Open main menu

Wiktionary β

User talk:Wikitiki89

Archive – 2008–2010201220132014201520162017

Tea RoomEdit

Sorry for rolling back your edit, I pressed the wrong button. :( ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tooironic: No problem, don't worry. --WikiTiki89 15:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Tooironic You're not the only one to have this problem. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Ahh this is the worst, makes me scared of checking my watchlist on my phone lol. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

כאפיהEdit

Hebrew borrowings from Arabic continue to interest and confuse me. Why do at least some people spell this word with an aleph, as in the title, and some with as כפייה? I feel like the adaptation, which should be regular, is all over the place. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should the adaptation be regular? Israelis don't know how to spell the word in Arabic, let alone transliterate it by some standard set of guidelines. They write what they hear. The א is nothing more than an indication of a the vowel "a" where it might not be expected given the spelling without it, or even just an indication of a foreign word. But this shouldn't be surprising. We have many possible spellings for this word in English as well: kuf-, kaf-, kef-, keff-, -iyya, -iya, -iyyeh, -iyeh, etc. --WikiTiki89 14:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
It's just that the scripts are so similar. And there is some regularity: despite them both being /k/ in Hebrew, everybody seems to know to use כ rather than ק in this word. (Indeed, the English variation is mostly due to drawing from different dialects, unlike the Hebrew situation.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No, the English differences have nothing to do with dialects (except perhaps for the -u-, which comes from the written language). Anyway, the Hebrew word doesn't come from written Arabic because then it would be **כופיה or **כופייה. It's a good question how people know not to spell it with ק, I don't have an answer for that, but I guess it just seems wrong. Anyway, there are many cases where א is added to represent an Arabic short a. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew mess at sovereignty#TranslationsEdit

Hi,

Could you please clean up the Hebrew translations, please? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atitarev:   Done. --WikiTiki89 22:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

top3, mid3, bottom in Proto-Slavic entriesEdit

Hello. I remember you saying somewhere that {{top3}}, {{mid3}} and {{bottom}} should never have been used in Proto-Slavic entries, and that another template should have been created instead. Could you explain why? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

{{top3}} was meant to create (manually) balanced lists with three columns. It was never meant to organize data hierarchically. Thus, if we replace manually balanced lists with automatically balanced lists, it would break the hierarchical organization. If we want to display each branch of Slavic in a separate column, those columns are not meant to be balanced, but simply always separate, and furthermore, if any of the branches is missing on particular page, the template should be able to hide it entirely instead of displaying an empty column. --WikiTiki89 19:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a bad idea to show it explicitly when there are no descendants in any given branch, but I don't feel too strongly about it. In any case, what would you suggest to solve this problem? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I think the best solution is to create a dedicated template. Something like:
{{sla-descendants
|east=
* Old East Slavic: {{l|orv|}}
** Belarusian: {{l|be|}}
** Russian: {{l|ru|}}
** Rusyn: {{l|rue|}}
** Ukrainian: {{l|uk|}}
|south=
* Old Church Slavonic: {{l|cu|}}
* Bulgarian: {{l|bg|}}
* Macedonian: {{l|mk|}}
* Serbo-Croatian:
*: Cyrillic: {{l|sh|}}
*: Latin: {{l|sh|}}
* Slovene: {{l|sl|}}
|west=
* Czech: {{l|cs|}}
* Polish: {{l|pl|}}
* Slovak: {{l|sk|}}
* Sorbian:
** Lower Sorbian: {{l|dsb|}}
** Upper Sorbian: {{l|hsb|}}
}}
And the template can format it however we want. --WikiTiki89 16:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverted editsEdit

Those edits were made by an IP sock of a banned user (User:Gfarnab). If they coincidentally were correct edits, I apologize for the disruption. Is it okay to assume that in the case of a banned sock, you always revert their edits? Especially in Gfarnab's case; I don't know the whole story, but as I've read up on it I'm gathering that he doesn't know what he's doing most of the time. PseudoSkull (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In such cases, I usually try to actually review the edits and try to correct them or keep them if there is anything salvageable. But I guess that can't always be expected, because it is time consuming, and the default should still be to revert the edit just in case. --WikiTiki89 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. If they're only doing low-risk things like swapping {{etyl}} for {{der}}, they've stopped being "Gfarnab" and started being a responsible editor. It's not about us or them winning, it's about the dictionary. We should feel free to revert the high-risk stuff if we can't verify it, but we should leave the low-risk and obvious stuff alone. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
re this diff
"Make edits based on consensus as much as possible!"
Can't you see how we cannot move forward? In my previous message, which you deleted, I claimed I was willing to find such a consensus, so what does you exhortation add?
"instead of attempting to dictate our own rules on the rest of the community to follow"
I have never done that: you did it, however, remarking "I didn't know what I'm doing most of the time" and it soon turned out it was your reverts the ones reckless.
"Also, when we have things we don't like on here, we discuss them respectfully""
Which is what I did but -if I must repeat myself- I was not given a single option. I gather, and correct me if I'm wrong, you ban people and they eventually go away; I have not gone away in 4 years: you mayhaps harbour the hope I will go away, but I won't, so we either discuss what's admissible of me to edit or you keep using your precious time policing instead of editing.
Best regards!
I'd say, unblock User:Gfarnab. When the account starts again editing in a wrong way, block for a length not longer than one month. Thus, give them plenty of time to adjust, while not wasting too much time of editors. And I'd say, almost never issue an indef, issuing a one-year block instead. Advantage: accounting. Have the potentially problematic edits come from a single account rather than a multitude of IPs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I would agree to Polansky's suggestion, plus I pledge NOT to edit with sockpuppets if Gfarnab were to be banned again in the terms stated above
@Dan Polansky: He is already sockpuppeting, an indef ban makes no difference. Several blocks have already been passed and he has repeatedly done the same mistakes. That said, he seems (?) to be improving in his attitude, so I'm not opposed to an unblock in the future. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करेंयोगदान) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

sleepaway must be a nounEdit

since there is a plural in Google Books. Equinox 21:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any adjective can be nominalized. --WikiTiki89 14:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Just ask the blacks. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 18:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
In practice some are and some aren't. Similar with nouns being "verbed". Equinox 18:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

אִEdit

Hi, I am gioielli. I am Italian of Hebrew origin and I have problems with text without vocalization in Internet. Also, I needd vocalization for semplicity! Gioielli (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you create letters with vocalization for best comprehension please? Gioielli (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Non sono sicuro di avere capito: imparate l'ebrei ma avei ancora difficoltà leggendo parole non vocalizzate? Allora, vi suggerisco, leggete prima testi vocalizzati (la Bibbia, il Talmud, materiale didattici, etc) e con il tempo le cose diventeranno più facile.
Ma se si tratta di scrivere in ebraico qui, sotto l'editore di testo c'è un modo per aggiungere sia lettere sia vocali ebraiche cambiando da "Latin/Roman" a "Hebrew". 114.119.40.107 12:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Siete Italiano di origine ebrea? Gioielli (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
No, sono un umile studente italiano, cattivo scrittore suo e, da vantaggio, non sono WikiTiki. Guardate (facendo clic sul pulsante "edit" in alto a destra) anche il formato che usiamo in questa pagina e imitatelo: non iniziate una nuova discussione chiamata א ogni volta che rispondete, vi supplico! 103.90.200.49 13:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Those aren't letters, they're syllables, though the ones with aleph are no doubt pronounced as a single sound. The vowel points aren't part of the letter and are left off in most texts. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
What Chuck said. And also, we do allow vocalization within entries, just not in entry names. As you can see at נשמע, the headword, conjugation table, and derived term are all vocalized. --WikiTiki89 14:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok I understood thanks! Gioielli (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiTiki89, I have a question : Are the /o/ and /u/ sound rendered with the letter ו in the Hebrew orthography? Gioielli (talk) 10:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gioielli: See WT:About Hebrew#Vowels. --WikiTiki89 15:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why?Edit

Why remove this? I think it's rather helpful to see the transcription as it clarifies why the English word is spelled the way it is. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 18:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, that's not the purpose of the |ts= parameter. If we want to clarify, we should add an explanation in words and give the IPA there. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Then what is? I thought that showing the pronunciation of a word when it deviated heavily from the transliteration (e.g. in Middle Persian, Tibetan, Burmese, and Thai) was exactly the point of the |ts= parameter, especially since the parameter automatically supplies slashes for an IPA transliteration. Template:link/documentation doesn't actually mention |ts= at all; maybe we should explain there exactly what it's for. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think JohnC5 and Victar talked about this, though I can't find the discussion. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought it was to show a transcription for languages where the characterwise transliteration is insufficient, in which case, for those languages, we would (try to) always add the |ts= parameter to all words. In this case, the transcription is regularly derivable from the the transliteration (itself regularly derivable from the script), and the only issue is that the transliteration scheme is so convoluted that it masks the pronunciation. NB: Slashes have nothing to do with IPA, they are used in other transcription systems as well. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I feel like you and I have said basically the same thing. In the case of ခြင်္သေ့, the transcription /t͡ɕʰɪ̀ɴðḛ/ is regularly derivable from the transliteration hkrangse., but "the transliteration scheme is so convoluted that it masks the pronunciation". —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 19:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I realize we agree about that part. What I'm saying is that this problem is not what the |ts= parameter is supposed to be for. --WikiTiki89 19:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I misinterpreted what you meant by "in this case". Can you give an example of a language "where the characterwise transliteration is insufficient"? —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Any language written with an abjad (e.g. Ugaritic 𐎍𐎛𐎋 (lỉk /laʾika/)) or cuneiform (e.g. Akkadian 𒁕𒀀𒀀𒉡𒌝 (da-a-a-nu-um /dayyānum/)), or one with a highly etymological spelling system (e.g. Tibetan བརྒྱད (brgyad /gyaew/)). Notice that in the Tibetan example, the transcription itself is still not very transparent and represents the IPA /cɛː˩˧˨/. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

HebrewEdit

Hello, are there in Israel the scripts with vocalization? Gioielli (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually only children's books, dictionaries, some poetry, and certain kinds of religious books have vocalization. --WikiTiki89 13:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

furuncleEdit

I make you learn words from different languages and you pay me back with a ban? Not cool, dude, and neither effective. —This unsigned comment was added by 猥亵 (talkcontribs) at 01:27, 4 April 2018.

You know, it's true you make me learn new words (although furuncle happens not to have had anything to do with you). --WikiTiki89 13:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I gotta say though, you made me laugh with "Weaky". --WikiTiki89 18:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Bulgarian descendants on OCS entriesEdit

Hello. We do treat Bulgarian as a descendant of OCS since this discussion. Are you reverting the other user additions because they don't match morphologically, or because you consider Bulgarian is not a descendant of OCS? --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't realize that we made such a decision. I think it's the wrong decision, but I'll stop removing them for now. --WikiTiki89 14:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/GioielliEdit

Please review. DTLHS (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

diffEdit

The most competent baal-kore I've ever encountered disagrees. May be a Mizrachi-dialectal thing. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 22:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you ask him about this particular verse or something? It's a known thing that, for example, בָּאֳנִיָּה is ambiguous because it could be either boʾŏniyyā “in a boat” (בְּ־‎ (bə-) + אֳנִיָּה (ʾŏniyyā)) or bāʾŏniyyā “in the boat” (בְּ־‎ (bə-) + הַ־‎ (ha-) + אֳנִיָּה (ʾŏniyyā)). But הָאֳנִיָּה (which is הַ־‎ (ha-) + אֳנִיָּה (ʾŏniyyā)) can only be hāʾŏniyyā. --WikiTiki89 22:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it was this verse :D I mean, it's possible he spaced out a bit right here, it happens. — [ זכריה קהת ] Zack. — 23:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Even the best baalei kri'a don't necessarily know all the rules. --WikiTiki89 14:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

מחרEdit

You reverted my edit about the word מחרתיים. Please take a look at this source: http://hebrew-academy.org.il/2010/03/24/%D7%A6%D6%B8%D7%94%D6%B3%D7%A8%D6%B7%D7%99%D6%B4%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D6%B8%D7%A2%D6%B3%D7%9E%D6%B4%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%92%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A7%D7%9E%D7%A5-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%98/ FixingThePage (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As that article says, that is a traditional Sephardi pronunciation, which we don't need to add as an alternative transliteration. If you want to add it, the proper place is the pronunciation section at מחרתיים, marked with {{a|Sephardi Hebrew}}. --WikiTiki89 18:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew translit and genderEdit

Hi, could you please add Hebrew translit and gender to these, please - gas station and crescent? I have been going through many basic or common English terms to make sure there are translations for them. The Hebrew-French dictionary I've got doesn't always give me the transliterations we use here, no gender and I still don't have the full confidence with the script. (I know about Morfix, BTW). Can you also suggest the best way to request Hebrew transliterations in translations? Are you willing to be watching those? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can add {{rftranslit|he}}, which puts them in Category:Hebrew terms needing transliteration. I'm willing to watch this category and try to keep up. --WikiTiki89 15:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Wikitiki89".