Vininn126

ráz

Aside from a block of bot-generated inflected-form fails, this is the only entry in CAT:E, and, not coincidentally, the only transclusion of {{RQ:zlw-mas:Mazurski Fébel}}. The way you set up the template guarantees a module error if the first parameter isn't empty- the module won't allow use of both |page= and |pages= at the same time. I might have been able to fix it myself, but I have no idea what you were trying to do. Obviously page 99 isn't in the range 25—29, but that knowing that doesn't help much. If the |pages=25—29 is only for display on the template page itself, it should be wrapped in <noinclude></noinclude>. Otherwise, you'll have to come up with logic to feed either |page= or |pages= to the module, but not both. You come up with lots of great stuff, but you do have a tendency to overlook critical details a certain percentage of the time. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I just needed to delete the pages parameter in the template itself. Thanks for catching that. And you're right. I also have a tendency to make more typo's - I'll work on giving everything an eye-over before hitting publish more (something I've been working on in the past as it is, I think I've made a huge improvement and usually I can get things down to a single edit). Vininn126 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Also lately I took a short break and I'm a little rustier than usual. I'm slowly getting back into the hang of things, but in the meantime I'll be a little more careful. Vininn126 (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

współ (missing entry and etymology)

Hi, the same kind of link to współ- (as you've corrected in wspólny) is also present in the formation of spółka#Etymology. So, it needs a similar correction, doesn't it? As for my edit, I was just upset that the red link didn't lead to an existing page (współ), which would explain the etymology (and współ- filled this gap).

(BTW, I opened all the sources before my edit, but at the first quick glance didn't see the explanation of the etymology there; perhaps, I didn't put enough effort into looking up this in the sources, but my case kinda shows that your assumption that looking into the sources would be enough for someone not to make such an edit is wrong.) Imz (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Imz Spółka is wrong. spół- is a different morpheme from współ-, which is a different morpheme from współ. If you want, you can request współ at Wiktionary:Requested entries (Polish). What sources did you check, because I have inline sources for that etymology, namely Boryś, do you have a copy of Boryś's dictionary? Vininn126 (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

drzwi (Plurale tantum)

Thought I'd get your opinion since you've edited the page a fair bit. This headword seems to be missing explicit indication of the fact it is a) plural and b) plurale tantum. Looking at the source code, I can indeed find this information in the parameters for the declension table (which I presume is what is actually sorting it into the relevant category). While evidently the 'nvir' information is important and I understand that it technically already contains the desired information, I'm worried 'nvir' might be overly cryptic for the average layperson/learner. Should we possibly change the display to something like 'pl nvir' or add a separate label or, if you feel it's more appropriate, usage note for pluralia tantum? At first I assumed this was just an oversight and was going to just go ahead and adjust it for this headword but Module:pl-headword doesn't even seem to support this. What are your thoughts, do you feel this could to be added/ammended in the module and relevant headwords updated? Helrasincke (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helrasincke No, it's part of Polish grammar. Non-virile nouns are by default plurale tantum, i.e. plural only. Marking for all three would be entirely overly redundant. I believe the Wikipedia article explains what this means, but this is also how most Polish grammars and dictionaries mark such words, i.e. with "niemęskoosobowy", and nothing more. Furthermore the declension table already has only plural forms. It's fine as it is. Vininn126 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Also "plural" isn't clear enough, since there's also "virile". Vininn126 (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned we may be talking past one another :-) My suggestion would be in addition (quote: "something like 'plural nvir', or 'pl nvir' for short"), not removing the current label or replacing the 'nvir' part (which I agree would be moronic). Here I will quote myself: While [...] I understand that it [i.e. 'nvir'] technically already contains the desired information, I'm worried 'nvir' might be overly cryptic for the average layperson/learner. For context, I have a degree in Russian, am currently learning Polish in an academic context and also have a personal interest in Slavic languages and historical linguistics. I think it's fair to say I have a fair amount more insight into the topic than the average layperson (though of course, much less than some others, who however probably no longer qualify as laypeople). Whilst I could plainly see the term was 'nvir' (and could arrive at the rest via deduction), I still had to open the source code to confirm this word was indeed plurale tantum (confusing probably for a speaker of any other Slavic language, though that's part of the fun). I don't think this really supports the suggestion that everything is perfectly unambiguous. Adding two letters in the display after the headword couldn't hurt, even if, yes, it's technically redundant (as I feel I have already amply acknowledged). To your points:

1) I assume that what you mean by "non-virile nouns are by default plurale tantum" is that if we could further disambiguate, we would. It is true that the category of virility presents most striking in the plural. Yet non-virile does exist in the singular, it just happens that adjectival agreements allow us an even more specific taxonomy. Strictly seen kobiety, okna, sklepy, ogórki and psy are all non-virile plural. Further evidence comes from the fact the coordinate category, virile, also exists in the singular, as one subcategory of masculine gender (alongside animate and non-animate). According to Ronald F. Feldstein (A Concise Polish Grammar, n.d.) "Virile nouns have both their accusative singular and plural equal to the genitive; animate nouns have only their accusative singular equal to genitive but their accusative plural is equal to the nominative; inanimates have both accusatives equal to the nominative" (p40, emphasis in original); and "[a] few masculine viriles take Lsg. -u instead of expected ‘-e: syn ‘son’, pan ‘gentleman, you’ [...]" (p45, my emphasis). Oscar E. Swan (A Grammar of Contemporary Polish, 2002) goes even further to identify morphosyntactic subcategories of animate and personal masculine: "a. Pejorative personal: non-softening Npl: brudas slob [...] b. Personal: softening Npl: student student [...] c. Honorific personal: Npl -owie: Arab Arab" (p125, original emphasis) as well as "c. Especially pejorative personal: młokos milksop [...]" (ibid.) under the animate nouns, thus having an Apl 'młokosy' (though I note we don't include that variant and nor does Polish wiktionary, so it may be substandard usage. PWN-Oxford also offers Npl in -y or -i, different again).

2) The use of the Polish term "niemęskoosobowy" suggests you refer to resources aimed at Polish native speakers or, at the very least, L2 users of advanced proficiency. I think this is inappropriate reasoning here because native speakers have fundamentally different needs (as a rule requiring much less overt explanation) than learners, particularly those in the beginning stages. It pleases me that prolific editors of Polish entries have that level of knowledge and are well versed in these resources, but it can be easy to take things for granted which were once also not obvious. What's more, traditional explanation doesn't necessarily always make for effective pedagogy and it's not unheard of for old and clunky explanatory mechanisms to hang around even while innovative explanations of the phenomena exist. For instance, the stubborn clinging to the two-stem explanation of Slavic conjugation (despite Jakobson's single-stem system being around for three quarters of a centruy, it remains largely neglected outside of North America) or the rather annoying habit (also followed here at WT) of trying to shoehorn seemingly every language with a case system to fit the traditional Latin order of Nom/Gen/Dat/Acc/etc (Finnish being a notable exception), instead of working with an order which works with the syncretism of a specific language best to thus lighten the mental load (again Jakobson proposed a very different order for Slavic). From the perspective of a native speaker, this of course understandable, since humans are known to be resistant to new information and if you've already mastered a system, you're not really in the market for a new explanation of it, even if it is simpler, more effective, or less error prone. Yet English WT is not aimed at Polish native speakers (in any case not primarily) and often includes a lot of redundant information (like full conjugation tables instead of key forms, for instance [I'm looking at you, German adjectives: 54 entries for what boils down to 5 forms, 3 of which are usually derivable]) which are nonetheless extremely useful tools and surely part of what makes the resource so popular.

So, while it may be clear to you and me, I don't believe it's necessarily clear to a layperson. Whilst you are technically correct that "pl nvir" is redundant for the above mentioned reasons, I still think that pluralia tantum should be marked as such (or equivalent, i.e. 'plural only') or a usage note/link placed to an appendix which would obviate the former. Missing & incomplete entries are far from unheard of here and so explicit information is actually quite a lot more valuable than that which is merely implied. I note too that we routinely mark pluralia tantum in other languages, even in cases where the plural status itself could probably be morphologically or syntactically inferred, e.g. proceedings, quadrageni, fungi, брюки (brjuki), очки (očki), люди (ljudi), lieden, Leute (I think a label similar to one of these would be fine). I would be grateful if you'd reconsider. Helrasincke (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helrasincke These plural forms you present have attested singular forms - the point of these entries is that the singular is not attested. Kobiety is not a lemma, okulary is. Kobiety is an inflection, okulary is not. The same oes for the virile nouns. Masculine virile in the singular translate to masculine plural for us, and virile is used strictly for plural only terms. The deprecative form is entirely irrelevant the plurality of the given nouns, but we do include them.

My question is, why are we assuming that a layperson won't see the term "nonvirile" and then decide to check the definition, oh, by say, typing it into the search bar? We have an entry explaining what it is.

Furthermore, we're not always trying to appeal to the layperson. It's more fair to say that Wiktionary is a scholarly dictionary first and foremost. Vininn126 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Helrasincke tl;dr, not reading all that. who cares about noobs finding some terms "cryptic", lol? you could say the same about "f", "m", "n", or "impf" and "pf", it's up to them to learn what "gender" or "aspect" mean in linguistics SeashellSausage (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Old East Slavic розпустити

It is attested in Словарь древнерусского языка XI-XIV вв. and Словарь русского языка XI-XVII вв., why do you remove it from articles? Proto-Slavic *orzpustiti is described in the Этимологический словарь славянских языков, by the way. 5.178.188.143 12:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It was the entire second half of the etymology. Likely from? Uncertain? Honestly? It's clear as day. Vininn126 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I struggle to understand: what in particular is clear as day? 5.178.188.143 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The etymology. Vininn126 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

And what is it in your opinion? 5.178.188.143 21:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• orz + *pustiti, and we have an entry for Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/pustiti. Any information about *pustiti doesn't need to be on *orzpustiti . Vininn126 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's not how it works on Wiktionary: we have entries for Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orz(ъ)zěviti, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orzoriti, Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/orzkrǫtiti etc. and we need an entry for *orzpustiti, especially that it has specialized senses not directly evident from *pustiti (check ESSJa for details). 5.178.188.143 18:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  We can have the entry, that's perfectly fine. I had a problem because your etymology said that the etymology was uncertain. Did you read what I said? Vininn126 (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I did read it several times, but I didn't understand unfortunately, because one who agrees with the etymology in general but disagrees with a minor details isn't supposed to plainly revert all the edits but rather remove the word they disagree with. Could you please edit the etymology how you believe suits it best? 5.178.188.143 11:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Vininn126 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Inflection form meta data

I noticed some missing inflection form meta data |accel-form= in some Polish templates. I updated the template {{pl-conj-ai}}. I'd be volunteer to continue the edition to other templates such as {{pl-conj-ap}}. Any hint on how to do it and on how to be helpful? JuChelou (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@JuChelou What don't you understand? Vininn126 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually my main issue at the moment is that the template {{pl-conj-ap}} is locked for edition. JuChelou (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@JuChelou Changed Vininn126 (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

WF Block

Please block all Wonderfool's accounts. WF's taking time off. Fond of sanddunes (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wonderfool (imagine I pinged all those accounts too) can't you just not edit? Vininn126 (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Redundant dialectal forms, left by an anonymous, blocked user, in Proto-Slavic entries

Shall I delete all these forms as I deem they are, first, unverfied, and second - these entries give only basic information - no need to list all dialectal forms possible. Cheers IYI681 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@IYI681 Yes. Vininn126 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your (justified) undo of my modest contrib

I added something without a proper header, or section, doesn't really matter.

To be honest, I'm really struggling with creating entries in a proper form. All I can do is look for some entry that has a section I need and then copy over, it's painstaking. Are there thorough documentations on what headers exist, how to use them, how to add templates for things like references, etc? For example, I found an external dictionary reference template on the German wiktionary that doesn't exist on the English side. Please advise. Petros Adamopoulos (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Petros Adamopoulos I appreciate your struggle, I went through it too. It's a lot of information to take in.

I recommend WT:About Polish. Also, on my userpage, I have a boilerplate for basic entries. Hopefully might be helpful. Vininn126 (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

For your amusement:

This bot tries to create fake user pages here in order to unobtrusively leave links for search engines to find so the targets get ranked higher in search results. It never works, partly because there are several abuse filters that look for that kind of thing, but also because whoever wrote it is an idiot: Exhibit A. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz I always appreciate these vandals that you show. Gives me a chuckle. Vininn126 (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

скура

Hello Vininn, I would like to know why you undid my edit, on the reconstruction page in Proto-Slavic it shows that IS the inherited form, not the one borrowed from Polish. Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное The reconstruction page could be wrong - short o in PS giving Belarusian у is unheard of as far as I can tell, and Polish ó is pronounced exactly as у, and Polish has "lengthened" o before unexpectedly. Vininn126 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't have advanced knowledge of linguistics or the evolution of Proto-Slavic for its descendants, I just "imported" what was there onto the page in Belarusian. Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное I understand and there is indeed an incongruincy. The reconstruction page could use a little clean up. Vininn126 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for the heads up! Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Наименее Полезное I invite you to the WT:Discord where discussion on these subjects can be more direct. Vininn126 (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Please describe lemmas related to "murzyn/Murzyn" as offensive.

This is considered potentially offensive. SnivyPokemon (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnivyPokemon Why did you write on my talk page to tell me what to do? Furthermore you already marked Murzyn as sometimes offensive? Vininn126 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

So that you don't change and remember SnivyPokemon (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What? Vininn126 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please mark words related to "upośledzenie/upośledzony" as offensive, like their english counterparts.

The words "upośledzenie/upośledzony" etc. are now offensive and politically incorrect. SnivyPokemon (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@SnivyPokemon You don't need to message me with this. Also you need to keep in mind that an institution suggesting something doesn't mean it's true. Vininn126 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Cognates

Hey Vininn, about your two recent reverts of my edits 1, 2, I did not know that we don't need cognates when they are on the proto-page. Is there a policy page where I can look up the conventions about the inclusion or exclusion of cognates? I don't edit Wiktionary very often, but it made sense to me to include those cognates, especially since they share a common root, but have changed slightly in meaning over the centuries. The proto-page, in this case Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/rěčь, does not indicate the meaning of the descendants, it just lists them. Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw There is no hard and fast rule and it's a matter of preference, but I generally avoid adding cognates to terms that all point to a single descendants section, because it's an easy way to generate noise when all the information is present. You can add the gloss to that page, to do so, check the documentation of {{desc}}. Vininn126 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Like this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw Looks good to me! Vininn126 (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! In case there is no proto-page, would it make sense to add cognates to the closest existing page to the proto-page? E.g. we don't have a page for Ruggsack, but Rucksack is very close to it, so I added some cognates there. I was gonna do that at rugzak, but that is further away from the root word, right? So Rucksack has the priority here. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WT:Etymology has guidelines (not rules but general suggestions). Vininn126 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's quite helpful, thanks! I suppose I'll leave out the uk and ru cognates then, since they don't belong in the Germanic language family, and the guideline says 5 cognates is the maximum. I also see now most of them are mentioned in the Descendants section anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Neighboring vowels

I think there should be some indication in words like "klient", "aktualny" etc. that the two vowels next to each other aren't pronounced completely separately. The Polish Wiktionary marks it: https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Aneks:J%C4%99zyk_polski_-_wymowa_-_zasady#S%C4%85siaduj%C4%85ce_samog%C5%82oski 2A02:A319:A13F:EC80:DD10:865D:2EC2:8F6E 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Not phonemic. Vininn126 (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Question about drama

Hey, I see that occasionally there is a user who goes on an editing spree using an account without user or talk page for a couple hours, before you blocking them for ban evasion. Do the edits at least make sense? And what's the background story for this, may I ask? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 The edits are generally good, which is the sad part. They have made some bad ones before, like adding tons of incorrect doublets that we are still cleaning up or bad formatting decisions. They are User:Shumkichi, who has a history of being very toxic to new editors, you can see one of my first discussions on my talk page demonstrating this behavior. Well they did this too many times and are now permablocked. Vininn126 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So it's because of the character's unreliability and refusal to learn from mistakes, basically? In order to not have to check everything one by one? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 What do you mean "In order to not have to check everything one by one"? We can permaban people for having unacceptable behavior, it's one of the default options in the ban screen. We don't want a toxic environment here. Vininn126 (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I see Shoshin000 (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Stop undoing my work

As long as I use [].That usage is completely correct.Are you trying to start edit wars?Do not edit them again. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Science boy 30 it's completely unhelpful too. Plenty of people have asked you to stop showing you you are in the minority. I have every right to edit a page as well. Vininn126 (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say that you do not have.

Also if you wish I can stop using narrow transcriptions.But do not edit my old ones. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Science boy 30 I can and will change unnecessary clutter that is unhelpful. Vininn126 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I cannot stop you.Do whatever you wish. Science boy 30 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Science boy 30: the problem is that you're replacing the broad transcriptions with your narrow ones- undoing everyone else's work. While there's a place for narrow transcriptions sometimes, they're harder for non-specialists to read and they're worse at allowing for variation. You could probably listen to a dozen people and get a dozen slightly different narrow transcriptions for many terms. The goal is to help non-speakers of the language to learn the pronunciation, not to show off your technical expertise. In cases where a narrow transcription would help toward that goal, by all means add one- after the broad one. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you delete all entries with asteroids in Polish?

I demand their restoration. SeaGrassSea (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Celestial_objects and Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Attestation vs. the slippery slope. Asteroids need further discussion on site. Vininn126 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

tungolwitga

Nice of you to insult my intelligence...

As a matter of fact I do know what "displaced" means, I simply thinks it's entirely superfluous on an Old English entry where the displacing term is already the given definition. Anyone with the faintest grasp of how historical linguistics works will already understand the implication.

And while I concede that comparing to Ancient Greek is reasonable as it is likely where the Old English got the concept from, the morphological structure of the words is not as similar as you suggest, the second component in the terms you compare to do not share that similar of a meaning and also have unrelated morphological structures themselves. Unless you're suggesting we compare this term to literally every other word inspired by the Greek, then I see no reason why Old Polish should have special consideration. Ythede Gengo (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@YthedeGengo It's frustrating to come across what appears to be a lack of checking. Displacement not counting because the later term has the same definition is a ridiculous reason to remove that. In fact if they didn't share a definition, how could you call it displacement? Displacement is "a term being replaced by a later one with the same definition".

And I don't see why we shouldn't list some such words - how many can there be? It might be better to include them on the Ancient Greek entry, but that's not what your initial edit was intending to do. Vininn126 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vininn126, how are you still defining words at me... If you don't understand why including a Modern English "displaced by" on an Old English page where the displacing term is already the given definition is superfluous, then I don't know what else to tell you.

And there are a least 8 more similarly composed (by your metric) words, going by the translations at astrologer; again, if you're suggesting those be included also then I suppose that could be fine, but the Old Polish word had no influence on the Old English nor vice versa, so I just don't see why Old Polish should get special treatment when it's not really that common to include comparably constructed words on Wiktionary in the first place

In any case I can't be bothered to argue this any further, I would just appreciate if you would be less disrespectful to me Ythede Gengo (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@YthedeGengo There's a difference between "displaced" and "displaced by", are you saying we should only have "displaced" on the Modern English entry? Your wording makes it sound like the fact they share definitions excludes them. What are you trying to say?

If you want to compose a list of potentially influenced words and move them to the Ancient Greek entry, that'd be fine by me. My issue is removing the content that was put there intentionally with a clear purpose and not trying to figure out a better way to do it. Vininn126 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

telewizja

It seems that there is some misunderstanding.

My point is that if the word was borrowed from English (or French) for that matter, it would yield a closer phonetical equivalent. Like the words antreprener or tatuaż. However, here it was adapted to the pre-existing Polish word wizja, like happened with Portuguese televisão or Russian телевидение. Unless I am mistaken, this falls under the classification "calque". Does it? Shoshin000 (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 Not necessarily, no. Words can be reformed based on analogy all the time. Phonology can be a clue but it doesn't have to always lead to a calque when the sound doesn't 100% line up. This does blur the line between borrowing and calque, however, to a frustrating degree. Vininn126 (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What's the general Wiktionary policy regarding this? Shoshin000 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 That's a great question and I'm not sure there is one. It might need to be considered on a word-by-word basis. Vininn126 (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, in any case I hope you understand better in what frame of mind my edit was Shoshin000 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shoshin000 I do and I've also made that kind of edit before. Vininn126 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

sweet memories: syjonizm Shoshin000 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashubian ~ Slovincian

Бубрих. Северно-кашубская система ударения. — 1924 ɶLerman (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, could make a good addition to the 'pedia articles. Vininn126 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)