User talk:Victar/Archive

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Victar in topic Proto-Uralic



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)Reply

@Leasnam: And to that I reply Sievers' law? Or am I misinterpreting? --Victar (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

bikkel, *bikkel


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)Reply

Vocalisation of laryngeals


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)Reply

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)Reply

Source access


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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply

Avestan script


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
Sure. No, I mean like accent marks and vowel quality, ex. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎 (dā́ᵘru) vs. 𐬛𐬁𐬎𐬭𐬎 (uru). --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Ah, OK, I thought you were aware. No problem than. It's for a reflex table. --Victar (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
No problem. Thanks though. I appreciate you going through that list. --Victar (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
It doesn't, but can be guessed on the basis of Sanskrit. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

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



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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

And what happened to the Icelandic and Faroese descendants on the page ? Leasnam (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

Um, the root would be *weyh₁- of course. —CodeCat 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply

Regional adjectives


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply



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

@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)Reply
Oh sorry about that, I didn't see anything else in that edit Leasnam (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Category:Proto-Iranian words suffixed with *-akas


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)Reply

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



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)Reply

@Rerum scriptor: Nah, I'm fine without it. Thanks though. --Victar (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply



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))Reply

Transliteration parameter and Middle Chinese


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)Reply

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

Typing in difficult scripts


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)Reply

@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)Reply
@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)Reply

delete template in transcluded pages


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)Reply

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



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

@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)Reply



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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
@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)Reply
Very well. Thanks for implementing the changes! -- माधवपंडित (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply



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

@Calak, not really my bag, so kicking this request to @AryamanA. --Victar (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@AryamanA, Victar Thanks. It has also Iranian cognates Kurdish xwē, xwā and Balochi wād "salt".--Calak (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply



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)Reply

@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)Reply



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

@Leornendeealdenglisc: Not the most reliable source. Best I can tell, only tohakkia is actually attested. @Leasnam? --Victar (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
If it wasn't attested, there would have been an asterisk symbol. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply



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

@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)Reply



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)Reply

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

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)Reply

psu code


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

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)Reply
Maybe it's not a problem. Module:data consistency check complains about it. @Erutuon DTLHS (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
That would not work for {{#invoke:family tree|show|inc-pro}}. --Victar (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
I agree with Per utramque cavernam's replies. --Victar (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

Stop vandalizing


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))Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply
You're right, I did miss your addition of sources of your revertions. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply




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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply
Fine, anything you say. —Rua (mew) 19:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Removal of Proto-language data


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).Reply

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)Reply
@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).Reply
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)Reply
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).Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

What was wrong with the references of *brūnaz?


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

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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply



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)Reply

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)Reply
If you create an entry, please be sure to source it. --{{victar|talk}} 01:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

When to make reconstruction pages?


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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
Gotcha. Thanks. GabeMoore (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Lubotsky's law


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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
@Rua: Aspiration is lost in PIE, Tʰ > T /_s#, as seen in root nouns. --{{victar|talk}} 21:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
@Rua: I'm speaking now, of course, of a reconstruction without the laryngeal. {{victar|talk}} 10:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply

Tracking categories for {{cite}} templates


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)Reply

@Sgconlaw: Still need it, thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 03:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
 SGconlaw (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply

Removal of {{rfd}} tag


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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply

Adding language code to reference template names


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)Reply

@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
@Dan Polansky: Again, take this up on your vote page. --{{victar|talk}} 08:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
(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)Reply



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)Reply



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)Reply

@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)Reply

Marking Templates For Deletion


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)Reply

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



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)Reply

@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)Reply
@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)Reply
Oh, and of course, > /_L, cf. *amɸlabros > *amβlabros (yet strangely *suɸnos > *sownos). --{{victar|talk}} 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar the Gaulish name Dumnorix is also good example of "bn" > "βn". 𐌷𐌻𐌿𐌳𐌰𐍅𐌹𐌲𐍃 𐌰𐌻𐌰𐍂𐌴𐌹𐌺𐌹𐌲𐌲𐍃 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@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)Reply
Hi, I made a bunch of changes to pages related to dubno-, and then I saw this discussion... I totally volunteer to revert all my own changes, but I'm a bit confused by the discussion above. Even if the "[β]" is back reconstructible to Proto Celtic, isn't that just a [β] phone, rather than a phoneme distinct from /b/? Reconstruction spellings usually involve phonemes, rather than phones that can be derived from the phonemes through rules (...or constraints...). Perhaps it could be noted in a Pronunciation section that *dubnos is pronounced [duβnos]. This is something particularly important to have a clarification of, as @Rua locked further moves of the *dubnos page to Administrators (arguably reasonably so, after noticing those various moves back and forth).--Ser be etre shi (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree with this. There is no separate β phoneme, and even if it existed as a phone, it doesn't survive as such in any language does it? —Rua (mew) 10:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ser be etre shi: You could try to make the same argument transcribing PC *sownos as *soφnos, or even PBry *duβn as *dubn. We don't have a pronunciation section on reconstruction pages because we transcribe reconstructions as accurately as we are comfortable with, and b > β / V_n is considered enough of a comfortable change for David Stifter to reconstruct it as such. --{{victar|talk}} 15:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar, you said that we do not have a pronunciation section on reconstruction pages, but we do have it for Proto-Germanic & Proto-Italic entries. Also, since you are a supporter of providing allophonic details in the reconstruction's transcription (or, orthography to those people who stick to using only phonemes), you should go ahead and update WT:ACEL and defend your actions using the reference you mentioned above; if some users object (legally or otherwise), then the alternative is to show the IPA to represent the phonetic /β/ (still as broad transcription— nevertheless allophonic —because these are but reconstructions, after all !). Your choice... inqilābī [ inqilāb zindabād ] 23:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: WT:ACEL is pretty outdated and incomplete, but sure, done. Regarding pronunciations of reconstructions, let me direct you to this discussion. Vulgar Latin pronunciations are also being done away with, and if it came to a new vote, I could see Proto-Germanic and Proto-Italic failing inclusion as well. --{{victar|talk}} 04:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'll also say it's your call. I appreciate your mention of Stifter's usage in particular (this definitely raised my opinion of listing these entries with β; most of all I privilege academic conventions, whatever they may be). I agree it would be great if you could update WT:ACEL page as well. Let me know if I must reverse my own changes now. (As an aside, I noticed your recent correction of my use of Template:der, and I must apologize, as it's true I don't quite understand its usage! Recently someone else corrected another misuse of it I made in a Hebrew entry. No need for you to explain though; I'll read more about it on my own.)--Ser be etre shi (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reminder: Community Insights Survey


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

Sl. *stojati?


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

A bit of confusion regarding PIE etyma: "h₂er-" and "ar-".


Hi, Victar. This is the *h₂éryos fellow. Since you seem to have a certain amount of expertise in the area of PIE etyma, I would like if you can clarify something about which I am somewhat unsure. If you look here:, and more particularly here:, you will find the entry for the PIE root etymon "ar-". This is a Pokorny-based listing of etyma. Is this the same etymon as the *h₂er- (to fit, to fix, to put together) found in Wiktionary? If so, whence the differences in both presentation/spelling and in the meaning given between the two (I realize that this is a short question which requires a more substantial answer, so thanks in advance)? I read in a discussion on the "Requests for Deletion" page, Fay Freak's comment that "One shouldn’t base anything on Pokorny.". Are the English glosses provided there for "ar-": namely "to fit, to suit", an example of Fay Freak's stated opinion? If so, then why is that? Also, does Wiktionary have a page on the IE suffix "-yōs"? If so, how may I navigate there? I now find myself anxious to familiarize myself with the distinction between "-yós" and "-yōs". Perhaps you can direct me to a good source for this? Thank you in advance for your help. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 11:56, 23 November 2019.

That page you mention is based on Pokorny, and as Fay Freak alluded to, it's very outdated and shouldn't be used as a primary source today in age. *ar- is an obsolete way of expressing *h₂er- before laryngeal theory was widely accepted. Yes, we have entries for both *-yós and *-yōs. This is a good page to bookmark: Category:Proto-Indo-European language.
If you're going to continue working on en.Wikt, creating an account would be a good idea. I'm more likely to revert IPs with prejudice, in part because I have no way to contact the IP for clarification. It would also give you more privacy as I can see from your IP that you're from the Worcester, Mass. area. --{{victar|talk}} 19:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the links, man! At first glance, it seems exceedingly odd that a language would have two productive suffixes of such similarity, but then again, just look at English... Would I be correct in assuming, then, that *h₂éryos would take a gloss like "joined, put together", and *h₂ér-yōs something like "fitting, suitable (very put together)"? I will read up on laryngeal theory, as I expect a fair amount of my confusion my be addressed thereby. Linguistics (despite Tom Paine's opinion of it - I have recently read "The Age of Reason") have grown to fascinate me beyond what I could have ever imagined, as it is really an aspect of the study of how we think as human beings. I am very new to it, though.
Are you familiar with Worcester? It's undergoing a bit of a gentrification process right now (with full "T" service its become a suburb of Boston and has recently stolen the Red Sox "triple A" team from Providence, the stadium for which is currently being built), but hopefully I will be out of the city and on to a different phase of my life before that bears any fruit. I will probably "join the tribe" by opening a Wiktionary account one day in future, but I plan on doing nothing until I have cut all ties and moved on to that planned new phase of my life, at which time I shall hopefully be a little more well versed and thus qualified to make edits. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 15:46, 23 November 2019.
I am not. NYC area here, so go Yanks! Best of luck with the life changes. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
The two suffixes really aren't all that similar. They inflect completely differently; in one, the final -s is just the nominative singular ending, while in the other, it's an unchanging part of the suffix. —Rua (mew) 10:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@,, I see you're still making PIE edits under an IP. Creating an account is pretty easy and if you change your mind about your username, you can always change it later. --{{victar|talk}} 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Stop with the lengthy tirades!


Victar, I hope you realize I pay little to none attention to your tirades. If you see something I have overlooked, just correct it. There is no need to lecture me, especially on things which I have pointed as uncertain and asked for verification.

Regarding the meanings of PIE *(s)kewd-: originally they were given as "to throw, to shoot". I added to incite (driving, propelling, whatever you feel like it), otherwise the Indo-Iranian data hanged in the air. I see this is the meaning you've kept, so I guess you don't have problem with it? Regarding the other meanings, address the author of the page. I don't feel authoritative enough to overwrite others' opinion (unless it's obviously wrong), so I leave it for further verification.

PS *(s)kewd-, *(s)kewbʰ-, *(s)kewdʰ- etc. are likely morphologically related. I guess they fall under your not widely accepted, so I'll stop mentioning them. Apparently, there is difference between what American and European schools consider as accepted. All of my professors dismiss roots beyond CVC- as primary. I have no precise idea how it is in the USA. Bezimenen (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen: My edit comments, or "tirades", as you call them, are meant for your education and benefit. If you can't conform to quality and formatting standards, I will seek your block from en.Wikt. --{{victar|talk}} 21:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Oh, don't worry. I'm leaving myself. PS I have nothing to do with *h₂er-. My IP is Bezimenen (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
IPs are also subject to blocks. --{{victar|talk}} 23:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Bezimenen: Pardon my curiosity, but may I ask who your professors are? You don't need to believe me, but I am very familiar with the "American" and "European" schools (if you want to paint with such a reductive brush), and the belief that only *CeC- roots are original is both odd and not widely supported at the major Indo-European Universities (at least not by scholars at Erlangen, Jena, LMU, Leiden, Oxbridge, EPHE, etc.). I'm very curious who holds such an opinion which neither conforms to the typology of natural languages nor to any period of PIE that may be reconstructed by the comparative method. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 06:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
There is difference between widely supported and having an opinion. I have no idea what's so odd with having the most basic roots having the most basic form? The opposite is an oddity - to start with complex roots as primitive forms and back-forming simpler roots.
And you are pardoned, but I'll use my right of anonymity. — This unsigned comment was added by Bezimenen (talkcontribs) at 10:42, 29 November 2019.

@Victar: Since you've accused me of refusing to comply with Wiktionary standards elsewhere, giving this thread as evidence, let me elaborate that I wrote it in response to your obnoxious and impolite manner of lecturing. I haven't claim here or elsewhere that I insist to disobey the standards of the project! Stop making erroneous accusations. PS Here are some references to the CVC basic root structure hypothesis (if that's what you accuse of fringing):

  • Benveniste (1935): Origines De La Formation Des Noms En Indo-Europeen
  • GK Iverson (1992): The phonology of the Proto-Indo-European root structure
  • M. de Vaan (1999): The PIE root structure *Te(R)Dʰ-
  • W. Lehmann (2002): Pre-Indo-European

If you insist, I can add more to this list to prove that it's not my theory. The only thing you are right of accusing me is that I had tried to imply it... which I already stopped trying. User:Bezimenen = 18:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen: There will always be theories, but as you can see above, the one you enpouse above is not welcome here. --{{victar|talk}} 00:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: Yes, I understood that and I stopped implying it. I've stopped making any substantial edits on Proto-Indo-European. I have no idea how you deduced that I'm refusing to follow the standards of Wiktionary. Currently, I'm mainly resolving the Bulgarian entries created by Tbot_entries_(Bulgarian) and fixing poorly written pages on proto-Slavic (if nobody else does it). After that, I'll limit my presence altogether. Have no worries!
Regarding my account - I lost interest in the project so I killed it. I don't see a rule that oblige me to use it or to develop it. Also, I don't see anyone overwriting my contributions done from an IP, which means they are of acceptable quality. The edits made by (talk) are not mine. Actually, I'm the one who corrected their work on Proto-Slavic *měžiti. Use the History of the page to compare their contributions and mine, if you don't believe me. 13:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply



Hi there. I was just wondering as to on what basis have you decided to insert the rfd tag (i.e. potential deletion) on all Proto-Albanian pages? ArbDardh (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)ArbDardhReply

Please see Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Category:Proto-Albanian_lemmas. --{{victar|talk}} 18:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Columns in descendants


You know very well that there is no consensus for putting columns in descendants, especially not for languages outside Proto-Slavic. The fact that you have done so, and then try to start an edit war over it when reverted, shows bad faith on your part. You knew you'd be reverted, yet you did it anyway. —Rua (mew) 20:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you do not stop instigating edit wars, I will block you. And personal attacks (e.g. "acting like a child") do not help your case. —Rua (mew) 20:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
You are acting like a child, CodeCat. I'm trying to make a real-world example of using {{top3}}, something completely legitimate, and you're undoing it for what good? Please stop this immaturity. --{{victar|talk}} 20:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Did you forget I changed my name or something? I already told you to use your personal namespace and not use real entries as your sandbox. —Rua (mew) 20:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I haven't forgotten anything, buddy. Reverting legitimate edits and throwing a block on me is heinous overreach of your admin tools. --{{victar|talk}} 21:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Well then please use my new name. —Rua (mew) 21:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
sigh. I don't hate columned descendants myself, but please let's just keep demonstrations of them out of entry space if it prevents the soiling of our pristine page histories with edit wars. We already have vandals to do that. — Eru·tuon 21:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't really care one way or another, but if we go with the columns, I'd like that the issues that were outlined in this post be ironed out. Anyway, let us (that is, you tech-minded people) please reach a technical solution, then a decision, so that we can all spend our time on more interesting and productive things. @Useigor Canonicalization (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Canonicalization: that issue was already patched by myself and a functioning {{mid}} template was created. --{{victar|talk}} 22:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply



Hello there. How exactly can I go about to verify qerth (following your addition of a request of verification)? (an online Albanian-run, Albanin dictionary) does list it here [[1]]. ArbDardh (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)ArbDardhReply

@ArbDardh: Click on the link in the box that reads "requests for verification". --{{victar|talk}} 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. ArbDardh (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Uncertainties in PBS


There's a few main uncertainties that apply to the language as a whole rather than individual lexemes:

  • The existence of *o.
  • The ending of neuter o-stems: -a, -an or -un?
  • Whether mobile masculine o-stems have final accent -ás or stem accent ´-as.

Different linguists have different ideas about these things, which is fine. But to avoid a mishmash of inconsistent forms, Wiktionary opted not to use *o, mobile masculine o-stems are given with final accent -ás and neuter o-stems with the ending -a. This is not because one variant is preferred, but just because it ended up that way and it's important to be consistent and avoid showing distinctions without a difference. I don't think showing these alternatives as alternative reconstructions is practical either, for similar reasons. If we did, then we'd end up giving several alternatives for every applicable noun, which isn't helpful. That's why I opted to show the forms given in each source in the reference template, so that people can cross-reference if they want to. Now, if linguists differ on gender or accent pattern regarding a particular word, that's a different story, and that can be included of course. —Rua (mew) 19:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts together on this. Much appreciated. Was there a previous discussion on this anywhere? It all sounds reasonable, but it's a tricky edge to walk, and I quite often find myself questioning how far I can waver with PIE reconstructions. It would be nice if we had a comparative table of en.Wikt standards beside different schools of PBS reconstructions. --{{victar|talk}} 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
We didn't really get that far yet, as PBS is a relatively "new" language on Wiktionary. But it certainly can be put together if anyone wants to. We already have something similar for the accents at WT:ASLA. —Rua (mew) 20:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Erm... :) Gnosandes (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, Can I make valence theory accordances for Wiktionary in prosodic notation? But you don't accept the accent paradigm d! Gnosandes (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Please take your arguments with Rua elsewhere; my talk page isn't the place for them. --{{victar|talk}} 21:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar, You are such an evil person :D Gnosandes (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: That's a shame: you seem very knowledgeable, and yet you're sounding more and more like a troll. Canonicalization (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Canonicalization, I'm a fun person. This is not a shame... Gnosandes (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please correct the error!


@Victar, References: Nikolajev, S. L. (2012), “Vostočnoslavjanskije refleksy akcentnoj paradigmy d i indojevropejskije sootvetstvija slavjanskim akcentnym tipam suščestvitelʹnyx mužskovo roda s o- i u-osnovami*”, in Karpato-balkanskij dialektnyj landšaft: Jazyk i kulʹtura‎[1] (in Russian), volume 2, Moscow: Institute for Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Not "mužskoVo", and "mužskoGo". Gnosandes (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just do it yourself. {{victar|talk}} 11:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar, You started this, you'll finish it! Gnosandes (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Warning for harassment


At Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/November#Include "Reconstruction_notes" and "Alternative_reconstructions" in WT:EL you posted "This is a classic CodeCat move of citing self-made rules." The comment itself is a personal attack, along the lines of the first example at WT:NPA. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Secondly, you are referring to a user by a name you know they don't want to be called. That is a form of bullying and, in this particular case, also of deadnaming. So I hereby issue an official warning for this harassing behaviour. —Rua (mew) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Referencing someone's previous username does not constitute harassment. I refute this claim. --{{victar|talk}} 20:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Angry Comments- Some Advice


I long ago taught myself to step back and think twice before posting anything I feel strongly about. Yes, sometimes you have legitimate reason to be angry, but letting your anger take control does more to damage you and your credibility then it does to the object of your anger. When you take cheap potshots at people, that gives others reason to ignore the substance of what you say: "oh, he's just letting off steam". The best way to fight something you hate is to remove the angry tone and to calmly describe what it is and why it's wrong. More people will pay attention, and more people will take it seriously. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: That's wise advice. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Japonic /kura/ and /kuro/


Curious why you removed the note about these being cognates (at /kuro/, and at /kura/). JA sources appear to suggest that /sira/ and /kura/ are opposites, just as /siro/ and /kuro/ are opposites. Have you encountered arguments stating otherwise? If so, would you mind sharing them? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: I did not remove them -- I moved them to under Related terms, as is the typical formatting for such relations. --{{victar|talk}} 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

User Raxshaan


I have no clue about the content, but a somewhat bombastic tone in at least one of their edit comments gives me pause... Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Thanks, I've been monitoring him and will look into it. --{{victar|talk}} 15:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Voting on Frankish etymologies



perhaps you could restore the vote of another user that disappeared through your edit to the vote page about Frankish etymologies. HeliosX (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Removing etymology at *desętь


Hello, Why are you deleting this useful info from the etymology? Ain92 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

1. It was wrong in several respects, and 2. It belongs on the parent entry. --{{victar|talk}} 22:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • 1. You have to prove that in the article itself since the theory is easy to source (e. g. Гамкрелидзе Т. В., Иванов Вяч. Вс. Индоевропейский язык и индоевропейцы: Реконструкция и историко-типологический анализ праязыка и протокультуры: В 2-х книгах. — Тбилиси: Издательство Тбилисского университета, 1984. — С. 850.), and 2. I wouldn't have asked this question if you brought the info over to the parent entry, but you didn't. Ain92 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Ain92: incorrect. The PIE lemma, on which the etymology was based, failed RFD, and was deleted as a result. But also, to my original point, PIE etymologies belong on PIE pages, not child pages. --{{victar|talk}} 00:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

PWG categories


I've undone all your category edits, because they created a ton of categories with exactly one member, a word meaning the same as the category name. Categories shouldn't be created if there is little chance of them ever getting more than a few members. Such small categories are not useful to our users, as they make it harder to navigate and find things. —Rua (mew) 09:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Rua: Would have been nice if you could've taken the time to not revert the ones not alone a category. Reverting those. --{{victar|talk}} 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
BRD. Where is the discussion you surely had before redoing your contested edits? —Rua (mew) 10:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: You blindly mass-reverted edits despite them not all falling under your self-made rule above and you're not annoyed that I went back and fixed those? You for real? --{{victar|talk}} 10:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
They were contested nonetheless. Did you think I reverted them for no reason at all? —Rua (mew) 10:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I gotta say WT:Categorization#Topic doesn't say much about this, and it appears to be the only policy we have on the subject. So until that gets articulated more clearly I am with Victar here: mass reverts are not useful in this case. Better to work towards a clear and well-reasoned policy which can be used in such cases instead of just bluntly undoing others' hard work (even if according to you it is misguided), which just comes across as inconsiderate. (Especially since the two of you tend to have edit conflicts a fair bit, so for the sake of avoiding conflict alone it might be better to discuss the matter before mass reverting.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this is Rua's self-made rule. Ask @Chuck Entz. PUC10:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not even disagreeing with her rule, I'm just reinstating the overzealous reverts. Does she actually think Category:gmw-pro:Bones isn't going to get filled up? --{{victar|talk}} 10:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The rule is not self-made but shared with the same considerations; except perhaps as distinguished from Rua’s “more than a few members” I am often content with a category of two when it is not excluded that more will appear. And I think if a topical category is high-order enough it can well be begun with one entry; the category “Mushrooms” can well be filled up, “Sponges” is even above “order” and even above “class”. Meseems it is still more useful than sorting under “Lifeforms”. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak But if the only word appearing under "Sponges" is literally the word "sponge" itself? Do you really think users will find that helpful? —Rua (mew) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The rule is not self-made but shared with the same considerations; except perhaps as distinguished from Rua’s “more than a few members” I am often content with a category of two when it is not excluded that more will appear. And I think if a topical category is high-order enough it can well be begun with one entry; the category “Mushrooms” can well be filled up, “Sponges” is even above “order” and even above “class”. Meseems it is still more useful than sorting under “Lifeforms”. Fay Freak (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It's not a rule, it's just common sense once you understand categories. Categories aren't for classifying things, they're a navigational aids for finding things that have something in common. Grammatical categories tend to be automatically populated, so we don't really pay attention to how many members they have, but for topic categories we have some control. My special area of interest is the taxonomically based set categories, so I'll focus on that.
In general a category should be chosen so that it will have multiple members, but won't be too full to be useful. I've spent a lot of time creating categories to relieve the crowding in English by proving more specific groupings. These are totally useless in a language with a limited corpus that doesn't have thousands of words for a taxonomic group. It's best to go as high on the taxonomic tree as you can go without losing too much information. I tend to think in terms of "iconic" categories: the taxonomic groupings that are intuitive and anyone would want to search for. Most people are a bit fuzzy on the difference between Category:en:Scombroids‎ and Category:en:Sebastids‎, but they know and care about the difference between mammals and birds. When in doubt, err on the side of broader rather than narrower. Once you have things in a broad category, you can always go back and move things into narrower ones, but if you have everything in narrow categories to start with, you're going to be spending your time navigating around the category tree to find them. Besides, creating categories is much easier for non-admins than getting rid of them once they're empty. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: I get it, and again, I agreed with most of her revertions, which I why I only rolled back eight, but can you honestly tell me that this is a good reversion on her part? --{{victar|talk}} 09:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua, can you explain why Category:gmw-pro:Bones is not a viable category but Category:gmw-pro:Corvids is? --{{victar|talk}} 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mainly because of how many words I estimate they could contain. I suppose the best way to prove me wrong is to point out words for bones that we don't have yet. —Rua (mew) 10:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: *bain (bone), *ribi (rib), *hrugi (spine), *kopp (skull), *ahslu (shoulder joint), *maʀg (marrow), and a slew of compounds words with *bain, ex. *armabain (arm bone), *breustabain (breat-bone), *hupibain (hip-bone), *kinnubain (chin-bone), *þeuhabain (thigh-bone), etc. So what's the arbitrarily number deemed enough for a category? --{{victar|talk}} 23:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Most of the base words refer to wider concepts than the bones specifically, or don't refer to kinds of bones at all. *kopp for example is just the head, not specifically the bony part, while *ahslu isn't a bone but, if anything, a joint. The compound words are certainly specific to bones though, so those can go in the category. —Rua (mew) 08:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: OHG kopf most definitely also had the narrowed meaning "skull", but sure, let's go with *herʀniskālu then. I'm not going to argue the semantics of joints being bones or not, but you can clearly see that it's a very easily fillable category. So again, what's your magic number? --{{victar|talk}} 17:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

¿glossary of PIE etyma?


Hi, Victar. I am wondering if there is a "glossary" or comprehensive listing of PIE roots and other etyma to be found on Wiktionary, and how one may access any that there is. Also, is it possible to access the various PIE etyma reconstruction pages directly, without navigating through the etymologies provided on the pages of their respective descendants? Ihope that the prevailing epidemic has left you and yours relatively unscathed, what with you being in the nation's "hot spot". Stay well. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 10:45, 27 April 2020.

Hey Worcester, Category:Proto-Indo-European roots and Category:Proto-Indo-European lemmas are probably what you're looking for. Stay safe. --{{victar|talk}} 18:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, magnificent! Thank you.

PIE orthography


Hi, Victar. I am wondering if there is any information to be found within Wiktionary regarding the orthography used by linguists in the reconstruction of PIE roots and lemmas, of which you are aware. If not, can you make any recommendations? Sorry to bother, but I am currently experiencing a surfeit of free time as I am furloughed from one of my jobs, thanks to Mr. COVID.

Maybe w:Category:Proto-Indo-European language and Wiktionary:About_Proto-Indo-European? --{{victar|talk}} 02:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Once again, thank you.

Adminship 2


Maybe now would be a good time to go for adminship. I reckon you could find the tools useful--Odiumsatin (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Odiumsatin: Meh, no, but thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 20:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-North Caucasian/mɨ̆rꝗwă


Why did you cancel the edit? I pointed out that the source does not have what you wrote. Gnosandes (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It does, otherwise I wouldn't have sources it as such. --{{victar|talk}} 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think that you contradict yourself. The following addition is indicated in the database: -ā- and -ǝ̆. You wrote: *mɨ̆rꝗwā, *mɨ̆rꝗwə. The vowel inside the word, I think, may indicate ablaut. But I have not studied the Caucasian languages ​​for a long time and I can be wrong. Gnosandes (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
If I mistyped the reconstruction, the way to fix that is to edit the reconstructions, not delete them, Gnosandes. --{{victar|talk}} 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I apologize. Gnosandes (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
You have changed the title of the article. Where in this descendant is this: *q̄ʷ and *a? Proto-Dargwa *q̄ʷ? Proto-Tsezian *x̄? Gnosandes (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Feminine ih₂-stem nouns


Hi Victar, I noticed that feminine ih₂-stem nouns are categorized as amphikinetic. I've always thought of them rather proterokinetic as *déyw-ih₂ ~ *diw-yéh₂-s, with root-suffix alternation rather than root-ending as in . Do you see what I mean? – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 22:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Tom 144: I don't really care either way. I think it should just be mobile vs. immobile. --{{victar|talk}} 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

PIE root *h₃emh₃-


Hi, Victar. I was recently reading a paper in which the root *h₃emh₃- was indicated as having the meaning "to take hold", "to seize". This is not shown, however, on the Wiktionary page dealing with reconstructed *h₃emh₃-. Are you familiar with such a semantic field for *h₃emh₃-, or has that been proscribed. Alternatively, should that be a *h₂emh₃- "to seize, to take hold"? I find myself a bit confused about this, as I thought: *h₃emh₃- = "to swear (an oath)". Thanks, hope all is well. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 13:16, 19 June 2020.

@ Hey IP, please create an account. --{{victar|talk}} 18:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moving back Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/*altï


Good evening Victar, sorry to bother you so late, I let you a message yesterday on my talk page but, I don't know why, indentation made you did not saw it. It is about page moving and verification by you. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Malku H₂n̥rés: I've replied there. You can notify people like so: {{ping|Victar}}. --{{victar|talk}} 19:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

About PIE numbers


(just had problems on displaying page so I'm rewriting, that's why I took time to write just that) Hi Victar. It's unexpected but I thank you to have deleted *ḱm̥t bc PIE nouns without any vowel simply don't exist and I'm not able to change entry names. Can I create *ḱomt ? I'll be able to add the declension there. I'm a bit doubtful about the etymology of *km̥tóm bc it doesn't show any trace of *d- of thus of *déḱm̥ and could derive directly from *ḱomt like *gheslom from *ghes-. Also the *t isn't present in *déḱm̥. I searched in *-ós declension and it's thematic (found (e)-óm but nowhere (Ø)-óm as in km̥tóm). Eventually, I've left a message yesterday on *déḱm̥ talk page and as an admin you might have the answer. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Malku H₂n̥rés: No, *ḱm̥t and *ḱomt do not warrant entries. See: Reconstruction_talk:Proto-Indo-European/ḱomt. --{{victar|talk}} 20:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Problem with Rua


Hi @Victar, I need your help, Rua rollbacked everything on Proto-Germanic *twai back to the {{enum}} template, and only on this entry, it's a nonsense (he also edited *ainaz but didn't reverted everything). So I sent him the message under, and he simply deleted it without any answer. Several times I spend hours contributing to the Wiktionary and its reverted/rollbacked (actually I don't know the difference) in once. I would like Rua and the others to stop reverting hours of edits 'for fun', without explication nor even coherence, but Rua's talk page is... uncommon. Can you do something peaceful to fix this issue ? Thanks in advance. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Content of my message to Rua: Hi @Rua, you rollbacked a lot of edits on Proto-Germanic *twai, and on *-līkaz. For the latter, I've now understood the secondary stress is bc it's a suffix.

But for *twai, you rollbacked everything back to even the {{enum}} template, which is old-fashioned and very poor, that's why it must be replaced by {{cardinalbox}} which is more aesthetic and can show plenty of supplementary information. A lot of information was thus lost with your rollback. Furthermore, you need to be coherent: if you remove information and put back a bad template on *twai, you have to do the same thing on *ainaz, *þrīz, and PIE numbers.

Actually I simply don't understand what reasons pushed you to throw to the bin edits which brought useful information and a better template, all in only one entry and without explication. Forgive me if this message looks angry, it does several times that hour and days spent on contributing are rollbacked without any justification. Malku H₂n̥rés (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Manichaean 𐫖𐫀𐫆 (mʾẖ)


Hi, are you sure about this Manichaean spelling? I'm not familiar enough with this script, but I suppose the last letter should be heth, not he. I just thought it might be a mistake. --Z 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ZxxZxxZ: 𐫖𐫀𐫆 (mʾẖ) is from {{R:ira:DMMPP|mʾẖ 1|224}}. Plural 𐫖𐫀𐫍𐫀𐫗 (mʾhʾn) is also attested though. --{{victar|talk}} 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Saterland Frisian Lood


Are we sure it was borrowed from Dutch ? Seems rather unlikely, given the two languages do not border on one another... Leasnam (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

hmm, yeah if *daud is any indicator, Lood is the correct outcome. I was really just going off the original entry, which claimed it was a borrowing. --{{victar|talk}} 03:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Considering that we had to change the language name because of confusion between East Frisian and East Frisian Low Saxon (the former is being swamped by the latter), I would think that Low German/Low Saxon would be a far more likely source. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply



Old English trucian comes from PWG *trukōn. PWG *trukijan would produce Old English *tryċan or *tryċċan... Leasnam (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

What does English trock mean ? Leasnam (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I see *trukijan is a weak class 3...this is possible, later becoming *trukōn then trucian; however the definition given: "to deceive" is transitive (?). Leasnam (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh no, it's actually weak 1 --this is all wrong. Can you please take a second look. Leasnam (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Leasnam: LOL, you couldn't wait for me to go over it again before you reverted it? You realized you added all these forms, including trock, to the original *trukōną entry, right? Anyway, I'll have a look into it more. --{{victar|talk}} 15:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Found it, trock is a dialectal variant (also troke, troak, troque) of truck (to bargain). I'll update it Leasnam (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Leasnam: Already on it. Please hold up. --{{victar|talk}} 16:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply



I appreciate you fixing what I failed to do. However, I fail to see why the tag and the jab were necessary --Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Not funny? 🤷‍♂️ --{{victar|talk}} 04:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not particularly, no 🤷‍♂️ --Theudariks 2.0 (talk) 05:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Your loss, my friend, because it was funny as all fuck. --{{victar|talk}} 05:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

PWG ga-


Hi Victar ! I see that we show the Proto-West Germanic prefix as *ga- unaltered from Proto-Germanic *ga-, however, do you think it may have been *ge- or *gi- instead in PWG ? Most OSX and OHG words invariably show gi-, and a PWG *gi- makes sense as to why the Old English shows palatisation to /je/ (ġe-). What do you think ? Leasnam (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: {{R:ang:DOE|pages=206-207}} gets into *ga-, but basically *a retracted to in most positions in Anglo-Frisian(?), which triggered the palatalization of preceding velar stops. The gi- found in Saxon, and frequently in OHG and ODut., is just, from my understanding, a common weakening of unstressed vowels, particularly prefixes. --{{victar|talk}} 19:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

stöärtje and stoarte


These look like a derivation and a related term respectively. stöärtje, due to the -je ending belongs to a different verbal class; stoarte has no umlaut and likely didn't descend from OFS sterta, stirta. That's the story. :) Leasnam (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam: So than is stöärtje a denominative? What's the ancestor of stoarte? --{{victar|talk}} 01:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure on both. I simply do not know. Leasnam (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Leasnam: Apparently they're Dutch borrowings. --{{victar|talk}} 03:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

{{desctree}} versus {{see desc}}


Here is my answer to your question of why anyone might use the former on a PIE entry. It is completely standard practice on PIE entries to use {{desctree}} when there is only one descendant (or a short, single-branch chain of them), particularly in the cases of Proto-Albanian > Albanian; Old Armenian > Armenian; and Proto-Hellenic > Ancient Greek > Greek. Moreover it is very common to show Baltic descendants alongside Proto-Slavic, whether the Proto-Balto-Slavic entry exists or not, and in cases where there is one descendant within a branch (e.g. as an isolated Gothic or Old Norse or Proto–West Germanic item inherited hypothetically from Proto-Germanic, which occur frequently too) it is common to include them on the page in order to imply that the term in the branch protolanguage (i.e. Proto-Germanic) is reconstructed on a combination of branch-internal and external evidence. Anyway, if you just look at any random PIE page there's a good chance you'll see what I'm talking about, and frankly your choice to deny this seems unnecessarily contrarian. — 02:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

IP, that's not standard practice. Standard practice is to use {{see desc}} whenever a bluelink exits on a PIE entry. You also added {{desctree}} to सहते (sáhate), which is at odds with your "short, single-branch chain" suggestion. --{{victar|talk}} 03:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's not the part where your reversion was at fault. — 03:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply



Koivulehto proposes that it is of Indo-Aryan/Indo-Iranian origin in Varhaiset indoeurooppalaiskontaktit: aika ja paikka lainasanojen valossa. (1999, page 230) and mentions it again in Etymologisesti hämäriä -(is)tA-johdosverbejä, lainoja ja omapohjaisia (2009, page 83). — surjection??08:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Truncating Germanic etymologies


I'm not a fan at all of truncating the etymologies of living languages if there is an etymology at an ancestor language; it is not a user-friendly practice if readers have to click through several pages to see the full etymology and it removes relevant information from the categories. I know different people have different views on which (living) languages should or may have full etymologies, but it's a good idea to ask the people editing a language first before removing content in several entries.
I hope I did conserve every change from Proto-Germanic to Proto-West-Germanic that you contributed. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: It depends on how certain and/or complicated the further etymology is, that is prone to variation and likely to be faulty. In the case of Old High German herizogo the suspicion at the Proto-Germanic page that the Old Norse term is borrowed from West Germanic was apparently reason enough to let the etymology of the Old High German end at Proto-West Germanic, so that that page at least won’t need to be touched. It’s all about userfriendliness, avoiding that some individual pages become out of sync or wrong, and the fact itself that an etymology is ended in a certain fashion is a statement. I also don’t like the assumption that our users are too lazy or too miserly to click. Fay Freak (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak Thanks for making me realise that my statement was not clear enough, what I had in mind in my objection can be seen here; the Afrikaans etymology only links to Dutch, the Dutch one only to Middle Dutch and the Middle Dutch one links to the other ancestors. I agree that uncertainty/error is a good reason for shortening an etymology. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Okay, though at this page it wasn’t even “several pages to click through”. But indeed still the Afrikaans etymology can have a full etymology in that case; splitting can also go too far, as well as spreading/repeating etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Most of what I've been doing lately is moving PG entries with questionable etymologies to PWG entries with expanded and sourced etymologies. So the entries I've been "truncating", are chiefly such cases, where the reader should really see the parent entries for the etymology. That said, I do also follow the convention that etymologies should stop at the first blue link, and, like @Fay Freak, reject the idea that people are too stupid or lazy to click through to the parent etymology. I will caveat, I do support expanded etymologies on English entries, as this is en.Wikt. Conversely, we aren't de.Wikt and full etymologies to PIE are way overkill, and, as Fay points out, are just ripe for etymology conflicts.
Maybe we can come to some compromise, in either practice or technological (see below). @Fay Freak, what makes the Africans entry different for you? How far do you think it should be expanded to? --{{victar|talk}} 20:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think you need to account for how much the eye needs to jump. While the intended user is not too lazy, it also becomes a ridiculous sport to read or scroll or click together the etymology if splitting is too much; maybe also time-consuming, if it is questionable and a stretch to say that we help eye health by not splitting too much. I would usually end at Proto-West Germanic or Proto-Germanic, and, say, Russian entries not at Old East Slavic if a Proto-Slavic is also present. I would also have mentioned the categorization issue mentioned by Mnemosientje, but I would have taken Category:Afrikaans terms inherited from Proto-Germanic and Category:Ukrainian terms inherited from Proto-Slavic for example; “Category:Afrikaans terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European” won’t ever be that useful for quantitative reasons, and besides if we take this as an example people continue, even more, to derive everywhere blithely from roots while we put forward inheritance from PIE as a red herring. I am for balance. Somewhere in the mid appears correct to me.
I don’t know anything that speaks for “expanded etymologies on English entries”. I hope you don’t mean bloat like on translate. Should Afrikaans water get a different treatment than English water? At either entry one can argue that, as the term is inherited from PIE and the reconstruction is safe, one needs to link the PIE form at the individual language to make the etymology complete. Although I wonder whether we shouldn’t omit the PIE so people are encouraged to peruse the Proto-Germanic entries! Fay Freak (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak It does show the effect of stopping at the first blue link. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree this doesn't seem desirable. It also reduces the usefulness of etymological categories like Category:Afrikaans terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European if relevant info and thus templates are removed from etymology sections. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mnemosientje: I would support a technical solution to this, maybe a template like {{dercat|af|gwm-pro|gem-pro|ine-pro}} that adds them to the category without having to spell it out in the etymology. --{{victar|talk}} 20:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Me too. As I have long mentioned at other occasions, the categorization should not influence much how we write the etymologies. Fay Freak (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
As far as I'm concerned, either we have the etymological derivation categories or we don't. If we do want to have them - I personally do and have found them very useful - and we go ahead with reducing etymologies the way you started doing, there does need to be a technical solution, preferably before large-scale removal of information happens. As for the question of whether etymologies could need shortening, that's more complicated... There is real merit in my experience to your argument that stating the same info on different pages will lead to incongruities etc, which is why I am a big fan of {{desctree}} for example. But Lingo Bingo Dingo is also right in that more often than not showing the whole chain of derivation, or a large part of it, is desirable and useful to the casual reader, saving clicks and giving an instant overview that doesn't clutter pages badly at all and generally just doesn't hurt anybody.
I can also see why you would want to give priority to English for fuller etymologies, but where we should draw the line with other languages is not entirely clear to me. While this isn't for example yi.wikt, for Yiddish I would rather go to en.wikt than yi.wikt because the latter sucks. The same goes for the vast majority of living languages, insofar as they have Wiktionaries at all. So I'm not sure as to the degree to which we should treat English as an exception in this case. Technically we're the English Wiktionary, but in practice we're the most comprehensive Wiktionary for almost every language. English' status as international lingua franca also plays a role here, obviously - its general use has moved far beyond the Anglosphere.
Perhaps refer to BP for more input, too. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
(Afaic a full etymology for the majority of words is simply one that shows the chain of direct derivation as far back as we can trace it, btw. Cognates, info on the parts from which a word was formed in a parent language and whatever is going on at translate are usually superfluous.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Lingo Bingo Dingo, Fay Freak, Mnemosientje: To circle back to this, {{dercat}} is up and running, thanks to @Erutuon. Hopefully this is a good compromise. So, what I'd like to start doing to stopping etymologies at the first bluelink that is either a) a reconstruction, or b) a borrowing (maybe not as a strict science, but a general rule), and then come in with {{dercat}} to pick up the rest, like seen here. Does that sound reasonable? --{{victar|talk}} 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In my view you are free to use that if the editors active in a language agree with it (or in cases where you more or less are the community); if you use that for 'Old' or 'Middle' Germanic languages you certainly won't hear complaints from me. I do not think it is going to be popular among the Dutch editors who have generally gone for full etymologies (IMO a bit too expanded at times), but I can ask for you if you want. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Lingo Bingo Dingo: Anyone else can come complain on my wall. =P I'm just looking for a consensus amongst us four, which you seem in support of, so 2.5/4. --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Victar, Erutuon One thing I noticed is that it doesn't seem to support categorizing the terms as inherited (as opposed to just derived) where applicable. That is still a major lack. On the whole though, it looks good - probably gonna use this in some cases, although for Gothic the etys are so short I will probably continue deriving back to IE, mainly in cases of direct inheritance, without feeling particularly guilty about it. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Mnemosientje: Yeah, we could add a |inh=1 parameter (or just create alias {{inhcat}}), so you could do something like {{dercat|de|gem-pro|inh=1}}{{dercat|de|ine-pro}}. I doubt people would bother, but it couldn't hurt. --{{victar|talk}} 19:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Erutuon got |inh= working. So what you do is specify how many steps of inheritance there are at the start of the chain. If it's two, then |inh=2. --{{victar|talk}} 06:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Nice. Well, I hope people do bother, because otherwise there will still be a significant loss of category data if this does catch on. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Regardless, it'll be a net positive in adding entries to derivative categories, purely out of otherwise laziness. --{{victar|talk}} 19:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply



Hi there Victar. I'm just wondering why you were so offensive to me on your recent edit on *kšiHrám regarding hirrë. I understand that my edit had flaws, that's completely fine, and I thank you for that. But using words like 'circular fucking logic' and 'source your shit' just doesn't come off well to me... I'm sure you can tell that. I'd appreciate it if you could try talking normally to me first. I would also like to remind you that countless Albanian entries like hirrë are not sourced but have not been changed, presumably due to WT:AGF. I don't think it's particularly helpful for an experienced editor like you to come and go when you feel like annoying someone when you could easily be helping us out on other words. Thanks. ArbDardh (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply

@ArbDardh: My apologies. I meant to be emphatic, not particularly offensive. I however stand by all the sentiments stated. I'm not an Albanian editor -- I'm not going to do the work of Albanian editors -- but if an Albanian etymology comes in conflict with with other PIE related entries I work on, I'm going to take issue. A lot of Proto-Albanian reconstructions are being simply taken as fact, and not being looked at critically. Reconstructing Proto-Albanian *ksirā based on a some possible connection to PII *kšiHrám is too dubious to even warrant a redlink, let alone an entry. --{{victar|talk}} 05:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your explanation Victar. I understand your point of view. The only thing I would say is that I don't think the PA reconstructions are being based off of words like PII *kšiHrám. Personally that does seem way too adventurous. In the wider context of Albanian entries like this, I think it would be a good idea to contact the original creator of the page to solve the issue - if they are still around. Fortunately, the creator of hirrë was @Torvalu4, so I'll message them on their talk page. Apart from that, thanks for replying Victar. I know I'll see you around again sometime. ArbDardh (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@ArbDardh: You added the etymology to PII *kšiHrám, not Torvalu4. Perpetuating a bad etymology bears the same responsibly as originally adding it yourself, perhaps even more.
I expanded the etymology for hirrë. I don't mean to be a jerk, but if you don't find a reconstruction based on a word in another language family with no solid etymology itself "too adventurous", you might need to readjust your threshold for dubious etymologies. I added four of several competing theories listed in the very source that was citing the etymology. --{{victar|talk}} 21:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Gotta say Victar, you got me there. Props to you, honestly. I'll try to be more careful next time round. Thanks for helping out! ArbDardh (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply
Thanks, @ArbDardh. --{{victar|talk}} 22:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply



Actually, according to ourselves, Old Galician equals Old Portuguese, although we don't declare when this historic period ends. But, actually, the corpus of Old Galician is different from the corpus of Old Portuguese: both corpora share the Galician-Portuguese lyric, but not the prose or the private and public documentation.--Froaringus (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Froaringus: "Old Galician equals Old Portuguese" is precisely what I said in my edit comment. We call this one language on en.Wikt Old Portuguese [roa-opt] however, not "Old Galician" (which I see was already pointed out to you before). We also don't currently distinguish between Galician of the 15th century and Modern Galician, much like we don't distinguish between Early Modern English and Modern English. If you want to change that, you should bring it up in WT:BP. Until then, please use {{desc|roa-opt}} and {{desc|gl}} in descendants lists. Thanks. @Ultimateria --{{victar|talk}} 07:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I understand, and I probably think that we could change some definitions. But bringing and defending any proposal (lets say, "could we rename Old Portuguese into (Old) Galician-Portuguese?" or "Could we include an Old Galician for covering the hundreds of thousands of Medieval Galician texts that don't belong in an Old Portuguese corpus?") into the Beer Parlour means using an energy I don't have right now. Again, as a dictionary we work with a corpus, and in particular, this alosna belongs to the corpus of Galician, of what Academia usually describe as Old/Medieval Galician. I had to consult, later, a corpus of Old Portuguese to find this same word also in use there. Back to work, thanks.--Froaringus (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
On second read, this could sound grumpier that I pretended. So let me rephrase it: I understand what you say, and you are right about our policies and where to change them; then, the rest of my considerations. Thanks.--Froaringus (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Froaringus: I didn't take any offence. Thank you for your reply and please ping me if you start a discussion. --{{victar|talk}} 18:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I'll let you now.--Froaringus (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I appreciate your feedback to my edits. But, I fail to understand the reasoning for some of your recommendations. Why should we not create any further entries of transliterations to Hittite entries? While I personally have not been doing this, it seems a perfectly valid thing to do. There is no RFD for either Category:Hittite romanizations or Category:Hittite broad transcriptions. Secondly, why should we not create redlinks? There is absolutely no rule or standard practice on Wiktionary that advises against redlinks for potential future entries. (And I am aware that in my original edit I used a hyphen in *bʰódʰh₂-ey; that was accidental and careless of me.) — 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's project policy to use the native script of all languages whenever possible unless otherwise ruled upon. I'm actually quite surprised to see those categories you pointed out as the last time it was voted upon, that vote failed. @Tom 144, Fay Freak?
We avoid PIE non-root rendlinks as lemmas are subject to a lot of scrutiny and we don't want them created haphazardly. You can see this in practice on every root entry. *bʰódʰh₂ey seems worth an entry though.
--{{victar|talk}} 18:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I see. I had a feeling those transcription entries were suspicious. As for the PIE redlinks, I've only added them when I've been pretty sure that they could be uncontroversial entries. But I'll be even more cautious in the future. Thanks. — 21:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply