Open main menu


Hi ! The j in this word looks very out of place. I think a more appropriate form would be something along the lines of *rīffilōn or better yet *riffilōn, *rifilōn with short i Leasnam (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam: And to that I reply Sievers' law? Or am I misinterpreting? --Victar (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
While on the subject of Frankish *rīffijlōn, I'm having the darnest time sorting the descendants of *rīffijlōn, from what looks like a merger with the Frankish or OHG word *hraflōn, *hraffijlōn. You wanna have a look? --Victar (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Siever's Law wouldn't affect a cluster like jl. That law only applies to the addition of i before j after a long syllable. The Frk word would need to be *rīfilōn, *rifilōn, or perhaps *riffilōn. Same for the PGm term. No jl combination at all. Leasnam (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Roger, moved it to *rīffilōn. Let me know if you have any thoughts on my query. English ruffle probably fits in there somehow as well, perhaps from the MDut. --Victar (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

bikkel, *bikkelEdit

The etymology at bikkel and the (Middle) Dutch descendants at *bikkil are at odds. (The same split is also in the WNT vs. etymological dictionaries.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Vocalisation of laryngealsEdit

The vocalisation of laryngeals is a post-PIE phenomenon and occurred exclusively when the laryngeal was between two obstruents. When there were sonorants in the mix, they were vocalised already in PIE and thus always vocalised first. The explanation of "syllabic" laryngeals next to sonorants is analogy with roots containing only obstruents. If CHC vocalised to CaC in post-PIE, then RHC or CHR might become RaC or CaR by analogy. This is seen in e.g. *bladą, which the PIE rules say must be *buldą instead. —CodeCat 17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, the vocalisation of laryngeals is post-PIE, it didn't exist in PIE itself. PIE only had syllabic sonorants, thus they were vocalised before any laryngeals were. A sequence of HRH always becomes ur in Germanic. Any exceptions are post-PIE processes and thus should not be listed as PIE descendants. —CodeCat 20:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Source accessEdit

Were you able to get into that book using Google Books? I've purchased it, so I'm not sure if that page is visible for public access. I'm not sure if I"m allowed to post screenshots of it (fair use?) but here's an attempt:, as well as the appendix:

P.S. what is templunk? I can't find anything in the manual so I don't know what I'm removing. Thanks for the info. Djkcel (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Djkcel: Yeah, if you have a look at your source you shared, it has a completely different reconstructed Celtic root, *broccus (a sharp-pointed object) not *brokkos (badger), so it's not giving an etymology to the Celtic word for badger. The Celtic word from that PIE root is *brodzos (point, tip). Proto-Celtic *brokkos (badger) to Latin brocca (buck-toothed) does make sense though, and that's where you see the Catalan boca they cite of the same meaning likely coming from.
Haha, yeah, not knowing what something does is probably a good reason not to touch it. {{unk.}} adds entries to a unknown etymology category, i.e. Proto-Celtic terms with unknown etymologies. Going through your contributions, I can see you've removed quite a few. I recommend that you go back and restore them. --Victar (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, templunk = template unk(nown), figures. I tend to prefer 'uncertain' over 'unknown' because it leaves the discussion open rather than just dismissing the term as an eternal mystery. However, I understand the need to be able to tag words of this category because there's no category for words with 'uncertain' origins. I believe you can still make it say uncertain while tagging it as unknown. I'll figure out how to do that and move forward with it. Djkcel (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Avestan scriptEdit

Hi, do you know about {{chars}}? If you only have the transliteration for Avestan, you can generate the native script automatically by writing {{subst:chars|desc|ae|θβərəsaiti}} and so forth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am, thanks. I commented on the talk page earlier. I'm hoping that the tool is actually built into {{m}} and {{l}} to automatically generate transliterations from |tr=. Also, on that page I'm working on, I'm using more exacting transliterations for more detailed sound changes, which got overwritten, unfortunately. --Victar (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify the statement "exacting transliterations for more detailed sound changes"? Do you mean the use of hyphens or something else? —JohnC5 15:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. No, I mean like accent marks and vowel quality, ex. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎(dā́ᵘru) vs. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎(dāuru). --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to use that system, it would need to be something like 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎(dāuru, /dā́ᵘru/), if at all. The actual transcription always takes precedence over the academic phonemic reconstruction. —JohnC5 17:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
At this stage, it is just my personal project on my user space, so I don't require your input at this time. Thanks.--Victar (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I thought we were talking about adding stuff in content entries. I apologize if that came off as overbearing. —JohnC5 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I thought you were aware. No problem than. It's for a reflex table. --Victar (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Victar: Oh, sorry. Feel free to revert me; it is your user space after all. I was just trying to clear out Category:Avestan terms needing native script. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks though. I appreciate you going through that list. --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
BTW, does Avestan script show accent in any way? Or are you simply assuming the position of accent on the basis of Sanskrit? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't, but can be guessed on the basis of Sanskrit. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Correct, "Avestan manuscripts do not have written accent", however we know it existed because "Avestan *r is devoiced yielding -hr- before voiceless stops and after the accent — if the accent was not on the preceding syllable, *r is not devoiced". --Victar (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


You've marked the page *skankijō for deletion, and you've linked it to a different PGmc word...what's up ? Leasnam (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

*skankijō would be the correct form. Leasnam (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad on that one. Was going to move it back when it got deleted. --Victar (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi. You show that Old French took heiron from Middle Latin, but I don't believe that's the way it went. Middle Latin is not the ancestor of Old French, Vulgar Latin is. I think Middle Latin borrowed the word from Old French, which took it directly from the Frankish. Do you have a reliable source that shows otherwise ? Leasnam (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that you are attempting to funnel all Germanic loans in Romance languages through Latin first, but that's not always accurate. Only some of the earlier loans can be treated that way, but many words, and I believe this is one of them, came in through Old French, and were later borrowed by (Mediaeval) Latin and the Romance languages from French. Leasnam (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I can look, but generally I find OF words of Frankish origin being descended from ML in sources, when an attested ML form exists. Want to look for any sources for your argument? --Victar (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Mediaeval Latin was a liturgical language, and was largely a second language (not really anyone's first language). It didn't have native speakers really (save rare cases where people chose to raise their children speaking Latin, but that was extremely rare). Mediaeval Latin was able to borrow from languages such as Old High German, Old Dutch, etc. but Frankish ? Please check on this. Online Etymology states Old French from Frankish for heron, but they say the earliest form was hairo. Leasnam (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Different sources may use "Mediaeval Latin" differently. I hold with the camp that sees Mediaeval Latin beginning where the Romance languages emerge. Others do not, so maybe we need to clarify here what Midiaeval Latin means Leasnam (talk) 04:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I can see where you are coming from with this. There is a eleventh century attest of hairo in Mediaeval Latin. My bad. This looks good. Good work. :) Leasnam (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Haha, well that was a journey. Yeah, ML is extremely vague. If I have an attestation from 8th century, I still have to call it Medieval Latin. I think I've actually yet to find an word where the OF attestation predates the "ML" one. --Victar (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Hey ! I saw you added some Descendants to *waiþijaną. I am aware that Ingvaeonic languages regularly convert class 3 weak verbs into class 2, but are you sure Old Dutch and Old High German did (*waiþijaną is a weak 1, btw...) ? I would expect these to come from *waiþōną. Leasnam (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And what happened to the Icelandic and Faroese descendants on the page ? Leasnam (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, forgot to note that on the entry. I accidently created a duplicate of your entry, and forgot to re-integrate those. Happens when two people are simultaneously working on the same family of entries. =P --Victar (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Really, I'm not sure how supported a Proto-Germanic reconstruction is. Weak class 2 was very productive, so every class 2 weak verb can potentially be formed in each language individually and this doesn't present any evidence for a PG reconstruction. I don't know how the productivity of weak class 1 developed, but it wasn't entirely unproductive in Proto-Germanic times. So really, the different formations represent two independent formations, not a common inheritance. —CodeCat 22:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
That's sort of my point. Old English wǣþan and Old Norse veiða point to a weak class 1 verb. The weak 2 could have been formed from the noun later, and they shifted in meaning too to "feed; graze". Leasnam (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the meanings shifted, as you find this dual meaning in pretty much all forms, centered around "to acquire food". --Victar (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

On another note, I'm not quite sure what the PIE root would be for all theses entries. Is the verb denominal? Is the noun root *woyh₁-t-ós, *woyh₁-tis, *woyh₁-teh₂? --Victar (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, the root would be *weyh₁- of course. —CodeCat 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Obviously (I created that entry), but where is the -t- originating from, a root extention, or a suffix, like -tis, or both? --Victar (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Regional adjectivesEdit

Hey there, you seem to be mistaken about German terminology. "Hamburger" and "ravensberger" are solely adjectives and don't double as names for languages (so unlike e.g. 'Scottish' and 'Chinese', which can do both in English). However, I'm wondering why you are using German terms instead of English ones in the first place. The normal English ending for names ending in -berg seems to be -ish, not 100% sure about names ending in -land, but as a native speaker you'll know this better than me. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @Korn. It's pretty common to use native dialect names in English, well, because we otherwise don't have names for them, cf. French dialects. So in English, you could use Hamburgisch or Hamburger interchangeably, but you wouldn't try and nativize them, i.e. "Hamburgian". That all said, if you think Hamburgisch and Ravensbergisch are better than Hamburger and Ravensberger, from a German perspective, I have no problem changing them. Incidentally, my mother speaks a dialect close to Ravensberger/Ravensbergisch, thus my personal interest. --Victar (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the region around Ravensberg (northern East-Westfalia) is an interesting region with colourful variations, nice. You make a good point for using native terms, but if you're talking about Low German, High German terms aren't native. E.g. German "Münsterländisch" would natively be "Mönsterlannsk" in the respective dialect and something else in other Low German. As for the difference between "Ravensberger" and "Ravensbergisch": Ravensbergich is a nominalised adjective meaning "pertaining to or alike to Ravensberg", and functions as a language name when used a noun. But the noun Ravensberger (as opposed to the declined adjective ravensberger) designates an inhabitant, as in English (cf. Londoner, New Yorker, Dubliner etc.). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Korn: True. I should have been more clear. By "native", I meant native to the county, i.e. German. As with French dialects, we use the French names for the dialects, and not specifically the dialect's own name for itself, i.e. Champenois, not Champaignat.
I understand the meaning difference between -isch and -er, but In German, you can also say "Hamburger Platt", which English can is happy to absorb as "Hamburger dialect", as testified in the Wiki article. Anyway, I'm happy to change them to "Hamburgisch".
Westphalia has a lot of underappreciated regional culture. My uncle still plays Schaopskopp every week with his buddies, drinking beer and speaking Plattdüütsk. And when I visit, it would be all the Spargel and Schinken I could eat. =) --Victar (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You say hamburger Platt but you don't just say hamburger. Thinking of a way to express the problem in English with its lacking inflection of adjectives, I'd put it like this: You can say California's dialect in English, but it'd be unnatural and confusing to tag a word with California's instead of Californian. Of course 'California's English' isn't the usual way to say it, but I think this construction serves to exemplify the point. Other than that: Hooray for game nights. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Korn: Well, Hamburger really equals Californian, not California's, and regardless, we're talking about English absorbing a German name and English doesn't really care about German syntax. =) Nonetheless, I've fixed up all the entries I could find. --Victar (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On another note, I've been using these documents as guides. Are they up to par in your opinion?

--Victar (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In what regard? If it's about names to be used, I see no issue, though there's some dialects in the first list which I'd split or merge. For example I don't think there's much point in splitting up East Westfalian into more than general 'East Westfalian' and 'Lippish'. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Korn: Most importantly the split of (West) Low Saxon and East Low Saxon, and the split of (West) Low Saxon into 4 distinct branches, as shown in the first link. --Victar (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh god, no, most certainly not, no. This bizarre notion of making a west-east split along the Elbe is completely void of any reasonable foundation and I haven't got any idea who came up with it and why. Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern very well have dialects which are mostly or even completely identical with those in the "west". Sure, Brandenburg tends to use monophthongs, but really, if you're gonna draw a dialectal line between [ɛɪ̯] and [eː], you might just as well give up the notion of dialectal areas and only separate them village by village. As for the west: Northern Low German is usually differentiable from the southern forms. Bit more difficult to draw a sharp line between East- and Westfalian, but you certainly can delineate two such dialect groups in some form or another. Naming the ones west of the Ems river extra is nothing I agree with, which is especially irksome because in a less-thinking moment I caused them to be separated here on Wiktionary. The "Dutch" dialects usually are similar enough to some dialect or other in Germany that the criterion of separation is somewhat arbitrary, though that's probably true for almost every neighbouring Low German dialects you compare. You could argue to split off some dialect groups from both Westfalian and Northern, but these would then still occur on both sides of the border (e.g. East-Frisian, and the dialect of the German county of Bentheim seems to be a form of what the Dutch call Twents). Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently struggling with understanding why -sche removed the Westfalian language code wep from English Wiktionary. The divide between Northern Low Saxon and Westfalian seems pretty clear in every source I've read, and to call them all "German Low German" seems grossly simplified. May as well throw Plautdietsch in there, for all its inaccuracy. Also, to divide of Northern Low German into "German" and "Dutch" strikes me as dividing dialects by orthography, which, as you say, is close to arbitrary. We need to create a Low Saxon dialect tree on Wiktionary and deliberate on what names to use, which language codes to add and remove, and their positions on the tree. --Victar (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've expressed that I would move Plautdietsch into general Low German before. While the differences between Westfalian and non-Westfalian are clear, I don't think the difference between any two Low German dialects is big enough to benefit from putting them into different language codes. And on the flipside, 'Westfalian' is a term covering dialects more dissimilar than the entirety of Low German lects between Wilhelmshaven and Pasewalk. And yes, placing the Dutch variants extra is the result of nds.Wikipedia bickering about orthography and breaking up over it. We shouldn't have tainted our system with their internal problems. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Just BTW: The correct term would be Hamburger Platt (with capital H) as spellings like hamburger Platt are proscribed since ca. 1900. And Hamburger does rather equal California's instead of Californian (adjective), though Californians' (from the noun Californian) could be even more fitting. Instead of "Platt" several other terms could be used: Mundart, Dialekt (proscribed since ca. 1900: Dialect), Plattdeutsch (Niederdeutsch). And a wording like (die) Hamburger Mundart shows that it's not an adjective *hamburg together with -er (strong and mixed masc. nom. sg. ending or fem. dat. sg. ending) but a non-inflecting term Hamburger (or hamburger). - 10:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree Mr. Unsigned Commenter from Paderborn. Hamburger is not possessive and thus not equal to California's. Californian, the noun, is a more apt equivalent. --Victar (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Hi Victar ! I've undone your edit, since styriġa is already shown as an alternative form Leasnam (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Leasnam: Than remove the duplicate alternative form instead of undoing everything. You also undid the descendants tree I added. --Victar (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry about that, I didn't see anything else in that edit Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Iranian words suffixed with *-akasEdit

Hi Victar. I noticed that you marked this category for deletion. Please empty it out first, then I will be glad to delete it. Thanks. —Internoob 22:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Internoob: Done. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello. Do you want to be an admin? I think it could help you in your work; you do a lot of page moves. --Rerum scriptor (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rerum scriptor: Nah, I'm fine without it. Thanks though. --Victar (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Would you like template editor access so you can edit MOD:languages and its data submodules? —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA: Hmmm, I think I'll be OK for the time being. Thanks, though. Now, if there was a role specifically for moving articles without a redirect, but alas. --Victar (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Being an admin does not mean you have to use all the tools given to you. Moving pages without leaving a redirect means less work for the admins that would otherwise have to delete the residuals.__Gamren (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, yeah, I think I could use template editor access. Not being able to fix bugs is annoying. --Victar (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Why did you make Iranian root *sék-s-o-s

   Indo-Iranian: *sakšas
       Iranian: *saxšah  

8 August 2017‎ and then delete without any explanation? (Irman (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC))

Transliteration parameter and Middle ChineseEdit

Since you are cleaning up the entries, could I ask you to reformat Middle Chinese like this when you come across them? —suzukaze (tc) 06:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Suzukaze-c: Sure. --Victar (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Suzukaze-c, did you want to go trough these, Category:links likely containing transcriptions in tr? --Victar (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I will look at them later. —suzukaze (tc) 22:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Typing in difficult scriptsEdit

Do you use some kind of typing aid to generate the original script from a transliteration, e.g. in case of Manichaean, or do you simply copy and paste the letters one by one? Automatic reverse transliteration would work well for scripts with a ts= parameter. --Vahag (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: {{chars|xmn|<word to transliterate here>}} or {{chars|xpr|<word to transliterate here>|sc=Mani}}. The documentation says more. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 13:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: thanks! Inscriptional Parthian and Pahlavi too could use an automatic transliteration module and a typing aid. --Vahag (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

delete template in transcluded pagesEdit

When you add the {{delete}} template to a page, it's transcluded to every page that transcludes the page. I don't appreciate having to look through an entire Beer Parlour subpage to find the template that's marking it and the main Beer parlour page for speedy deletion. Please look at "whatlinkshere" and get rid of the transclusions before you mark a template or module for speedy deletion. Thanks Chuck Entz (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot I shared a test in the Beer Parlour. --Victar (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Hi Victar. Do you know anything about Sanskrit: पत्रम् (patram) etymology?! Thanks.--Calak (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calak:, it's supposedly from *péth₂r̥ (feather), with the meaning of leaf from the plumage of a tree. --Victar (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


What is intended to be shown in that entry is the noun stem, not the verbal root. For the latter purpose, I believe {{PIE root}} does just as good a job. So the page is telling you that the noun is in fact *dʰrúǰʰ & the nom. sg. is *dʰrúkš, which is reflected in the lemma-form of both the descendants. Since *dʰrúǰʰ is a noun, it should have an accent. I added the stem because it differs substantially from the nom. sg form (and isn't required in a more regular noun, like, say *ĉasás). Surely if you derive drúh & druj from *dʰrúkš without mentioning the stem it will confuse the readers. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित: 1) we no longer create stem entries, so linking to one is bad form. 2) we now create category pages for PII and PIR entries roots. {{PIE root}} is great for PIE derived words, but does not work for non-PIE words. It also allows us to do things like auto-generated related words lists. So please, do not use the depreciated |stem= parameter. I hope that clears it up. @AryamanA can also expound on this change if you have any further questions. --Victar (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
It still leads to loss of information. Somewhere, *dʰrúǰʰ needs to be mentioned as a stem. As I said before, this root noun is unlike a plain a-stem noun and its inflected form differs very much from its stem. I understand the formatting issues of using a depreciated parameter but providing an extra bit of information cannot hurt. -- माधवपंडित (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@माधवपंडित: In this case, I think mentioning the stem somewhere in the entry is necessary because this noun has a very unconventional inflection. I think perhaps {{iir-noun}} could benefit from keeping the |stem= parameter for athematic nouns. The information should at the very least be somewhere in the entry. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 15:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, माधवपंडित: I think the proper place would be in the declension table, as done in other PIE languages. I haven't created one for this type of stem yet, but I can put it together. Perhaps for now, it can simply be placed in the etymology, if you feel the root category does not suffice. --Victar (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Very well. Thanks for implementing the changes! -- माधवपंडित (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


Hi Victar. Can you create this Sanskrit word and its etymology? Thanks.--Calak (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Calak, not really my bag, so kicking this request to @AryamanA. --Victar (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@AryamanA, Victar Thanks. It has also Iranian cognates Kurdish xwē, xwā and Balochi wād "salt".--Calak (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Calak: I made the entry finally. I feel that this word was not inherited from PIE, but was a later formation within Classical Sanskrit. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 00:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


This Rigvedic word is, apparently, a counterexample to the kṣ-rule of PIE thorn cluster reflexes. The expected form would be *jákṣati, and it derives from PIA *ȷ́ágẓʰati which contains a voiced cluster. Does it mean that the PIE thorn cluster reflexes were not yet simplified to -kṣ- in Rigvedic? --Kwékwlos 20:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos: {{R:iir:Lipp:2009|253}} goes into this word specifically, but essentially, it's simply a surviving archaism, nothing we see with any consistency. The Rigveda for the most part definitely exhibits the kṣ-merger. Also, just to point out, several MIA lects, like Pali and Gandhari, are not descended from any attested dialects of OIA, so there were non-kṣ-merger dialects out there at the same time of the Rigveda. --Victar (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


The Old Frisian verb Hakkia is attested and is found hereː Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leornendeealdenglisc: Not the most reliable source. Best I can tell, only tohakkia is actually attested. @Leasnam? --Victar (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, I added {{R:ofs:AfW}} for you, if you're going to start adding Old Frisian entries. --Victar (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If it wasn't attested, there would have been an asterisk symbol. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leornendeealdenglisc: That would be sound logic, but as I said, Köbler is not always reliable, and as it isn't a peer reviewed work, shouldn't really be used as a source anyhow. I recommend you use the {{R:ofs:OFED}}, {{R:ofs:AfW}}, and {{R:ofs:Bremmer:2009}}. --Victar (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
So what if it isn't peer reviewed. It doesn't contradict other sources and goes along with them. As well, I check with my grammar of Old Frisian by Adley H. Cummins. Further, I would argue that Koebler is reliable because he cites his references hereː Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leornendeealdenglisc: Haha, clearly you're new here or would know how anal we are about sources. Köbler is what we call "original research", and as such, generally shouldn't be used as a source, certainly not as a primary source. Please, take the advice of someone who has been at it a long time, and use published works as sources. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Buddy, Jeva is attested. It's in Adley H. Cummins' grammar of Old Frisian, page 117.Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leornendeealdenglisc: See sources on page. j is generally academic embellishment, not the actual contemporary orthography used, and many papers actually prefer i for Old Frisian. I don't really have a horse it in either way, but you're welcome to pose the question in the Beer Parlour. --Victar (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


Apparently bypasses Grassmann's law, as both components are aspirated. Though it involves earlier *-tH- in PIIr. so I don't know if it really applies in Rigvedic. --Kwékwlos 13:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kwékwlos, such cases are usually either secondary or from leveling. --Victar (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)


I get the impression that you do a lot of things related to Iranian languages; do you have any insight here? —Suzukaze-c 04:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

psu codeEdit

You've defined this as both a family and a language. DTLHS (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Can that not be done? I recall @-sche saying that it's not a big deal. If it is, I defer to @AryamanA in naming it. --Victar (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it's not a problem. Module:data consistency check complains about it. @Erutuon DTLHS (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe our previous discussion was about languages and families having the same name, which I had thought was a problem (and which WT:LANG had advised against, at the time), but which turned out to be alright. Having the same code is another matter; how is {{der}} etc to know whether the language or the family is meant? - -sche (discuss) 23:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Should I go ahead and rename it to inc-psu? FYI, it was created so we could place the language family inc-pah below it, instead of it floating at the root. --Victar (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
If the family code is to be kept, then yes, it should be differentiated. Is anything else going to be categorized as a Sauraseni Prakrit-family language, though, besides Category:Pahari languages? I don't see a problem with just putting that category directly into Category:Old Indo-Aryan languages. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
That would not work for {{#invoke:family tree|show|inc-pro}}. --Victar (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


The edits I made on *fehu were based off the information on feudum, which says it was borrowed from Old French/Old Occitan. Not saying my edits were good; just trying to maybe clear up why I made them. Anyways, thanks for correcting all my mistakes. I appreciate it. — Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 00:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, key is just try not to delete valid data when converting to {{desctree}}, especially sources. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I'm new to wiktionary. You've been correcting some of my formatting errors my Proto-Slavic contributions. I have some questions if you can answer them:

- In one entry you used the labels {{top3}} and {{bottom}} to mark the top and bottom of it's descendants list. I've seen others used {{top2}}. What does the "3" mean and why doesn't the bottom marker have a number?

- You've also made changes like for example: * Russian: {{l|ru|блеснуть}} to * {{desc|ru|блеснуть}}. How do I do this for Sorbian which is divided into upper and lower? I don't think that Sorbian has a languages identifier so I can only do:

- How should I distinguish between Old Church Slavonic, Church Slavonic, and Russian/Serbian/etc. Church Slavonic? Greenismean2016 (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Greenismean2016, thanks for writing to me. 1. The numbers in {{top2}} and {{top3}} signify the column count, so because Slavic has 3 branches, {{top3}} is the best choice. 2. Sorbian unfortunately doesn't currently have a language code, so for now, you just need to write it out. 3. We consider Old Church Slavonic, Church Slavonic, Old Bulgarian, etc, all one language under the single code cu. I hope that answered your questions. Please let me know if you have any others. --Victar (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
While I really appreciate Greenismean's work with Proto-Slavic, there are many copypastos from Vasmer, some formatting inconsistencies ({{desc}} vs. {{l}}, {{qual}} vs. plain brackets with italics), {{rfdef}} is often omitted, several entries lack references, and some etymologies are morphologically impossible (diff, diff). It's also unfortunate that he doesn't always complete or amend the descendant entries when he's created a proto-entry (*bordavъka > diff; *ęčьmy > diff). Lots of good work, but more rigour would be in order. Per utramque cavernam 12:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I will try to go back and fix these entries. Just to make sure I understand:
There are some entries, for example *merti, which are listed with more than one Proto-Balto-Slavic form. In these cases I use: from {inh|sla-pro|ine-bsl-pro|*reconstruction 1}, {m|ine-bsl-pro|*reconstruction 2}. Is this correct?
Should I use {{qual}} or plain italics when labeling a word as archaic, dialectal, obsolete?
When copying and pasting from Vasmer, is it only the characters (a, c, e, i, j, o, p, x, y) that are identical in both Latin and Cyrillic that I need to worry about?
In the future, I will update the etymologies of descendant entries when I create a Proto-entry. --Greenismean2016
- About using {{inh}}, then {{m}}: yes, I think that's correct.
- I'd use {{qual}}.
- I'm chiefly concerned about Latin <i> vs. Cyrillic <і>; <a> vs. <а> and <o> vs. <о> are also a problem sometimes, but less often I'd say. I don't remember encountering problems with the other letters you mentioned, but it's good to keep an eye out. Also, Polish/West Slavic <ł> [U+0142 – LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH STROKE] is incorrectly rendered as <ɫ> [U+026B – LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH MIDDLE TILDE]. In general, I would be very cautious with copy pasting heavily diacriticised West Slavic forms (Slovincian words, for example).
- Thank you!
Again, I think you're doing good work, and I hope you'll stay with us. By the way, we have several requests at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Proto-Slavic), and many red links at Category:Proto-Slavic appendices. If you're interested in taking care of them, be my guest. Per utramque cavernam 09:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Per utramque cavernam's replies. --Victar (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it standard formatting to begin an etymology with "From" and end with "." while using {{affix}}. I see that many entries for example castaneārius do not do this, but it seems like the majority of them do. Greenismean2016 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Greenismean2016: I would say yes, but every language has their peculiarities. @Metaknowledge? --Victar (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello again Victar, I'm tryiing to make a template for Leonese conjugation. It's exactly the same as Asturian so I just copied that template and replaced the endings with the information I found here. I want to set default values and include optional parameters for all the conjugations which can be used with irregular conjugations that do not follow the pattern. However, the template I created must either define all of the parameters or none of the parameters. Could you please see what's wrong with the template:

Greenismean2016 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop vandalizingEdit

Who gave you right to change my edits on Persian? You don't know persian how do you allow yourself to do that? (Irman (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC))

It's a wiki- "The dictionary anyone can edit". Plus, you removed an {{rfv}} tag from the entry, which is a blockable offense. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Ok, so the tag (probably?) should not have been removed, depending on the circumstances. That does not address the merits of the other editing, or the relative competence of the users on this subject. An implied threat to block is not helpful, either. 18:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Why do you delete my edits? —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 21:37, 16 February 2019.

You should be more careful than to delete an edit where I specifically add the references and tag it "no sources given". Deleting edits without even reading them borders on vandalism. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 21:52, 16 February 2019.
Cite your etymologies or I'll continue to remove them. --{{victar|talk}} 02:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right, I did miss your addition of sources of your revertions. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)



It is not appropriate for you to strip an article/page that you have nominated for deletion. Especially without providing any explanation for doing so. Please explain your actions? 18:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Per my edit comment, please take it up with Rua. Another reversion on your part would be considered edit warring. --{{victar|talk}} 18:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
1. You made no edit comment in your original revert. 2. Your comment now provides zero insight into your reasons for removing the material. 3. I am not in violation of 3R & do not appreciate empty & groundless block-threats. 4. As the user who has nominated the article for deletion, it is inappropriate for you to remove material from the page, to try to "win" the deletion. & 5. You & Rua still have not provided any rationale for removing the material which I restored from a previous version of the page. Shall we try an Rfc & see what happens? 18:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
For rational, see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots and links therein. --{{victar|talk}} 18:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I see no additional comment from you there explaining your actions? & i repeat: as the editor who has nominated the page for deletion, it is deeply innapropriate for you to strip the page's content without reason, just to support your argument for deletion. That could reasonably be considered as vandalism. 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it seems wk does not have a 3r rule, so I refer you to Help:Reverting, which clearly suggests you should be discussing it on the talkpage, rather than arbitrarily content-stripping. 18:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

My reason for reverting is the same as is originally given. The page takes forever to load when everything is transcluded onto it, despite the IP user's claims to the contrary. —Rua (mew) 19:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

NO, it doesn't. Idk what you are accessing the article on, but it loads just fine. Maybe you felt you had a point in 2012, but that was 7 years ago, & the technology has advanced since then. There are pages all over Wikimedia that are longer than that one is, & they work just fine. For more limited devices, we now have a mobile view setting. If it really bothers you, then why don't you collapse the sections, as is done on many other wk articles, instead of vandalising the page-content? 19:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Fine, anything you say. —Rua (mew) 19:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Proto-language dataEdit

You left the message "please do not revert" in your edit summary for re-deleting the data in that one module. My question is: why should it be removed, and why couldn't you provide a reason then? -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC).

Reverting module edits you have no clue about is a really bad idea. See your talk page. --{{victar|talk}} 02:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Victar: Who's to say I had no clue about them? Personally, I considered their addition to be valuable. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 02:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC).
You had no clue about them because you didn't know why they were added and removed. Message the user on their talk page before you make uninformed reversions. --{{victar|talk}} 02:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're making quite a few assumptions about me & my intentions. I was asking why they were removed, and I prefer to take direct action on such things and to discuss only if my actions are considered problematic. -/ut͡ʃxʎørnɛja / (탁ᷞ, кон-, ឯឌឹត្ស, 𐎛𐎓𐎄𐎛𐎚𐎒). 02:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC).
Buddy, bottom line, don't revert module edits you have no clue why they were made. Ask first. --{{victar|talk}} 02:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Victar is working on reorganizing Turkic language data (see User:Victar/Tukic), and he was the one who added the etymology language codes that he later deleted! Since the codes are not used anywhere yet (they had only existed for about 17 hours by the time of the first deletion), there is no harm in deleting them (aside from forcing the server to re-render pages that use the module). — Eru·tuon 03:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

What was wrong with the references of *brūnaz?Edit

Why did you remove the references of *bʰruHnós? Bezimenen (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I could have kept them and reverted just the rest, but page should be deleted regardless. See {{rfd}}. --{{victar|talk}} 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bezimenen: And actually, the sources don't belong there but instead belong on the entry itself it's linking to. --{{victar|talk}} 22:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You know better. In my opinion, though, the combination of Orel's *ƀrūnaz, who derives it from IE *bhreu- [apparently following Pokorny's style], and the modern reconstruction of Kroonen's *brewwan- from *bʰrewh₁- (to brew, to move swiftly, etc) suffices to reconstruct *bʰruHnós. This formation fits the pattern of Caland *-nós adjectives, so there is no problem from a morphological point of view. I saw that *brūnaz has a homophone, but obviously the two forms are semantically distinct, so there is no reason to suspect genetic correlation between them. The only serious issue that I see with *bʰruHnós is that it has no other descendants besides in Germanic. Bezimenen (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bezimenen: I have no problem with the PIE and PG reconstructions, but as I also state in the *bʰruHnós rfd and you also point out, with only a single descendant, as the Latin one is false, this shouldn't have an entry. --{{victar|talk}} 23:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I thought there was a problem with the changes that I made. PS Slavic **bruněti (to shine) which Orel mentions is most likely a corruption of *broněti /per ESSJa, Vol 3, p.41/. We can discard it as a hypothetical cognate of *brūnaz. Bezimenen (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


I think this entry should inhold two different roots/etymologies, the one for "to clothe, dress", which is already given; the other for "to buy, sell", which is missing, but needs to be included as Etymology 2.
Reflexes of *wes- (Etymology 2) include Sanskrit वस्न (vasná, price), वस्नयति (vasnayati, to haggle), Persian بها(behâ, price, worth), Old Armenian գին (gin, price, worth, buying), Latin vēnus (sale), vīlis (cheap, worthless), Ancient Greek ὦνος (ônos, price), ὠνέομαι (ōnéomai, to buy), Hittite [script needed] (wāš-, to buy), etc.
So, Etymology 2 should be created. Thanks— Lbdñk()·(🙊🙉🙈) 16:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, @Lbdñk, *wes- probably has at least three meanings, but nearly all those words you listed belong to the derivative *wesnós, and you might want to create an entry for that instead if those are the words you care about. --{{victar|talk}} 01:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If you create an entry, please be sure to source it. --{{victar|talk}} 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

When to make reconstruction pages?Edit

I remember you telling me that pages for reconstructions need to have more than one descendant, and I've been following this. This is why I nominated the Proto-Italic page *kūdō for deletion, as it only has one descendant. Furthermore, the {{see desc}} section for that term on the PIE *kewh₂- page seemed redundant for a reconstruction that only had one descendant.

Could you clarify this for me? Thanks.GabeMoore (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You only need one descendant if you can also reconstruct an ancestor. They have to meet in the middle, after all. —Rua (mew) 20:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Right. I understand that you can of course reconstruct terms with only one descendant, I'm just wondering about the criteria for when there should be a Wiktionary page made for them. GabeMoore (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what I said. If you can show that the term existed already in PIE, and existed in an attested descendant of PIE, then it must also have existed in all intermediate languages. You just have to keep in mind that we usually only have PIE roots, which aren't words and thus aren't the ancestor of anything at all. Only an actual verb can be the ancestor of a Latin verb. It's the same consideration determining whether you can use {{inh}} or have to use {{der}}. —Rua (mew) 20:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I see now, thanks for the clarification. What about {{see desc}}? If the verb only has one descendant, it seems a bit silly to me to direct the reader to that page to see only that descendant, when said descendant could be written beneath the word it derives from. How would I know when to put {{see desc}} rather than simply listing the derived terms? GabeMoore (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
What I'd like to see happen is that {{desctree}} creates an expandable tree. Then it doesn't flood the list of descendants, but you can still see all the descendants of a particular language if you want to. It would make {{see desc}} obsolete. —Rua (mew) 20:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@GabeMoore: It depends on whether the language has more than one descendant. Italic has Latin, Umbrian, etc., so using those languages, we have a set stage of development to reconstruct. That isn't the case with, say, Armenian, and Albanian, so we shouldn't really be reconstructing those proto-languages unless they have borrowings. Also to this point, we have both Tocharian A and Tocharian B, so at no point should one do {{desc|ine-toc-pro|-}} because it is a reconstructible language. That all said, I generally won't create a PItc entry unless it has attestations in both Latin and another language, but there is no crime against it, and definitely don't warrant a delete. --{{victar|talk}} 20:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. GabeMoore (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Lubotsky's lawEdit

This is an Indo-Iranian sound law and applies to laryngeals followed by a plain voiced stop. The case you mentioned is not Indo-Iranian, and followed by an aspirated stop. —Rua (mew) 21:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Rua: You're right, but it also occurs in Greek (see *Hyeh₂ǵ-), and BSL also has a similar law (see --{{victar|talk}} 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see anything there that refers to Balto-Slavic, other than a mention of Winter's law. But Winter's law is very clearly not applicable here, because it applies to plain voiced stops, preceded directly by the vowel, and results in a long vowel. Here there is an intervening laryngeal followed by an aspirate, which doesn't fit the Winter's law environment in the slightest. The regular outcome of this sequence should be a long acute vowel, the appearance of a short vowel can only point to an o-grade root without a laryngeal. —Rua (mew) 21:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: Aspiration is lost in PIE, Tʰ > T /_s#, as seen in root nouns. --{{victar|talk}} 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Citation needed. Also, again, not applicable, there is no s here. Do you even know what you're doing? —Rua (mew) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: See {{R:iir:Lipp:2009|212}}. The unaspirated derivatives would be derived from the root nouns, like *dʰrḗh₂ǵ-s ~ *dʰreh₂ǵ-sos, *dʰrṓh₂ǵ-s ~ *dʰreh₂ǵʰ-és, *dʰréh₂ǵ-s ~ *dʰr̥h₂ǵʰ-és. --{{victar|talk}} 21:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
But the aspiration is totally not the issue here, it's the laryngeal. The laryngeal must trigger an acuted long vowel or diphthong here, there is no way around it. The outcome of those forms you gave in Balto-Slavic is *drēˀź-s ~ *drāˀź-sas, *drōˀź-s ~ *drāˀź-és, *drāˀź-s ~ *dirˀź-és. They do not match the short vowel that's actually attested. Oh and now I realise Balto-Slavic is missing the palatovelar too. —Rua (mew) 21:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: I'll have to defer to your knowledge on BSL (though, in your reconstruction, you neglected to factor the subsequent voicing assimilation in PIE). Another possibility is that the BSL word is borrowed from Proto-Germanic. --{{victar|talk}} 22:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't sure what ǵs would result in in Balto-Slavic. I do know that ḱs becomes just ś, but if ǵs assimilates to ḱs and then ś, then I wonder whether Winter's law can still apply to such cases. The application or not of Winter's law to this situation would show whether the voicing assimilation is of PIE or of PBS date. —Rua (mew) 23:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: For the BSL, if not borrowed from PG, my thought that it be from *-ǵʰt-. I still think it makes the most sense that the BSL word is borrowed, which is simpler that having to contrive an a-grade just to make them parallel derivatives. --{{victar|talk}} 02:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem with a borrowing from Germanic is that there's no way to make a short vowel in Germanic either. —Rua (mew) 10:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: I'm speaking now, of course, of a reconstruction without the laryngeal. {{victar|talk}} 10:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you also mean that the Germanic term originated from a PIE form without a laryngeal? It's possible then. —Rua (mew) 10:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Rua: Yes. I propose then that the entry be moved to *dʰregʰ-, or better yet, *dʰrṓgs ~ *dʰregʰ-és with some thematicized derivatives, and that the BSL be marked as a borrowing, which, again, I find more sensible than reconstructing an a-stem for a BSL word with no BSL cognates. --{{victar|talk}} 11:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Tracking categories for {{cite}} templatesEdit

Hi, just wondering if you still need the tracking categories added to some of the {{cite}} templates. If not, we can remove them. (Pinging @Mahagaja who was trying to edit the templates recently.) — SGconlaw (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw: Still need it, thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 SGconlaw (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Is there any way to edit them so that only templates, and not mainspace entries, show up in the tracking categories? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe the whole purpose is to see what mainspace entries use the templates. The tracking categories are already hidden, so they aren't visible to users. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of {{rfd}} tagEdit

So, the discussion of whether or not to keep Tocharian B “āᵤw” appears to have been resolved by @Rua saying “keep per the principle of placing entries at the lemma” at the bottom of the discussion, which is why I removed the {{rfd}} tag for that page. Rua is an admin, so it seems like by them saying this it would be the final decision, resolving the discussion. Is there another way of determining if the discussion is solved? GabeMoore (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@GabeMoore: 1) a single person voting yes or no for an RFD between two users does not automatically resolve an RFD -- in this case, I made several rebuttals and requests that were never addressed, 2) the parties involved in an RFD, particularly the one being challenged should never remove an RFD, 3) just because one person involved is an admin has no baring on the resolution of an RFD. --{{victar|talk}} 00:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't intending to close the RFD, just giving my own view on the matter. Usually when a final decision is made, the past participle is used instead of the imperative: "kept" or "deleted". —Rua (mew) 08:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding language code to reference template namesEdit

I would like to ask you to stop adding language code to reference template names until you demonstrate consensus for doing so, or at least 60% supermajority. For renaming templates, we have WT:RFM process that I would not object to skipping for uncontroversial changes, which this adding language code is not, per Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/March#R:Derksen 2008 vs. R:sla:Derksen 2008 and Wiktionary:Votes/2019-06/Language code into reference template names. Doing controversial renames out of process is better avoided. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky: I'm sorry, but anything short of a vote banning language codes, I, with all due respect, will not comply with that request, and that is all I will say on that here. --{{victar|talk}} 07:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is that? On what broader principle? Since, we cannot want people moving pages there and back again. Do you then apply the principle of plain majority? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify: I do not ask that you avoid placing language codes to template that you create; that is your right. I ask you to refrain from certain changes (renames) in existing templates. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Short of a vote banning the moving of existing templates to language code names, that request in unenforceable. Take it up on your vote page if you wish. --{{victar|talk}} 08:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The request is in keeping with the principle of consensus and the status quo ante to prevail. I am willing to yield from the consensus principle and defer to 60% supermajority. If you do not want to apply that consensus-and-status-quo-ante principle, I am asking what other principle you want to apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean, principles that come to mind include:
P1) In matters of taste, mere plain majority should prevail over status quo ante given enough participation.
P2) In matters of taste, 55% majority should prevail over status quo ante given enough participation.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: Again, take this up on your vote page. --{{victar|talk}} 08:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
On what principle are you acting, other than "Victar can override the status quo ante and the consensus principle"? Is that the reason why you have File:Head_of_a_ruler_MET_DT858.jpg on your user page? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) You have not stated the principle but elsewhere you now wrote: "@Dan Polansky has taken it upon himself to enforce this vote as if it was to put into effect a policy to ban the moving of any and all reference templates to names with language codes."
That is a misrepresentation. In general, people cannot make controversial moves without consensus, that's the deal, especially when there is evidence of opposition from 2016, which I have posted above. A passing WT:RFM would ensure the template could be moved, but there is no such passing WT:RFM. Maybe I should again draw to your attention that there is WT:RFM process, not introduced by myself. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


Can you please respond to my questions at Talk:هل#Arabic,_Persian_and_Sanskrit_“cardamom” and the section below that? -- Sundar (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Re diff, sorry about the misuse of {{bor}}, and thank you for fixing it. The source is Vasmer: "Судя по -е-, а не -ё-, заимств. через укр. склеп из польск. sklep" ("judging by the -е- instead of [expected] -ё-, borrowed, through Ukrainian склеп (sklep), from Polish sklep"). Canonicalization (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fsojic, there was an inquiry to the etymology in Discord and I was just helping out. I made the source inline to help clarify the sourcing. --{{victar|talk}} 23:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Marking Templates For DeletionEdit

Any time you put anything in a template without <noinclude></noinclude>, it gets transcluded everywhere. That means that putting {{d}} in a template puts every page that transcludes it in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. This is not academic: I found out about your edit by looking through the history of a page that got deleted. Now I'm going to have to go through the deletion logs since your edit to see if you caused any other deletions. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

See User_talk:Equinox#/Uralic_etymology_references. --{{victar|talk}} 16:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Victar, what's the evidence that *dubnos was already *duβnos in Proto-Celtic? Has anyone made that claim in print? —Mahāgaja · talk 08:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mahagaja: See {{R:ine:HCHIEL|page=1193}}, "Proto-Celtic *b became word-internally before *n (*Vbn > *Vβn)." It's evidenced in the fact that the cluster became Vmn in Goidelic languages. --{{victar|talk}} 15:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mahagaja, another Celtic-wide change that we're not reconstructing for some reason is *VsR > *VRR, cf. *dusnos > *dunnos. --{{victar|talk}} 17:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and of course, > /_L, cf. *amɸlabros > *amβlabros (yet strangely *suɸnos > *sownos). --{{victar|talk}} 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Victar the Gaulish name Dumnorix is also good example of "bn" > "βn". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Victar, Holodwig21: I knew it happened eventually, I just didn't realize it had happened as early as Proto-Celtic and not, for example, in Proto-Insular Celtic. But Gaulish Dumnorix is good evidence that it was Proto-Celtic. For the others, I think we just follow Matasovic's headwords. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Sl. *stojati?Edit

How does Proto-Slavic *stojati acquire AP C from Proto-Indo-European *sth₂-éh₁-(ye)-ti? Bezimenen (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Victar".