‎(), ‎() instead of expected ‎(t), ‎(k). PS. I have reverted your edit on Laz ბარდი ‎(bardi), because its meaning is not compatible with the Georgian and Mingrelian homophones, while it matches Armenian բարդ ‎(bard) perfectly. --Vahag (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Armenian on PIE root pagesEdit

Thank you for working on these and putting words where they belong. I know nothing about Armenian, and the sound changes are just confusing and weird from my perspective. —CodeCat 23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm still at the beginning of learning PIE and the historical development of Armenian. Martirosyan has a nice table summarizing the development of PIE phonemes in Armenian, if you're interested. --Vahag (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That's certainly helpful, thank you! —CodeCat 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem. But when you delete things like Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/wóyd-, many pages hang in the air. --Vahag (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I kind of missed that so many pages link to it. I've made it into a redirect now. —CodeCat 19:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Здравствуйте! А что означается стрелка в Descendants?--Cinemantique (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Стрелка указывает на заимствование, в противовес наследованию. См. применение, например, в smwl. Эта практика неофициальна и не обязательна. Люди постоянно экспериментируют и что-то придумывают. Сегодня увидел такую стрелку — ⇒. Это не так неплохо. Хорошие практики выкристаллизуются и станут обязательными. --Vahag (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Понятно. Спасибо!--Cinemantique (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)



Here are the link to Wiktionary article and the citation from the printed dictionary:

дерзать - From Proto-Slavic *dьrzati...

Дерза́ть. Общеслав. Образовано с помощью суф. -ати от дьрзъ — «смелый», засвидетельствованного в памятниках и имеющего ту же основу, что дьргати. См. дергать.
(Краткий этимологический словарь русского языка, М., Просвещение, 1971, с 124)

Yaroslav (signed as -- 09:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

That's from Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/dʰers-, not Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/dʰer-. See [4]. --Vahag (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that revert on my talk pageEdit

I can't decide whether those changes should be hidden or not. —JohnC5 13:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You decide, it doesn't matter that much. I'm sorry you got caught up in my beef with this crazy person. For some reason he thinks you, Stephen or the UN are going to help him. --Vahag (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
He mistakes my general politeness and attempts to help for a willingness to compromise. I try to be as friendly and level-headed on here as possible, but I will not abide that much crazy overflowing onto adjacent talk pages, however interesting it was to read initially.
Also, I very much had a separate beef with him from when he was talking about AG on WT:AGRC.
I also realize that one of his previous comments on my talk page contains a link to his Facebook page. Do I recall correctly that that should be removed? —JohnC5 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's best to hide personal information. --Vahag (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow. 40,898 bytes of unreadable sludge in one post. -sche compared Werdna Yrneh Yarg to Nemzag, but he reminds me more of PaulBustion88 (I suspect, though, that there's a rich vein of religious weirdness there, just waiting to surface). Nemzag is unique- the most arrogant, bigoted, verbose piece of work we've ever had to deal with, as far as I can tell. 17:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that he is as exceptional as he appeared to be. I may entirely remove that conversation from my page and hide the changes. —JohnC5 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just reading through his comments, and I found these paragraphs most interesting:
About himself
I have been, and I com‑manded Belgica and N.A.T.O psychically and tele‑pathically with MIND‑KON‑TROL ULTRA 4 years from 2003 to 2007 by mind (angelic → walvnégggic ملاك) possession إمتلاك… I have been pro‑grammed by thë én‑luminati (Qêlestial (سماء Shêmitic) Olumeni علوم Wolumpi‧an Wapollumphi‧an Alumnus, known as thë Hakan Déva Divus Dius Théus Zéus Di‑Daos Deos Indra Rodinath رعديناث Aévra‑mazda Diu‑piter الفاطر (“creator, originator”) Im‑perator per‑êmnis shqipo‑shupremium) with “MON‑ARCH” (shole rêguler / thë only one leader) pro‑graphm‧ing to be‑come an en‑lightened Abuddʰama أبددهامى (Eternal أبد, Per‑man‧ênθ ددم, دهام, in‑genuity دهاء)…
I know lot of things and I'm in‑fluential man who will re‑wolutionize this world in thë future (with my vriting, binary theory and my new techno‑logical ideas), you don't com‑pre‑hend how special and visionary I’m. I will achieve my de‑stiny even if some re‑tro‑grade & rivals minds and souls want to pre‑vent me to do so… I'm really a messenger of my Divine Lord and a novator a‑mêliora‑tor im‑prova‑tor جدد ججد [gudd budd], this vork is my ef‑fort جهد هدي [ged] to guide هدي [edi] in the right path of faith.
I have some oc‑cult, esoteric and mystique know‑ledge, and in thë case of my MON‑ARCH con‑ditioning, I m a mentor… With my study and my little sciêncë of thë greatest languages (Lathin, Crêgu, Shlove, Shqyp, Français, Engël‧ish, Orbitian / Obrith, Persian, Shams‑krit), I be‑came a pro‑graphmator of thë most in‑ter‑esting logical con‑ditionning soft‑ware of thë world : thë languages… And now I create my own one (positive one), based on thë binary codex that I de‑scribed to you…
About Vahagn's name
But your name have not that meaning in true Ancient‑Qrêgu Vorphthéos that I can de‑scribe be‑cause I have thë original code & keys. Since thë alpha use Rough Spirit thë true vords for purity and saint is SHAGI‧OS (Sanctus → Shangθus) and SHAG‧N‧OS. So In fact your name mean in "Le Grand Bailly" :
So you are not a saint, holy or sacred (but an e‑manation of thë سقر [saqar] {Wikipedia), your a just a fake & false holy one, thë Warmenian Hayastan god of Fire… Also since VAHAGN is re‑lated to AGNI/IGNIS/OGON and since your name is re‑lated to ΑΓΩ I can say this : “you lead, guide di‑rectly your‑self and others in to fire or to جهنم [genm] (ΓΕΕΝΜΑ) / IGNIS / OGON”… This is what I can say about vetumo‑logy of your name… Your de‑stiny is vritten in your name…
About trolls and poison
Kephr, you called me a troll = Rol רעל = “Poison, venom”, in fact I have been poisoned many time in thë past, by U.S chemical miniaturized pharmaceutical weapons (φαρμάκι : poison, venom) from Johnson & Johnson (Anti‑Psy with toxic, de‑grading, de‑forming, cancerous and tera‑togenic elements like Sulfur, Chlore, Fluor), this is thë snake spirit → srapit serpentis of the satanic church, venom of this world, the amaraka मारक ‎(māraka). These sub‑stance are ana‑logous than the anti‑mutant serum in X‑Men movies & comic book… They blocked my psy capabilities and re‑trieved my com‑mandment for their own in‑terest (they want now to mind‑com‑mand Olvarbamnians, but they will never suc‑ceed)…
I thought these represented the most powerful and persuasive sections of the rant. —JohnC5 22:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
We are laughing but the man clearly needs psychiatric help. One day he may start chopping off people's heads. --Vahag (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry about that; I couldn't resist the temptation. @Chuck Entz, as a more experienced admin is there a way to remove and hide all of his personal information (FB profile) from my talk page's history? I can't figure it out. —JohnC5 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Any edit other than the current one can be hidden: you can click on "change visibility" for individual edits as seen in diff view, user contributions or revision history, or select several in the revision history using the checkboxes and click "change visibility of selected revisions". This hides the edits in the same way that a deletion does, so it's sometimes referred to as a revision deletion, or revdel, for short. It should always be used for inappropriate personal information and personally-identifiable attacks, and usually for spam web links and copyvios. I also use it on attention-seeking vandalism so there's nothing in the edit history vandals can show their friends, but I seem to be alone in this. The main caveat is that edit histories are required to provide attribution for the CC licensing, so any legitimate edits done while the bad content is present shouldn't be hidden if it can be avoided. That doesn't apply in this case, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Did I do that correctly? You can still see the information in intervening edits. Is there a way to prevent that? I'm sorry I didn't catch this earlier. —JohnC5 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, removing the edit summary and user name is probably overkill. As for the intervening edits, there's really nothing you can do: either you hide them or you leave them as they are. If you do leave them, there's not much point in hiding the other edits to remove personal information that's there in the visible edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
So... ? (Sorry for all the questions) —JohnC5 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That means you have to decide whether hiding the link to the facebook page is important enough to require hiding all the intervening edits- which is a very difficult judgment call. If it isn't, there's no point in hiding the earlier edits. Hiding the latter edit might be worthwhile in itself, since it consists of a mentally-ill person indiscriminately spewing the contents of their brains out in public for everyone to gawk at. I agree with Vahagn here: the perception that their problems are due to being persecuted by evil people is a warning sign that they may be heading for a murder-suicide like any number of workplace and/or domestic killings that you've seen in the news lately. I'm not sure what we can do about it from a continent or two away, but it's potentially very serious. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about it a little more, the text and signatures in the version after the problematic content is removed is a decent stand-in for the edit history of the intervening edits, since there's no way any of the problematic content should ever find its way into an entry. Besides, it's a talk page: Equinox deletes his whole page, unarchived, from time to time. I would recommend hiding the text for the intervening edits, with an edit summary of "inappropriate personal information". I would also recommend removing the text quoted here, and hiding the text of the edits showing it- though that would be Vahagn's call. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like he's back: 2A02:A03F:8A8:8600:89F:7829:B1AB:F4AB (talkcontribswhoisdeleted contribsnukeedit filter logblockblock logactive blocksglobal blocks). He seems to be behaving himself so far- I'll let you guys decide whether to block him. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
He has been abusing multiple accounts from Macedonian and Belgian IPs for a long time. I am blocking him as soon as I notice. He can't be trusted and our time is too precious to tease out his good contributions. --Vahag (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume this contributor is he? —JohnC5 22:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This whack-a-wacko game is getting tiresome. --Vahag (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry Chuck Entz, I don't plan to make these kind of stupid acts against innocent... I'm not evil... I said, I try to be in the right path, after all that I have learn in my life and the tao‑project that I have, making an S.M, would be the dumbest thing to do, I have so much thing to achieve & to learn in my life... My comparison in Krêguos & ATQN, are not coming vrom an ill mind, but by the true one (H.C. 23‑70, 62‑1 to 6)... Never mind, you can say what you want, so I can say what I want. But still you should not give such diagnose, when for me the real sicks peoples are you... 2A02:A03F:86A:6F00:C9C3:A950:DC7C:2749 14:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Iranian verb favorEdit

Could I get you to add the material from {{R:ine:Cheung2007}} *tan (and maybe *tand) to the new PIE *ten-? I am not as familiar with the development of Iranian verbs. —JohnC5 05:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I added what I could. Not sure where to put the unsorted formations. I am not familiar with the development of Iranian verbs either (yet, I plan to study). The Lexikon der indogermanischen Nomina to which I referred has a wealth of additional information, if you feel like adding it. By the way, I like very much this format of PIE entries with meticulous references which you popularized. Keep up the good work. --Vahag (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and kind words. It normally takes me a few hours to set up one of the articles, but I think the result is very professional looking. I haven't decided what the policy should be regarding placing all the references after the head word. It has the upside of getting them all in a row but making a hideous block of hypertext in the edit window. What are your thoughts on that?
I will go through and add some more stuff in a minute, but in the mean time a few other questions:
  1. For the section under *tón-os
    It seems like normally Brugmann's Law would result in *tāna- as in तान ‎(tāna). Is there any possibility these stem from a different form such as *tén-os? I can't read slavic languages at all, so your source is off limits to me.
  2. It is very mysterious whence those Iranian verb forms stemmed. Cheung mentions the MP preterite stem tt-, which I am sure is from the perfect *te-tón-, but the origin of the remaining (and numerous) present forms is baffling to me. If the come from an innovative present, I have no idea what it is. —JohnC5 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll look into the LIN for details and also determine whether the root *tenh₂- of tenuis should be included in this article. —JohnC5 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no preference about referencing the headword line. I put Pokorny there because it is a general reference and I didn't know where else to put it.
Abaev derives Proto-Iranian *tana- "from Proto-Indo-European *tono-, *teno-" (i.e. gives the forms with a comma and does not go into details) and compares Avestan θanvar-tan- “bowstring” (with a question mark), Sanskrit तान ‎(tāna, thread; fibre; musical tone), Welsh tant ‎(string), Ancient Greek τόνος ‎(tónos, rope, cord) and τένων ‎(ténōn, sinew). I picked *tón-os because its descendants have a closer meaning to the Ossetian words, which mean “string”, whereas the reflex of *tén-os, Sanskrit तनस् ‎(tanas), means “offspring”. But feel free to move the Iranian to *tén-os and keep the source. I don't know enough about the validity of Brugmann's law to decide.
By the way, Abaev also mentions Khanty tan “sinew” and Archi тенне ‎(tenne, sinew) as possible borrowings from Iranian, but they are probably native words, the first one from *sëne. --Vahag (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To my knowledge Brugmann's Law is pretty well accepted; though WP provides a host of exceptional situations. I realize now that those PIr forms would probably don't go back to the athematic *tén-os ~ *tén-es- of तनस् ‎(tanas), as s-stems are an entirely different declensional ballgame, but probably should go to some thematic *tén-os like तन n ‎(tána, offspring) / तना f ‎(tánā, persistence) if anything. You are correct though that the semantic relationship of*tón-os is quite appealing, and I trust Abaev to know more about PIr than me.
To your point about Khanty and Archi, I had literally never heard of those languages until reading your post; so I have effectively zero input about them. —JohnC5 21:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The PIE entry looks even more impressive now, with LIN’s content incorporated. If we are going for finding all reflexes, note Olsen 1999, pages 281–282, about the suffixal use of this root in several daughters, including Old Armenian -այն ‎(-ayn). Another potential reflex is Old Armenian տանիմ ‎(tanim), but the phonological problems remain insurmountable. --Vahag (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I will mention that I haven't been putting in all the reflexes, particularly since the LIN seems to derive everything from PIE. While I like this approach in theory, I prefer to have at least a couple cognates before I spend the effort working on the proto-form. As for that link, Armenian google books doesn't not seem to like me for whatever reason. —JohnC5 22:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Try opening, and scrolling to the bottom of the page 281. She talks about a PIE suffix *-tn̥o-, *-tn̥i-, *-tno-, from the root *ten-. Vahag (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a good find. I can only see those two pages in my preview, but a great source nonetheless. I'll work on this in a bit. I've often wondered about the -tinus in diūtinus. —JohnC5 22:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Это ведь словарь, все слова в алфавитном порядке — найти статью не составит труда.--Cinemantique (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

В будущем на основе номера страницы можно получить внешние ссылки прямо на нужную страницу. См. как это реализовано в Template:R:xcl:AG или Template:R:ru:Chernykh. К тому же, не все легко владеют кириллицей. Я, например, долго ищу грузинские слова в словаре по алфавиту; мне легче найти номером страницы. Наконец, ссылка без страницы — это не академично. Когда ты пишешь статью (перейдём на ты), тебе ведь очень легко добавить страницу. Сделать это потом будет труднее. --Vahag (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

И я так и не понял, как там поставить научную латынь. Или это неважно?--Cinemantique (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Шаблон дефективен. Я написал в WT:GP. --Vahag (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

etymology of πυροσβέστηςEdit

When the noun πυροσβέστης was created in Katharevousa Greek, the word πυρ did not exist in Greek; only πῦρ existed. RegardsSoSivr (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Those are the same words, in different orthography. My problem was that you linked to the Ancient Greek entry. Feel free to link to Katharevousa πῦρ ‎(pῦr), with the code el. --Vahag (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Vahagn,

As always, I deeply appreciate your contributions and your clean-ups after I come and make a mess. I'm just seriously wondering about ծիրանի meaning "purple" in contemporary Armenian. Is a bilingual dictionary enough to go by? Why have monolingual, Armenian dictionaries not picked up on this? If they have, if you know of a monolingual dictionary, please let me know! Arax (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A possibly unrelated issue: I've never heard of a purple apricot. With all the apricots I've seen, even when completely near-rotten ripe, they're still some shade of orange. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
In Old Armenian ծիրանի ‎(cirani) definitely meant “purple”. In the Bible it stands for Ancient Greek πορφύρεος ‎(porphúreos, purple). Note also a formation such as ծիրան-ա-ծին ‎(ciran-a-cin, Porphyrogenitus, born in the purple). In modern Armenian the word is a literary borrowing from Old Armenian. As Malxaseancʿ explains, it is used for different bright and pleasant colors. The use as “purple” in the modern translation of the Bible is sufficient to verify that meaning.
The nature of the relation with ծիրան ‎(ciran, apricot) is disputed. There are many theories on the origin of both. It is unclear which one is the primary etymon. It is even possible they are unrelated. One proposal derives both from an Iranian color adjective meaning “golden”: compare Avestan zaraṅiia-, Ossetian зӕри́н ‎(zærín), Sogdian zyrnynʾk, all meaning “golden”. I don't want to import all of this information into Wiktionary yet. Too much work. --Vahag (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Arax (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


This just popped up in Special:WantedCategories, but it's really just one of Marmase's Turkish-to-Zazaki transplants from a year and a half ago that was hidden because it had the wrong language code. Could you either check it or chuck it, whichever seems appropriate? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it in Çeko Kocadag's Kurdish–Zazaki dictionary as a translation of Kurdish ember. But since the latter is polysemous, it is safer to remove the entry altogether. --Vahag (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


Dear friend hello. Your rollback for عاشق is in error. Ishq عشق and all the words derived from this word, rooted in Avestan iš- "to wish, desire, search". It is not an Arabic word. But it is a concept very important in Sufism, because of the Persian philosophers and Sufis like Attar, Rumi, Hafez, etc. This word has an Indo-European root, not Semitic. Love in Arabic means "Habba حب". I didn't revert your new edit. I'm waiting for your feedback. Thank you! —This unsigned comment was added by Rohanfarozhi (talkcontribs).

If that was all there was to your edit, you might have a point (I wouldn't know), but you also removed big chunks of the entry (I assume by accident), and most of your actual content wasn't formatted according to our standards. If I had seen that first, I would have reverted it myself- and, unlike Vahagn, I don't know much about the languages involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
All the traditional academic sources consider the word to be native Arabic. I have added some of them. Your link points to an amateur website and cannot be taken seriously. Also, as Chuck noted, be sure to follow our formatting in the future. --Vahag (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear Vahagn and Chuck Entz, Pay attention please! The references, which you added are from Andalusia, Palestine, Turkey and modern Arabic. 1- Do not forget that Turkish is not a Semitic or Indo-European language. Because of Islam and Sufism, this word exist in Turkish. Because Rumi (grand Persian Sufi) is died in Konya, Turkey. 2- Andalusia (Spain) and Palestine before Islam had been speaking in Latin and Aramaic, not Arabic. Before Islam, Arabic was limited to Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The root of a word is ancient version of a language not the modern one. In Saudi Arabia, nobody use Ishq عشق. They use habba حب. Ishq don’t exist in Quran, because Ishq عشق is the only Persian word for love. In Persian, if I want to say “my love”, I will say “Ishqam عشقم” but in Turkish is “sevgim”, in Arabic is “Habbibi حبیبی”. Please check it: STEINGAS, Francis Joseph. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, عشق, Asian Educational Services, 1992, page 850, (accessed in 26 October 2015). --Rohanfarozhi (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Even your source, Steingass, says Persian عشق ‎('išq) is an Arabic borrowing (the symbol ᴀ means just that). Look, get your idea published in a peer-reviewed linguistic journal, then we can include it in Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In this book almost all the words have an A! Except the words which contain گ، ژ، پ، چ. Because these letters don't exist in Arabic. And now, can you say to me which word describes LOVE in Persian language!?? Because, the first person who changed this page in Arabic topic is YOU! Ishq do not exist in Quran. Although it is the most important concept of Sufism. Because Sufism rooted in Iranian culture and Mithraism. Don't forget today Andalusia, Palestine, Turkey, etc. before Islam was territory of the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Empire, which were in a common belief (Mithraism). I'm Persian, and I don't know another word in Persian for love! While in all of the languages (Turkish, Arabic, etc.), other words which are more Turkish, more Arabic, etc. exist for love!--Rohanfarozhi (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the native Iranian words relating to the concept of “love” are *kām- ‎(to desire, love) (see *keh₂-), *kan- ‎(to love, take pleasure in) and *mitra ‎(covenant, in some descendants love). It is not my fault you then became Arabized and replaced basic native terms with Arabic loans. Your forefathers should have fought more valiantly at the Battle of Qādisiyyah. --Vahag (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear, kām کام means desire (for example when you have a goal in your mind) like kamrava کامروا (who is lucky. Because he/she gained his/her goal.) And mitra میترا is a Sanskrit word which means friend. In Persian mitra like a goddess names mehr مهر, which means kindness! If Ishq is an Arabic word, why also exist in Indian language and sanskrit??? While they are not Muslim or they don't speak Arabic! Do you really know history and linguistics of Arabia, Iran, Islam and sufism? You can’t change topic of a page from Persian to Arabic, just because of a dictionary! Behind all the words exist history, philosophy, linguistic points, etc. Are you Muslim, Persian or Arabic native!!??? Or specialist in these categories? --Rohanfarozhi (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is the deal. I am paid by King Salman and the World Zionist Congress to deny the Persian origin of عاشق. Until your ayatollahs cut me a better deal the entry stays as it is. --Vahag (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe an archaic but native equivalent is attested? --Romanophile (contributions) 10:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I know only of مهر ‎(mehr, love). --Vahag (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha ha!!! Our ayatollahs appreciate you, because they are Arabe too!!! But I just spoke from the reality! Ishq is an Indo-European or more precise Indo-Iranian word, rooted in avestan iš- and sanskrit eṣ- . While you can't find its root in Arabic!--Rohanfarozhi (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes but Mehr مهر means kindness, like mehrban مهربان, who is kind. for "my love" you can't use Mehr. You must say عشقم Ishqam. For "I'm falling in love with you." you can't use Mehr. You must say "Man asheqe to hastam. من عاشق تو هستم."--Rohanfarozhi (talk) 10:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! MY GOD!!!!!!! I LOVE wiktionnaire! Even Mehr مهر in wiktionnaire is a Arabic word!!!!! ha ha ha!!!!!!!! They conjugated mehr in Arabic! I LOVE THEM!--Rohanfarozhi (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! OK! I have anything to say! The problem is not error of one or two pages! Thank you for conversation. Bye.--Rohanfarozhi (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A New? Zazaki UserEdit

Zazana227 (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) has been adding a lot of Zazaki translations, which I would know nothing about, but this diff looks kind of like Marmuse's modus operandi. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is Marmase. I will drop him a message. Thank you for letting me know. --Vahag (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Zaza languageEdit

Im newest user in viktionary. Im sorry.

I want you one appeal. Zazaki translate system ise broken. Zaza language same norwegian language.





I want this type zazaki view system. My best regards. Zazana227 (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You can use that system manually. See how in the translation of platypus Ossetian is subdivided into Iron and Digor.
What dialect is qen? I only find hêt, qor, palîste, bite, rehn, palîsne, hête, hite, quer for “ass”. --Vahag (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
for example for
kırmancki:semed . This is big problem to zaza language. Zaza language is modern language but dimli and kirmancki dialekt. Bes regards Zazana227 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Do it like this. --Vahag (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple of translations to look atEdit

A Turkish IP has added ինսուռեկցիոնիզմ ‎(insuṙekcʿionizm) as a translation at sacrilege and desecration, which strikes me as odd, just based on similar words in European languages. Is there anything to this? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's of course wrong. Thanks for noticing. I wonder what was his purpose. --Vahag (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections on *meyḱ-Edit

I find Iranian verbs to be a daunting task and spend lots of time trying to figure out how they work. Thanks for fixing my mistakes. I will openly admit to going and looking for an Armenian word to add to a PIE entry so that you will get notified and then correct my mistakes. :) Also, do we think that آمیختن ‎(âmixtan) derives from the plain root or the inchoative? The -x- looks mighty suspicious to me, but I have little knowledge of Middlle-to-Modern Persian phonological change. —JohnC5 17:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, pinging does not work when Armenian articles created by me are linked. But don't worry, I am watching your contributions :)
I think آمیختن ‎(âmixtan) is from the plain root. For the z/x opposition see for example this. Also, Armenian ուխտ ‎(uxt) vs. Middle Persian wʾc- ‎(to speak), Armenian ապուխտ ‎(apuxt) vs Middle Persian pc- ‎(to cook). --Vahag (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful (though, per usual, that GBooks link does not work for me, probably due to regional issues)! —JohnC5 18:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit at դիEdit

I'm not disputing your revert. Just a tad confused as I haven't studied linguistics to a high level.

What linguistic rationale could justify calling the process "borrowing" from an older literary form of a language? For our English entries we don't use things like "borrowed from Middle English <blah blah blah>", unlike what you and others prefer for the Armenian pages. Hillcrest98 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

For it to be a borrowing, it would have to be absent in the destination language to start with. Middle English inherited terms are already part of modern English from the beginning. I can see how a term might have been lost in a more modern stage, but reintroduced by way of passages in older works. Usually archaic usage in English such as Biblical or poetic terms is preserved rather than reintroduced, so it's hard to think of a good example. I suppose some vocabulary from Beowulf or Chaucer might work. Tolkien reintroduced some obsolete terms from Old or Middle English, but Tolkien isn't an earlier stage of the language. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Some words in modern Armenian are inherited from Old Armenian, by which I mean they developed naturally from Old Armenian, via a Middle Armenian stage and into modern dialects. Other words are learned borrowings from attested Old Armenian literature, adopted by the cultured people in the 19th century. One must differentiate between the two classes. For example, հայր ‎(hayr, father) is a borrowing, հեր ‎(her) is inherited, with a regular այ ‎(ay) → ե ‎(e) development. The first is used in literature and very formal speech, the second is used in regular speech. Romance languages too have many such doublets inherited and borrowed from Latin. For some Spanish examples see w:Doublet_(linguistics)#Spanish. I guess English has no such doublets because Old English was not as important and enduring in its language community. Old Armenian was the language of literature well into the 19th century and influenced the formation of modern literary Armenian tremendously. --Vahag (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


Why this revert? It helps to show that the military troop meaning was retained (there had been such questions on Talk pages of draugas etc.)Zezen (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, I can see you already replied. I accept it. Zezen (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if the "military band" meaning was inherited from PIE and not formed in Proto-Slavic, and it was important to show this on the PIE page, we would list only Proto-Slavic *družina along with *drugъ, and not the Polish reflex. --Vahag (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Change in dictionary reference formatEdit

Hi Vahagn, I noticed some changes in the dictionary reference templates. For the purposes of web back linking (which is used by computer programs to discover the contents of the target page) can you have the headword be the link that points to Nayiri? It will also make it clear to users that the link is to the article by that name. Thanks. Սէրուժ (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are tinkering with a standardized reference template: {{cite-book}}. We are discussing the details here. --Vahag (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vahagn, what was the conclusion? are the links anchored to headwords going to be kept? Thanks. Սէրուժ (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, probably. We are experimenting here. --Vahag (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks good 👍. Սէրուժ (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The links are from the headwords again. By the way, I don't remember if I asked this, but Petrosyan's dictionary needs to be split by indexes. --Vahag (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the links. The 2 indices have been added: Յատուկ Անուանք and Աշխարհագրական եւ Պատմական Անուանք. Սէրուժ (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But the |printPage= parameter is not working when the page falls in the appendices. Compare --Vahag (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Vahagn, this is somewhat of a bug. The original design assumed that other indices begin page numbering again (this is the case for dictionaries like ՀՀԲ 1749-1769, Kajuni, and so on). In this case, since the other indices are small the typesetters didn't restart numbering. The fix in this case is to specify index=3 as a parameter, because print page 783 is in the 3rd index. However, I do see the need to support this use case. I will offer the following behavior: if no index is specified, default to index=1 (this is currently supported), otherwise the system will search for the next index which has such a page number and use it instead. Thank you for pointing this out. Սէրուժ (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Bug fixed! Here is the first index with no index parameter specified: page 700. Second index page 766. Third index page 780. Սէրուժ (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, it's fixed. Thanks! --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I noticed a bug in the Wikipedia template for JB. No need to specify volume=2, as the copy on Nayiri was only one volume, and this is throwing off the system. If you leave out volume=2, it works fine. Let me know your thoughts. Սէրուժ (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I fixed our Template:R:xcl:JB. By the way, as a user, I would prefer not to see "Ցուցակ 1" displayed for the default ցուցակ, e.g. in [5]. I often look at the print volume and page number generated by Nayiri to quickly fill in the volume and page in our templates. The Ցուցակ 1 thing is distracting. But this may be just one personal preference. --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is. When there is more than 1 dictionary (hence, index) within a given dictionary title, then the current dictionary (index) being used is displayed. Indices are numbered 1-N and uniquely identify an index within a dictionary. That is to say, index J of volume X and index J of volume Y (if one exists) refers to the same index. You might need to specify volume number if page numbering is restarting in the next volume (as in ՆՀԲ) and sometimes you need to specify volume number AND index number (as in the case of ՀՀԲ, which is not yet released). In ՀՀԲ we have 5 indices inside volume 2, and each index has its own numbering. Ցուցակ 1 just tells you that you're inside the main (or first) index. Սէրուժ (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that most people don't think of dictionary's main body as "first index". But this is a very minor issue. Let's forget about it. --Vahag (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
So, how do I link to Kajuni's third index with |printPage=? In any case, as far as I know the third index was published as a separate volume in 1893. See for example here. Ačaṙean too says the dictionary is in 3 volumes. Your copy probably had the second and third volumes bound together. --Vahag (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
All of the physical copies of Քաջունի which I have held (UCLA and National Library of Armenia) have had the second and third "volume" in one book. (see the copies at the NLA. Note there: "h. 2-3 mi kazmi mej"). Also, the soft copy from Harvard University (on Nayiri) also has the last two volumes in one book. It might because the last "volume" (i.e. the Armenian-to-French dictionary) is only 250 pages, the fathers in Venice chose to start publishing it inside the second volume. (They finished the first two volumes by 1892, and in 1893 they published the third one as a separate book. Most probably, in subsequent reprints of the 1892 portion they decided to include the 1893 volume inside it to save effort and for practicality.) Ajarian most likely just had the initial printings of each volume: 1891, 1892, 1893, respectively. Սէրուժ (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
For Kajuni we have 3 indices: main, supplement, and Armenian-French. Main spans volume 1-2, with volume 2 having page numbering restarted from 1. Supplement is in volume 2 but does not have page numbering restarted. Armenian-French is in volume 2 and has numbering restarted. Therefore, to uniquely identify a page in the main index, you **must** specify volume number (because page numbering is restarted). For the supplement, you must specify volume = 2, but you don't necessarily need to specify index number because numbering is not restarted (although I recommend you do). For example, page 868 of volume 2 (part of Supplement). But I recommend you do specify index=2, although the results are the same. For the Armenian-French dictionary, you must specify volume number and index number, or else it won't know which index to use (because, for example, there are two different page 1's). Here is page 2 of index 3 in volume 2. Note that in some cases (when a given index spans only a single volume) it is redundant to specify volume as well (such as for the Armenian-French dictionary). However, in other cases, specifying the index is not enough (e.g. the Main index spans two volumes and has numbering reset). This is why to avoid difficulties and keep things simple I recommend to always specify all three parameters: printPage, index, and volume. Of course, you don't need to specify volume if the book is a single volume and you don't need to specify index if the book has only 1 index. Սէրուժ (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank's that was helpful. I can now link to Kajuni's third index. --Vahag (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Please note these formatting improvements. By the way, why are you calling Old Turkic, which is an East Turkic language, the ancestor of Turkish, which is a West Turkic language? --Vahag (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting, I keep notes of improvements other users make and apply the same to entries I create or edit. Actually I am not sure if "Old Turkic" is direct ancestor of Turkish, if you asked Old Uyghur was the ancestor of Turkish I would say no, but the term is usually regarded as a period which ancestor of Turkish language must have come from. There are also problems with Old Turkic script, because there is not one, more like 3 or 4. Maybe we should say "compare OT: xxx", but that was not how it was done when I started editing in wiktionary. --Anylai (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Old Turkic term should definitely by mentioned, but formatted as "compare {{etyl|otk|-}} {{m|otk|tr=xxx}}" or "cognate with {{etyl|otk|-}} {{m|otk|tr=xxx}}" to avoid categorization. Old Turkic is indeed written in multiple scripts, some of which are not even in Unicode. We can use the Latin script only if a standard and consistent transliteration system is adopted.
You are right that Old Turkic is usually taken as the ancestor of all Turkic languages on Wiktionary, but that bad practice should change. @Borovi4ok, you too please stop categorizing Bashkir under Old Turkic. --Vahag (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Vahagn,
Thank you for this discussion.
Can you please propose a new template for presenting the information on Turkic etymology? You can edit any of the Bashkir entries with the existing Etymology section.

Yes, I have been inventing a wheel, however, now I feel somewhat discouraged after this comment of yours. Can you please suggest something new, rather than just saying "You guys are wrong"? Borovi4ok (talk) 15:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok I suggest this format. Old Turkic is treated as one of the cognates, albeit the most important one and therefore listed the first. Don't be discouraged. Your contributions are valued. This small tweak should not matter. --Vahag (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your edits and help on ateş. It was in a mess, supposedly related to güneş, toz and ışık. I tried to recover something from previous versions, I did not add Urusbiev reference myself, I also did not know the content of the ref, I just did not want to look like a vandal removing references.

Btw, I still cant be sure about categorizing Turkish under Old Turkic. I tried to search a little, apart from Chuvash and Khalaj and maybe Yakut too, most Turkic languages are considered to be continuation of Old Turkic period. But I think writing system will be causing problems. There are indeed different old Turkic languages in different geographies such as Uyghur, Orkhon, Yeniseic and early Karakhanid records are considered a uniform language called old Turkic in different alphabets. But if I try to link something to old uyghur alphabet, it will look as if the word directly comes from old uyghur, and it won't be good. I am not saying I have access to old uyghur glossary or have any clue about its alphabet. :) So far I only categorize under old turkic looking at nişanyan. --Anylai (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about ateş. We have crazy Altaicists appearing from time to time and claiming Turkic origin for everything. Their nonsense is gradually being discovered and removed.
Old Turkic is not a “period” for us. We assign language codes to specific languages only. Note that Old Uyghur has the code oui and Karakhanid has the code xqa.
I am not sure which of the modern languages descends from Old Turkic. If you would treat Old Turkic form as a cognate of the Anatolian Turkish form, the problem of categorization would go away. Note that neither Template:R:trk:ESTJa nor Template:R:tut:SDM treat Old Turkic as the parent of any modern language. They simply list the Old Turkic under the proto-form in line with other Turkic languages. --Vahag (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Not strictly related to the topic, but it seems like you have had a long history with suppressing folk etymologies. It seems like the problem is less severe with occidental languages. Maybe nationalism is more popular in the orient? Not sure. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Pilcrow, your race baiting is not going to work. --Vahag (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I’m seriously curious as to why you seem to go through folk etymologies more frequently than other users. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine, I’ll take the bait. People in my region are insecure and poorly educated. Are you happy? --Vahag (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I’m not really sure why they are like that, having admittedly read little of their history. I don’t see what race has to do with it, but if I knew that the subject was going to upset you so much I would have just continued labouring. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I’m not upset. One culprit is probably Islam. Genes too may play a role. --Vahag (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Okey Vahagn, I may treat Old Turkic as one of the cognates of Anatolian Turkish. Old Turkic has problems with attestation, script (and geography?) I guess. Due to these problems turkologs and linguists sure must take a lot of things into acount from modern Turkic languages to reconstruct proto Turkic, so they dont treat them as successors, thats what I imagine. At the same the I am also curious about how it works in Romance languages or maybe even Nordic languages where they all seem to be descending from Latin and Old Norse, perhaps because those modern languages dont have impact on proto language reconstruction? I dont know honestly.
Thanks so much for your help again, I check back my edits and see you made tons of improvements, I am noting them all to apply to my next edits. --Anylai (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I would not compare Old Turkic : Anatolian Turkish situation to Latin : French or Old Norse : Norwegian. From what I read, Old Turkic is not the 'Old' stage of modern languages, at least not of the Western Turkic languages. Don't be confused by the 'Old' label. Old Turkic is the earliest attested Turkic language, so it is the closest to Proto-Turkic. Because of that some linguists, e.g. Nshanyan, treat it as the ancestor of all Turkic languages. But that is imprecise. It is similar how in the past we used to derive all Slavic languages from Old Church Slavonic. Now we treat it as the eldest and most important uncle of Slavic languages, not their daddy. --Vahag (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
A better analogy might be the w:Hittite language, which is the earliest-attested Indo-European language. It and the other Anatolian languages were spoken over large areas in their time, but they all died out. If someone had decided to call it "Old Indo-European", it would be like Old Turkic: much older than and obviously related to well-known modern languages, but not ancestral to them. The w:Gothic language is a similar case: it's the first Germanic language attested in full texts (as opposed to occasional runic inscriptions on various objects), but it's an East Germanic language, while all surviving Germanic languages are West Germanic or North Germanic.
As for Old Turkic: according to Wikipedia, the w:Western Yugur language is descended from Old Turkic or a near relative. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explanations, of course just because "Old Turkic" is the earliest attested Turkic language there is no logic behind calling related languages to descend from the earliest attested language. Perhaps you are right about 'Old' label, it is the confusing part. Perhaps there were parallel languages that shared a common root with Old Turkic? But so far most records there were found over a large geography until the 13th century was called Old Turkic, because they were not a different language. I dont know perhaps it should have been called "Old Common Turkic" rather than Old Turkic? Turkic family as you know has a very divergent language called Chuvash and it descends from pre-old Turkic. Old Turkic also sounds like Chuvash could be descended from it, but it certainly does not. That would be like calling Gothic "Old Germanic language" and try to derive everything from it as said.
For this reason I believe the same can be applied to other languages that seem to descend from an "old" language. Chuck Entz thank you for your contribution to the debate, Western Yugur language descends from Old Uyghur, that still does not solve the Old Turkic problem. Dont get me wrong, I believe it may be actually the right thing to say Turkish is not descended from Old Turkic due to bad terminology and classifications. But I wouldnt be surprised if Turkish looked like it descended from it, pretty much like all Romance languages descending from Latin. That was the part that I did not understand which made me think that basically when you say a language descends from an older language, that probably means that modern language has no importance on reconstruction of a proto language, because they are basically distortions from the original language. I am not an expert really. --Anylai (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just to mention: I think a very relevant analogy is that the name “Old Indic” was formerly used for Vedic Sanskrit. However, no Indic languages (besides the other forms of Sanskrit) descend directly from Sanskrit, but instead from the closely related Prakrits. Furthermore, Wiktionary thus far has not been doing a very good job showing the correct descent of Indic languages; we've been implying words are inherited into modern Indic languages from Sanskrit when indeed they are either borrowed or descended from closely related languages. —JohnC5 03:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of берг and *bHV̆rgĂEdit

Hi, can you restory my 2 pages to my talk page please: User_talk:Lhokymaes#берг, User_talk:Lhokymaes#*bHV̆rgĂ, I want to rewrite them. --Lhokymaes (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have restored and fleshed out the first at цӏокъберг ‎(c̣oq̇berg). You can work on the second at *bHV̆rgĂ. --Vahag (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't do anything, so I had to work on *bHV̆rgĂ myself. Bite what you can chew, newbie. --Vahag (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


Could you take a look at *sewH- please? —JohnC5 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes. As for Luri, we should probably merge Northern and Southern Luri. Standard sources usually refer to "Luri", without specifying the dialect. --Vahag (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I do not have the requisite knowledge to comment on merging Luri. —JohnC5 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. Could you help me figure out how to integrate the data from “*zarš¹” on page 471 of Cheung and “garš ‎(garš)” on pages 199-200 of Martirosyan (if applicable) into *ǵʰers-. Both sources mention the divergence and then convergence of IIr. *gʰarš- (< *ǵʰr̥s-) and *ĵʰarš- (< *ǵʰers-), and I'm wonder about the best way to categorize the Iranian (and Indic) reflexes. —JohnC5 04:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the late response. I added the reflexes which are definitely from *ǵʰers-. From what I read, the appurtenance of g-forms is disputed, so I didn't add those. More research is needed, for which I have no time at the moment. --Vahag (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Etymology reverts at TibetEdit

I've been reverting the etymologies added here by The Horde Is Back (talkcontribsglobal account infodeleted contribsnukeedit filter logpage movesblockblock logactive blocks) mostly because they have all the marks of Pan-Turkic nonsense (a trademark of this contributor), and because starting an etymology with "Historical linguists generally agree" is a really, really bad idea. I would appreciate a reality check, though, from someone with access to relevant sources, just in case. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't help in this particular case as I don't have good resources on that part of the world. For me the Oikoumene ends with the Indus in the east. But you are right to revert his edits on sight. He doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. --Vahag (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Present active infinitive vs. first person present activeEdit

Hi Vahagn, I noticed that for latin verbs, the present first person active form of the word is also given (e.g. vegeto) in line with what we see in the dictionaries written by the Mekhitarists in Venice. However and significantly for the Laitn, we correctly have the English translation in the first person: vegeto -- I arouse, enliven, etc. and not "to arouse, enliven, etc." I think we should follow this rule of thumb in the Armenian, where now we (incorrectly) have translated the first person active as an infinitive. For example, օծանեմ we have "to annoint" where in fact we should have "I annoint" (and a link to "օծանել", explained as the present infinitive of օծանեմ) similar to how "vegeto" links to the present infinitive "vegetare". Let me know your thoughts. Սէրուժ (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Serouj. I'm currently travelling in Toronto and New York. I'll get back to you after April 10. --Vahag (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. Take your time. Enjoy your trip my friend. Սէրուժ (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'm back. The usual practice in dictionaries is to translate the lemma of the source language with the lemma of the destination language. The idiosyncratic Wiktionary practice for Latin was championed by one particular user, EncycloPetey. It is not common. No standard dictionary does that. Neither Template:R:OLD, nor Template:R:la:Dvoretsky, nor Template:R:L&S. Greek lemma too is the first person singular present tense, and it too is usually translated with the English infinitive.
I understand that this is confusing (it was initially for me), but eventually we will have a Wiktionary:About Old Armenian page explaining the dictionary conventions like the preface of a print dictionary would. --Vahag (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
One of the reasons we chose an "idiosyncratic" approach on Wiktionary is that Wiktionary has entries for every form of the verb. Print dictionaries have only a single entry for each verb, so it makes sense to translate the lemma with another lemma. But since Wiktionary has entries for every single conjugated form of every verb, then if we are translating lemma for lemma (regardless of form), that would be positively misleading. So while it is true that no standard dictionary does what we do with regard to translation of the lemma, no standard dictionary lists entries for all forms of the verb either. Note also that we are doing the same in Ancient Greek. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
We don't do it for Greek anymore. All the recent additions to Category:Ancient Greek verbs use the infinitive. --Vahag (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see any good reason for translating the first person active form of a verb as an infinitive in English. It is simply wrong. We shouldn't repeat the mistake (for whatever reason) that older dictionaries have made.Սէրուժ (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Think of the lemma as a conventional container for the whole paradigm of the word. The translations are for the whole paradigm, not just the particular form chosen as a lemma. If this was a machine translation database, we would translate each form literally, but this is a dictionary — lemma for lemma. --Vahag (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again!Edit

Hi Vahagn jan, just wanted to thank you once again for coming after me and cleaning up the mess I make. I know I've been overly active in the last few weeks or so. This is because I have a bit more free time now to spend on this, but also because I know that I may not be able to contribute as actively for longer periods of time when I'm suddenly swamped with other work/priorities again. So I'm compensating for past and future lost time. :) Anyway, I hope I'm not overburdening you and if there's anything I can do to make your job lighter, let me know. Arax (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to your activity we are now the 30th in the statistics of languages: WT:STATS. The 29th are the lazy Georgians, so give more gas.
PS If possible, please enclose the links to Armenian terms in {{l|hy| }}, as in the synonyms of հոյակերտ ‎(hoyakert). The rest is easy and pleasant for me to add. --Vahag (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Phew! And great! Ok, I'll do the synonyms. No problem. Now I don't feel so guilty anymore about adding a lot of words at once. :) Arax (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


გამარჯობა, do you have any idea on the etymology of this Greek word? - Abkhazian1 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Բարև։ Yes. They stole it from կորկոտ ‎(korkot). --Vahag (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you know these words from Mingrelian, Laz, Svan, Imeretian, Gurian, Ratchian, Tush, Xevsur, etc.:
  • კორკონტი, კვარკვანტი, კურკუნტი, კურკუტი, კვარკვატი, კერკეტი, კარკატი, კვარკვაზი, კარკაზი, კერკეზი, კვერკვეზი, კვარკვანჭი, კორკონჭი, კორკოჭი, კურკუნჭი, კორკოცი, კურკუცი...
  • კორკონტუა, კვარკვანტუა, კარკატუა, კირკატუა, კარკაზუა, კვარკვაზუა, კვარკვანჭუა, კორკონჭუა, კირკოლია...
  • კვარკვალია, კორკოლია, კერკელია, კორკელია, კვარკვალიტა, კურკუზია, კურკუცია, კვარკვაშია, კურკუშია...
  • კურკლი, კერკელი, კორკლი...
  • კურკა, კორკუ, კურკუ, კირკუ
  • კურტი, კორტი
  • კირკოლა, კორკოლა, კურკულა
  • კირკატი, კირკატა
  • კორკოტელაჸი, კორკოტელა, კორკოტინა, კერკელიტა...

with similar or semantically related meanings? At the same time some of them can be constructed with "g" instead of "k" (without changing a meaning), especially in Mingrelian. - Abkhazian1 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know these words. Do they designate various foods? I would be interested in learning their meanings and sources. The same goes for the Kartvelian words you added in ალაგი ‎(alagi). --Vahag (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Words sorted by the Number of SyllablesEdit

Could Armenian words be sorted by the number of syllables like the entries for Portuguese words? (For example, կամար ‎(kamar) would be sorted into the category for two-syllable words. Another thing, what's with the lazy Georgian archetype? What is meant by Armenian being the 30th?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

They could be sorted by the number of syllables, but that would be a very useless task. Please don't do it.
In the region Georgians are considered lazy, stupid and horny. Sure, they are good and dancing, singing and cooking, but for all serious matters they turn to Armenians: we invented their alphabet, taught them Christianity, built Tiflis, etc.
The number 30 refers to the rank in WT:STATS when sorted by gloss definitions. --Vahag (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Vahagn Petrosyan".