Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Wikitiki89

Archive – 2008–201020122013201420152016

Latin alphabet and EnglishEdit

I remember your saying somewhere that the Latin alphabet doesn't suit English very well/at all. I was curious as to what type of system you would devise, or, if you had to keep the Latin alphabet, what changes you would make. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

When and where did I say this? I may very well have said it, but I need to know what the context was in order to remember what I was thinking at the time. --WikiTiki89 20:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to find it but I couldn't. This was a while ago... --Barytonesis (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Syriac nominal sentenceEdit

Hi. My question is in the context of the famous verses Q112:1-2: قل هو الله أحد الله الصمد (Qul huwa llāhu ʾaḥadu[n] llāhu ṣ-ṣamadu). I'm going into a bit of detail because I think you might find this interesting, too. Sorry in advance, if I'm mistaken! --- Now those two verses are interesting because they are suspicious of not being originally Arabic. Apart from aṣ-ṣamad, whose meaning has remained a mystery, the words huwa llāhu ʾaḥadun are also problematic. In proper Arabic they would read ألله الواحد (allāhu l-wāḥidu) or at most الله هو الواحد (allāhu huwa l-wāḥidu). There is a well-known ḥadīṯ in Ṣaḥīḥ Buḵārī, which quotes the verse in just that wording (allāhu l-wāḥidu ṣ-ṣamadu). The strange use of أَحَد (ʾaḥad) instead of واحِد (wāḥid) has, of course, been linked to Hebrew or Aramaic, in particular the Shema Israel. I've now come across the notion that the also strange positioning of the personal pronoun before the subject is a familiar construction in Syriac. My reading of Muraoka's Syriac grammar has not confirmed this, although the notes do say that there is a great variety of constructions. Do you know anything about this? Thanks! Kolmiel (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kolmiel: This is a very complicated question. I'll try to tackle it point by point:
  1. The word أَحَدٌ (ʾaḥadun)
    1. Could it be from Aramaic?
      In Aramaic, with the exception of a few dialects that are probably irrelevant, the word for "one" is simply ḥaḏ (חַד, ܚܲܕܼ), so it doesn't make sense phonologically.
    2. Could it be from Hebrew?
      Phonologically it could be from אֶחָד (ʾeḥāḏ < *ʾaḥāḏ < *ʾaḥḥāḏ < *ʾaḥḥad < *ʾaḥad).
    3. Why can't it be Arabic?
      The assumption that "proper Arabic" would use the word الْوَاحِدُ (al-wāḥidu) is based on the assumed meaning of the sentence. Keep in mind that the word أَحَدٌ (ʾaḥadun) does exist as a number, usually meaning "one of a set", and even appears in the compound number "eleven" أَحَدَ عَشَرَ (ʾaḥada ʿašara). So the question is then what does this imply about the real meaning of the sentence if you ignore any prior assumptions? Keep in mind that the English translation of "one" is highly ambiguous as well, which can be misleading if you forget that the real word you are analyzing and trying to make sense out of is أَحَدٌ (ʾaḥadun), not one.
The Quran commentator
  1. The word الصَّمَدُ (aṣ-ṣamadu)
    1. Could it be from Aramaic?
      According to CAL, the root ṢMD and its derivatives do not seem to have any meanings that would make sense in this verse. The only one whose meaning comes anywhere close is ṣummāḏ(ā), which seems to only be used adverbially as ܒܿܨܘܼܡܵܕܼܵܐ (bəṣummāḏā, continually).
    2. Could it be from Hebrew?
      Again, nothing with the root ṢMD makes sense in meaning (see the verbs and a noun).
    3. Why can't it be Arabic?
      There is such thing as a hapax legomenon. It doesn't necessarily imply any kind of borrowing or corruption. Incidentally, كُفُوًا (kufuwan) (in the fourth ayah of the same surah) is also a hapax legomenon, which I also can't connect to Aramaic or Hebrew.
  2. The syntax of the sentence
    1. Could it be from Aramaic?
      In Aramaic, just like in Arabic, if a third-person subject pronoun is used as a copula, it usually comes in between the subject and the predicate, but sometimes it actually comes after the predicate. It could be that Syriac or other dialects of Aramaic have some additional uses of the pronouns, but I don't know much about that. There does also exist the construction הַהוּא (hahū) (or possibly הָהוּא (hāhū); see CAL), which precedes a noun and means "that". In Syriac it's contracted to ܗܵܘܿ (hāw) (see CAL), which is spelled the same as ܗܘܼ (). But none of this seems to really help much here.
    2. Could it be from Hebrew?
      Much like Aramaic, the third-person subject pronouns usually come between the subject and predicate, but can sometimes also come after the predicate. Unlike in Aramaic, in Hebrew there is no construct where הוּא () acts as a determiner preceding a noun. If you want to compare this to שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ אֱלֹקֵינוּ ה׳ אֶחָד, then that doesn't explain هُوَ (huwa) at all.
    3. Why can't it be Arabic?
      I really don't see a problem with seeing هُوَ (huwa) as the subject and اللّٰهُ أَحَدٌ (allāhu ʾaḥadun) as a predicate with two nouns in apposition. Apposition is common in Arabic.
I hope this helps at least a little. --WikiTiki89 20:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, thanks again. Concerning 1 and 2: I only meant to mention this stuff as the background of my question. So just two short comments: 1.) It's not me who says that the use of aḥad is strange. (And I certainly didn't deduce this from translation!) There have been disussions about this, for which cf. Tafsīr aṭ-Ṭabarī and other commentators. I also mentioned to you that the verse is quoted specifically with al-wāḥid instead of aḥad in a hadeeth in Sahih Muslim. Maybe my wording "in proper Arabic it would read" was a bit imprecise. 2.) I didn't mean to say that the word aṣ-ṣamad was Hebrew or Aramaic or that it wasn't Arabic. I only mentioned it casually because it's another much discussed problem concerning this sura. --- Now, concerning the question that I actually asked you. All I wanted to know is whether the equivalent of huwa Aḥmad ṣadīqī ("Ahmad is my friend") or the like would be a common construction in Syriac (which I'd been told). I take it that this is not the case. Kolmiel (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: As I said, Aṭ-Ṭabarī discusses the syntax of this verse. He says that the philologists have several different opinions about it. I'm a bit unsure about some of the grammatical terms he mentions, so I hesitate to translate it; but you can find it here: [1]. Even more interesting, however, is Al-Qurṭubī, from whom I've translated the following passage:
And some [or: one] – whom God has eliminated and humiliated and to whom he has given hell as an abode and a dwelling place – have [has] suppressed [words] of this sura. They used to read allāhu l-wāḥidu ṣ-ṣamadu in prayer, while the people were listening. So they suppressed the words qul huwa, claiming that they were not part of the Qur’ān, and changed the word aḥadun, claiming that this was correct and that the [reading] of the people was void and absurd [al-bāṭilu wa-l-muḥālu]. By this they have changed the meaning of the verse, because the commentators say that the verse was sent down as a reply to the polytheists when they said to the messenger: Describe your God to us, whether he is of gold, of copper, or of brass. So God said in reply to them: Qul huwa llāhu ʼaḥadun. The [word] huwa refers to that about which the reply and answer is given, and if it is suppressed, the meaning of the verse becomes void, and something is fabricated against God, and the messenger is credited with a lie. [2]
The deviant reading confirms that the syntax of the verse was considered problematic from the beginning on. (And so may the tradition about a reply to the polytheists, since it is understood that many asbāb an-nuzūl were invented in order to justify and clarify verses that had become obscure.) Note also that Al-Qurṭubī, while he rejects the deviant reading wrathfully, nevertheless glosses qul huwa llāhu aḥadun with the words: ayi l-wāḥidu l-watru ("i.e. the one, the sole"). --- So, I'm just saying this to show that the problematic is not my finding, nor that of modern Quran criticism, but that of early Quran readers and commentators. Kolmiel (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
PPS: For the record: Concerning aṣ-ṣamad, I did imply that is wasn't Arabic, because the Arabs don't really know what it means -- the commentators have several contradicting theories of what it could mean -- but I'd already read that there's nothing straightforward in Hebrew and Aramaic. So just a little correction of what I said in my first reply... All right. Won't bother you anymore ;) Cheers. Kolmiel (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew StressEdit

I've been researching Modern Hebrew stress patterns online for quite some time and i can't find anything conclusive, do you know a good source? I'm trying to add entries, romanizations, and all that jazz but this little thing is eating at me. Do you mind if I post Biblical/ ascribed stress? Zontas (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zontas: It's pretty simple, no matter how much theory there is behind it, if you don't know the actual stress of a particular word by having heard it or something like that, please don't add any stress. --WikiTiki89 14:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, do you mind if i post the romanization sans stress marks, and come back to it later? I mean, isn't the Hebrew section for all eras of the language? Zontas (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
One easy way to check is to go to forvo.com and see if they have a recording of a native speaker saying the word. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ܡܕܝܢܬܐEdit

Hi Wikitiki! ܫܠܡܐ ܠܟ,

So I'm curious about this edit:

  1. When you said in your summary that "your so-called 'classical' is really just East Syriac", do you mean just in that article or all my Classical Syriac IPA spellings? I think I'm fairly consistent when it comes to Classical Syriac IPA transcription across my edits; I get my info mostly from Nöldeke, Robinson/Coakley, and Thackston (summarized in the Classical Syriac phonology wiki entry here). East Syriac I would transcribe very differently ([ɪ] for [ɛ], [x] for [ħ], and [p] for [f] are a few examples).
  2. Why the addition of the IPA for the singular construct form? Shouldn't that be on its respective page (namely ܡܕܝܢܬ)? Why not the singular absolute or the plural construct as well?
  3. The schwa was completely lost in Syriac well before the East/West divergence. I include it in brackets mostly for historical reasons and also because it's helpful for syllabification and rukkāḵā. I wouldn't include it even in brackets if we're transcribing East/West dialects (though I wouldn't include East/West transcriptions anyway, at least not without classical alongside them).
  4. I think the removal of the syllable breakers is problematic. Right now, it looks like the word has three syllables (and that's true for Old Syriac/Early Classical Syriac, but not for Late Classical). Putting a syllable break with the schwa in the brackets solves that issue.
  5. The western dialect lost any trace of gemination early on, so the double *[tt] should just be single [t] for that one.
  6. If we're going by today's Turoyo pronunciation, I think [ɔ] should be [o]. It doesn't sound like [ɔ] to my ears at all, though I'm not sure if it might've been at one point ([ɔ] fits better with the raising of [ɑ], but it's still fishy to me).
  7. Why the removal of the phonemic form? It helps show the assimilation of [n] to [t].
  8. Why the removal of the silent nūn from the transcription? (You didn't remove it from one of the derived terms, by the way). I think it's helpful to transcribe silent letters in square brackets, even if it means sacrificing the transcription of the gemination. For one, it helps explain the appearance of the "n" in the other states. Two, it's good when comparing cognates. Three, it distinguishes alternative spellings (e.g. ܢܫܐ and ܐܢܫܐ) or different words (like the supremely awkward ܚܪܵܝܵܐ and ܐ݇ܚܪܵܝܵܐ!). :)

ܦܘܫ ܒܫܝܢܐ,
--334a (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

ܫܠܡܐ ܠܟ, I'll need to think about it some more before I can give you a complete answer. For now I'll say that one of my main concerns was the placement of stress (which is one of the reasons I gave the construct state, to show the difference in the stress in East vs. West). Do we even know how Classical Syriac was stressed before the East West split? PS: Does "ܦܘܫ ܒܫܝܢܐ" mean "stay in peace"? --WikiTiki89 00:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
That's no problem at all, take your time. On stress: I think that's one of the things that's varied the most over time, so I can't be completely sure (which is why I've been avoiding putting any stress markings in my entries for years). The grammar books all seem to say something slightly different, but I think I've cobbled together the general consensus:
  • Old/Early Classical had stress on the ultima throughout.
  • East Syriac began to stress the penult (with few exceptions).
  • West Syriac began to stress the ultima if it was closed and the penult if the ultima was open.
  • Later Classical was just like Western except one key difference: if the ultima was closed and had a long vowel, it was stressed; if it was closed and had a short vowel, then the penult was stressed (assuming the schwa was already lost, otherwise the antepenult took the stress if the penult had a schwa, but this rule can be simplified since the ultima would be open). With this in mind, our singular construct would be [m(ə.)ˈði.naθ] but the plural construct would be [m(ə.)ðiˈnɑθ].
And yes, "ܦܘܫ ܒܫܝܢܐ" literally means "stay in peace". We use it in NENA for "goodbye" ("ܦܘܫ ܒܫܠܡܐ" is also used) as a coordinate response to "ܫܠܡܐ ܠܟ": you're wishing peace upon someone when you greet them and continued peace and prosperity after you part ways . :) --334a (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "dream"Edit

Why make you believe there is no ʒ sound in "dream"? Zaurus (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Some people pronounce it that way, but it's just one of those incidental details that aren't significant enough to put in a general representation. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Cambridge Dictionary pronounces it that way for both US and UK pronunciations. Zaurus (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, it's actually more of a [dʐ] than a [dʒ], but that doesn't matter so much much. The point is that this is the way /dɹ/ is always pronounced in English. Just like we don't indicate aspiration in words like tip (we give /tɪp/, not /tʰɪp), we don't need to give /dʐɻiːm/ for dream. It's overspecific for no good reason. --WikiTiki89 16:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is English not your native tongue? As a native speaker I cannot tell the difference between /dʒɹiːm/ and /dʐɻiːm/ but there is a huge difference between those two and /dɹiːm/. I think we're doing a disservice to English learners by not clarifying this. Zaurus (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

BenjaminEdit

Please take a look at the talk page for this entry- it could use input from someone who knows more than I do about Semitic etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

RussianEdit

In "я против" and "я за", which part of speech would you say против (protiv) and за (za) are? (sorry for my English) --Barytonesis (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I would say they are still prepositions, but with implied objects. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And what about "I'm down", as in "I'm down to hang out with you"? --Barytonesis (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd probably call it a predicative adjective, derived from an adverb. --WikiTiki89 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
On a similar note, what do you think of want in and want out? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
First of all that's slang that doesn't follow standard grammar. I don't know which dialect it originated from. But still I would call "in" and "out" adverbs, that make up a phrasal verb. --WikiTiki89 13:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
With all its borrowings from Old Church Slavonic, don't you think the Russian lexicon lends itself well to the concept of etymological doublets? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "lends itself well to the concept", but yes there are a lot of etymological doublets. Frequently, the OCS-influenced forms are used in scientific terminologies and the native terms in common names. For example, the compounding form млеко (mleko, milk) is used in words like млекопитающее (mlekopitajuščeje, mammal, literally milk-feeding) as opposed to the native word молоко (moloko, milk). --WikiTiki89 02:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hebrew pronunciation issueEdit

Hi Wikitiki89, there are some Hebrew pages with pronunciation issues, e.g. where they don't use IPA or if they do, they don't use the correct templates. Some examples (they're all fixed now) include אֲבִיָה and יְהֹוָה; check the history, where I modified them. Maybe there's a bot you are willing to use? — AWESOME meeos * (не нажима́йте сюда́ [nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 12:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of those are copied from Strong's concordance and are not actual pronunciations. They should just be deleted. --WikiTiki89 17:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Module:yi-translitEdit

Hi, you seem to do a lot of work here, let me ask you, why and how do you use the parameter "hebrew_only"? — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no parameter hebrew_only. There is a variable hebrew_only, which I use to keep track of whether there are any Hebrew-only letters in the text. If there are any Hebrew-only letters, then I add a category requesting a manual transliteration. The reason for this is that Hebrew-origin words use a different orthography than other words in Yiddish and cannot be automatically transliterated. This serves as a backup in case someone forgets to transliterate one, and also happens to catch other orthographical errors. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Yiddish words that derive from Hebrew use the same diacritical marks as Hebrew? Maybe we could take advantage of these marks for the translit module when necessary... — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿nəʐɨˈmajtʲe sʲʊˈda]) 03:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
They are used in some texts, but not in most (and most importantly, not in the standard). The current setup is as good as it's gonna get. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
And even if we used them, Yiddish had enough irregular pronunciation changes that it wouldn't be automatable anyway. --WikiTiki89 05:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/хотетьEdit

Hey Why did you cancel my changes? This verb is transitive, it can join a direct subject. For example, "я хочу булочку". —This unsigned comment was added by 37.53.35.63 (talk) at 21:17, 17 March 2017.

Actually you're right. For some reason I thought it required a genitive, but your example sounds perfectly fine and ru:хотеть says "с вин. п., род. п.". --WikiTiki89 21:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

paywallEdit

"A feature of a website, application or service that only allows access to certain pages, data or features to paid up subscribers.": the meaning is perfectly clear, but I'm a bit baffled by the phrase "paid up subscribers". Can a past participle have an active sense? --Barytonesis (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the word "up" was a mistake, I've removed it, but yes in "paid subscribers" the word "paid" has an active past-tense meaning. It's rare, but there are other words like it, although I can't remember any off the top of my head. We should probably add a sense for this to paid. --WikiTiki89 13:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. If you do remember something, please let me know; I'm scouring Google right now, but nothing comes up. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thought of a couple: done and gone are commonly used with active meanings, although they are normally used predicatively rather than attributively. --WikiTiki89 16:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you thinking of something like "I'm done fixing your car, you're good to go now" (now I wonder what type of complement "fixing" is)? I guess "finished" fits the bill as well, then. For "gone", I can't come up with anything, since most uses are intransitive anyway. What do you have in mind? --Barytonesis (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was thinking of, but there is no need for such complexity. Compare the following:
  • I did my homework. Now my homework is done. (passive meaning)
  • I did my homework. Now I am done [with my homework]. (active meaning)
For "gone", that's exactly the point. Since it is intransitive, it can't have a passive meaning, only an active one:
  • I went. Now I am gone. (active meaning)
As for your side question, I don't know what kind of compliment "fixing" is, I'll have to think about it. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should have an entry for based on, and if yes, what part of speech it would be. A preposition? How would you parse "Based on what you're telling me it is clear that you have a wonderful program"? It sounds very similar to given (given that), considering, which must have started off as free adjuncts/absolute constructions, like the ablative absolute. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Block without warningEdit

Do you care to explain what prompted you to block my IP for a week whole week without due warning? 91.66.15.106 16:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The explanation is in the block summary. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I mean an explanation of the summary. What troubled you so much? Please be precise. And the summary doesn't explain lack of warning at all. 91.66.15.106 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Geresh on Hebrew WiktionaryEdit

Hi,

I noticed Hebrew Wiktionary doesn't use geresh and fixing our translations actually breaks the interwiki links e.g. רָגָ׳ה (he) m (raja) (not linked to he:wikt), previously רג'ה (he). Morfix doesn't use it either. Is it still more standard to use a proper geresh symbol, rather than an apostrophe? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev: This is similar to the situation with the English appstrophe. Most professionally typeset texts uses curly apoatrophes, while on computers people use whatever the appstrophe key on the keyboard does. Just like with English, most Hebrew keyboard layouts have just the plain apostrophe. Our policy for Hebrew, for better or for worse, has been to use the proper geresh character, unlike what we do for English, and unlike Hebrew Wiktionary. To work around the interwiki link situation, the solution is simply to create redirects, on English Wiktionary from plain apostrophe forms to geresh form, and on Hebrew Wiktionary from geresh forms to plain apostrophe forms. --WikiTiki89 00:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If policies differ on different project, I agree, we need to have redirects or alternative forms. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Note also that we have the opposite problem with French Wiktionary, which uses the curly appstrophe for French, English, etc. --WikiTiki89 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes and the Chinese Wiktionary mostly defaults to simplified characters, our Wiktionary uses traditional characters as the main entry, Hans Wehr uses no hamzas over and alifs but we do, etc. The situation with lower case palochka in North Caucasian languages, certain Ossetian and Chuvash characters is not clear. I think it's better to stick with the latest professional spellings but consistently provide redirects, as we do now e.g. with Russian words using "е" instead of "ё". Hard redirects are fine, especially when editors are short of time but soft redirects are more informative and can get useful interwikis. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

GuitarDudenessEdit

It takes two to edit war. —CodeCat 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It does. But it clearly states in my edit summaries "If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.", while his edit summaries say absolutely nothing. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok but, what steps did you take to resolve the issue other than reverting? —CodeCat 23:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I informed him to leave a message on my talk page if he thinks the rollback is in error. I'll admit that I should have been more responsible and left a message on his talk page about the reversions and that edit warring is wrong... but nobody's perfect. --WikiTiki89 23:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

"Freier" meaningEdit

I have no significant knowledge of Hebrew, but the meaning of this word as "rule-obeyer" is well-documented here, including by Israel commentators themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/thou-shalt-not-be-a-freier-1.211247 http://articles.latimes.com/1997/jul/25/news/mn-16208

-70.190.102.49

Your changes are not contradictory to the current definition. I just think the current definition is worded to be more generally applicable. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hos(h)ea and Is(h)aiah and Joshua (Jesus)Edit

Pax tibi. So what say your sources on the origin and signification of these names? May you share these sources? —GuitarDudeness (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem wasn't with the sources. If you want to add a detailed etymology for these terms, this should be done at the Hebrew entries themselves. As far as the English entries, putting a simple gloss when the meaning is not 100% certain just trivializes the complexities of the etymology. There's also no reason to add "compare with X", since the paths their etymologies took from Hebrew to English are not related to each other in any way. --WikiTiki89 15:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I asked for your sources rejecting the information I put (grounded on my sources). For your argument of "too much information", there are English pages here with the word etymology up to its PIE form. My ground for adding "compare with X" is because X, according to my sources, is related (in using of the same elements) to the page's word. —GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't rejecting any information, so I don't need any sources. What I mean is that those relations are not relevant to English, because in English it's just a name. Sometimes it's fine to go all the way back to the PIE form, but sometimes it's completely unnecessary. If the etymology in Hebrew were completely straightforward, then there would be no problem to include it in the English entry, but as soon as it becomes complicated, there is no reason to duplicate the information on every page. --WikiTiki89 16:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
"Just a name" is a matter of taste and proper to each person. I see you finally put the information on Hos(h)ea's and Is(h)aiah's Hebrew sections, what of Joshua? Why so pertinent in omitting the name's signification on the English page? You accused uncertainty, but on Hosea's Hebrew section I see no uncertaintly. Even here the reference between these names is significant because of the change from Hos(h)ea to Joshua in the Bible. If there is relation between these names it must be declared, if not on "compare with...", on "Related terms" or "See also". —GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
By "just a name" I meant that it did not carry over its original meaning to other languages, so its irrelevant to the later development of the word. I wrote a whole bunch on the etymology of יהושע at User talk:Chuck Entz/2016#Jesus definition. If you want to extract the relevant information from that discussion and add it to יהושע, please go ahead. As far as cross-references, there is no reason to mention anything that is not relevant to understanding the development of the word. --WikiTiki89 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Undoing cleanup editsEdit

Why did you undo my cleanup edits? I didn't modify the languages itself! — AWESOME meeos * ([nʲɪ‿bʲɪ.spɐˈko.ɪtʲ]) 21:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If I reverted you, it was because you did something wrong. Do you have any specific questions? --WikiTiki89 14:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

column paramEdit

Now that this exists, do you think {{autobalancing-column-style}} and {{column-count}} can go? —CodeCat 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I think {{column-count}} is a good shortcut. {{autobalancing-column-style}} can go though. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

FYIEdit

Special:Contributions/107.77.202.63. Honestly, I never understood which Hebrew monosyllables are stressed myself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

With Biblical quotations it's pretty simple, every prosodic word should have a stress mark (which corresponds to the cantillation marks in the Hebrew). In other cases, I just use my judgment based on whether the word would be emphasized in speech. I usually omit them in monosyllabic prepositions (without pronominal suffixes). For other cases, I don't know if there is a general rule. --WikiTiki89 14:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?diff=42664328Edit

  1. I think that RG-80 grammatical reference was valid (пол-) prefix (to be exactly: not a prefix, but a sequence)
  2. User:Cinemantique found that dictionaries by Zaliznyak miss one form

Why to revert everything, any comments? d1g (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Because you replaced a good etymology with a bad one. --WikiTiki89 19:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Second line is for ety and references, first is quite clear reference to grammar, why to remove it?
You probably seen my message, but Template:affix is for morphology right now and always was:
a Morphology template not a "Etymology only template" d1g (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
{{affix}} is an etymology template. The fact that it is improperly categorized doesn't mean anything. But regardless, the etymology section is for etymologies. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, category was wrong and I shouldn't look at it.
But how this word can have a better etymology if it is defined in grammar as "пол- + genetive первого/второго"?
Etymology "пол-"+ "первый" is not according to grammar and you have to account for that (state "genitive"), isn't? Then how it is different from a grammar rule? d1g (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
"первый" is the lemma form of the word. "пол-" always takes the genitive, so "пол-" + "первый" = "полпервого". And in case that's not obvious, it's explained in the next sentence. And you removed all that. What you wrote was "пол-" + "первого" which is evident from the word itself and completely useless information. --WikiTiki89 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly! Too much words for a single rule repeated 12 times (potentially). I removed duplication at полпервого because пол- says "takes ordinal adjective in genitive case"
Why it was wrong to keep things at пол-?
I prefer to cover rules at пол- -пол- -пол pages, is it wrong to do? d1g (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but then the etymology should still be пол- (pol-) +‎ пе́рвый (pérvyj). --WikiTiki89 19:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

octantEdit

How your edits improve the page?

Please join a discussion at Template_talk:trans-top#link_to_wikidata_item. d1g (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Wikitiki89 please answer "How your edits improve the page?" here. Thanks. d1g (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Umbrella category for request categoriesEdit

Do you think we could have a good name for a umbrella category for all the request categories of the same language? Maybe Category:Requests concerning English or Category:Requests concerning English entries?

I'm thinking the category tree could be like this:

  • English entry maintenance
    • Requests concerning English entries
      • Requests for etymologies in English entries
      • Requests for quotations in English
      • (other request categories)
    • (other entry maintenance categories)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Isn't every maintenance category an implicit request? —CodeCat 19:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
What about Category:English terms with IPA pronunciation‎? One issue I see is that some requests aren't specific to one language, so it's odd to have a category for requests nested under a language-specific category. Also, categories only include the page as a whole, and there can be multiple requests even within a single section, so starting the name with "Requests" is inaccurate. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Some categories like Category:Spanish terms with incomplete gender and Category:Hebrew noun entries missing singular construct forms are not actual requests; nobody requested us to fix these entries specifically. They are just a list of templates missing certain parameters. Granted, they might be "requests" in a wider sense, because these entries have to be fixed one way or another, but the purpose of these categories is different. For the sake of discussion, imagine if we created a new category called Category:English entries with the etymology missing, containing all the English entries without an etymology section. This is different from Category:Requests for etymologies in English entries (currently named Category:English entries needing etymology).
@Chuck Entz: If not all requests are specific to a language section, most are: you can request an image, etymology, reference, quotation, etc. concerning a specific language section. You can ask for translations into specific languages. We might potentially create new "requests" to fix templates, modules and appendices, but pretty much all the requests mentioned in the recent vote belong to a section or link in a specific language. As long as we have these requests, I think it's a great idea to have language-specific request categories. Even if we have (or create in the future) some other non-language-specific requests, we might simply consider using different categories for them.
Feel free to disagree with me, but I don't think categories including the page as a whole is an issue. If you add an {{rfi}} (request for image) in the page dog and then dog gets categorized, I essentially consider only the request to be in the category, and not the rest of the page. How else could we interpret the fact that dog is in a request category? If this were a problem, we might want to rename Category:English nouns to Category:Pages with English nouns for the same reasons, because many pages with English nouns also have other things. I don't see how having multiple requests even in a single section is a problem. An entry can be a member of "Requests for images", "Requests for etymology", "Requests for quotations", etc. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

D1gggg BlockEdit

As annoying as D1gggg's rhetoric has been lately, it's been 24 hours since they've made any WT edits at all, and their undoing of your edit has been their only mainspace edit since a day and a half before that. I'm not sure if "edit-warring" is plausible as grounds for a block after that much time has elapsed. Still, it was after they changed their user page to reject the specific wording in my "behave or be blocked" message, so they can't say they weren't aware of it. Not that I have any experience with parenting, but it sort of reminds me of a teenager slamming the door as they leave after a parental lecture. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The fact that I didn't get back online to notice his revert until 24 hours later doesn't change the fact that I would have blocked him for it. I know Wikipedia has a policy that you revert once every 24 hours, but I'm not sure if we do. If he hadn't already been such a pain elsewhere, I probably would have been more lenient on this particular edit war. --WikiTiki89 03:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I unblocked User:D1gggg because I don't think his (her?) conduct merited a one-week block. Earlier on, he made a number of useful contributions to Russian word definitions, and I think we should be lenient as he may settle down. Benwing2 (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RevertsEdit

Why? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Number 1, it's bad form. Better to ask permission or to inform the poster and let them correct their own errors. Number 2, I suspect this particular mistake was intentional. But number 1 should be enough. --WikiTiki89 17:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a quick read through the conversation that people are intentionally misspelling Corrugate's name as a form of protest/humorous witticism. —JohnC5 18:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of the "Colgate" misspelling was that it wasn't deliberate. In this case, I agree that it's probably not a mistake but intentional. Either way, I disagree that correcting obvious typos is "bad form". In most cases, it's unnecessary to fix some trivial typo but I figured it may be useful since we are discussing a particular extension. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you have against pointing out the mispelling instead of correcting it? --WikiTiki89 18:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing in principle. It's just faster and potentially less embarrassing. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You could also just put in the edit summary something like "I hope you don't mind this correction, otherwise please revert." --WikiTiki89 19:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of adminsEdit

Hi, you mentioned here that you think there are too many admins already. Do you have any particular number that you'd consider ideal? (Feel free to link to earlier posts if needs be.) Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I can give you a number, but I think it sort of doesn't make sense that the majority of major contributors are admins. Maybe we need a lot of trusted people with reverting/patrolling rights, template editing rights, page deleting rights, but I don't think we need so many people with blocking and page protecting rights. But the system is working, so I'm not going to go around actively opposing it (you'll notice I did vote support). --WikiTiki89 14:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand and I indeed noticed you did. I wondered if the upcoming wave of desysopping inactive admins would balance things out, but clearly not if it's about the proportion of active editors. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I would welcome such limited powers. The only thing I personally would like to be entrusted with would be page deleting rights... I wouldn't have to bother people with things like redirect reversals. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding entries for a spoken language to the English WiktionaryEdit

Hello, I've been talking with StevenJ81 about possible solutions for Wt/arq on the incubator, and I asked him about what to do if I wanted to add entries in Maghrebi Arabic to the English Wiktionary. A summary of the problem is:

  1. Maghrebi Arabic has at least 3 language codes.
  2. Tunisian (aeb), Algerian (arq), and Moroccan (ary) share generally the same vocabulary.
  3. There is no standard writing system, today, two scripts are used:
    1. Latin script
      1. One orthography is based on French, doesn't mark emphatic consonants, and uses digits for missing phonemes.
      2. Many others are used for scientific purposes but are also used by activists. Usually phonemic.
    2. Arabic script
      1. Standard Arabic: hard to write and to read because you need a good knowledge of the Arabic language.
      2. Etymological: drops unpronounced consonants such as Hamza but doesn't change anything else. Same as above. Not always used.
      3. Quite etymological: based on the principles of the Arabic orthography. The etymology matters sometimes.
      4. Phonemic: Not used that much, promoted by KtbDarija.

The actual usage is a combination of all of these writing systems. Using Latin and Arabic script by the same user is very normal. So, which spelling system and which language code should be used on the English Wiktionary? Thank you. --GeekEmad (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I would be very interested in seeing a sample sentence in the 6 orthographies, that would best exhibit the difference between them. —Julien D. (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. The orthography in Latin, even the transliterations should be considered in a group. Arabic in Roman letters are not allowed. Currently, we only use Arabic scripts for ALL Arabic dialects and we use a standard/preferred method of transliteration defined in WT:AAR, which is not based on French but Hans Wehr dictionary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Julien D., ok, here are some examples:
  1. Latin
    1. French based: tabla, sif/cif, 9lem, khadhra/khadra, khodhra/khodra, noss, 3amya, lebbsou, devoir, 7enna, tèlma, neggez, qra
    2. Scientific transcription/transliteration (used in most by most linguistics with some variations depending whether it is phonetic or phonemic): ṭabla/ṭābla, ṣif/ṣīf, qlem/qlǝm[1], xaḍṛa/xăḍṛa/xeḍṛa[2], xŭḍra/xʷeḍra,[3] nŭṣṣ/nʷeṣṣ, ɛemya/ɛamya/ɛămya, lebbsu, duvwaṛ/dūvwāṛ, ḥenna/ḥănna, talma/tālma, neggez, qṛa
  2. Arabic
    1. Standard: طابلة, صيف, قلم, خضراء, خُضرة, نُصف, لبسوا, عمياء, دوڥوار/امتحان, حنّاء, تالمة/تالما, نقّز, كزّان/قزّان, قرأ
    2. Etymological: طابلة, صيف, قلم, خضرا, خُضرة, نُصّ, لبسو, عميا, دوڥوار, حنّا, تالما/تالمة, نڨّز, ڭزّان, قرا
    3. Quite Etymological: طابلة, صيف, قلم, خضرة, خُضرة, نُصّ, لبسو, عمية, دوڥوار, حنّة, تالمة, نڨّز, ڭزّان, قرى
    4. Phonemic: طابلا, صيف, قلم, خضرا, خُضرا, نُصّ, لبسو, عميا, دوڥوار, حنّا, تالما, نڨّز, ڭزّان, قرا
--GeekEmad (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ "e" might be used for /ǝ/
  2. ^ all of these are phonetic transcriptions of /xǝḍṛa/
  3. ^ some linguists consider the short /ŭ/ an allophone of /ǝ/ next to labiovelarized consonants
Anatoli T., but Hans Wehr romanization doesn't have the vowel /ǝ/. Which Arabic spelling is going to be used? And what about the "problem" of language codes? --GeekEmad (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@GeekEmad If there is a real need to transliterate the vowel /ǝ/, it can be added as a special case but the exact phonology perhaps only belongs to the Etymology section. Certain accommodations can be done for dialects. We already use dialectal letters and transliterations (also special cases for loanwords).
I don't have any objections to merging Maghrebi dialects but we may need a vote for that. The trouble is, we don't have enough editors or dedicated editors for these dialects. WT:RFM is also a place to request lect mergers. BTW, for خ the preferred symbol is "ḵ", not "x", it's also used by our module, e.g. خَضْرَاء (ḵaḍrāʾ). —This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talkcontribs).
A couple things:
  • Language codes: I once tried to reorganize our Arabic language codes, but my attempts ended up failing. I started with trying to merge North and South Levantine Arabic, but someone made the argument that North and South Levantine have enough difference that they should remain separate. I still disagree with this and would like to merge them. I would also support merging our Maghrebi dialects into a single language. I understand that this would also be controversial because just like in Levantine, there are actually substantial differences between the dialects. Again, I still think merging is beneficial. I would even say we should merge all Arabic dialects with Standard Arabic into the language code ar and handle the dialects the way we currently handle Chinese dialects. Perhaps User:Atitarev could find some good examples of this to show you since I don't work with Chinese at all.
  • Orthography: Our official policy is to allow any spellings that are attested in durably archived sources (see WT:ATTEST). This usually means books. Are books ever written in Maghrebi dialects? Or even short bits of dialog within books that are otherwise written in MSA would be enough. We generally frown upon having entries in Romanized Arabic, however if it would be substantially attestable (in durably archived sources), then we could include words in Romanized orthography. We can still use the scholarly Romanizations for our transliterations.
--WikiTiki89 15:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Wiki: Merging all the varieties with Standard Arabic doesn't seem like a good solution since these varieties are mutually unintelligible. Unlike the Chinese script, the Arabic spelling does change if the pronunciation changes. Furthermore, some varieties, like Maghrebi, incorporate many Berber, Turkish, Italian, Spanish, French, and even Hebrew words. A better solution would be grouping varieties of the same linguistic group with each other. That is grouping Hassaniya, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, and Saharan Arabic under Maghrebi Arabic. There are indeed some variations (or a lot, if we include Hassaniya and Libyan Arabic), however, the English Wiktionary would be more organized.
There are at least 6 dictionaries written in Arabic script. A combination of standard, etymological, and morphophonological spelling systems is used. So just checking the written material isn't a solution. However, there is a form of poetry called Melḥun in written in Maghrebi. I don't have any handwritten books by the poets themselves, but I have some scans: they don't seem to follow the etymology, but they excessively use diacritics to denote unstressed vowels, sometimes even the final ones.
Other dictionaries and social media pages use the Latin script.
If the merging is certainly going to happen, adopting the orthography used in Melḥun will suit the language and will minimize the number of entries. If that's what's going to happen in the English Wiktionary, we will adopt the same thing in Wt/arq (although the Latin orthography will be allowed for some specific cases.) --GeekEmad (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Merging the varieties with Standard Arabic would not be as much of a problem as you might think. We already have ways to mark words as belonging to particular dialects, so we would be able to add loanwords from all these sources you mentioned and mark them as Maghrebi. That's the least of the issues. Different spellings and pronunciations and meanings can also be accommodated. Mutual unintelligibility is not a problem for Chinese and so shouldn't be a problem here. As for attestation, one important thing to remember is that dictionaries are not counted as sources, because they don't use the words, but rather define them. --WikiTiki89 17:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think the merging under the Arabic language can be done then. Is a vote needed for things like this? The Arabic Wiktionary might also follow the same concept... I will use attestations from now on to solve the spelling problems.--GeekEmad (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes a vote would be needed. Also, I'm not sure it would be likely to pass, and I'm not sure it's the right time to do it. Because if it passes, such a merge would require a lot of work, and I don't think we currently have enough Arabic contributors willing to put in the time to make it happen. --WikiTiki89 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking, why don't you apply the same idea to other macro-languages or related varieties? For example, Berber, which has a lot of varieties spoken in the Maghreb region. I suppose the problem is again the lack of contributors? --GeekEmad (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It's both contributors and resources. Chinese happened to have not only enough people willing to work on it, but also comprehensive dictionaries listing many dialectal forms of every word. Such things don't exist for Arabic and Berber. --WikiTiki89 13:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Old dictionaries (last century) exist for many Arabic varieties. As for Berber, many dictionaries were produced in the 20th and 21st century. --GeekEmad (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Are they comprehensive and easily searchable? --WikiTiki89 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Not all of them. If the Arabic alphabet is used and the book is scanned, then it's not possible to search the dictionary, unless a transcription using Latin letters exist. As for the Berber ones, most of them are in Latin script (although one of the largest ones is written in Arabic script, It's impossible to search in the scanned book). Sometimes, the original PDF version is available, especially for Berber dictionaries (Algerian varieties) --GeekEmad (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
And are they reliable? Note that in many of the newer scans in Google Books, it actually is often possible to search the Arabic-script (although usually there are many scannos). --WikiTiki89 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Maghrebi Arabic dictionaries in Arabic script either handwritten or written using Maghrebi script (It would be awesome if I can train an OCR program to recognize Maghrebi script words...). As for Berber, the dictionary is written in normal Arabic style, however, it is from 1990, so it is not fully available on Google Books. It's named المعجم العربي الأمازيغي --GeekEmad (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Are they freely available online? If so, it would be great if you could share the links. Even if we don't go through with the merging, they would still be valuable references. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Berber, many lexicons are full of neologisms which are never attested outside of the dictionary itself. Maghrebi Arabic, I collected them and I'm still expanding the collection. For the other varieties of Arabic, there are certainly many dictionaries but I never tried collecting them. --GeekEmad (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Your first point is why we require actual attestation. --WikiTiki89 17:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@GeekEmad shouldn't the phonemic of قرأ be قرء? --Backinstadiums (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's interesting how some "enthusiasts" talk at length how great it would be to do this or that in a language such as Arabic but then it stops and nothing happens. All enthusiasm is gone.@GeekEmad, Hi. So, have you created a few Arabic entries at Wiktionary to have a look at? No? I thought so ;) Sorry, I can't help being sarcastic about it, LOL. @Backinstadiums, Erutuon, Benwing2, Mahmudmasri Basic Arabic words still need to be created. Just FYI. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have final exams from 7 to 23 May. --GeekEmad (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Atitarev First of all, thank you for pinging me, for otherwise I wouldn't have noticed. The second major issue putting me off is, apart from being beginning to learn it, the editing technical knowledge and protocol required, and which I am willing to learn asap. Please, see the feedback I have supplied as the best I have been able to do so far. --Backinstadiums (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

𐤀𐤓𐤍Edit

Could you please take a look at the quotation and maybe the rest of this entry to see whether it's properly formatted? Specifically, I've used the vertical stroke to represent the word divider, which may not be the preferred practice here as it's normally used for numerals. Thanks in advance. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Do you have any images of the inscription? That would help me decide which characters to use. I thought that Phoenician used dots as word dividers. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I found an image. And also found that there is a designated Unicode character "PHOENICIAN WORD SEPARATOR" (U+1091F). --WikiTiki89 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll use that character from now on. As for 𐤁𐤓, thanks for cleaning up the etymology; I did come across a few attestations, but it's obvious that it comes from Aramaic rather than any supposed Proto-Semitic *bar-. I planned on taking it to the ES later, but this saves on bureaucracy. However, I did take care to consult several references on the etymology of 𐤀𐤔, all of which said that the relative pronoun is a prothetic allomorph of 𐤔, and relate it to Akkadian ša and Hebrew שׁ. Maybe there is also a school of opinion that does link it to the word for "male" though. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry then. I'm used to dealing with people who don't know what they're doing, I guess you're not one of those. But note that 𐤀𐤔 (based on its use in other languages) means "man" or "person", not so much "male", and is often used a pronoun like "someone" or "one". But your explanation probably makes more sense. And I never connected Akkadian ša with Hebrew ש־, but I guess that makes sense. --WikiTiki89 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll try not to be one of those! And I know it can be used as an indefinite pronoun. Anyway, the picture appears more complicated than I thought based on the references I checked. At least one expert, Charles R. Krahmalkov, states that ˀš and š are unrelated and calls the etymology of the first uncertain, and Jo Ann Hackett also mentions an alternative origin for š. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Modern Greek etymologies of nounsEdit

I'm not sure I agree with this. The Modern Greek suffix is an analogical formation based on the oblique cases. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Yes, but that's a regular process in words inherited from Ancient Greek with this declension pattern. Regular derivational processes don't need to be mentioned everywhere they occur. --WikiTiki89 17:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree that it shouldn't really be mentioned on any individual entry. But shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere, maybe in an Appendix? --Barytonesis (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia? --WikiTiki89 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. Looks rather like a lexicographic matter than an encyclopaedic one to me. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Two more questions:

  • do you think the phenomenon of metathesis is rather of phonetic/phonotactic or analogical origin? Or maybe there is no hard and fast rule?
  • if I may ask, have you got a degree in languages/linguistics? --Barytonesis (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Not every case of metathesis is the same, so I can't answer in the general case. I do not have any degree in linguistics or languages, nor have I ever taken any courses in linguistics. Everything I know is from reading, personal experience, and common sense. However, a friend of mine who happens to have a Ph.D. in linguistics says I know more about linguistics than many people with Ph.D.'s in linguistics. That's probably an exaggeration, but it should tell you something. --WikiTiki89 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I asked because you seem very knowledgeable and thoughtful indeed. --Barytonesis (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

RollbackEdit

Hey there.

Curious as to why you rollbacked an edit fixing a redlink I preformed a short while ago? 47.20.180.129 17:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't fix the redlink. It's a redlink because the entry doesn't exist, not because the link was wrong. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Mmkay, so that's understood. Also, in the time it took to read this you did it again on a different page? 47.20.180.129 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Why did you remove the construct state? --WikiTiki89 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Damn you are fast at responding. I literally just tried to edit my message to add: "If it's because I removed the singular construct, couldn't you just add that back in instead of undoing the actual improvements made simultaneously?" LOL. But to answer, because elokim is merely a euphemism, it does not include elohim's grammatical roots. Like how dagumit roots from 'god damn it' but clearly doesn't share roots itself with any of the operative words. Or how warszafka doesn't share declenations with warszawka despite the former being the latter's euphemistic form. 47.20.180.129 17:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by roots, but the construct and possessed forms all exist, as in אלוקי אבותינו and ה׳ אלוקיך. And also, warszafka does have a full declension as well. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Wikitiki89".