If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
Its a rather convoluted debate so I will just outline some facts to consider:
The earliest concrete references in Greek to the bird are found post-Persian conflict; Aristotle calls it a 'Persian Bird', Aristophanes uses them also despairingly as symbols of gaudy-dressed ambassadors, a jab perhaps also at the colorful foreign Persians.
τᾰών(taṓn), another word being glossed as 'peacock' was used prior, appearing even in Homer and Hesiod mean something like fair-dressed, beautifully adorned, birds in a general way for their colorful feathers, not inherently referring to a peacock. This gives it a potential to possibly not be a foreign loan, but rather derived from a precursor word that was then reapplied to a peacock in later times. ([1])
The Akkadian attestation of peacock is 𒀭𒄩𒉌𒄷(Ha-ia), suggested to be named after the sound it makes, connected and written as the god linked to guarding the storehouses, keeping food supplies, perhaps the 'eyes' of its plumage linking it to a 'watcher' like in the Greek mythology. There is however a loanword from Sumerian 𒀉𒍗𒍑𒄷(ti-uš, tius, tiuz, “a bird”) {[2]}, the general conception seems to be sudden in appearance, initially unseen, to swoop or come out of seemingly nowhere, to come upon quickly, to rush or dart, hence the speculated identity of an eagle or vulture. Perhaps instead a reference to the peacocks sudden opening of its plumage, being dazzling or darting up.
There is a Semitic root likely derived from the Sumerian loan found in the Hebrew and Aramaic verb טוּשׂ(ṭus, ṭūs, “to fly, to rush, to dart, to swoop”) {[3][4]} and in the Arabic ط س س(ṭ-s-s) meaning to strike suddenly, to smite, to be struck blind, to be blinded or to lose ones ability to think; hence the connection again to being dazzled; likewise Lane and others like J.G. Hava mention ط ش ش(ṭ-š-š) having the meaning of weakness in sight, to be faint.
Needless to say its very interesting and without definitive direction; the Greek could have borrowed the term from Akkadian through the Persian cultural bridging or perhaps from earlier borrowed constellation traditions; there however is a missing Persian term that would ease the mystery.
Additionally, it should be stated the whole connection தோகை(tōkai, “plumage, peacock”) is actually for another Hebrew term תוכי(túki, “parrot, peacock”) which developed semantically later from commentaries on verse 1 Kings 10:22 ([5]}; the reconstructed meaning found in many modern translation is that of baboon or monkey. --Profes.I. (talk)
Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments3 people in discussion
You inserted {{taxlink}} in this entry, for which I thank you.
However, you did not insert the rank of the taxonomic name, "species" in this case. If you are going to verify the entry, please insert the rank.
Within {{taxlink}} you inserted "ver=180716". In this case I'd rather you hadn't. I check each new taxonomic name to see that whether is spelled correctly, whether there is a taxonomic name that supersedes it, and whether the rank of the name is correct. I don't expect others to do all that, as it can be time-consuming and has some idiosyncracies. OTOH, if you find that there is a Wikispecies entry for the taxon or that the Wikipedia article uses the taxonomic name, feel free to insert "ver=YYMMDD".
@DCDuring Oh! I actually deliberated about if I should use it because if one uses the two-word form Genus species it is usually understood as species, so I thought that I have to write |2=species only when I use a species name alone. Fay Freak (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
For a general-purpose dictionary we can't assume that the user knows much more than a bare-minimum English vocabulary, certainly not much about taxonomy, however obvious it is after just a few encounters with taxa. The second parameter does not display; it categorizes and, sometimes in the case of one-part names, it disambiguates. Anyway, I'm happy that you use {{taxlink}}. There are certainly many taxonomic names that are worth entering into Wiktionary, especially the ones for macroflora and macrofauna, disease agents, newly discovered species, items of bizarre appearance, or unusual names, etc. DCDuring (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it should be in the documentation. It puts the displayed parameter in italics. That is relevant for genus and species names and various other subgeneric taxa and for all virus taxa. The display is not as precise as the display used in {{taxlink}}, but is good for almost all cases and not too bad for the others. DCDuring (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have no idea how to get it into all the places it would have to be, especially since I don't know the scope of the modules that implement the italicization. I don't know how to find the relevant author of whatever the module might be. See User Talk:Rua. DCDuring (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It does not seem to be much promising to ask Rua for documentation, or? I think you have noticed she is avoiding this site for months now, or no? Well umm, she apparently left because she did things that she could not made be understood. Really sad. Fay Freak (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I put italics to names of genera that are 'Translingual' descendants of terms. If {{desc}} doesn't do it and {{taxlink}} would be redundant, then I would bypass {{desc}} and use wikitext italics with {{l|mul}}. The point is that genus names are prescribed to appear in italics and most users follow the prescription. IOW, yes. DCDuring (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ok, the case seems clear to me, @Rua, Erutuon. No exceptions to taxonomic names being in italics. I guess the function needs to be generalized to catch {{cog}} at least too, for once Beta vulgaris var. cicla is created we won’t link correctly from свёкла(svjókla), for example. (putting double ASCII apostrophes inside does not work.) Actually to every template adding a language name in front, because double ASCII apostrophes inside does not work and outside the template even the langname is capitalized. Theoretically also to other templates where the language name is not there, i.e. {{l}} and {{m}} the |i= is needed, because a module recognizes what parts need to be capitalized (not the part ”var.” and the like) if I guess right, it is just that we do not use them necessarily for Translingual but use normal Wiki links. I don’t think I am completely abusing Descendants and Etymology sections by mentioning taxonomical terms? It is just that linguists miss the whole field of taxonomical names as a research topic. Module:etymology/templates and {{desc}} need to be protected by the way. Fay Freak (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Victar It is botanists’ convention. We adhere to it like we adhere to Unicode’s standards. Some things we cannot decide. Good that we do not need to think about everything but there are people like the Unicode Consortium or doing biological classification. Division of labour. Fay Freak (talk) 23:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I understand that, I'm aware of the practice. I'm specifically talking about how descendants of a word are treated in a descendants lists. --Victar (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Victar I have intimated it already. “It is just that linguists miss the whole field of taxonomical names as a research topic.” People here are not likely to care, but those who deal with taxonomy … just a little thought for you: If you go to Wikispecies and ask everyone how we should treat taxonomic names also in these cases, what will they very likely answer? I claim, and I doubt you will tend to disagree, they will say unanimously: “Just make it italicized always, guys!” I. e. if we include those names at all. Fay Freak (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
That's you're argument, that we should ask what the guys at Wikispecies think? The descendants section section has to do with etymology, and etymologists, by in large, don't care about italicizing genus names. Those are the people I care for the opinions of and will base my practices upon. --Victar (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
At Wikispecies, Wikipedia, and Wikicommons they are careful to properly format taxonomic names. If etymologists don't care, then the appearance of italics in taxonomic descendants shouldn't matter to them. DCDuring (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, he gainsays himself already. “The” etymologists don’t even care about “genus names”, taxonomical names that is to say, as I said, hence they do not have the issue in mind, i. e. they do not mind.
@Victar: Can you point me to a discussion where users disagree to have taxonomical names in etymology sections? If we have them, we will format them as it beseems. You evidently do not care about them at all anyway. Also it’s very autistic not to look outside the editors of en.Wiktionary (necessarily you retreat to such argumentation, as you are too smart not to see that they will disrespect it). What will the world think of us if we won’t italicize taxonomic names with regularity? Something that will harm the en.Wiktionary brand, corroborating the notion that this project is all a joke like Wikipedia is, the editors pointing to interna instead of common sense or scientific practices and winning with it. You still haven’t said a single reason, not to speak one of a weight that unsettles, why you don’t want that italicization. Fay Freak (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
“Disregarding” is barely distinguishable from ”not caring”, it is roughly “to not want to care for whatever reason”. You have gone out of ideas, I see, interpreting around where the room is thin and the questions are not about language. We understood us already, though the reason will stay dark why you have tried to argue against with so much energy. Let’s have a sleep over it. Fay Freak (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
I deleted my previous reply in an effort to fully disengage from you, hoping you had got the message, but apparently not. Please now take note. I do not participate in discussions with users who make petty personal attacks. --Victar (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
But I haven’t made personal attacks, neither petty ones. It is just your perception, likely because I used the word autistic: There it is you who has generalized it and other conceptions, if applicable, as an epithet of yourself rather than a term characterizing a specific state of things in context. I thought you have seen that, that it is unnecessary misunderstanding my points and amounts to gaslighting if you descend into charging with personal attacks. The only reaching-out to personalia is of course when trying to understand what motivates you, i. e. the personal concepts behind your arguments. Concepts, concepts, nothing but concepts have been treated. Is it wrong to characterize concepts aus autistic for example? That seems prescriptivist. Why do people take over characterizations of things that they have created as characterizations of themselves? It is confusing the narrator and the narrated, the significans and the significate. Fay Freak (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
No, but I know that this word exists, I already thought about creating it as North Levantine Arabic (we are running out of Literary Arabic melon words a bit). @Profes.I. will solve it if it is possible. Somewhere in the east of Saudi-Arabia, I have heard, they also call the watermelon جُّحْ(jjuḥ). Fay Freak (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I have read it and it does not indicate it, the term “grammar” does not occur in it. Grammatical terms are undertreated and underdiscussed here. I don’t know those “all kinds of lexical information”. There is only the pronunciations which are intentionally left out however according to WT:AMUL since it “varies by language” and would regularly be fabricated anyway. Your Dutch entry genitive absolute does not contain any lexical information that could not be in Translingual. It has endings like a Latin word and can be pronounced like Latin. absolute genitief and absoluter Genitiv are language-specific, genitivus absolutus is not, including in Latin it is Translingual, and still translingual when it is written “Genitivus absolutus” capitalized in German texts. We don’t add terms like Genitivus, Ablativus by the way though we add Genitiv, Ablativ. So what with “genitivus absolutus” that I find in Russian texts? Does it now mean Russian words have Latin script? (@Atitarev) It’s just taxonomic Latin, translingual grammar terms, technical Latin to classify the grammars of the world, and it seems that you should convert Dutch genitivus absolutus to Translingual. How do you distinguish code-switching from Dutch if you claim it is Dutch? There is taxonomical Moringa and an English moringa apparently borrowed from the Translingual, and I know it is English not only from the spelling but it is in wide use by people speaking English who know no science. But the grammatical terms: Those are specialist, used by people who habitually switch to Latin, even if they do not understand the Latin language in general as it is not rarely the case for taxonomists today. How do we even call it when a word permeates the barrier from Translingual to English/Dutch/German/Russian? Naively we use {{bor}} but this process is not “borrowing” as the term is generally understood in linguistics, the physical processes that happen there are dissimilar. Grammar Latin is not prescribed to use italics like biological Taxonomical Latin so this is a dark spot in lexicography. People never cared if a term is code-switching to Latin, Translingual, or native, when they used the grammar terms and lexicographers had economical reasons to leave them out, but now we have all room we eventually have to care. I the terms were more we would need at Wikigrammar in addition to Wikispecies. By the way not few English terms of grammar have become Translingual because they lack in other languages, i. e. the English terms are used in linguistics literature and I would not always know if it is code-switching to English or use of Translingual. With a greater collection of such terms I could ask the community if this grammar taxonomy is the same as biological taxonomy; it will stay a wee bit more difficult to sort out however; I can’t remember classification guides for grammar like biologists have them for such terms, those terms are scattered. @DCDuring, AtitarevFay Freak (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've wondered about whether medical and legal Latin terms shouldn't be deemed Translingual as they are included in running text in many languages. No one was interested and some were opposed, so the notion went nowhere. I would expect similar lack of interest for linguistic terms. Chemical and biological taxonomic names have international regulatory bodies whose existence is a testimony to their importance and translingual use. There may be a case for other classes of scientific vocabulary to be called Translingual, eg, geological names, mineral names, astronomical names, but I detect no potential for a consensus to treat such terms as Translingual. I'm not sure that there is any particular advantage to users in calling such terms (or even chemical and taxonomic names) Translingual. MW3 famously labelled many such terms "ISV", for "International Scientific Vocabulary". DCDuring (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Historically (fifteen years …), there were many things to do first; grammar terms, like biology taxonomy, are just one of the peripheral things linguists don’t care about because they are sufficiently busy with the natural languages. Sure, sure, I agree that we all lack interest – I have too enough natural language things to do, but as I said, but sooner or later we will no longer be able to ignore the incertitude. To think for the future, now one would like to define certain terms of grammar but I don’t feel like they belong to any language and I don’t think users expect us to distinguish; nobody cares if such a term is attested in Slovenian or not, or if he does he would like to see it as a citation for Translingual. It’s about having termini technici so users who find them can put them into a Wiktionary search and get them defined. If he then reads: “Dutch – Portuguese – Serbo-Croatian” I think he will turn up his nose. Such terms are regularly even coined with the intention of being used translingually in the literatures of each national science, and intended to be the same in every language. And yes, it is also about maintainability. Now @Lingo Bingo Dingo has created a term for Dutch that, in my view, clearly falls into that International Scientific Vocabulary category and I can only recommend him to change his view over time lest a monster grow out of such a practice (I can’t be bothered about the presence of this specific term as Dutch here too much, I am just voicing a general cause of unease). Fay Freak (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
My reason for creating language-specific entries for such terms is that separate entries for are the ideal location for information about pronunciation, inflection and semantic relations (e.g. native synonyms or nativised spellings). Allowing e.g. absolute genitief but not genitivus absolutus would create a strange lacuna for what seems to be the more common synonym. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
That’s all things you could say about biological taxons (though they don’t inflect often; being inflected however does not necessarily estrange the quality of being translingual – I see though translingual medical terms (terms that physicians use in their talk) that get inflected for number). Also no lacuna if a term is present as Translingual. It sounds like you fear adding entries as translingual. The synonyms part could be solved with translation sections but languages do not seem to tend to have translations for such terms (as you have seen yourself the nativized term being uncommon in Dutch, same in German). So what’s with the pronunciation? Latin teachers say ablativus absolutus either in Barbaric pronunciation or in one a Roman would have used (it’s like with the biological taxonomy). It’s typical if languages get switched, like if one first speaks Russian and then German often the German will at first sound like Russian, or when people in Germany speak Russian and throw in German words they are pronounced either as Russian or as German. No lacuna if I don’t add all the German words Russians use in their speech here. German words being pronounced with Russian phonology and in Russian sentences does not fool me into believing they are Russian. Fay Freak (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
There would still be the issue of presenting gender for various languages with different gender systems. And taxonomic names rarely inflect, both for species and genera. A problem with presenting pronunciations in a Translingual section is that it prevents the entry from displaying detailed variation particular to a language, see the two possible ways of stressing genitivus absolutus for an example. This is notable because one is the default stress pattern for a Dutch adjective noun phrase while the other indicates that genitivus is the head of the phrase. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The varying stress is the typical ”do it as in your native tongue” of Translingual Latin terms; when one incorpates words in an other language in a sentence they will usually have a peculiar pronunciation at least to fit into the whole intonation of the sentence the specific language calls for, as I have exemplified by those German words appearing in Russian speech; still not different from the biological taxonomy (back in the dark ages people did not know a “Translingual” i.e. for example reconstructed classical way to pronounce Latin). And who said Translingual terms do not have gender? It looks to me like they do have a gender if the language they are used in needs one (there is some language-specific formatting behaviour for Translingual terms, like German capitalization sometimes applies to such terms (usage varies)). And the grammatical terms surely just inherit the Latin gender even strong against language-specific habits. Fay Freak (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Call me crazy, but I think it is the task of a dictionary to indicate when common variations in pronunciation exist. Details like gender and other distinctions should be demonstrated, not assumed on the basis of (generally reliable) rules of thumb.
Look, I have no particular problem with a Translingual entry in addition to entries from borrowing languages (though it seems not very useful to me, and Translingual in mostly European languages looks like a very parochial form of Tranlingual to me), my problem is with a Translingual entry replacing them. But maybe you should first demonstrate that this form is used in a great many languages. So far I have only seen this spelling being common in English, Dutch and German (with different capitalisation). ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The page shows that fixed grammatical phrases are not yet accepted as Translingual, which I take to mean that it isn't required, referring to the "should we" in your query. Surely its absence on the about-page is an indication to say the least. ←₰-→Lingo BingoDingo (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I just meant you should see what is translingual. If a term is Translingual but not specifically Dutch hence comes the conclusiong “you should”. If there is a header “Translingual” on Wiktionary it is because there are terms that are translingual independently of being mentioned on Wiktionary. Fay Freak (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I can hardly be called an author of WT:AMUL as the entry history shows that I made only two changes, both minor. Please be more careful in your contributions and edit summaries. DCDuring (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
The content was entirely in the edit summary, which people can and usually read in isolation. Most people use the edit summary as an explanation for the change, some as an advertisement of the change; others just put a copy of the change into the summary. The link was buried in a pipe and thus only visible from the edit window or on hovering. You need to be a little more aware of how people encounter and understand what you write, or you would need to be a little more aware if you cared about the effect of your words on others in this community. DCDuring (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Your edit summary: "English: Bizarre gloss of the Ancient Greek word since revision 4844953 of 13 July 2008. That’s the Modern Greek μάλαμα User:Stephen G. Brown! Now it’s all around the web."
That "bizarre gloss" is not since revision 4844953. Nadando entered it in revision 4844874. It included a request for Greek script. All I did was provide the Greek script.
Revision 4844874: {ML.} {term|amalgama||mercury alloy|lang=la}, from {etyl|grc} {rfscript|Greek}malagma, from malassein (to soften), from malakos (soft).
Revision 4844953: {ML.} {term|amalgama||mercury alloy|lang=la}, from {etyl|grc} {term|μάλαγμα|sc=Grek|tr=malagma||gold}, from {term|μαλάσσω|sc=Grek|tr=malassō||to soften}, from {term|μαλακός|sc=Grek|tr=malakos||soft}—Stephen(Talk)04:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Stephen G. Brown added the gloss in 4844953 while the other terms had been glossed before; only now in 2018 it has been that somebody noticed that there is a contradiction of this gloss to the other senses and bothered to check the senses. I talk in the third person because I do not see a reason to impute it to somebody. The identity of persons after decades is sparse, hence also criminal investigations have to be time-barred, and prosecuting a person for a murder thirty years ago is like prosecuting an innocent, I say this unironically; societies have made regressions in this matter. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I thought rather about something like “becoming tired”, “getting one’s force of life empty”. But this makes sense. Should the gloss be changed or amended by labels to make this usage more clear? It seems to me that this deserves a sub-sense: Sense 5 gets the label “transitive”, and gets a sub-sense 5.1 “intransitive”. Fay Freak (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please research your edits more thoroughly. Don't add "from 20th c." when a look into the most basic of ressources (the "Deutsches Wörterbuch") would have given you a quote from the 18th century. You must have some information that a word or usage has no older attestations before you can add "from XYth c."
The frequency of it increased in that time. Before it was fringe. Wustmann observed its increasing use, listing it under “Modewörter”, and proscribed it. I remembered it from Wustmann and added from him. You will have a hard time to find uses in print hundred years before. The first use is not everything. It is also important when uses become dominating, as Dirne. Fay Freak (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You mentioned me in an edit summary there. The Welsh terms refer to the monetary amount and the money paid. Not sure what you wanted to do with that information. — LlywelynII13:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@LlywelynII That you have added the translation under the meaning “monetary value assigned to a person” only. As you say now, and the entries galanas and sarhad say, it is as well “the money paid itself” (which you haven’t added under the respective translation section). Fay Freak (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Do you think the templates themselves should also be moved to the original script, and the transliterated name kept only as a redirect? —Rua (mew) 13:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Rua No I don’t. But the original name could easily be a redirect. Titles of templates are a different story (they are not visible in the created page).
I ping here @Vahagn Petrosyan because he spread those transliterated names. I know where those transliterations come from. Library catalogues. Surely this is an argument, that’s why I have kept transliterations of the titles (while not the author names because it would be ugly to have Surname (translit), forename (translit), only in the format Forename Surname (translit translit) it would be acceptable). But I underline here that transliteration of author names of book titles does not let your works appear more scientific or something like that. Librarians yore had to add foreign-script books to their index cards and computers, they could not enter Cyrillic even when they perfectly the language, and not every printer could print non-Latin scripts. Transliteration became imitated and a habit, one would be more safe to do transliterations “because it has always been done like this” and one does not need to explain to the publisher then that one needs such things (foreign scripts = copyeditor costs). But this all is misplaced on the internet or in the 21th century, and in library catalogues they should put the original script everywhere. A digital native just searches the original script, in a library catalogue or if he searches Wiktionary, it is unsensible why one should try various transliterations to find a book. And in Wiktionary we use original script almost on every occasion. Now it’s strange we use the pagename to fill |entry= but use transliterations in the rest of the reference template, and also as I have showed стакан(stakan) has lines of Persian script anyway. Naively, I created {{R:rup:Polenaković}} in the original script, Latin template name but else all original. And I am even in Germany. Even stranger it must be for Russians coming here to find bibliographic references transliterated. See also Category:Japanese reference templates, of course the templates just use Japanese script and creators did not even think to transliterate. In the non-Latin-writing countries one obviously has the original scripts in the library catalogues. Fay Freak (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I was following the standard practice in English linguistic literature, for example Leiden's IEED series. I have no strong opinion on which approach is better. --Vahag (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Bro why you just reverting my edits? check this page in Persian language, I copy/paste it from there.
This word پرچم is also mentioned as Turkic in traditional Persian dictionaries like معین and عمید.
Can we add source to a website? like this which is for an online dictionary and word پرچم. — This unsigned comment was added by Zeos 403 (talk • contribs) at 08:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC).Reply
@Zeos 403 Your edit was not enough. As you know Turkic you also know the etymon or comparisons. You could write something like “A {{bor|fa|trk}} borrowing, compare {{cog|az|word}}, {{cog|tt|word}}.” Writing “Turkic”, “French” and the like as general lexica often do is a failure – in this case you are supposed to give some Turkic forms. Then people are more likely to believe that it is from Turkic. I see that the dictionary you links says it is Turkic, but I don’t read Persian and don’t see Turkic words the Persian dictionary gives. That’s the information people want from you to put on Wiktionary in English! To be more accurate than the other dictionary! Fay Freak (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
True, OK, I will do more research and add it.
I did research about پرچم it seems it is from برجم and برجکم of Turkic (I don't know old-Turkic or no) the source is a book from "محمد صادق نائبی" you can download the free version from here (the first link).
@Victar Apparently you cling to the twentieth century. It is the standard of the internet to give bibliographies in the main-script. The main script is the main information, and almost anyone just gives the main script. Of course {{R:be:ESBM}} has been added by @Per utramque cavernam in main script, {{R:zle-ono:Zaliznyak:2004}} created by @Vorziblix uses the original script. Whence are you taking that giving transliterations only is “is standard practice”. You are in the wrong, it is not, the opposite is the standard practice. You are deviating from the standard practice. Fay Freak (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
You're completely welcome to that option, but next time, before you make a choice like that on all of our behalves, start a discussion first. --{{victar|talk}}16:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
To me the ideal would have both the original title and the transliteration, with a preference for the former if only one or the other is included, so as to be able to easily look up the original work. However, AFAIK there’s not yet a consensus for settling on any one particular format as standard, so maintaining status quo ante for each template is probably the best option in the interim to avoid endless edit wars until consensus can be achieved. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 What would it bring you to see the names transliterated if you do not know Armenian anyway? You can’t read Armenian script and can’t read Armenian (or is this a rare case when one is just illiterate in one script but does understand the spoken language?). And if this were an argument it would still not do away with the arguments for the original script, which would lead us to having all of main script, transliteration and translation, but then rightly @Dan Polansky dissents that this is too much clutter. Fay Freak (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh I assume I know what’s the matter. You just hate Cyrillic. Like elsewhere claiming that writing Yaghnobi in Cyrillic is nationalist propaganda. You should repent your passions and undo your deviations from the standard, either by main-script and translation (recommended) or main-script, transliteration and translation (which I would agree with, since my main issue is that you can’t find the templates in the original script without it and you force people to read transliterations). Or what am I supposed to do now? Write a vote to stretch WT:EL to an even longer proportion? I chose the most natural option, but if you want the references format dictated after this not having been felt required yet it can also be arranged.
I don’t like any of the alphabets more. But if one knows Russian one reads Russian in Russian and not in transliteration and one does not recognize the references when they are written in transliteration (one recognizes words by their written form) and one does not find them when one wants to find if a template is already in Wiktionary (potentially also leading to duplicate templates), unless one actually searches templates by insource-search. Fay Freak (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
In my case, I may well have heard of the author by name, and will recognize the name if it's written in Latin script, but not in a script I can't read, like Armenian or Japanese. If I see the name in Latin script, and a translation of the book title in English, I know whether it's an interesting book, and if so, I will go see if there's a translation in English or some other language I can read, or if not and I'm interested only in a specific entry, I will consider bugging someone (e.g. Vahag for Armenian) to help translate that entry. If the name is in an unreadable script, then none of this is possible. Note that I actually prefer to see foreign names transliterated using "conventional" instead of scientific transliteration, hence e.g. Tchaikovsky not Čajkovskij, but I lost the debate on this one ... you win some debates, you lose others, and you move on. Benwing2 (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 “I may well have heard of the author by name” – that’s an argument. I know another one: It is dubious how to alphabetize references if they are in multiple scripts, but computers always take the Latin first, then the Cyrillic, then the Arabic etc., i. e. go by Unicode. But that the title is translitered (not translated, that’s not my issue) does not make you know whether it’s interesting, that’s a difference here!
Furthermore, think about iconicity. I know who Трубачёв is but I do not know who Trubačov is or who Trubachyev is. However that’s not even that important or severe, that is to say, since these serve only as names and do not convey anything, I expect names there anyhow. But: Having the book-titles in transliterations only is a very grave affront. I thought I could avoid reading Russian language (the names are marginal, I mean Russian text) in transliteration. Everyone in the main Cyrillic-writing countries avoids reading transliterations of his language. I have not yet seen an argument why the book titles of Russian need to be transliterated (I wanted to appease the overloaded mind) or even the original form not given. Why so? (Plus I think you overestimate the existence of English translations of references here. And if the name is in an unreadable script, nothing becomes impossible. You can copy and past … that’s better and the original title identifies the work.)
I'm not sure why the book titles are given in transliteration only and not also in the original script. But keep in mind that the goal of Wiktionary is to serve **English-speaking** users, and most of them aren't conversant in any foreign scripts at all. Benwing2 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan Having Georgian names though Georgian does not employ majuscules transcribed in bibliographies with minuscules, as by {{R:ccs:Kiria}}, looks ugly as hell. Georgians themselves would transcribe their names with majuscules, and Arabic names are also never given in minuscules. One just expects names in Latin script to have majuscules, that’s what the distinction is for: everybody knows that the original script has not employed the distinction and it is introduced since it has none in the script – it is like our Latin editions rightly use punctuation and minuscules that the Romans didn’t. If the original Georgian script would come first the issue would be less irking; but even if it does not that is all too strange. And still, the fact that one has to reverse-transcribe into Georgian or Russian or whatever to find the book is annoying. Do you know understand my argument here from the difference between print and web, @Victar? Like you have seen on Wiktionary:Votes/2019-05/Lemmatizing Akkadian words in their transliteration that in print practices are kept which are rather to be avoided I recognized that bibliographies should be had in the original script. (Another thing it is of course if Vahagn can read the script but not write it well on the computer, but then I have explained why one should not be reverted if somebody adds it. It would be like removing the cuneiform from Akkadian entries under whatever title Tom 144 has planned them to be.) Fay Freak (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak, I added Georgian capitals to {{R:ccs:Kiria}}, which though rarely used in Georgian, are transliterated correctly for our purposes. I disagree with having only the native script in references for the reasons given by the others. As for the difficulty of finding the native-script forms, I recall that in the past Wiktionary search used to be able to look inside the code of the templates, i.e. if you searched Ლაზურ-მეგრული გრამატიკა, you would find {{R:ccs:Kiria}}. But that is not working anymore. --Vahag (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan, Victar, Benwing2, Sgconlaw I would also be okay with having both native script and transcription displayed (though I am not sure in which order it would ideally be for the author names), since we have the room. There are only these few persons, you know, who go berserk on any higher informational content. In this case search does not work though apparently because of the Unicode plane now used, U 1C92–U 1CBF (as one does not type the signs in the example into search but the usual ones). I am looking forward towards a solution that would perhaps include all information but not reveal all instantly, but by a click (in fact this even works by CSS pseudo-classes, not ignoring mobile devices of course), in order that the bibliography does not look overloaded. One can easily agree that one should have all information saved in the templates in the first place: the question is how it is displayed. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
That would be easy, if {{xlit}} is rewritten to use a dedicated module function. I can write it, though I don't know if there are other uses of the template in which the tooltip would be undesirable. Also take note that it may not be a perfectly satisfactory solution, because some scripts may display badly in tooltips, depending on the font the browser uses, and I think there is no way to choose a font there. — Eru·tuon18:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have not considered that it would be advisable to change the operation of an existing module.~I rather thought about something new, since one often needs to edit the templates anyway to add data. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
(And also Template:R:fa:Hayyim, sorry I didn't read them all, by the way, referencing them by author instead of acronyms seems to be more straightforward to me, and also they should be more consistent with the language codes. I guess they should be R:[lang code]:Author LinguisticMystic (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Fay, about your bibliographic concerns: I like to see-say-understand: original-transcription-translation. This english-wiktionary has, de facto, an international audience. Problem w:transliteration-w:transcription. The roman alphabet does not have ʃ (sh), tʃ (ch), δ (this), θ (thin) and so on. Another problem: what is international? Why an english sh and not a german sch for ʃ ? I was thinking of non-western readers (looking at Kevin's chinese, korean, etc). They would need /laibrari/ for library, /Tsvaik/ for Zweig. We are not polyglotts! Perhaps you could develop a standard wiktionary-international-bibliographic style? sarri.greek (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek I have been exactly pushing forward somewhat of a standard wiktionary-international-bibliographic style. Because from the problems with transcriptions I assessed that one could agree upon at least having the original script names so one does not have to reverse-transliterate etc., so I tried to make this notion more public on the Beer Parlour. You see that a single user, Victar, topples this endeavour with a reference to an imaginary standard, i. e. with less reasoning but equal animosity. Barely anybody is even discussing and because of this lethargy of our personnel nothing moves forward. I wish people would think things through so to bring them to their ends – @Richwarm88, referring to User talk:Chuck Entz § Keeping good people. One might follow from this that to keep good people one needs more people, but it would already help if the existing people would agree upon conclusions. Currently we are trying to find criteria for code-switching – the hope is that people become smarter from discussions. People are repelled when the antitheses build up without decomposition. Fay Freak (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek: Yeah, and perhaps it should be |worklang= too. They changed the back-end multiple times, see Wiktionary:Grease pit/2018/December § |lang= in {{quote-web}}. When there was |language= and |lang= synonymous and all the module errors because templates used the full language names instead of the codes I fixed some manually before @DTLHS ran his bot. Afterwards I lost track of the parameters. I don’t know now what parameter is what @Sgconlaw. Technicians did that and this and then wrote one thing into the Wiktionary:News for editors and other things into the template documentations and also implemented different things for quotation and citation templates. Fay Freak (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think the intention is generally for both the {{cite}} and {{quote}} families of templates to have similar parameters. @DTLHS has now updated {{cite-meta}} so that |language= or |lang= accepts either a language code (preferred) or a language name typed in full, and I have just added |worklang= in case editors use that parameter (it works the same way as |language= or |lang=). — SGconlaw (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I looked at the references section only after my second edit and felt rather silly. I hadn't considered that Dozy might be a name, and I apologize for bothering you! —Suzukaze-c◇◇02:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Hi can you check out ش ع ل(š-ʕ-l)? It's probably my first Arabic edit so I want to make sure I did a good job. The page was in a state that broke a simple parser I was writing so I decided to fix it up. I wanted to add references, but my Hans Wehr is "Third printing" 1960, and I can't figure out how to cite it. Polypz (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Seems right. @Polypz. There is probably more to be added from Classical Arabic dictionaries ({{R:ar:Lane}}, {{R:ar:Freytag}}, {{R:ar:Kazimirski}}, {{R:ar:Dozy}} I use, or the medieval originals at Lisaan.net), but what there is looks good. For the third printing of the Hans Wehr dictionary, there has been a template once, then later the fourth printing template came, then I replaced all instances of the third printing template for the newer because you know, one is supposed to cite the newest ones, and that template camped on the name {{R:ar:Wehr}}. If you want to cite the third edition you can copy the {{R:ar:Wehr-4}} or {{R:ar:Wehr-5-de}} with the necessary data changes under the name {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} (unless you mean the German third printing, then it is {{R:ar:Wehr-3-de}}). It would now make sense to have such a template because in the meantime the publisher made the third printing available on MENAdoc and one can make it so the template links the pages numbers, if they are given. Fay Freak (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, you mean you changed citations of Wehr-3 to citations of Wehr-4? Did you check that the data was the same in each edition? Were there no page numbers in the citations at that point? Polypz (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I did look into Wehr-4, otherwise I could not have written the page numbers. No, there weren’t page numbers in the citations. There were a lot of old and badly formatted pages that could be cleaned up just by looking which pages use that template. Like verb form I and verb form II and verbal noun of verb form I under three etymologies, and under each Wehr and {{R:ar:Steingass}}. Now the recommendation is to write the page numbers so we get the links, including books not digitized or linked yet (for even if one book is now not directly accessible, in hundred years it will be, or when there is a revolution that abolishes copyright, etc.; I imagine Wiktionary for Arabic like the CAL for Aramaic), and don’t “spread” the templates of simple dictionaries all around (right, in the spreading-butter sense): If you have a root entry, you regularly don’t need the templates on each page belongining to this root. People seems to forget that we still do not “attest” senses by referring to dictionaries, these templates are supposed to be a service to the reader, and the editors have to be wary how much clutter the reader can bear. For this use of the templates it isn’t more “scientific” either if you cite the dictionaries you have consulted at every page creation, for using the templates doesn’t say state that your content is from there (which isn’t even supposed to be, you know, Wiktionary is a secondary source), and in fact you can make more errors because you lose focus by the presence of this boilerplate. @PolypzFay Freak (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
I finally added the {{R:ar:Wehr-3}} and added it here ش ع ل(š-ʕ-l) and in مطالعة which I just created. I probably made some mistakes, so feedback would be useful. In particular I just guessed at the etymology of مطالعة being "verbal noun of Form III", since the dictionary didn't tell me that information. And I just copied the example text from Reverso Context but I don't know how to link or cite for that. (I am not sure if I am really qualified to add Arabic entries yet) Polypz (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Polypz. You are careful and good at creating entries. If you have read an Arabic course or Arabic grammar you know that this is how verbal nouns of verb form III are formed, and Appendix:Arabic nominals also tells you about the forms. The template now links the scans for any dictionary page given in the template. Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I like most of your additions of reference templates but I don’t see the point of your, @LinguisticMystic, removing the MENAdoc links in {{R:ar:Wehr-3}}. |url= and |pageurl= can be used parallely so one has two links to different digitizations, and the versions are different in that what you linked is Unicodized (so one can copy and paste etc. as on the web, but there might always be errors from OCR or manual transcribing) and the MENAdoc one is a scan and not irrelevantly official. Me I can’t even get enough alternative links, as for example on رُسْتَاق(rustāq) and mezereon. The AECID link in {{RQ:Ibn al-ʿawwām}} uses to be of varying availability, but the reader there is good, so I have it and a back-up link of archive.org in the uses of this template used over a hundred of times.
I see you like to use HTML dictionaries, that’s why you are here. Me, I used to search out the pages of Freytag, Kazimirski, Lane and Dozy and others to create my thousands of entries, apart from using a printed dictionary … well both is good to have, page scans for most scientific accuracy and HTML versions for convenience. Fay Freak (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I put back the page urls. LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC), Certainly there are scan errors, it is not thoroughly proofread so use it at your own risk, and always double-check, or compare multiple sources. Especially the diacritics are not always consistent. By the way, are you cognizant of an Arabic OCR-ed version of Wehr-4? The http://ejtaal.net/ link is okay, but sometimes hard to decipher.Reply
No, I do not know any. Also there is {{R:ar:Wehr-5-de}} which I of course prefer as being an original as opposed to a translation and a more recent printing which sometimes has more content.
Also, what I miss most in Arabic web dictionaries is an OCR and proofreading and even a browsable-by-root-letters scan of Freytag’s dictionary. Lane’s dictionary one has been OCRed and proofread by crowd intelligence but Freytag’s is not even known though unlike Lane’s it is a complete adaption of the medieval dictionaries and it even contains additional referenced content from the author’s literature acquaintance. Somebody should tell the guys of ejtaal.net to add it (I have not assured myself yet of the best location for the proposal, and I fear the use of an Arabic-Latin dictionary is not considered with seriousness, however I with more fluent Latin have found it more useful, while Kazimirski’s one included on ejtaal seems largely a translation of it, as I mentioned also on Wiktionary:About Arabic § What general dictionaries there are where you find by the way a listing of Arabic dictionaries a lexicographer can use). Fay Freak (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Because it is mostly textile. Like a carpet with furniture under it. Polstermöbel. I played with the thought of creating a category for “textile furniture” or something like that too, to further distinguish. It would be under “Furniture” and “Textiles”. Good idea? What’s the difference between textiles and fabrics though? Fabric is defined as textile here. Fay Freak (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
That is unreasonable. First of all, the Polstermöbel association works for you because you are a German speaker, but it doesn't make sense to anyone else using wiktionary whose native language is not German. (In Russian, you would often refer to a sofa as an example of мягкая мебель(mjaxkaja mebelʹ) — literally "soft furniture" — the key property is that it feels soft, not that it is covered with any specific material.) Second, in Russian you can have such a thing as пластиковыйдиван(plastikovyj divan) — a hard plastic sofa (google for it), so neither textile upholstery nor a soft surface is a necessary property. Third, in general, it is incorrect to put items made of X into category X. A domestic cat surely does not belong in the category of biomolecules, even though it is mostly made of biomolecules. Tetromino (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Tetromino So what is your constructive notion for further categorization? “Soft furniture”? This apparently, as I search the term, aptly comprises pillows and rugs too: They also seem to be “furniture” or no. Is “furniture” actually Möbel or rather Einrichtungsgegenstände? For the latter there is also “furnishing items”, it seems, so “Soft furnishing items”? Carpet and tapestry currently miss categorization (the latter being in “Weaving” is very bad), which the category I have in mind could solve: You get the idea? Pillows, rugs, carpets, sofas, padded armchairs meet the same needs. One could think about “Bedding” but this is more specific and does not fit крѣ́сло(krě́slo). That properties must be necessary is a controversial claim. It seems that they have to be typical, this is how language works. Those “plastic sofas” are called on the same pages скамья́(skamʹjá): Of course in furniture there are mixed forms. The part “пла́стиковый” can also negate otherwise presumed properties. “Hard plastic sofa” seems to be an oxymoron (independently of whether it exists or not: Often contradictions are used in language). There are also “lamps” that aren’t “light sources”. Also regard that historically there has been a higher strictness of forms! @Hergilei. Fay Freak (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why furniture needs subcategories (there are only ~100 words in the English category), but I suppose you could split it by function: seats, beds, tables, etc. And if you don't like the example of hard plastic sofas, remember soft leather sofas, which have been used for centuries and don't have textile. Tetromino (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Fay Freak, is it my browser, is it my idea, or is it true: Did the arabic lemmata get bigger letters at their headword? If yes, I am so glad!. I would like the same for el.witkionary (they are SO tiny e.g. I can see المغرب here but I cannot see el:المغرب). Do you have any idea who can tell me how to do it? (it is not urgent at all). Your sarri.greek (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
No, they didn’t, not for me, though there have been font changes on 3rd April 2019. To change on el.Wiktionary, I think you have to change el:MediaWiki:Common.css. In en.Wiktionary MediaWiki:Common.css it is the lines: “.Arab,<br>/* Arabic */.Arab,.fa-Arab,.glk-Arab,.kk-Arab,.ks-Arab,.ku-Arab,.mzn-Arab,.ota-Arab,.pa-Arab,.ps-Arab,.sd-Arab,.tt-Arab,.ug-Arab,.ur-Arab,.ms-Arab{font-family:'Iranian Sans','Segoe UI',Tahoma,'Microsoft Sans Serif','Arial Unicode MS',sans-serif;font-size:133%;direction:rtl;unicode-bidi:embed;}
But you can’t just do that because the HTML tags around the Arabic text on Greek Wiktionary aren’t assigned CSS classes (in English Wiktionary pages <span class="Arab"></span>), for which the modular background invoked in the template el:Πρότυπο:τ must be changed. Fay Freak (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Shukran, shukran for your detailed answer. Not for you, Fay? Do you still see arabic=small المغرب, persian=bigger? آرام گرفتن. Aaaa yes. They are different. BUT why? If the persian font is bigger by default, the arabic should be arranged in such a way as to be viewed with equal size. This is very important! It ruins all your good work. Can't we make a petition of some kind? Inshallah they will change it! --sarri.greek (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
@Fay Freak! Thank you for your nice ref and ety! It would be so nice if you added it at el.wikt too? el:γάντζος. It would be nice if it had your signature (I cannot 'steal' it) It would be
as it is now.... from Ancient Greek....
Συγγενές, {{ota}} {{l|قانجه|ota}} (kanca, kance) ως {{l|γάντζα|el}}, {{l|κάντζα|el}}.<ref>[[:en:w:Henry R. Kahane|Kahane, Henry R.]]; [[:en:w:Renée Kahane|Kahane, Renée]]; [[:en:w:Andreas Tietze|Tietze, Andreas]] (1958) ''The Lingua Franca in the Levant: Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin'' (στα αγγλικά) Urbana: Πανεπιστήμιο του Illinois, σελίδες 244–247</ref>
--sarri.greek (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek You can surely do it ourself. The completely different format on the Greek Wiktionary, apart from me not even understanding Greek, bewilders me.
I cannot copy your etymologies without referring to you. It would be as though I pretend i know so much!... Which is a fat lie. Many times, people add etys in english, and we just help with translation. We are only 5 active editors there, and no one is a linguist. But if you feel uncomfortable, that's ok. --sarri.greek (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sarri.greek The edit summary is for referring; like for example when I write [[User:Sarri.greek|Sarri.greek]] in it it even pings you. Plus you can copy them if anyway if I allow it. Fay Freak (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a request for the future: when marking a redirect for deletion, can you remove the redirection? Otherwise when I click the page to delete it, it redirects me away immediately and I have to click again to get back to it. —Rua (mew) 12:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua:: Good idea. I used to opine that one would like that the page at least fulfills a function (the one of redirecting) for the time before the deletion. Anyway, shouldn’t I be extended mover or something to leave less traces needing admin action? Fay Freak (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
You erased an enormous number of requests,
without any valuable reason,
since they are not added and the terms exist,
it's only vandalism,
may Allah Al‑quran grant you hell, inferno & neqring… Aman…
False. You just lack the necessary reason to discern the reasons, though they are not even hard to see. Reason is for all, they are already added, they will be added automatically, or they can’t be added. I should recommend you to get your head out of Muḥammad’s witless scripture to do something valuable with your life, other than exercising yourself in cursing, which is very sinful, to wit. Fay Freak (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I have blocked the IP for intimidating behaviour - three months but it's not efficient to give long blocks to IP users. @Fay Freak, do't go down to the same level when responding to threats. As for the deletions, normally red links are not removed from request pages until they turn blue but it's OK to remove non-words or otherwise terms that can't be added. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)01:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Can we clean up or delete this section? It weighs on me a bit... although divinely established scripture is technically "witless" I'm afraid for Fay Freak that someone pessimistic will read that comment and misunderstand. Polypz (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
I love ambiguity and employ it very consciously. And who reads the comments? Those who do not see worth in my utterances like you do will thus not dwell on them; for the rogues usually value themselves too high to read archives if the gain is vague; it’s just us perfectionist people who use to concentrate on such inspections. If those who do ill read them anyhow, there is enough artifice already placed to play back the ball. Fay Freak (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Why are you putting links to Turkish entries as transliterations for Ottoman Turkish terms? We treat them as two different languages. Ultimateria (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Because the Ottoman Turkish entries will stay redlinks for long. We treat them as different languages but the Modern Turkish entries do the service as substitutes. Compare w:Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. And your rule-based argument does not work, for from the general treatment as different languages you cannot infer that we cannot do that.
I could of course just write “Ottoman Turkishقباق(kabak) (Turkishkabak)” but isn’t it smoother to read “Ottoman Turkishقباق(kabak)”? The Modern Turkish spelling will almost always be the same as the transcription of the Ottoman, and I want to avoid repetition; particularly since our etymologies frequently have readability issues by much material. This of course demands that you have found out that for Ottoman links the transcriptions may be links. But there may be language specific linking practices, like for Serbo-Croatian. So what? You want to change all such links to “Ottoman Turkishقباق(kabak) (Turkishkabak)”? Well have fun with those. As I have felt it, it is easier to write and to read “Ottoman Turkishقباق(kabak)”. Another formed would be “Ottoman Turkishقباق / kabak” or something with a different sign like “قباق – kabak” but this is tedious to write and to read in the source code. Fay Freak (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
It didn’t need to be decided upon. There are various methods available to write etymology sections and display words, and this is one of them, though you have not known it.
Also there isn’t anyone to decide. There is nobody to decide either how Ottoman transcriptions should be given. As much as Ottoman is only occasionally treated here it looks like anyone can do it according to current practice. Oops, I think I have set the practice, now everyone must do like it!
I don't exactly have an "argument", because, as you said, I only asked. It's unfortunate that the Ottoman Turkish lemmas will be redlinks for a long time, but that shouldn't be a factor in deciding how to format. Does a Macedonian term derived from Ottoman Turkish need to link to the modern Turkish term at all? For a parallel, look at links to modern French terms in etymologies for English terms derived from Middle French. I don't think it's necessary, but maybe that's just me. Ultimateria (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
I find this practice acceptable; perhaps “Ottoman Turkishقباق / kabak” would be mildly preferable. The comparison to French ignores the issue of duplicative romanisation and that old European languages like Middle French get way more attention here than those of other parts of the world. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds23:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Any "solution" that has you adding templates inside a template parameters is a bad one. I also agree again with Ultimateria that redlinks shouldn't be a factor in formatting, and why does the modern Turkish need mentioning anyhow? If you really feel it imperative, you can just use the format we use in all other etymologies, {{bor|mk|ota|قباق|tr=kabak}} (whence {{cog|tr|kabak}}). --{{victar|talk}}07:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
How do you derive that rule that adding templates inside template parameters is bad? There are a lot of cases of templats inside templates, for example the tables. The redlink isn’t a factor in formatting, it is a factor why the modern Turkish needs mentioning, or rather linking – in such a smart way it is not even “mentioned” but linked anyway. You give me yourself the reason why I use the format: So we don’t mention the Modern Turkish because people feel “it is not needed”.
“We” don’t use the format {{bor|mk|ota|قباق|tr=kabak}} (whence {{cog|tr|kabak}}) in all etymologies, that’s just your personal way. Others boo me out for using the word “whence” (it happened really, I don’t mention who unless you ask). There are a lot of other formats, one can just list the terms, if it is a cognates list, or one uses an arrow “→”, or one does what I have done for Ottoman. Formerly the U 003E GREATER-THAN SIGN “>” has been often used for these purposes. @Dan Polansky has removed it half a decade ago with AutoWikiBrowser for being ambiguous or bad typography. But I assume the format “Ottoman Turkishقباق(kabak)” is the one he finds most preferable for being minimalistic. Also note that I have not invented the format but others had it used specifically for Ottoman and I found it neat when I encountered it. Fay Freak (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Tables are an exceptional case, but regardless, just because some people do it, doesn't make it correct, i.e. |t={{w|Article}}. (I also think that |t=[[]] should be forbidden.) This is why we should have discussions on special usages, and if we need a new {{link}} variant or parameter, better that than a hacky band-aide.
To say it's "smarter" is certainly a matter of opinion. I find it far less intuitive and informative to the reader than using "whence", and those are bad things, and certainly not "smart". And how is the usage of "whence" my way? It's not my coinage and search indicates that it's used somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,482 entries, which makes it highly commonplace.
But to get back to the point, show me another example of |tr= linking to a completely different language? That's like if we went around doing {{l|enm|shoppe|tr={{l|en|shop}}}}, which I think most people would find absurd. --{{victar|talk}}17:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi,
User:Emascandam has been editing a lot in Gulf Arabic and Arabic. They are using non-standard transliterations and I found other issues with edits. I can't spend too much time on the fixes right now but if you can, please do. --Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)11:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I added مُؤَدَّب(muʔaddab) and مُؤَدِّب(muʔaddib) and the root ء د ب(ʔ-d-b), and changed أدب to mention the root explicitly. In case you have time, some questions came up: (1) for the root, I put "I2-pp=-" because the dictionary entry didn't seem to contain a passive participle (and the page I used as a template had that). (2) I think I copied the verbal nouns correctly from Hans Wehr and the root vowels but want to be sure. (3) Is there a possibility of copyright infringement from copying the Hans Wehr definitions more or less verbatim. (4) I'm not sure if there is a standard form for the preposition notations, e.g. in the root page Form V "to let oneself be guided (ب, by)". (5) The etymology for أدب claims a Persian origin but I can't find a reference for this, and I don't know how to put etymologies in roots (there is no root listed for سَجَّلَ(sajjala) which I could have used as an example). (6) I want to link مُؤَدِّب(muʔaddib) to wikipedia:Muad'Dib but don't know how or if this would be appropriate. Polypz (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
>for the root, I put "I2-pp=-" because the dictionary entry didn't seem to contain a passive participle (and the page I used as a template had that)
You can’t rely on any dictionary in this case. You’d need to decide on the meaning if a passive participle likely exists. Or you can search the web. Because Hans Wehr in general does not list participles: it often only does if they are somehow independently lexicalized, not merely a form that can occur. Probably you are right that أَدُبَ(ʔaduba) has no passive participle, because passive use is rare for base stem verbs with perfect vowel /u/ and one would use مُؤَدَّب(muʔaddab) from the IInd stem anyway. Fay Freak (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
>I think I copied the verbal nouns correctly from Hans Wehr and the root vowels but want to be sure.
It’s good if you think that.
>Is there a possibility of copyright infringement from copying the Hans Wehr definitions more or less verbatim?
Yes. It would require that they reach the threshold of originality. Of course for a given word there is only a limited amount of correct glosses: people would often gloss the same way without using this dictionary, which is how you can see that the content is not original. The threshold of originality is higher in Germany, but the general advice is that you should try to use at least some own words in general, or if it is not obvious that the threshold of originality is not reached (I know no jurisprudence in relation to dictionaries), so it is less likely to be a copy and more likely to be an independent work or it is at least processually difficult to claim that this is copied: if you use own words then in court you would claim that the entry from the dictionary alleged by the claimant to be copied wasn’t even original, as proven by your coming up with a similar wording and hardly much other wording being possible.
>I'm not sure if there is a standard form for the preposition notations, e.g. in the root page Form V "to let oneself be guided
There isn’t. I often use {{ preo}} and {{ obj}} in the word pages (and they are allegedly still beta) but omit them in the root entry. Sometimes I have put something like {{lb|with|_|PREPOSITION}} in front of a gloss on a word page.
>The etymology for أدب claims a Persian origin but I can't find a reference for this, and I don't know how to put etymologies in roots (there is no root listed for سَجَّلَ(sajjala) which I could have used as an example).
It’s well known to be Persian even to an averagely educated Arab in the Middle Ages, and you can see that the meanings in the root are kinda “denominal” from the one noun أَدَب(ʔadab) that got borrowed in old times; at other words you will see that apart from one word the other words are rare derivations, as with بَصْمَة(baṣma) (about which in a survey the highest share of Arabs answered that this word is native Arabic, 215 against 26 that this is Arabic, while it is a Turkish borrowing: see the 2009 paper Ottoman Lexical Obsolescence İn The Arabic Dialects Of The Galilee Region for how the common impression is fooled). But you don’t need to know this, and references are especially hard to find for Semitic languages. But I see etymologies are probably not your focus anyway, you just want have the words and their meanings, otherwise you would drift away: and luckily I have added the bulk of Aramaic derivations already, and many Persian etymologies are either already included or not often encountered, while Ottoman words rarely belong to the literary language you delve in, not to mention other Turkic words like خُازُوق which are absolute exceptions. Statistics currently: Category:Arabic terms derived from Aramaic: 316, 173 from Classical Syriac makes 489, while Category:Arabic terms derived from Persian has 187, 22 of indeterminate Iranian origin, and Ottoman gets merely 67. The Aramaic borrowings have been specifically tracked down by me for all kinds of obscure words to get the number to 500, while the Persian borrowings surely can be doubled by specifically searching for Persian borrowings in sources across ages but as I said the frequency of the words yet to be added is so that you will rarely be bothered by any new ones anyway. Modern borrowings from European languages you hardly can fail to recognize. What is left is Greek, we count right now 242 from Ancient Greek 8 from Modern Greek, giving a round 250, and there is theoretically much more to add because of the science translation movement, but these are also often extinct and only listed in specialist works (like Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts from 2002). So you see just by the statistics that etymology is not to be feared by you. The number of foreign words already uncovered is disproportionate to the number of perfectly Arabic entries yet to be created, extremely high with about 10 % of the Arabic lemmas, unlike with the Persian language where it seems that the Semitic words alone make up 60% of the actual vocabulary.
>I want to link to Wikipedia but don't know how or if this would be appropriate.
Thank you Fay Freak. I think you answered all my questions except for the (implied) ones about the Persian etymology. I am actually interested in etymology, I just think that it should have references. Or, if I add etymology to an entry I create myself, then it would be nice to be able to cite something more authoritative than another Wiktionary entry. The statistics about origins of roots was interesting but I don't see how it fits in. I believe in learning the etymologies of words that I look up, I wish that language textbooks would say more about word etymologies when they introduce each word. Also I was looking for an example of a root entry with foreign derivation, like the non-existent س ج ل(s-j-l) for سَجَّلَ(sajjala), but browsing through the category links you provided, I can find them easily: د ر ب(d-r-b), ز و ج(z-w-j), etc. Thanks. Polypz (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
It later should? Any way this kind of thing deserves special wiki markup, it might turn out to be useful for categorization on one hand and for display formatting on the other hand. Fay Freak (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, the changes I made were based on an online etymology dictionary provided in the Resources section. It's in Hungarian, but even if you don't know Hungarian you can still see the spellings. If there is a resource you can provide for your version, please add it. You're right that Arabic is not the ultimate source. Panda10 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Panda10 I know what you base your etymologies on. You like to follow the sources word by word, but still languages names found in certain sources need to be translated into the languages of Wiktionary and you have to understand what the names of languages mean. The distinction is so minutes that it isn’t about “versions”. If you look a bit at the stemmata on Wikipedia (which are correct), you see that Upper German is divided in Alemannic, Bavarian, and High Franconian. German as spoken in Austria belongs to Bavarian. So what your sources call Bavarian may well not mean anything other than Austrian German. One might of course distinguish Standard Language from dialectal language, but such a distinction is moot. While there is and was diglossia in Austria and Bavaria, it is a moot question whether a plant name derives “from dialect” or “from the standard language”; it is regularly a false dilemma if one wants to say that a plant name belongs to the dialects or to “the standard language”. One can only tell if a plant name is local: sometimes the dialect exhibits a dialect-specific shape not acceptable in the written language, but that is not the case here: as you see from the IPA in Ribisel, it is pronounced identical to the “Bavarian” ribisl sometimes found in dialect dictionares. In particular however when I created Ribisel I searched the uses of the word, and it seems really restricted to Austria and Bavaria close to Austria, aside from German as spoken in what is today Czechia. Consequentially one reads also on many places that Hungarianribizli is borrowed from the Austrian Ribisel, or this book seems to prefer Bohemian origin. But why all this? Because it is really the same language. The form that underlied the Hungarian is a German [ˈriːbiːzl̩]: It’s not a version, as I said. For me from a German perspective the further statements “it is “Bavarian” or “it is Austrian German” and “it is Bohemian German” are not distinct. Do you remember Austria-Hungary? All of Czechia and Austria were together with Hungary and reinforced the borrowing at least if it was borrowed before (since which century is the Hungarian attested? this is a more interesting question), but were at least always more close to Hungary than Bavaria. Technically the standard German Ribisel is the Dachsprache for the Bavarian, but since the word is only regionally used in the language area of the Bavarian dialects (comprising Austria and areas of Bohemia like Bavaria) it does not give any more information if you say “it is from Bavarian”, unless you want to say that it is borrowed from low registers of people who did not even know Standard German, which is a very dubious and unprovable claim, and it gives even less since you choose to link ribisl that won’t be created, as most other dialectal entries of German, instead of the existing entry Ribisel which serves the same purpose.
Long talk – said in short: Do you even know what difference it makes to say from “Bavarian German” and “from Bavarian”? Not every distinction that appears in the designations of languages is actually there.
Tell us better about when and where the Hungarian word is attested first. If one doesn’t know such details of its spread then it isn’t justified either to make such oddly specific claims like “from Bavarian registers of people who did not even know Standard German”. Then – and this what I assume, and you can see by comparing the various books – the decision of whether the term is borrowed “from Bavarian”, from “Austrian”, “from Bohemian” is arbitrary. You can also just say “from German”. However as I have said the label “Austrian” seems to be appropriate (which I employ for words I know to be of basically merely Austrian usage, like Esszeug). If you just follow some books “blindly” you of course do not realize how arbitrary claims of the linguists often are. Like here, where Bavarianribisl and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "AG." is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF. aren’t a different thing, which you might not realize if you haven’t heard German much. There are several such problematic claims, for example the Bavarian form of Täscheltarsoly derives from would not be different from any “standard” form, and krumpli is also problematic, in that “standard” Grundbirne and “Bavarian” grumper, krumbeer, krumpir would not sound as different as the spelling would suggest, as for example in Bavarian pronunciation voicing is lost and one distinguishes g k as lenis (unaspirated) and fortis (aspirated). For similar reason, we have keep all entries Swahili has borrowed from Hindustani as borrowed from Hindi, not keeping a borrowed from Urdu. Or we keep a Category:Arabic terms borrowed from Aramaic for terms borrowed from various ages and various dialects (the distinction of Aramaic languages is controversial and the more so is ascribing Arabic words to any dialect or stage of them). Our distinctions between languages are imperfect, and sometimes they do not even need to be perfect. And on the other hand we Wiktionary editors in 2019 might be more careful than some academic twenty years ago.
Think about this, Panda: If somebody compiles an etymological dictionary, will every etymology be equally well-founded? No, because he needs to offer a complete book to his audience, from which follows that he writes an etymology to any common word, although his knowledge is not perfect in all, and in fact because our time to study word histories is limited and we do not track down the actual reality of every word most etymologies are only good with a certain probability. This is why Wiktionary has an advantage in that editors only add some etymologies they know and leave others they don’t know unsolved or ambiguous. Or in this way the stated origin will be inexact: Hungarianribizli is “from Bavarianribisl” or “from Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "AG." is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF.”, it is indistinct, as some Arabic words are borrowed from the Iranian language group, without us being able to pin-point any. You just must be able to see where distinction, and adhering to the distinctions stated in some books, starts to be an inane academic sport. Fay Freak (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Wow, okay, thanks for the detailed explanation and clarification. It is true that I try to stay as close as possible to the referenced source. I do see other editors make changes based on new research and such, but most of the time no source is cited for those changes and they leave the original reference there. But that aside, I have two more sources. According to Fay Freak in Zaicz, Gábor (ed.). Etimológiai szótár: Magyar szavak és toldalékok eredete (‘Dictionary of Etymology: The origin of Hungarian words and affixes’). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2006, →ISBN. (See also its 2nd edition.) it was first attested in "1720, borrowed from German, more closely from Bavarian, compare Austrian German ribizl, riwisl, Tyrolean ribesl, Austrian German Ribisel, Ribisl. These are from the Old German or dialectal German noun ribes." The third source Eőry, Vilma. Értelmező szótár (“Explanatory Dictionary Plus”). Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2007. →ISBN provides a very short etymology, it simply says "borrowed from German, more closely from Bavarian." Go ahead and make your changes, but please remove the reference I added since the etymology will no longer match the source. I am not saying that etymology dictionaries are always accurate, but in another etymology discussion I was instructed that "if there is a reference given and we choose to refer to it, we need to faithfully adhere to whatever is given there". Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Panda10 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Which of course sounds like one has copied from the other. 1720 is however a number. @Panda10 The question about these sources would still be: What do they mean with Bavarian? That Hungarians have collected it in Bavaria, i.e. Bayern, or picked it up from people from Bayern that conversed with Hungarians in Hungaria? Or does Bavarian include Austrian? In this case I maybe was more specific, but there is always the option of quoting the crucial words of the etymologist in the reference tag so there is no mismatch (we also often add the references in the reference sections only without reference tags specifically because we do not claim exactly the same but a similar thing or a part of what is in the source). Here you see how these sources still need to be interpreted, and it is actually easy to misinterpret sources, for example as more exact than they intended to be – also the various forms given make German look more diverse than is real: they quote “Austrian German ribizl, riwisl, Tyrolean ribesl, Austrian German Ribisel, Ribisl” and from such lists one already computes a “lexical distance”, while these aren’t the relevant details (if one collected all those differences one might become like that Albanian you-know-whom-I-mean). Still, I am German and have copious knowledge of the history of German language but I don’t know what “Old German” is, which is why you don’t find a language code on Wiktionary for it – analogically, perchance what you see as “Bavarian” in sources should not be in Wiktionary as “Bavarian”. There is Old High German but that is up to 1050 AD. I have indeed looked through uses of the German word and I don’t see that “ribes” or “Ribes” (capitalization is irrelevant here) is a dialectal noun – if it does occur in text, then it is indistinguishable from Latin, like in this example from 1616. The fact of Latin Ribes becoming GermanRibisel through a “German Ribes” is something hardly observable, that’s why I prefer to shortcut the etymology by saying only that GermanRibisel is from Latinribes. Well yeah, you copy what the etymologists say, but I always try to find the underlying forms, and German is very well documented and accessible, that is the most common reason why (my) Wiktionary etymologies might be adjusted or cautiously modified compared to what is found in etymological dictionaries. Fay Freak (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since we are not able to find a reliable source for the exact German origin and since I can't answer your question about Old German and Bavarian, how about this format: "First attested in 1720. Borrowed from German, more specifically from Bavarian-Austrian German. Compare Austrian German Ribisel." This statement is supported by the Hungarian printed sources and it also includes your previous etymology, although not as a straight borrowing, only a "compare". If you agree to this, I will make the change. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Panda10: Better write: “Bavarian-Austrian German, represented by Austrian German “Ribisel”, so we do not pretend it would essentially different (we also overuse the word “compare” for various dissimilar purposes). Or just “Bavarian-Austrian Ribisel (since the Bavarian, if distinct, can be written the same as Austrian: as I said, the underlying form is [ˈriːbiːzl̩], however one writes it). Perhaps: “From Bavarian-Austrian [ˈriːbiːzl̩]”, this IPA linking to Ribisel? Fay Freak (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Fay Freak,
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Fay! I know i promised you (here) to do other things rather than Modern Greek etymologies, but they keep coming up (needed for affix Cats etc). A special Category is needed! Would it be realistic to ask for one? Or would it be a silly question to the ears of linguists? The PROBLEM: As you pointed out, the Category of inherited words from previous greek phases (CAT) is too large. Many of them are 'learned internal borrowings' rather than direct inheritances. Some dictionaries mark lemmata as such, others do not. But they all refer to them in their introductions with terms like 'learned diachronic borrowings', 'revivals', 'reinvigorated words' (my translations). Distinct from 'learned borrowings' (CAT), which concern 'external learned borrowings'. In {{R:DSMG}} the estimated [ learned] lemmata (of all kinds) are approx.30,000 and the [-learned] up to 20,000.
At the moment, we add manually Learnedly, from {{inh|el|grc|....}}, or we do not add an etymology at all, avoiding the problem. In effect the 'inherited' categories have become too large. I do not know how often this occurs in other languages, but it is very frequent for greek. Should I pursue the matter or just drop it? Shukran. sarri.greek (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
If you know the origin word but not whether it is borrowed or inherited you are free to use the fallback template {{der}} – better than “not add an etymology at all”. Personally I have never used {{lbor}}, or tried to distinguish “learned borrowings” from “non-learned-borrowings”.
Clearly if you value your time you won’t go through the Greek entries to find what they are. The relevancy of that detail is much less than adding words, senses, quotes. Fay Freak (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Fay Freak,
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
@Victar: Is it also appreciated if I contest the Semitic words’ going back to Proto-Semitic and being akin to Proto-Indo-Iranian*kʰáras? The Akkadian is a Mari word and used only in stereotypical phrases, deemed to be borrowed from West-Semitic. CAD 6 118 just says under a short entry: “various writings attempt to render WSem. ʿayr.” So put away those Akkadian spellings and see only ʿayr: From this *kʰáras cannot be borrowed, nor is it likely to be cognate.
Leonid Kogan and Alexander Militarev list the word in the “Semitic Etymological Dictionary” II (2005) on page 59, No. 50. They do not supply any more forms than the Arabic, Hebrew, Ugaritic we have but an uncommon Judaic Aramaic likely borrowed from Hebrew and Modern South Arabian forms and a Tigre ʿayro “young camel three years old” a borrowing of which from Arabic proposed by Wolf Leslau Kogan finds reasonable in “Geneological Classification of Semitic” (2015) on page 124. And it can be a picked-up word in Arabic too albeit appearing early in Arabian inscriptions. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Whatever you think is best. They could also be both borrowed from the same substrate. @Profes.I. was kind enough to do the legwork of collecting them, but it would be nice if their connection to one another could be cleaned up and uncluttered from the etymology. --{{victar|talk}}15:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
That comparison was after all only because you saw ḫârum, which looked similar, and Profes.I. added the known cognates (which I had put on عَيْر(ʕayr)), that taken together do not look similar, knowing in particular that the Akkadian spellings only render them. Fay Freak (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: I am not gonna fix the links in the deployed quotes though, you have to see them yourself, and perhaps then add {{d}} to the old names that are redirects now when they are orphaned. Don’t know how you input or see Unicode used on the page, but I use direct Unicode input (a function in my environment with character number search or character name search) for characters I don’t have on my keyboard (as I use an Arabic layout as I technically only write Arabic) and search the characters on the page in the browser search. Maybe @Erutuon knows a gadget (Firefox addon, which best?) that highlights mixed scripts (I am confident such a thing can exist at least so one can avoid to mix Cyrillic and Latin). Fay Freak (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Share your experience in this survey
Hi Fay Freak,
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion
Your edits at qan and къан caused module errors. When I went to Wikipedia to try to figure out what was wrong, I found confusion as to whether Kipchak is the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages, or one of the Kipchak languages in one of the branches. Rather than reverting your edits or converting {{inh}} to {{der}}, I thought it better to ask your help in sorting this out. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak, @Anylai, @Allahverdi Verdizade, I see multiple problems about you assigning this "Kipchak" as the ancestor to (whatever) list of Kypchak languages.
One of the is that the entire premise is IMHO wrong that there existed a single language from which the modern Kypchak languages have developed. I am not aware of any Turkologists stipulating and/or supporting this premise. Please let me know if you know such.
I would urge you to reconsider this decision of yours. I bet we will be much safer if we don't introduce such new entity as "Kipchak". Borovi4ok (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, "Kipchak" is mostly used in etymology sections to refer to cognates found in "Codex cumanicus", a XIII century dictionary, and alike. It is of course not an ancestor of Tatar, Kirghiz and so on. Maybe Proto-Kipchak is (in the same way as Proto-Oghuz is the unattested ancestor of the w:Oghuz languages.) Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade, Borovi4ok: It was set so. The more surprising it is that it was set as ancestor to Bashkir and Tatar but not Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim, Kumyk, although the general view is that Crimean Tatar is what developed in the Crimean Khanate after the Kipchak Khanate fell apart. This entity “Kipchak” is attested in various medieval works apart from the Codex Cumanicus, which is just the most popular, for example the grammar and glossary edited 1894 by Houtsma or that by Ananiasz Zajączkowski 1954–58 under the title Słownik arabsko-kipczacki z okresu Państwa Mameluckiego. Some other sources are listed by Árpád Berta Deverbale Wortbildung im Mittelkiptschakisch-Türkischen 1996 p. 3–7. So in the 13th century, weren’t the languages mutually intelligible? As I said Arab authors from that era consistently treat a “Kipchak” language, as in the sources I have just given. I don’t see how Bashkir or Tatar existed before this Kipchak, there is no evidence for all those individual languages but for Kipchak. So writes Wikipedia on Kipchak language: “Bashkirs […] adopted the Kipchak language in the days of the Golden Horde.” So they probably spoke a non-Kipchak Turkic language, like others who adopted this language. And Russian Wikipedia writes with a bit more expertise and footnote: “Кыпчакский язык лёг в основу кыпчакской группы языков: (крымско-татарского, караимского, крымчакского, карачаево-балкарского, кумыкского, ногайского, казахского, каракалпакского, татарского, сибирско-татарского, башкирского).” – “The Kipchak language was the basis of the Kipchak language group”, although they date it three centuries earlier than most of our sources are old (because only in the 13th century all the invasions came which made Arabs and Europeans interested in studying the language). Fay Freak (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
On a related note, Egyptian Arabic and North Levantine Arabic are also not strictly the ancestors of Arabic as we have it. They preserve features of Proto-Semitic that the Classical Arabic language did not have, like the lexically varying vowel in the prefix-conjugation as for example seen by the two tables on دَرَسَ(darasa) (Proto-Semitic and other Semitic languages have yi- and ya-, Literary Arabic only ya- in the base stem). Yet nobody would conceive the idea of introducing an obscure Proto-Arabic we would have to derive all dialect forms from. The same way an idea of an additional Proto-Kipchak is expendable. Even if we had witnesses from the 9th or 7th centuries you would still not be satisfied and shout that this is not what Bashkir and Tatar derive from. You will always find dialectal differences. Even Proto-Turkic and Proto-Slavic are idealized abstractions. Fay Freak (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Fay Freak, firstly, I am not shouting anything. Please watch your language.
Now, everything you are saying does not give ground to assume that there was a single parent language that gave rise to all modern Kipchak languages. Before you present such evidence (or, ideally, publish a paper supporting such entity and defend it in the Turkology community), I don't think it is appropriate to give CodCum (or any other) terms as predecessor to any modern Kypchak language. However, it would be great if you provide such terms as cognates.Borovi4ok (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Borovi4ok What would give you ground to assume that? You are just defending your pre-formed conception that I have already shewn to be biased, irrespectively of what the general view is. If I published such a super you would in any case say it’s just a fringe view and the Turkology community does not accept it. So why don’t you go ahead and fix the claim “Кыпчакский язык лёг в основу кыпчакской группы языков” on Russian Wikipedia if that view is so uncommon? Fay Freak (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Borovi4ok Which possibly does not exist. You know that. Few look into the materials. That’s the only people for Turkic you were able to ping, and even on Wikipedia nobody edits those pages like Kipchak language. Diachrony has been mostly ignored in Soviet turkology, one just collected all the current languages and reconstructed the Proto-Turkic at the end. That’s why you have not thought about “Kipchak” the way it is attested in. Would you ever in view of the materials earnestly reassess your conception of Bashkir? Fay Freak (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: No, it’s terrible. I say “to shout” to mean rufen, but Borovi4ok understands it as schreien or even schimpfen, very different concepts. People don’t often understand it when I explain abstractly why English is a trash-tier language, but here you have it, all is loaded and ambiguous. The working language of the Wiki is a bane and a reason why I should cease to contribute to it.
You’ll have nonetheless to think about what “Kipchak” is, and what those sources represent, and hence what the language data should have and how the descendant trees should be ordered. I have shown Wiktionary to be inconsistent. My conclusion was that this Kipchak is the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages, and I laid out how I have come to this conclusion. I don’t know what conclusions you can make but the reasonings must be reproducible, and you can’t keep this bug of ambiguity for ever; somewhen it must be clear where what is ordered in. Fay Freak (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
The text of the Codex Cumanicus is the earliest attested form of Common Kipchak. Could you argue that it more accurately represents Western Kipchak? Sure, but the differences would be dialectal, if any. --{{victar|talk}}20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
Hello all, it would be logical for Kipchak to be the ancestor of all the Kipchak languages... But tell me, why is Old Anatolian Turkish on this dictionary set as the ancestor for Azerbaijani? This is absurd! Azerbaijan is not in Anatolia... Orkhonien (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but it is the ancestor of some of those, or what? The current state is the least logical. The West Kipchak group, Crimean Tatar, Karachay-Balkar, Karaim and Kumyk are more to be identified as their descendants than Bashkir and Tatar and yet the latter have it set as ancestors but not the former. Or is it some artificial language like Old Church Slavonic about which it is controversial whose ancestor it is? And for all of that “Medieval” group? Karakhanid the ancestor of nothing, Khwarezmian Turkic the ancestor of nothing, Old Turkic the ancestor of nothing? Odd, but why not. Guess we have to remove Kipchak as the ancestor of all Kipchak languages then. Fay Freak (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: I had not seen it but it looks how I imagine it; except that “Mamluk-Kipchak” trk-mmk seems to be a synonym, meaning that same Kipchak language but recorded by Egyptians (but most of the Arabic spellings is recorded by Egyptians since some Kipchaks together with Turkmens were governing in Egypt and Greater Syria, bordering the Turkic and Mongolic Ilkhanate, that latter apparently speaking, in addition to Turkmen, Kipchak as also the Golden Horde – but that was called “Tatar” by Russians? –, but distinguished from the language in the Chagatai Khanate). @Vahagn Petrosyan Having read already this and that about Armeno-Kipchak it did not appear to me restricted to the XVIe and XVIIe secle and Poland as depicted on French Wikipedia but to be the same language picked up by Armenians and hence written in Armenian script like Ottoman Turkish was written in the Armenian script because it’s better (and had save perhaps the last hundred years more printed in Armenian script than in the Arabic script, which is not in common conscience). Fay Freak (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Mahagaja did you add those Kipchak branches because of Fay's discussion above, or was there some other discussion I missed? I would have chosen different names. --{{victar|talk}}05:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar: I don't remember now, but it definitely wasn't on the basis of this thread, which I was unaware of till this moment. In fact, I'm not even sure what I did that you're referring to. But I do often sort languages into families and subfamilies in the language modules, and when I do it's usually on the basis of what Wikipedia says. If I did it wrong in this case, feel free to revert or rename or whatever. —Mahāgaja · talk08:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak Since you have used Houtsma's work as a source for several entries: 1) The Tarjuman is written in mid 14th century, and represent a sort of Middle Kipchak. Mamluk Kipchak should be viewed as exactly that, a sort of Middle Kipchak. 2) Houtsmas interpretation of the text contains numerous errors and misreadings (see page 5.), so watch out. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: Thanks, I have seen that section about the sources for Kipchak in Árpád Berta already. Apparently the most remarkable misreading is that of the year of publication, 1343 instead of 1243, mentioned also in Clauson, Gerard (1972) “”, in An Etymological Dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish, Oxford: Clarendon Press, page XXV. Yet I do not know anything to follow from this for me or for us. Fay Freak (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Victar Mixed, I don’t remember exactly. I use to search transcriptions (particularly concerning Middle Persian forms) but these Aramaic words are also in CAL. It’s almost always in CAL, I don’t know why ask. Mazanderani was there before and is from Irman of course. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ugh, why do you always have to make snarky comments like "I don't know why ask"?
I ask because a) I'm trying to figure out if it's attested in Imperial Aramaic, and b) you added transliterations of questionable veracity which I can't find anywhere else. --{{victar|talk}}16:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Victar But you know that there are certain points where the transcriptions are a matter of choice? Even with vocalization, in both niqqud and both diacritic systems of Syriac script a syllable with following schwa and a syllable without following vowel is written the same, which is by the way also the case for the Ge'ez script. I have also mentioned such at Talk:ܫܝܫܠܬܐ. The main thing is that one always keeps in mind what was actually written and what is conjecture; we think both the same in this matter, hence our votes. In this case – and this is not the first time I have to remark it on CAL –, the transcriptions in CAL are of questionable veracity. They even managed to get the Arabic wrong, it isn’t fūtanj but fūtanaj according to Arabic syllabification custom, although I see they have it from Löw, Immanuel (1924) Die Flora der Juden[8] (in German), volume 2, Wien und Leipzig: R. Löwit, page 76; I don’t know how versed Löw was in Arabic. But whoops, Uwe Bläsing transcribes the forms exactly like me! See “Irano-Turcica. Weitere iranische Elemente im Türkeitürkischen”, in Folia Orientalia[9], volume 36, 2000, pages 40–42 of 33–61 – now that’s something, and another reference for your material collection, he discusses the -t- forms and argues for borrowing from a non-Indo-European source. Probably @Vahagn Petrosyan has aught to add since Armenian stuff is mentioned there. Fay Freak (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I guess we have to give Kazakh verbs a sort-out, since many should be categorised as verb forms.
In the past I made many entries which were supposed to be categorised as reciprocal, passive, reflexive or causative voices. Besides, transitivity, persons, modes, aspects and tenses should also be considered altogether.
@Vtgnoq7238rmqco: You mean something like Appendix:Arabic verbs? Depends on what you want. I don’t really know what would avail Kazakh since I have not learned it yet. You need labels? I have added “reciprocal” a year ago in Module:labels/data, which seems to be usable only for grammatical categories that are valid for more than one language. Since you probably mean verb categories that occur in various languages it probably makes sense to add some there and add the information near verb headers with {{tlb}}? Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Which one do you think is more preferential when giving definitions in non-English entries, and why? I tried to use sense-id to conserve space before, but it was quite bothersome since most English definitions lack ID:s, and because it entails more work for the editor. Also, without usage examples or qualifiers, the reader has to go to the English definition anyway; and since a definition link with a sense-ID looks exactly the same as one without, the user doesn't know that s/he can get more information by following the definition link. Ну и по традиции добавлю, что ожидаю лаконичный ответ на читабельном английском языке, а не простыню на трёх страницах. xoxoAllahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade I am not sure what your dilemma is. I use sense-IDs if there are multiple things in a language section that are sufficiently clearly defined and thus expected by me to be stable, just so people jump to the intended sense merely for their convenience, not to specify anything they would not find without it. I never added sense IDs to English entries to specify glosses, and glosses should be clear in what sense they mean without linking to any English sense. If there are only horribly polysemous words in English (which lackily enough is only rarely, not like that we always have to use English like Indians or non-Anglosaxon computer scientists) then I also do not shy away to write a German or Latin etc. gloss nearby, as professional dictionaries also do sometimes, and it also helps mnemonics, rewarding polyglots. For example in گز(gez) you read the definition: “time in the sense of “one time”, “two times”, “three times” (or in other words, what Frenchfois, GermanMal, Russianраз, Serbo-Croatianpȗt)”. Specifically for this sense English and German and probably Serbo-Croatian dictionaries sometimes clarify with Frenchfois, since Englishtime is colorless and there is at least one other GermanMal and Serbo-Croatianput has several abstract meanings. Or in یای(yay): “spring, coil – Sprungfeder”. I have also read: “a spring in machinery”, but this is less iconic, and it is preferably “boom, this is what is meant”. Many people specify senses of polysemous terms wrongly. They write: “Orange (fruit)” where one has to ask: Not an orange tree? Mostly it is also an orange tree, but the editors had bad teachers. When I write “(plant)” or “(fruit)” it rather really means it is only the plant respectively only the fruit, which is distinguished depending on the plant. Same thing with the labels: In former days one used labels now reflected as “{{lb|en|botany}}”, “{{lb|en|anatomy}}” etc. excessively but those should be used only if the terms are really only used in the respective scientific fields, not to contextualize. Hence I wrote on آغز(ağız) “mouth in the most primitive sense”, not “{{lb|en|anatomy}} mouth” as many people would do and which is wrong. Just be unambiguous in so far as your knowledge reaches and effective. Fay Freak (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see, it never crossed my mind that one could use both sense-id and a gloss. As for providing definitions in other languages, I am not against it in principle, I even think it is a good idea (provided that definitions in other languages are somehow marked with another font or alike; also, I think providing definitions in other languages should be restricted to a handful of relevant languages; giving a Swedish gloss in an Azerbaijani entry just because I know Swedish better than English would be weird). The only potential problem is that this approach conflicts with the main premise of en.wikt, namely that "all words of all languages are explained in English". Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade I thought about having a template called {{polygloss}} where it displays the English definition and if the reader clicks an arrow it shifts to the next language or more languages (it may be with Javascript, those with it disabled will see the English at least). This would facilitate often-demanded automatic transferral/translation (the same word trānsferre) of content into other Wiktionaries. I don’t want to learn how other Wiktionaries format their entries wholly differently (it is annoying enough how every Slavic language has randomly deviating head and declension templates), but I could give say English – German – French – Latin – Russian and other wikis can use bots to retrieve this information and create complete articles, not only pages with lacking definitions. This would also be useful for @Robbie SWE who has much more stuff on Romanian Wikipedia than here, as of course it is dullening to do all twice with new exertion. Fay Freak (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Recently I have been studying a court case and the accused mentioned a Serbian proverb that goes, ‘Sweep the dirt in front of your own house first.’ (I supposed that the idiomatic equivalent in English would be ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones’.) I was wondering if you were familiar with that proverb or knew where to look for it. Having little familiarity with Serbo‐Croatian I don’t know how to write it. — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 22:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@M. I. Wright 😦 It is written at the bottom of the page, as is not uncommon. Since you apparently do not read German I point out that Tropper is of course not who discovered the sound changes underlying it and the change is mentioned in other treatises in other contexts. I make it bite-sized for you:
There is a phenomenon of Proto-Semitic *š, that regularly gives in Arabic س(s), becoming across Semitic /h/, and also further /ʔ/; so an exception to the admirable preservation of consonants in Semitic. A well-attested example is the conditional conjunction *šim.
Another example that might interest you is the causative prefix found in the verb form IV that as you might see has the consonant /h/ in Hebrew and /ʃ/ in Akkadian. In the nonpast the prefix becomes invisible because the alif is only to fill the void / to comply with the syllabification rule that says that Arabic words cannot start with two consonants or a mere vowel (even though it is not alif waṣl). But even more interesting, it occurs that this Proto-Semitic causative prefix *š is retained regularly as س(s) in the verb form X, the ت(t) there being the same infix as the one in form VIII, which lets you see that the original meaning of form X is “to prompt (IV) someone to do something by himself (VIII)”.
Thank you!! I do know of the general sound change (and I only found out about the relationship between forms IV and X this last month, mind-blowing), but what happened was I mentioned the هـ(h-)لِـ(li-) etymology of هَل(hal) to somebody and I realized I didn't have a source to back it up beyond "it's on Wiktionary." I don't have a copy of Tropper -- nor, as you noticed, can I read German (maybe at some point lol) -- but it's good to have a citation to refer to.
While I'm here, though, can you actually comment on the plausibility of the counter-argument I got in response? It was that أَـ(ʔa-) < *هَـ(*ha-) is in fact unrelated to هَل(hal), and they challenged the هَـ(ha-)لِـ(li-) derivation because (1) it's unlikely for هَل(hal) to have magically been generalized into being able to appear before nouns (considering that لِـ(li-) can't precede anything but a verb), and (2) there are many records of old CA dialects where لِـ(li-) never underwent the change where it lost its i vowel. Instead, they said, هَل(hal) is derived from an old Semitic particle *hal used for calling attention, and it's "cognate to Ugaritic hl". I can't gauge the accuracy of this myself. Is there room for doubt? —M. I. Wright (talk, contribs) 03:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
It’s not magical but explained as rebracketing, the ل fusing and losing its meaning; starting thus from verbal sentences and after that usable for nominal sentences (which are less default than the verbal sentences anyway). I find the thought odd that the 𐎅𐎍(hl, “behold!”), which in the Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language is compared to هَل(hal), could have acquired the meaning of introducing a polar question, which would mean such a sentence in Arabic could start without any special word and was marked only by intonation as in Spanish, with the particle later added for emphasis. Unless we should not go from the Ugaritic meaning; anyhow the Ugaritic meaning seems far to me. Don’t know what that Akkadian𒀠𒇻(al-lu/allū(mi)/, “is it not?”), (it is from the Amarna period and suspected to be a West Semitic derivation), in the DUL is but it fits phonetically apparently to neither. There are some Arabic-Ugaritic isoglosses but perhaps we shouldn’t. Fay Freak (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Semitic languages' classification used in Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic descendants
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I've noticed while editing some entries that each one of them uses different classifications (or none for that matter) to classify its descendants, which makes it hard to maintain in the future. I am planning on refactoring the descendants according to Hetzron 1997 classification used in here. I don't know if there are any Proto-Semitic knowledgable people in here, but your last edit on Reconstruction:Proto-Semitic/θaʿlab- suggests that you know a bit about Proto-Semitic phonology. Fenakhay (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
There are no classifications, nor are there any needed. I am sorry for those who believed their groupings are subfamilies. They are just groupings to help the eye con the data. An alleged split between West and East Semitic is conventional and beyond what one can recognize. The grouping of Arabic is most controversial, hence “Central Semitic” is no group. A group “Northwest Semitic” appears to make sense but Ugaritic may or may not be in it, some put it in some “North Semitic”, which in other terminology is everything not “South Semitic”, i.e. of the known ones Old South Arabian, Modern South Arabian and Ethiopian, which may or may not be a group but is mostly a conglomeration of isoglosses (the cause of which does not need to be assumed a common split from a state in which the feature can be assumed to have been present already). Fay Freak (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I don't think all family groups need to be genetic -- they can be areal as well, especially when you take sprachbunds into account. Southwest Iranian is a generic group, while Southeast Iranian is only an areal one. I think we just need to decide on a convention and stick with it. --{{victar|talk}}20:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I was directing my answer to both of you, but I've also been wanting to bring it up with you to brainstorm on because the Semitic entries are currently inconsistent. --{{victar|talk}}20:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Rua: Okay, good to know that these are the ones used here. (Because Snoj uses a different system, we know, which we have not decrypted.) Pleteršnik also has them as needed I observed. Fay Freak (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Tbh I’ve been thinking about it and I agree with you that we shouldn’t transliterate ʾ in the Aramaic emphatic state. It makes sense for the transcription of purely consonantal writing systems like Phonecian or Ugaritic where an alef is the only means of indicating an initial or final vowel. But for languages like Aramaic where vowels are indicated by diacritical marks the transliteration of final emphatic ܐ is redundant. I’m also beginning to prefer the use of ⟨ʔ⟩ and ⟨ʕ⟩ over ⟨ʾ⟩ and ⟨ʿ⟩ for Semitic transliteration in general. I like @M. I. Wright’s idea of retaining ⟨ʾ⟩ for representing ellidable word-initial glottal stops. Rhemmiel (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
See WT:QUOTE. We are supposed to have dates for quotations. For many citations there are problems with editions, orthography, copyist errors, etc. But dates or date ranges are helpful to sequence citations and to help our more normal users get some sense of the history of usage. Links to WP and to references can help users understand some of the issues in dating quotations. DCDuring (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Dates are impossible here; the best one can do is say "compiled 6th century" or something like that. In general, I think this is a waste of other editors' time; if you want every quotation to have some date attached to it, you might as well click through to Wikipedia and add the century of compilation yourself rather than a request that cannot be filled if interpreted literally. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: I can sequence citations without it, and Wiktionary:Quotations clearly was not written with antiquity in mind, anyway nobody is supposed to do what is impossible. And it’s not usual in Classical Philology to quote with dates either, and I suppose that usually our users are not normal either, a hint on the author is enough for anyone mildly oriented in history or being able to click the link to Wikipedia. So {{Q}} does not require it either. Many much-used works are only datable very vaguely; to this date the herbal most-used in the Middle Ages Pseudo-Apuleius is only datable to “the 4th century” and it is not known whether its beginning or end. And that’s only with one herbal; with timeless religious and legal writings it is even more impossible. Some auhtors are famous, Ulpian on cancellus I could fill with some years uncertainty by searching half an hour some opinions on its dating, but the datings stay mere opinions and for earlier jurists their life data is not known, and some also is without author like Pauli Sententiae from the same century. So what, DCDuring? I tell you one cannot fill them without ridiculous inexactitude; Javolenus is {{circa|100±20 or 40}}, the Vulgate is {{circa|100–382}} (does not really differ from the Itala versions). Do you agree with such dating? I must contend though that the way dates are displayed is not most suitable for such ranges – even the templates are made not for antiquity, where vague dates are the rule. Fay Freak (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Metaknowledge: Some editors are already wasting their time adding date and work title to the Shakespeare quotations that lack them. My plan is to economize on my time by adding the dates in batches, eg, by author using WP articles where author and work are known, by author where work is not shown using a modified rfdatek search for the pagename and the author at Google search. I have to do something different for translated works, for which we sometimes show the date of the original work, not that of the translation. Chaucer is interesting because there are three major manuscript fragments of the Tales. It would be nice to date quotations by the estimated date of the manuscripts.
@Fay Freak: Date ranges can be two years or multiple centuries (even millennia I suppose). If the standard templates don't work, one can either do a custom header or create a template for the work. Obviously, this last approach only pays if the work is the source of many citations. Obvious examples in English are the EME bibles, but see Category:English quotation templates.
Admittedly it is much easier to work with modern texts, especially those that never were revised by the authors or editors and where orthography is standardized. I am grateful that many of the authors of undated English citations from older texts (and sometimes the texts themselves) have WP articles that either have reasonable dates or can speed the search for them from other sources. DCDuring (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I don't want to cause offense, but my impression of your English is that it's closer to en-3 rather than en-4. You often phrase things in a way that is unnatural for a native speaker, and less often, but frequently enough, make outright errors that can sometimes make it difficult to follow what you're saying. Not to overstate it though—you're a lot better than en-2. I hope you don't mind me pointing that out. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy: No, because there is no room for improvement of my English, such that I rarely ever learn a new word, just like in German. You would have the same impression of my German. It’s either that I do not care whether I am unnatural or that I have Asperger’s. Fay Freak (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, it's ultimately up to you to decide. It's interesting that you rarely learn new words...I don't usually think of that as an indicator of fluency. I'm a native speaker and I learn multiple new words every day (but maybe it's just because I'm a voracious reader). :) Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I've never heard of that term in Morocco (I've checked with my relatives and friends as well). I asked a Libyan friend about it and he said he'll get back to me today. The term for cape used in Morocco is سلهام(salhām) or برنس(burnus). Fenakhay❯❯❯Talk10:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay: A few Italian sources derive the Italian word from it, and the IP surely had it from Treccani. The Italians in turn have it surely from Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne (1881) “Fay Freak”, in Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes[10] (in French), volume 2, Leiden: E. J. Brill, page 263b, who confers his Dozy, Reinhart Pieter Anne (1845) Dictionnaire détaillé des noms des vêtements chez les arabes[11] (in French), Amsterdam: Jean Müller, page 334, where he talks about the فَرَجِيَّة(farajiyya) (perhaps the original reason why I just put the Italian in the descendants of Ottoman Turkishفراجه(ferace), I don’t remember what I thought), and refers to Beaussier’s dictionary, where however the word **فَرْيُول(**faryūl) is not found either, maybe Dozy instead means the wordفَرِيجَة(farīja) glossed “feridja”. Maybe it is a reconstructed word some few sources claimed (starring words had just developed in 1881), because Dozy would have given a cite if he had an Arabic one. So with your asking around we shall declare this an unlikely source and a presumable ghost word. Though it is principally possible that a word has died out as clothing and household habits changed, like طَيْفُور(ṭayfūr, “tray, bowl”) is now found only in Jewish Moroccan Arabic, our being able to search by the help of the internet makes us in many respects more confident than Dozy could be. Fay Freak (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: It’s unsurprising; just like you every Romanist put no diligence into assessing attestation after the limits of the language group have been reached. I have above completely outlined out the mistake by which the “citation” of this word pours in upon the public perception, and corresponding to this @Fenakhay ascertained empirically that no one in Morocco or Libya knows this word. {{R:xaa:ELA|II}}, deprecating Dozy’s dictionary in this area, also contains all attested Andalusi Arabic vocabulary and does not contain it either; correspondingly {{R:xaa:ELA|III}} containing Romance words supposed from Arabic does not contain it, which indicates that Corriente and his team found it impossible to even imagine. It is also a contradictory complication to admit the Maltese being borrowed from Romance instead of continuing the Arabic word while claiming the Romance words ultimately to derive from Arabic; Coromines II 883a basically admits the possibilities of any Arabic occurrences being borrowed from Romance as well.
So go remove the derivations from this requested word, a term request we must not fulfil!
My Ottoman derivation was in comparison of the garments and typical attestation dates and the Italian variantferragiolo, to which the Portuguese ferragoulo is as well closer. Now the much earlier supposed Mozarabic we have to distrust as we know the uncertainties surrounding the reading of this Trümmersprache. We have less strong opinion about it though (in spite of the exaggerated commit message of 2020) than the non-existence of the Arabic, you can portray the many other etymologies, as long as based on words that exist (there are other fake forms from times when Orientalism had low standards, few being able to counter the fancy; I generally attempt to track down the source words instead of copying common references, sticking to such standard is a major reason why Wiktionary > Wikipedia). Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay Against the notion of Maltese continuing the Arabic word directly are 1) its meaning, which is specific to a garment of Catholic clergy (unless our entry is incomplete in this regard), and 2) its phonological shape (if @Fenakhay is right that the inherited form should have been *firjul).
As for 'Mozarabic', that was a mistaken language code by me, which I have since corrected. Coromines says it is attested in a Mozarab document from Toledo dating to 1161, that is, apparently a notice of donation produced by the community of Mozarabs living there, who wrote Arabic, not Romance. So this is not subject to the vagaries of interpreting garbled, poorly recopied Romance kharjas. I do not have access to the document that Coromines mentions, unfortunately, but that may be the key to deciding this.
That the word may not, as far as our informant knows, exist in modern Arabic I do not think is any counterevidence to its existence several centuries ago. Nicodene (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: True of course, الْفَرْوِيل الأَحْمَر(al-farwīl al-ʔaḥmar, “the red …”), as it is most likely vocalized, is Arabic, but we still don’t know what item it is, as typical with list of inventory (Los mozárabes de Toledo en los siglos XII y XIII edition and translation in 4 vols. is also scanned, we both can see what text it is), and on the other hand it could be a Romance borrowing like إِقْلِيل(ʔiqlīl) – just like the Maltese is from Romance! Formally problematic though to explain the longer Romance forms. Then again, why do we need an Arabic intermediate? And the alleged *فَرْيُول(*faryūl) (in the weird transcription scheme of some Romanists feriyûl, if you don’t see the identity) is still not the same word and the offending word in question which we cannot fill. You putting a term request and deriving from a word which we have shown to have no basis nor necessity. Fay Freak (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
That reminds me, I should probably add an entry for *aculeōnem.
We can add disclaimers to the effect of 'Coromines claims' and such if that would improve things - and, apparently, an asterisk for the 'vulgar Arabic' word. If فَرْوِيل does mean what Coromines thinks, I do not see further issues on the Romance side of the equation (it's nothing new for borrowings to be heavily folk-etymologized, though I must admit I'm baffled by what origin story they imagined for 'little blacksmith').
The reason to posit an Arabic intermediary, incidentally, is that in no Romance language would Latin palliolum would be expected to yield such results. In Spanish, for instance, we would have *pajuelo, in Sicilian *pagghiolu. Also the term's earlier absence, from medieval Romance, would be rather suspicious.
If you mean to suggest that the Turkish intermediary would be better (with a different ultimate etymology)- perhaps it would. But it must be admitted that the changes from an Ottoman Turkish ferace to a Sicilian firriolu would have been quite drastic (more so than the changes from farwīl to ferrehuelo, in my view). I might have expected something along the lines of *firagi, or with a diminutive and influence from the verb that you have indicated, *firragiolu. Nicodene (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: Yes I expect other Sicilian variants, just as the Italian variants habitually defalcated. The obscurity of the Arabic is no less suspicious than that of Romance – I am not even sure by now whether the latter is oftener studied. And we do not expect arbitrary changes between ل(l) and ر(r) in Arabic either no more than they happen in Romance. Still even if in Arabic the sound change is likely, we went from two to four syllables and a different stressed vowel by borrowing فَرْوِيل(farwīl) into the Romance forms ascribed to it, apart from the vague meaning of the Arabic.
It is a known situation in any case that an etymology can depend on the interpretation of an old locus. Bielefeld may be explained by the old form in a 9th century occurrence if that is even identical, and so do we here point out the existence of a red فرويل also four centuries earlier than the usual occurrences :-/Fay Freak (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have modified the Spanish etymology somewhat. I am still perplexed at the difficulty in finding the modern Arabic word. Coromines cites Colin for it and mentions its usage in a variety of places, including incidentally Malta.
Edit: ah, he is simply talking about our firjol, which he regards as inherited from an earlier 'vulgar Arabic' form, rather than, as Wagner would prefer, borrowed from Sicilian. Nicodene (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Nicodene: I could track down: Colin Hespéris VI 76, refers to a colloquial بَلْيُول(balyūl) that is even found with one reference in {{R:xaa:ELA|II}}, while Simonet, Francisco Javier (1888) Glosario de voces ibéricas y latinas usadas entre los mozárabes (in Spanish), Madrid: Establecimiento tipográfico de Fortanet, page 416, a book I find difficult to use, in the Arabic quote has that “in Latin it is called فَالُّيُوش(fālluyūš)” (if Fay Freak sees the harakat correctly); the variant in question فَرْيُول(faryūl) Louis Brunot Noms de vêtements masculins à Rabat. In: Mélanges René Basset. Vol. I of II. Paris 1923, p. 125 of 87–142 (US VPN or Hathi Helper, somebody has to put the first volume on archive.org yet); again second-hand information but described as a cape worn by dirty workers (rather than clerics or similarly clean people), hundred years ago he said “on ne le connaît pas à Fès”, and I have read Fenakhay is Fasi; Brunot refers to José Lerchundi (1892), Vocabulario español-arábigo del dialecto de Marruecos164b, and again gives the link to Beaussier 502b where I now see فَرْيُولَة(faryūla); not however there is a even mention of it occurring in Andalusi, only in some special places in Moroccan. It is also difficult for it to land from Morocco in Sicily? Maybe it was the badly attested Sicilian Arabic, otherwise it is at least unlikely that this restricted word was borrowed parallelly into Italian dialects and Spanish and Portuguese. Fay Freak (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your diligent research.
It may simply be that the word has experienced considerable shrinkage in modern Arabic but was once more widespread. As we now know that there really does exist such a modern word, that leaves Coromines' reading of the old Toledan document somewhat more plausible.
As far as Romance is concerned, certainly the Standard Italian and Spanish forms seem linked (effectively calques of each other). The Sapere dictionary describes the garment in question as 'imported from Spain', and it would be reasonable to suppose that the term for the garment came along with it.
Coromines describes the existence of an 'indigenous' Mozarabic outcome of Latin palliolum, beginning not with f but rather p, competing with an imported Maghrebi form with f, the one that he states was borrowed into Spanish. Incidentally, he vocalizes it differently than you have, adding an extra vowel, as I have now indicated on herreruelo. As a non-arabist, I can hardly judge on this matter.
It seems, if we follow this model, that the Sicilian and Maltese forms are then separately derived from Maghrebi. That is, the Maghrebi form was carried into Iberia (as would not be surprising historically), whence eventually borrowed into Portuguese and Spanish, then from Spanish into Italian as ferraiolo. Separately, the Maghrebi form was also carried into Sicily (also would not be surprising), where it was never folk-etymologized with words for 'blacksmith'. I won't judge whether the Maltese word went through Sicilian first. Nicodene (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I doubt that Italian variant you found is maintaining the original Turkish consonant. In the same text we also see gianna for expected janna, which means there's either a local shift or an orthographic hypercorrection that makes /j/ be written as gi. Catonif (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
No need to put an asterisk on the Middle Persian word. It is attested in a Middle Persian text I saw it in the book written by Jaleh Amouzgar and Ahmad Tafazzoli.--Hamaabir (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Irman's ghost, what is the Middle Persian work where *bōrag it is attested? Even the newest literature refers to it with an asterisk. --Vahag (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I just saw your February comments for the descendants of the venetian bailo. Any of these variants interests you perhaps? μπάιλος(báilos)? (could be written μπάϊλος too).
Koine (but we regard Koine up to 6th century): βαΐουλος from latin
mediaeval variants up to 1669: βάγιλος, βαγίλος, βάιλος, μπάιλος (in text, dative: μπαΐλῳ), μπαλίος, πάγιλος, πάιλος, παλίος
modern (1700-: historical, from Koine). βάιλος, βαΐουλος, demotic: βάιλας.
@Allahverdi Verdizade: I don’t know. Since printing did not catch on in the Arabic-writing world until about 1800, this might well be the same time when the periodical became widespread in a few years simultaneously, considering also that in the Ottoman Empire in 1800 until much longer fewer than 10% of all people could read so the market was thin. It will be a matter of few years, in which population and literacy exploded to make magazines sustainable and this word spread. Probably as terminus post quem the time around 1850 when in Europe new paper quality was invented that was cheaper but the one that caused acid decay until about 1990 (sic!). Fay Freak (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Fay Freak, mit dieser Bearbeitung hast Du eine Ableitung eines bulgarischen Wortes vom *Mazedonischen angedeutet. In Deiner vorhergehenden Bearbeitung dagegen gab es keine Spur von so einer Behauptung. Nimm es mir bitte nicht übel, aber die Behauptung, daß irgend ein bulgarisches Wort von einer Mundart, die vor kaum 80 Jahren als eigenständige Sprache ausgerufen wurde, ist unhaltbar, gelinde gesagt. Wenn Du mehr über die Herkunft eines bulgarischen Wortes erfahren möchtest, so eignet sich das Български етимологичен речник gut zu diesem Zweck. In unserem Fall ist das Band 4, Seite 367. Aber ich bin immerhin neugierig, ob die soeben widerlegte Herkunft in einer deutschen Ausgabe zu finden ist? Wenn ja, in welcher? Gruß, Bogormconverſation10:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Bogorm: Das Mazedonische war schon vorher vorhanden, wenngleich es weniger als eigenständige Sprache erkannt worden ist. Aber gleich, dann ist das Wort eben dem Serbokroatischen entlehnt, ist dies leichter als ein Übergang in die mazedonische Mundart des Bulgarischen und dann ins Bulgarische? Ich verwahre mich gegen die Unterstellung, daß es ein ur- oder auch nur gemeinslawisches *pluta gegeben habe. Wie Snoj feststellt und ich herübertragen habe, ist das slowenische plúta im 18. Jahrhundert aus dem Kroatischen entlehnt worden (bis zum Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts sprach man in Kroatien plȕta, neuerdings plȕto). Wenn dies so ist, dann ist das Wort nach urslawischer Zeit neugebildet worden und alle Wörter sind Entlehnungen oder Lehnübersetzungen außer einem neugebildeten, dem serbokroatischen eben, da das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung ist und die mazedonische Standardsprache ohnehin halb und halb dem Serbokroatischen nachgeahmt ist. Ebenso wie Serbokroatisch сладолед in alle anderen südslawischen Sprachen entlehnt worden ist. Eine urslawische Bezeichnung für den Kork gab es nicht. Fay Freak (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Bogorm: Das bulgarische Wörterbuch hat für das Wort Belege nicht älter als aus dem neunzehnten Jahrhundert, oder hast du bessere Belege für das Wort? Zu diesem Zeitpunkte kann man doch wohl einen mazedonischen Lekt erkennen, ob man ihn nun Mazedonisch oder Vardarisch nennt? Und die nicht diesem Lekt zugehörige damalige bulgarische Sprache kann Ausdrücke demselben entlehnen? Dafür kommt es doch nicht darauf an, ob etwas eine Sprache ist oder eine Mundart oder eine Sondergruppensprache. Auch ein einzelner Mensch kann von einem anderen Einzelmenschen entlehnen, ein Schriftsteller von einem anderen. Dergleichen wie “There's no thing as borrowing from Algerian Arabic [into Moroccan Arabic] since that whole region is a dialectal continuum” ist nur eine kollektivistische Sprachregelung, die davon abhält, über den Weg des Wortes zu reden. Fay Freak (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Tja, schade, daß wir über die nordmazedonische Mundart nicht übereinkommen. Aber im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch findest Du sie (mit dieser Bezeichnung) nicht, sondern mit der regionalen Bezeichnung, d. h. mit der Erwähnung der Stadt, in deren Umgebung ein Wort vorkommt(z. B. Щип, Охрид usw.). In zwei Punkten widersprichst Du aber dem Artikel aus dem Wörterbuch, zum einen, daß es das Urslawische Substantiv nicht gegeben habe (schon gut, ich kann es aus der Etymologie entfernen und als Ergebnis wird stehen, daß das Wort aus dem urslawischen Verb mit der Substantivierung -ta gebildet wurde), und zum anderen, daß alle Entlehnungen aus dem Serbokroatischen seien. Im Wörterbuch wird ausdrücklich erklärt, daß das rumänische Wort eine Entlehnung aus dem Bulgarischen ist (steht auch im Artikel hier, wobei ich rumänische Lemmata in der Regel nicht bearbeite, also stammt von jemand anderem). Eine Entlehnung aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische wird nicht erwähnt.
Плуто wird jedoch im Wörterbuch als Nebenform mit einer Abkürzung angeführt und Du schriebst soeben, daß es auch in Kroatien zu finden ist? Im östlichen Teil des Serbokroatischen also nicht? Im Bulgarischen doch. Könnte das darauf hindeuten, daß es ein urslawisches Wort gab mit einer Nebenform auf -o, die im östlichen Teil des Serbokroatischen nicht vorhanden ist? Ist nur eine Vermutung. Fay Freak, ich finde diese Aussage: "das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung" verblüffend. Wie kommst Du darauf? Die bulgarische Sprache wurde vor 1913 von Ohrid bis Tultscha und im Südosten bis zur Linie Media-Rhaedestus (als Grenze vorgeschlagen am Ende des Balkankrieges während der Friedensverhandlungen) gesprochen (kein geringes Areal).
Das Lekt, wie Du es nennst, wird in der bulgarischen Sprachwissenschaft meist als südwestliche bulgarische Dialekte der jeweiligen Städte (Щип, Скопие usw.) betrachtet, die mit nordwestlichen oder nordöstlichen oder südöstlichen als ebenbürtig (ebenbürtige bulgarische Dialekte) angesehen werden.
(Und die nicht diesem Lekt zugehörige damalige bulgarische Sprache) Das finde ich als Bulgare hinsichtlich des gerade ausgelegten Standpunktes der bulgarischen Sprachwissenschaft (über die Ebenbürtigkeit der bulgarischen Dialekte, inklusive der südwestlichen) auch verblüffend. Fay Freak, wird das in einer deutschen gedruckten Ausgabe so behauptet? Wie bist Du darauf gekommen? Bogormconverſation12:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Fay Freak, Du hast gerade (11:32 UTC) die nordmazedonische angebliche Herkunft wiederhergestellt und mit keiner Quelle versehen. Ich habe Dir gerade vorgeschlagen, als Etymologie From Proto-Slavic *pluti with the substantivising suffix -ta zu schreiben. Hast Du etwas dagegen zu beanstanden und wenn ja, aus welchem Grund (mit welchem Beleg)? Bogormconverſation12:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Bogorm: Du haderst offenbar mit dem genauen Lesen ebenso wie mit dem unabhängigen Lesen. Zum einen habe ich über das rumänische Wort gar nicht gesprochen (es hat auch nicht in Frage gestanden, was der unmittelbare Ursprung des rumänischen Wortes sei), zum Anderen schrieb ich »das bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung« und nicht »das Bulgarische doch nur von beschränkter Verbreitung«. Das bulgarische Wort, nicht die bulgarische Sprache! Die Groß- und Kleinschreibung ist wichtig. Ich hab nun wieder in das Bulgarische Etymologische Wörterbuch geschaut und siehe da, genannt sind vor allem Orte in Mazedonien (Щип, Охрид nennst du …), einige an der rumänischen Grenze und sogar das Banat (also Serbien?), insgesamt jedoch einige kleine Orte. Da der Balkan eben balkanisiert ist und es überall Sprachinseln gibt oder vor allem gab wo jede Sprache auf jede treffen kann, ist aber entscheidend nicht nur die Verbreitung im wörtlichen Sinne, also die Entfernung, auf die sich das Wort findet, sondern die Dichte, die Häufigkeit, in der sich das Wort antrifft. Und da siehst du, daß sich im Standardbulgarischen das Wort schwerlich auffinden läßt – eben weil es der bulgarischen Sprache fremd ist, ist der natürliche Schluß. Das Vorhandensein von Nebenformen, übrigens, wird eher als Argument benutzt, um eine Entlehnung zu untermauern (so wie in unseren altgriechischen Einträgen immer so etwas steht wie »the presence of variants points to a Pre-Greek origin«, und arabische Entlehnung aus dem aramäischen hat Fraenkel oft so begründet, und ich habe die aramäischen Lehnwörter im Arabischen abgearbeitet und kann die Richtigkeit bestätigen).
Und was von der Ebenbürtigkeit? Du hast es nicht beantwortet, ob es falsch wäre, es so zu sehen, daß ein Wort über mehrere Dialekte entlehnt wird. Worüber übereinkommen? Es ist für diese Angelegenheit wumpe, ob das Mazedonische eine Sprache ist oder nicht oder war oder nicht. Der Punkt ist (es sind nicht zwei Punkte), das Wort hat an einem Orte (doch nicht gleichläufig an verschiedenen Orten!) seinen Anfang genommen und ist in der frühen Neuzeit überallhin entlehnt worden; das gilt für dieses Wort wie für Deutsch Kork (17. Jahrhundert), Englisch cork, Arabisch فِلِّين(fillīn) (kommt in der altklassischen Sprache nicht vor) und fast alle anderen Wörter in den Übersetzungen unter cork. Es ist daher auch irreführend zu schreiben “from Proto-Slavic *pluti”. Am Einfachsten ist es, anzunehmen, daß das Wort im Serbokroatischen seinen Ursprung genommen hat. Denkbar wäre auch Ursprung in mazedonischen Dialekten, doch das hieße wiederum, das bulgarische Wort ist aus dem Mazedonischen entlehnt, und das serbokroatische Wort wäre dem mazedonischen entlehnt, und Entlehnungen aus dem Mazedonischen ins Serbokroatischen kommen kaum je vor, und der Protest wäre bei dieser Annahme noch größer.
Sei vorsichtig mit rekonstruierten Wörtern, die du irgendwo liest. Einträge solcher Wörter bei Wiktionary sind schon oft gelöscht worden, wenn gleich sich ein Sprachwissenschaftler entblödet hat, eine Rekonstruktion anzusetzen. Die bezahlten und gedruckten Sprachwissenschaftler gehen genauso vor wie die Wiktionary-Autoren, die türkische Lehnwörter als Urslawisch ausgeben (auf *bъzъ hat sich ein Landsmann von dir ein urslawisches *ľuľakъ eingebildet, ich erinnere). In den gedruckten Quellen ist eben nicht alles richtig und nicht alles wird erwähnt. Fay Freak (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Fay Freak, ich muß zugeben, daß ich die von Dir zitierte Kleinschreibung übersehen habe, aber allem Anschein nach hast Du auch meine Frage übersehen, welche Quelle Du für die Entlehnung aus dem *(Nordwest)Mazedonischen ins Bulgarische hast. Ich werde das demzufolge aus dem Artikel entfernen und vorerst das Serbokroatische beibehalten, wenngleich Petar Skok in seinem Wörterbuch (Standardwerk Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika) keine Entlehnungen dieses Substantivs in andere slawische Sprachen erwähnt. Skok selbst verwendet jedoch dieses Substantiv als Maskulin, plut. Aber wenn nicht Skok, welche Quelle hast Du für die Entlehnung dieses Wortes aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische? Es existieren zumindest Entlehnungen aus dem Serbokroatischen ins Bulgarische (im Unterschied zur anderen Version, die wir gerade besprochen haben). Es ist vollkommen nachvollziehbar, warum eine alte Sprache wie die Serbokroatische keine Entlehnungen aus einer als Sprache erst vor 80 Jahren ausgerufenen Mundart kennt (eben deshalb würde der Widerstand groß sein, weil das unhaltbar ist), aber das war nicht unser Thema.
(sogar das Banat (also Serbien?)) Im Wörterbuch werden nicht beliebige Orte auf der Balkanhalbinsel genannt, sondern nur Orte, wo Bulgaren oder bulgarische Minderheiten wohnen. Im diesem Fall sind das die Banater Bulgaren.
(Am Einfachsten ist es, anzunehmen, daß das Wort im Serbokroatischen seinen Ursprung genommen hat.) Dann möge diese Annahme von Dir vorerst im Artikel stehen (da Du sie in Anlehnung an сладолед aufstellst, aber Anlehnung (Präzedenz) für die andere Variante gibt es keine, zumal alle im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch aufgezählten bulgarischen Städte weit entfernt von der nordmazedonischen Grenze liegen, die Mehrheit in Oblast Widin), aber ich möchte abermals hervorheben, daß eine Quelle dafür, ein Beleg dem Artikel (und auch dieser Diskussion) zugutekommen würde. Im Bulgarischen Etymologischen Wörterbuch wird sie nicht erwähnt, in Skoks Etymologischem Wörterbuch des Serbokroatischen ebenso wenig. Bogormconverſation15:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: It’s not pretty far-fetched and the Persian forms do not fit – some authors even called the origin unknown because the Persian is too far while they did not know the Kurdish form. (And the ultimate Iranian origin of the word family is of course assumed without question.) In the case of گله(gülle), I am sure that the Arabic word, widespread is in Syria (dialect map linked in كلة(gulle) for the meaning “marble”), is from Kurdish and so is the Ottoman. The word tuman is not and never was part of Standard Turkish but is only (still) used in some areas you might list further so this is not a learned borrowing either but it appears to be from close contact. And some words must be from Kurdish, right, with its so many speakers and it being actually between Turkish and Persian? Else we should ask what @Raxshaan knows more about Iranian forms of this trouser-word, but those other Iranian languages are much smaller. What I have lets me seem Kurdish origin more likely than Persian origin, and there aren’t options really other than deeming one or the other Iranian word the origin of the Turkish and Azerbaijani word or resignating. Or what, Persian → Azerbaijani → Turkish → Kurdish? Shouldn’t be such a brain-scratcher. (We can’t reach certainty however, as we lack data what happened some centuries ago in traditional costume affairs in the Near East, that is also certain.) Fay Freak (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Mere surmise, sir. Instead of claiming the unlikely Kurdish origin, it's more plausible to posit separate borrowings from Persian → Turkish, Persian → Azerbaijani, Persian → Kurdish.
If you want a more specific explanation (which is of course equally speculative but still more plausable) , I would suggest Fa. tôbân > Ott, Az tuman > Ku. Tûman. Armenian tumban must have been borrowed separately from the later Persian form. At least in western Oghuz variaties, especially in its Eastern dialects, b > m is a common thing. I don't know about Kurdish, though.
Are all Iranian words in Chagatay from Persian? Revealingly Budagov also sees the word as not »изъ пер.« but also »въ пер.«, so cognate. Also, I wonder if such a word can pass Azerbaijani or perhaps Turkmen → Chagatay. There were Chagatay borrowings in Anatolian Turkish from the beginning, as I am informed, and there could be the opposite, about which I am less informed. And with clothing terms always such strange things happen. We have فراجه(ferece, ferace) of such a path, and if these sound changes b → m and ō → u are typically Oghuz then it is a stronger argument why the Chagatay word is from Oghuz. Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
b → m I do know, but for Persianبیشه(bēša) against Tr.-Az. میشه(meşə) as for Tr. منكشه(menekşe) against Persianبنفشه(banafše) this has been an argument for borrowing from another Iranian form, or wasn’t there really a “by-form *manafšak” which the Middle Persianwnpšk'(wanafšag) claims if this variation is Turkic? – on the other hand these may all be examples that the variation was there in oldest Anatolian Turkish. And there is also the ō → Turkic u to ponder, although there are also such variations within Turkic, the varying vocalism in طورغای(turgay, torgay) is comparable, and I find just in my recent entries قونداق(kundak, kondak), بولا(bola, bula), طومار(tumar, tomar) and what not (ignoring some which have o→u in posterior syllables like the descendants of شببوی(šab-bôy) and پاپوش(pâ-pôš) since o and ö in following position are generally disallowed in Turkish so there is a natural tendency to oust o there), though I wonder why Turkic usually stalwartly preserves the Classical Persian vowels and consonantism and sometimes not? Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of "forms not matching", have a look at the Persian etymon of xəlbir. Virtually every listed descended form is metathesized, which quite unambiguously points toward an Azerbaijani intermediary. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Linking غِرْبَال(ḡirbāl). So you would say most of these -lb- forms are from Azerbaijani (“Azerbaijani intermediary”)? Well, here is an Anatolian → Chagatay and Kipchak borrowing detected then I guess. Fay Freak (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey there! About "reconstructed" template. The thing is that the word is attested in Sahidic and Lycopolitan dialects. But the Bohairic form can be reconstructed quite confidently based on toponymy and cognate words. How do i represent that? — This unsigned comment was added by ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk • contribs) at 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC).Reply
@ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ: By writing it explicitly in the etymology section how it is attested. (If encountered in toponymy maybe it even is attested?)
If that Bohairic form is unattested you would only link it with a star prefixed, right? Because that’s how one mentions reconstructed forms and one also links like that on Wiktionary, compare any mention of a Proto-Semitic or Proto-Slavic term. And if you link it with a star the link automatically goes into the reconstruction namespace, where you can create the entry. You can as well star in {{alter}}.
Do use Crum’s Coptic dictionary with seeing the original pagination? If yes, pray use the |page= / |pages= parameters when referencing using the template {{R:cop:Crum}} so a scan of the page or pages in question is linked. I did not seek out the page and assumed that the term is attested and not reconstructed if it is supposedly included in such a dictionary. Everything other than the usage of {{reconstructed}} let it appear like the term were attested. The main issues are to star and to use the reconstruction namespace. Fay Freak (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Fay Freak, I recently pinged you on my talk page regarding a debate between me and another Wiktionarian on accents in Albanian entries. Just checking - did you see it? I would appreciate some help/insight, as I am admittedly not experienced with the wider Wiktionary world of proposals and etc. Thank you in advance! ArbDardh (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: ✅. I have included the separation, I see now that these are two stems with a known suffix while Persian got its word from the former stem with a known Persian suffix. Fay Freak (talk)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It may seem like nothing happens when you do something like this, but you're cutting off at the knees any instance of {{desctree}} that links to that entry. Please check "What links here" and update the desctrees so grumpy people like me won't be whining on your talk page... Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ah, yes, good you found it; my edit was correct, there was just an additional edit needed at Persian قمه, which contained a desctree entry which should not have been present in the first place since Modern Turkish entries rarely should have descendants nor does it seem like Persian is the source of the word (and else the page was bad for including descendants multiple times), so that that {{desctree}} use was unexpected. I often look into “what links here” but this Latin spelling kama has 100 pages linking for various reasons. Fay Freak (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I saw your comment about the spelling of bomboclaat. (Well, actually, you edited bumboclaat, but that's okay.) I smiled when I saw the comment. Don't worry. It's not such a big deal. There isn't any standardised spelling system for Patwa / Jamaican Creole words. The main university in Jamaica is trying to get one going. But it isn't in widespread use. I'm partial to the spelling bomboclaat because that's the version I saw most often growing up in Kingston. But, as I said, it isn't such a big deal :-)
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Fay — I hope you'll be back from your wikibreak soon. I'm a bit confused by this etymology, as the range of meanings in Lane don't seem to match the Swahili perfectly, but I am willing to attribute that to some Omani influence (and I can't find it in the Omani sources, although I do sometimes find it hard to search in Reinhardt). But I am also troubled by the shape of the imperative, where one should expect raḍ as ancestral to the Swahili form, and wondering whether I'm missing something obvious. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds07:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I've altered the entry significantly because I think the attributive use is of the noun and the term's usage doesn't meet any of the other tests for adjectivity: there is probably no predicate use, nor modification by too or very, nor gradability in general, nor comparability. If you hate it, revert and I'll try RfD for the adjective PoS. DCDuring (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring:: No, you are right, it is like with bluetail, I just didn’t think about what was already on the page and wanted to note that there is a noun and that it particularly often stands for the dolphin, not thinking far enough to reach the conclusion that the rest also falls under the noun. Your usex is also very good. Fay Freak (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I really should have taken this through RfD. It may be that the attributive use preceded the noun use, which would mean we should have both PoSes. DCDuring (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring: Non sequitur. One can think of a noun, or noun-sense (e.g. Persianخر(xar, “ass”) meaning “big” because of an ass-load, but obviously not an adjective), which is only used attributively or in compound. Even though they do not stand alone “as noun”, which is similar to the ontological status of affixes.
We may look for enlightenment on other Germanic languages, or even the ancestors of Modern English, whereby it is formally clear that such is not an adjective, which is why Germans don’t fancy adding such “adjective” entries, because they have the comparison for how the grammar is. Although they rather reckon that bluetail and whitebelly are respectively an adjective plus a noun which should be enough, SOPish, which is why other English dictionaries also omit such “words” barring the standalone nouns. They are “words” just in the senses “anything which is written between spaces and hence somebody might look them up i.e. lexemes understood as what is entryworthy, deserves lexicographic treatment”. Which means I acknowledge the use of such lines entered into a dictionary, but I think no matter how you turn them about they are “impure” and they, being something between nouns and adjectives and prefixes, fall out of the accepted part of speech dogmatics – which differ by tradition instead of being universally fit, noting that one cannot translate our treatises about lexical and syntactic units one to one into Arabic, mentioning only اِسْم(ism); and a strange thing here is that we mandatorily sort under syntactic units while why document lexical units. That’s the snag! Fay Freak (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Vox Sciurorum: Obviously it is Kausalität und Finalität. It’s unmistakeable and the letter is correctly and distinctly set K. Note that crook on top going to the right, and compare the lettershapes in gebrochene handwriting (→ Kurrentschrift), better also write it, a crown as opposed to the left-facing bow of the R. Fay Freak (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the explanation. I am sometimes asked to read a handwritten letter from an older person sent to a younger person who never learned cursive. It might as well be Fraktur to them. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
@BD2412: You are referring to what I said at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § Ludgate Hill (change links when moved). The statement about its commonness is correct. What the appropriate treatment is I know not, and why we would want an entry at all. People would hardly find any information provided by Wiktionary on it useful. Hence I said Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § Moscow (2): “I support a regularly running a bot creating entries for every dot on the map at least to a certain level of detail”, naming “community, city district, named body of water, forest or castle, vel sim.” I also said: “I do not support such general inclusion of street names because this would introduce names of individuals through the back door, on the other hand they are just repetitive numbers in the United States and we have reasonable policies concerning the exclusion of numbers, and because it is too much data sizewise, out of the scope of this project.” Fay Freak (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
``Undo revision 61363073 by Alireza9992 (talk) Terrible formatting, and likely untrue. How can a Persian word by reinforced by a Middle Persian one? Few ever read Pehlevi after its extinction. And bridal gowns being white is a Western European norm, meseems, so the semantics are unexplained.``
My answer:
Salām. Firstly I am happy to have made your acquaintance.
Please read my link inserted blow: Talk:عروس
Plus, as you see the Middle Persian word did perfectly survive into New Persian, in modern Persian is most used to denote "a White Horse" but in Classical New Persian, it's preserved its semantic as an adjective meaning "white". In various Lori and Bakhtiyari dialects of Persian the word is still preserved as "white" especially in Bakhtiyari dialect, but in other dialects, it has undergone a semantic deviation and means "a white-forehead ship". So yeah, it's a theory and isn't that unworthy, to not even be read.
Thanks. Alireza9992 (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I found the Middle Persian equivalent of this word in Pahlavica (find it in the references of the word) but I cannot copy-paste the book pahlavi. Is there a way? — This unsigned comment was added by Mazsch (talk • contribs) at 20:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Mazsch: No, because Book Pahlavi has no Unicode code points, and it is uncertain when it will be encoded due to the indistinctness of the Pahlavi writing. For this reason there are no entries in it here but many in Latin transcription. We add script requests [Book Pahlavi needed] in the hope that in a distant future somebody will finally have the code points and leisure to fulfil Book Pahlavi requests. Currently it is impossible in spite of there being requests. Fay Freak (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Just wondering what the reasoning behind the removal of any references to cognates is in the latin section for lacrima? I had found it a useful mention, but don't know that etymology enough to puzzle out why it was removed without comment. --Kirageous (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Kirageous: I cut at the first blue link – there is a page of a reconstructed ancestor providing the same. In a sense that can be applied coherently, these mentions are therefore not useful because their function is fulfilled already. So it seemed useful to you but in a different, relevant sense it is not useful, and for reasons some of which are outlined in the discussion linked it is harmful. Fay Freak (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
As for the name for Georgians in Classical Arabic, it is كرج (which I assume is pronounced "karj", though I am not sure). You can read an interesting, sentimental tale about the Battle of Garni between Queen Rusudan of Georgia and the steadfast believers led by the heroized Muslim sultan, Shah Jalal ad-Din, in Ibn al-Aṯīr's histories here. (Unsurprisingly, Ibn al-Aṯīr does not mention her name, simply scornfully referring to the ruler of the Krj as "a woman".)
However, I know neither the origins of that designation nor whether there were other ones to refer to that "race", but the modern term, جورجيا, is most likely a borrowing from English, given its form. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams: Good to know; I now see it is a known word used in historical books. The vocalization and etymology lies bare quick to me. It is vocalized كُرْج(kurj) and borrowed specifically from Neo-Persianگرج(gurj), because in Middle Iranian the first consonant was /w/, as in earlier-borrowed وَرْد(ward) against Persianگل(gul, “rose”), in گرگ(gurg, “wolf”) etc. This is also in TurkishGürcü / Azerbaijanigürcü(“Georgian”).
The Old East Slavic гурзи(gurzi, “Georgians”) → Russianгрузи́н(gruzín) cannot be earlier either. I don’t know now whether the other Slavic words are inherited from Late Common Slavic or borrowed from (Old) Russian somewhen – etymological dictionaries omit such words. Neither {{R:pl:Boryś}} nor {{R:sl:SES}} nor {{R:sl:Bezlaj}} nor {{R:bg:RBE}} contains something about it, even {{R:sla:ESSJa}} omits it though often containing reconstructions of terms that didn’t really exist in Proto-Slavic. But I tend to assume it is all a recent borrowing, if they do not even find mention necessary, as many such professors restrict themselves to older things to appear more important, and GermanGrusien is an obvious borrowing from Russian, although one wonders whether nobody in Slovenia and Poland and even Bulgaria knew about the country before Russians recounted them. For some absurd reason {{R:DWDS}} does not know the word Georgien and nothing from Pfeifer for Georgier which is from the country name only I believe.
So the question is still not covered by Wiktionary were all these terms in European languages come from. How can it really be that the etymology of the English Georgia is unknown? The names in European languages must have spread in a known fashion. The name does not exist in pre-Boethius Latin however. I am going to post to WT:Etymology scriptorium. Fay Freak (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Thanks! I could not find an Arabic text that vocalizes the word, which is why I hesitated to create an Arabic entry. I have now added it and also fixed the vocalization of all the mentions of the Arabic word here. Roger.M.Williams (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Roger.M.Williams: Thanks. I wrote down the reasonings for all meanwhile and got the idea to look into the OED, which omits the country names Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, but contains the English adjective derivations in -an. There I read, transcribed, that in the 9th century one wrote in Arabic جُرْزَان(jurzān), derived from them by “Sassanian Pahlavi wročān or wirōzān (written wlwc’an)”, meaning “a smaller area in central Georgia”; the Pahlavi detail is now irrelevant to us except to illustrate where the ending -ān comes from (I recently talked about č → z in Semitic), for only people who want to check if and how Wiktionary’s Middle Persian links and entries are attested need to deal with it and those people are far due to the lacking success in the encoding of Book Pahlavi in Unicode; there is also Persianگرجان(gurjān, “Georgia”); however the Arabic form: one also uses much جُرْجَان(jurjān) and جَرْجَان(jarjān) – both are given but you do not need to believe in all equally; here do not confuse with the city of Gurgān in Iran from which some personal names and titles of books come. It is the source of theMedieval LatinGeorgania. This is again closer to the “English” form, and, though still the plene spelling of the first vowel and the -iyā, as well as the considerations about the spread of the country name later in Europe itself from Russian because nobody knew the country, reveal European origin, I wonder what could be the motivation to borrow the country’s name specifically from English and not for example Italian or Venetian or perhaps even an analogical -iyā formation after a Turkish borrowing – many country names in Arabic come from Turkish. I mean, بُلْغَارِيَا(bulḡāriyā) is not from English either, right? What did the Arabs do? They probably artificially glued the ending -iyā unto بُلْغَار(bulḡār), when Arabs became internationalized and learnt via diplomacy about country names in European languages, considering that such names weren’t too uncommon before (e.g. أَلْمَانِيَا(ʔalmāniyā) is apparently a rather ancient country name, whereas نِمْسَا(nimsā) is already after the pattern) and it was thus convenient. Fay Freak (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Thanks for the links! I did read about the variant جرجان before (which I assume to be from Persian and which is formally like the English), but I never actually found an attestation, as all the references I came across, like the one I linked earlier (Ibn al-Aṯīr's story), employ كرج instead. Interestingly, it appears to be another name for the "race", not the region itself, since it shows up in that book in the construction بلاد الجرجان(“the lands of the Jarjān”), and so an analogous formation with -iyā (like that of بلغاريا) would instead yield *جرجانيا, not جورجيا, whence the modern Arabic ethnonym, جورجيّون, derives.
As you have said, the form جورجيا is most likely a European borrowing. I still think that it is directly from English, but I have reworded the etymology to reflect this obscurity you have demonstrated. I also added an entry for جَرْجَان(jarjān) and referenced it elsewhere. Thanks again! Roger.M.Williams (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Good night. May I ask you if you have a biological education? I noticed that you assign precise Latin names to forms that are often used in everyday life. For me personally, this causes bad feelings and anxiety. Gnosandes (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I haven’t. Taxonomical information is now just too readily accessible not to be availed of. These lineages make it easier to sort vocabulary in mind as well as in the written dictionary. It helps that one knows Latin. Fay Freak (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
But how does this relate to comparative historical linguistics? What you are doing is very dangerous. The semantics differ from dialect to dialect. So you also assign this to the Proto-Slavic, which was even accentologically heterogeneous. Gnosandes (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes: Because it must have meant aught. If you say a vernacular name then you also assign something. If you just say “rush”, then I have to think the genus or family behind it. If you say “sedge” then one thinks different organisms. The page has not said it exclusively means that and not something broader. Such words often just have a range of things they denoted, some more and some less likely back then already; here since much under Poales is very similar and comparable. This range we can pinpoint a bit with that many descendants. There is some quintessence to describe, not an unrelated chaos. Your accents are overrated – were they used to distinguish species? Hardly workable. Fay Freak (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is exactly what should mean something, but not in Latin (strictly scientific) terms, which denote the specific. We will never be able to determine this. This is very obvious. I am only against the use of Latin terms. Gnosandes (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Gnosandes But why, if all descendants mean this genus? Strictly scientifically we are confident that the ancestor meant that. You won’t deny it meant it? That something also meant other things is always a possibility, with words in general and with many plant names. The definitions are often types, meaning: It meant X and it was also a word extended for other things. Fay Freak (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Finland, 1893. I only see confusion here. No, we can't be sure that this is exactly the plant we assume. For example, we do not know what this meant in various dialects of the phantom Old East Slavic, etc. As far as I know, this is done with {{topics|cau-tsz-pro|Mammals}}, for example. But not the way you do it. I can deny this with caution. For the Balto-Slavic community lived with the help of slash-and-burn agriculture, and, therefore, moved from one place to another place. Gnosandes (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hallo Fay Freak, ich bin schon des öfteren über deine Einträge zu semitischer Etymologie gestolpert. Wow! Das ist großartig. Deshalb mal ein herzliches Dankeschön für deine Arbeit!! Hat mir schon einigemale sehr weitergeholfen. --2001:16B8:244A:7601:94F7:CC51:7B7D:A4C709:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Hello. Why do you prefer to use level 5 headings in Arabic entries? That is not the norm. In entries with multiple etymologies, a level 4 heading is used under an etymology section. Thanks. -⸘- dictātor·mundī19:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: It is the norm to put POS headings under numbered etymology sections and not sequentially after them, and the norm to put inflection tables under POS headings. I am sure I comply with the entry layout norms. Fay Freak (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay: That layout seems to be deprecated now; it was formerly used but now most editors use a level 4 heading below an etymology section for entries having multiple etymologies. -⸘- dictātor·mundī 07:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. And the EL often contains unupdated stuff. -⸘- dictātor·mundī07:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
You must never again go near that book. It calls itself proudly The Etymological dictionary of Azerbaijani, but all it is, really, is just a collection of the author's assosiations. Nothing to do with etymology or lexicography or science in general. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: Good to know. It seems like there is no etymological dictionary of Azerbaijani (no hits except this for Azərbaycan dilinin etimologiya lüğəti or этимологический словарь азербайджанского etc.), like none of Arabic, though Turkish have many. Fay Freak (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: The shoddiest “etymological dictionaries” however are the flagships of Hungary right next, I observe. I already knew that two thirds of the Hungarian lexicon is of unknown origin, but it unveiled that the reason for it to a considerable part lies in outright rejection of science or accuracy in principle. Their only virtue lies in citations even if their are wrong, a mere hull of investigation. There is little to doubt that a Bot-Jagwar (talk • contribs) could write better associations than many actual laureate Hungarian language scholars. Fay Freak (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
What did you mean by "Compare Old Armenian մրգուզ (mrguz, “base, mean; obscure”), perhaps together with it from a Semitic term belonging to the root ر ج س (r-j-s) related to filth, disgrace – the Semites providing the pettifoggers like in the modern world." in your etymology at murgiso? I've taken the liberties of removing the part that, to me, seems like a derogatory remark towards an ethnic group.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
It should help people to imagine, for the point that certain occupations, in antiquity more than today (in the Middle East and the West) were performed by certain ethnic groups or considered to be so – which is enough for such a derogatory word or sense vaguely related to an ethnos to develop. But now it seemed less illustrative and more superfluous than I thought, and the vocabulary that came me to mind wasn’t the greatest. That had been before the Wu flu. I don’t know who is jewing whom anymore. Fay Freak (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay: Are you aware that this is accessible via institutional IP (university VPN) at De Gruyter? If not, then I note that I need a lecture about how I can, on Linux, inspect PDFs to see whether such a PDF contains watermarks (my PDFs don’t even, which makes it even more suspicious and interesting) and cut them out (how do the real pirates? If one searches such things one only finds spam). A fifth volume on toponyms is upcoming in 2022, so you would have to get it later. Fay Freak (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Austronesier: Yeah, you expressed well what the difference or meaning is that one writes separate, this guy really clings to the Duden. So far dodging the issue with the stress and why Wiktionarians cannot help but reckon dead in dead serious an adverb but the same word in todernst would be a “prefix”, making a “derivation” of “one word” as opposed to two, which is in this light manifestly arbitrary as well as imparsimonious, begging the question by assuming in the definitions that everything that is a “word” in his particular sense needs to be included, though it is not clear that WT:COALMINE invokes these very distinctions. That this would be a derivation or composition of a new word is what I have thus denied, with appealing corollaries about what should be included. Fay Freak (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. Regarding your edit summary: this isn't a word I'm really familiar with. I suppose it can be any strap around the wrist. I don't know about weightlifting. Why are they used there? Is a weightlifting wriststrap somehow not "a strap around the wrist"? Equinox◑03:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: Well, you might know that in powerlifting there is equipped and unequipped one. It is details of physics why those implements make a difference, and I am not yet at that point that equipment would pay for me to describe it first-hand, nor do I walk around with a camera, but you may see that the records for equipped lifts are distinct for the difference they do make (the leagues also differ in how much equipment they allow, beside the doping they allow or prohibit, so this sport is of a confusing landscape). For their having their niches of idiomaticity, it is yet left to us to go down the rabbithole to see what teguments need their names added and/or defined on Wiktionary. What I merely saw is that in image-searches, and in the German language, they appear different—perhaps there are even more different types of “wrist-straps” than these two, which is but one dilemma I have exposed. As long as the user-groups do not overlap, one may well use the same term for distinct things, and to the lexicographer one leaves the work of expressing the distinctions that have hitherto been inarticulate. Fay Freak (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't understand why you speak so oddly. It's as though you want to sound intellectual and formal, but you just sound confusing and strange to native English speakers. I wish you would consider using everyday modern English, to help us understand you. So, anyway: there might be a difference between doing sports with or without a wrist strap, but I don't think that means there are two different senses of "wrist strap". Thanks for considering. Equinox◑02:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Inqilābī: I don’t think anyone should teach any language, if it is widely available on the internet. Teaching at large is a scheme, fostering and fostered by hivemind. Idiomaticity is also hivemind, it is proven that people tend to be more reasonable when employing a foreign language.
Fitness as it is practiced of course too, people repeat things without knowing exactly wherefor. That said, from the contexts this day I have come to understand the general environment when wriststraps are used (the extremes as for powerlifting records not sufficing their description), e.g. they say about dumbbell rows “the grip will be a limiting factor here, so wear lifting straps if you’re looking to target the back”, and if you know the strength differences between the muscles and tendons and joints of the hands and the lower and upper arms this is telling (while hamplanets with cameras often only vaguely understand the use of their equipment), so I have redefined it. Fay Freak (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hey man I'm not the greatest fan of Britain's colonial history either. But you know very well there's a difference between everyday Indian English (my favourite is "alphabet" meaning "a letter", and there is nothing wrong with this unless you move to Europe) and show-offy babuism. Equinox◑22:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there Fay Freak! I've made quite a few Arabic Wiktionary entries lately; I created these in the course of collaborating on an edition and translation of the poems of the tenth-century poet Abū Abdallāh al-Ḥusayn ibn Aḥmad al-Mughallis, basically creating entries wherever I found a word of al-Mughallis's wasn't in Wiktionary. I've been very grateful for your help and corrections as I've made these edits and would like to thank you in the published version. Would you like to be thanked under your username or your real name? If the latter, you're welcome to tell me that at [email protected] rather than here if you like. Either way, thanks here from me for your hard work! Alarichall (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This inventions of yours is not very successful. An Azerbaijani word that is borrowed from Ottoman where it was derived from Arabic roots is not a "pseudo-arabism" - it's just that, a word borrowed from Ottoman. A pseudo-term is when people use a word that sounds like it's from a certain high-status language, whereas it is actually not. Like фейсконтроль in Russian or any of the examples here [13] Just like telegraph or telephone are not "pseudo-hellenisms" or whatever you would call it. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: It is artificial to assume that if a pseudo-Arabism is borrowed, or even when it is inherited and we split the language, then it loses its property as a pseudo-Arabism, as pseudo-loans are borrowed for their prestige. On the other hand you flinch from owning Azerbaijani terms being borrowed from Ottoman. I am also not convinced that terms like əlqərəz are not taught by Azerbaijani muallims or other smart alecs directly to the Crimean Tatars, although in this case due to the presence in Hindustani it may have been present in Persian. Also that was only three examples I came upon in the night not remembering others that could have made me create the category, so indeed it was not successful. You should come upon other pseudo-Arabisms. Fay Freak (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, but it is indeed artificial (or, rather, comical) to claim that the Azerbaijani word daimi linking to the Arabic دَائِمِيّ(dāʔimiyy) is a "pseudo-Arabism".
"On the other hand you flinch from owning Azerbaijani terms being borrowed from Ottoman." - I do not understand this.
"You should come upon other pseudo-Arabisms." I can't because I don't think there are any 🤷.
@Allahverdi Verdizade: Well, your mileage may vary. I don’t think German Handy is a pseudo-anglicism. Only its spelling is. And why is Ego-Shooter one? Maybe just a compound of a German word and an English one. The same with Castingshow. Twen is just logical. Fotoshooting is not incorrect either but continues English grammar more than English did itself. Oh, and High Snobiety is too humorous. How containern would be a pseudo-anglicism is a mystery. Guess there aren’t pseudo-anglicisms in German. Maybe delete the pseudo-loans category? Fay Freak (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: I have provided substantiation, but you used your own private language definition of pseudo-loan, like “from a certain high-status language”—there is no such things as high-status languages and loans from low-status languages anyway could be pseudo too. In the end it seems a reedition of the “false friends” categories: Terms that look like they exist in another language but they don’t there. Fay Freak (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I have looked at your entry for тенеф and I was wondering what the source for the English translation is because it appears to me to contain a few issues. For example, "нек се чује Задру каменому" is rendered as "Rocky Zadar shall not hear", whereas the original is a third-person optative/imperative and contains no negation. Furthermore, "бијеле му савезаше руке" is translated as "he tied up his white hands", whereas "савезаше" is in the third person plural and ostensibly agrees with "тевабије" in one of the earlier verses which you have not quoted. If it were singular, it would have to be a perfective verb conjugated in the imperfect, but the perfective-imperfect and imperfective-aorist combinations were lost in most Slavic languages long ago and an archaic survival in this song should be regarded with skepticism. According to the same reasoning, "за тенефе коње заведоше" is probably also plural though I am unsure as to what the subject could be. However, I am reading the song with my knowledge of contemporary Serbo-Croatian, so I might be misinterpreting some aspects of this poetic, archaic language which have been lost or reanalysed by now. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Martin123xyz: I don’t use any sources for translations but use my words. The translations were made at 4:40 AM bare sloppily without trying much to read through the contexts to get them done; and if it’s poetry I get it bad no matter which language I translate. I don’t even see then whether it make a difference whether man sees his horses or not …
Translating “савезаше” as singular might appear better due to the context being cut off (for the quote), ultimately/indirectly he tied his hands with тевабије, but at that time I wasn’t even sure if it couldn’t be an imperfect which would have this form in the 3rd person singular, as this verb (савезати instead of свезати) is not current Serbo-Croatian and these poems may have particular dialect features, so that aspects ascribed to verbs might have been understood differently regionally. (Indeed there are many words therein which we miss which I could not investigate all to analyze the whole poem, without losing yet another hour of sleep; creating طُنُب(ṭunub), going from the Arabic etymology on over Turkish and its descendants and quotes, became way longer than I tallied when I took note of this word.)
Thank you for the discussion. I appreciate the effort that you put into translating the songs and I understand that it would have taken a long time to analyze them further, but it remains that your translations are not quite accurate, so I suggest that in future you include requests for verification by native speakers or scholars specializing in historical Serbo-Croatian, in order not to mislead readers. Because I do not feel sufficiently comfortable with my own understanding of the songs and am busy with contributing Macedonian entries, I will add a request for verification to my own modifications. Regarding the tying of the hands, you seem to have misunderstood "тевабије". The verses are as follows:
0035 Кад га виђе Ћуприлијћ везире,
0036 Он призива своје тевабије,
0037 Опколише, те га притискоше,
0038 Бијеле му савезаше руке,
And the meaning is: "when Ћуприлијић the vizier saw him, he called his confederates/cronies/goons (тевабије; contemporary dictionaries give glosses like "pratnja; pristalice, istomišljenici; figurativno: žena i deca, članovi porodice, bliži"); they surrounded him and pressed around him; they tied his white hands". Thus, the vizier's confederates are the one doing the surrounding, pressing and tying, so all three verbs are aorist plurals. This grammar is quite straightforward from the perspective of Modern Serbo-Croatian, and it makes sense in the context, so I don't feel there is any need to assume aspectual differences in the dialect/chronolect in which the song was written. Martin123xyz (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Martin123xyz: I think you meant to use {{attn}} ({{rfv}} is when you think the word does not exist, or {{rfv-sense}} when one or more senses are completely made up, not just inaccurate or rough, and it does not apply to translations of quotes of course). This is also what people who put questionable stresses in Macedonian entries should have used. Fay Freak (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I realize that it is possible to display the category at the bottom, but it would be best to have some warning text in the entry itself, possibly beneath the translations, because a user who wants to read the quotations won't necessarily think to create an account, make hidden categories visible, and then check whether that entry requires attention. Martin123xyz (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I am a relatively new user on Wiktionary, and I have yet to learn how to conduct myself with templates and such. Thus—instead of making denigratingly elitist comments like you did here ([14])—you could simply explain to me how to forego mistakes in the future. I would appreciate an apology from you, dear Fay Freak. --AntiPakhlava (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@AntiPakhlava: you make too many mistakes. I have to clean up after each your edit. Please stick to simple stuff. Don't do etymologies. Don't create Old Armenian entries. Carefully check the meaning based on actual attestations of the word and don't trust unreliable generalist dictionaries like Guyumčean. They are full of fake words which do not pass WT:CFI, and they do not check the meaning. Vahag (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Initially, I did not involve you in this conversation, Mr. Petrosyan, but fair enough: I create new entries because I seek to expand knowledge, and the Wikimedia universe's purpose is to see users co-operate to, ultimately—as I said—expand knowledge. I thank you for your advice, but I object to Wiktionary's morbid elitism. Sad to see such a sentiment imbibing this beautiful community! --AntiPakhlava (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@AntiPakhlava: It’s funny that you bespeak an elitist remark, for it is way off from when I really do an elitist remark. Actually I had a high opinion of you as a newcomer. Writing the etymology of ամպաճ showed that you can make a sense of geography and chronology, even though the result turned out wrong due to the actual attestations of the Armenian word.
But if you use templates in the wiki source code it’s like looking up the purposes of parameters of commands you type in your Linux terminal (you won’t just type in things the meaning of which you know not?): For a newcomer there are documentations to read, so you would learn that {{der}}, {{inh}}, {{bor}} demand langcodes fitting the language section you work in so the categories are right; the same applies for {{head}} of which {{hy-noun}} is a wrapper only categorizing correctly for Modern Armenian entries.
For reference templates, that was a suggestion for your convenience. Just search Category:langname reference templates and in the search function Template:anything to find any reference template. Fay Freak (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Herr de Worde: Es ist das, was ich vom Überblick gesagt habe. Hier sind so wenig genug Leute, daß man alle im Überblick behalten kann, so daß man auch bald weiß, ob jemand eine Sockenpuppe oder alter Bekannter ist. Wenn ich auf »Letzte Änderung« gehe sind die 1000 letzten Änderung vom letzten Dritteltag, dieser Netzauftritt ist also ziemlich »stabil«, während es bei der englischen Wikipedia die letzten zehn Minuten sind. Wenn ich sprachspezifische Änderungen beschnarche, wird es ganz dünn und die letzten Tage sind sichtbar. Es sind immer weniger als zehn, die zu einer Sprache viel machen, siehe auch WT:STATS für den üblichen monatlichen Inhaltszuwachs. Ob jemand deine Übersetzungen gezählt weiß ich jetzt nicht genau, auf irgendwelchen Nutzerseiten habe ich schon Zählungen gesehen, aber hier kann man die Vervollständigung, ob »die Arbeit getan« sei, in die andere Richtung absehen, wenn man weiß, wievieler Einträge ein Wörterbuch bedarf.
Und diese Zahlen sind im allgemeinen nicht dadurch zu begründen, daß Bearbeiter fortgeekelt werden, obwohl es dafür wahrscheinliche Beispiele gibt. Sprachliche Bildung ist ein Herausstellungsmerkmal, denn weder Bildung noch Spracherwerb werden werden von unserem »System« bezielt: Am wichtigsten ist der Zettel, das Credit, das vorübergehende Benchmark, es läuft doch in den Schulen länger als sich je einer erinnern kann wie beim agilen Programmieren: Hauptsache genug zeitliche oder geldliche Mittel einwerfen und immer Kennzahlen abprüfen und dann hat man es, das nennt sich landläufig gebildet. Etwa Computerkenntnisse sind angeblich vorhanden, weil man drei Jahre lang im Informatikkurse in Excel und Java herumgefummelt hat. Dann kommt es so, daß manche nur im Alter einen Überblick über ihre Sprachen haben, daß sie sich auch dazu verhalten können und wollen, und die Masse gar nicht. Kinder kommen hier nicht hin, die werden derweil von der Beschulung mißhandelt, oder bauen sich ihre Spielwelten auf. Irre Sektierer hingegen schon, und melden sich schnell nach deiner Anmeldung, und ihnen keine Beachtung zu schenken geht eben. »Entmisten« ist keine Aufgabe, die einer alleine leisten muß, für so viel Mist braucht es Mehrheiten. Aber daß die Leute fortwährend falschliegen, darauf kann man bei Gelegenheit gerne hinweisen. Eigentlich komme ich hier nur noch für das, was fehlt, indes so viel fehlt 😟 – nicht fürs Ausmisten, ich hab ja den Mist nicht verbockt.
Und nicht für die langweiligsten Sachen, wenn du nur die machst, bist du selber schuld, daß es dir mißfällt – lieber etwa exotische Sprachen als gerade das gewöhnliche Deutsch, so hab ich meine Vokabeln gelernt (Motivation ist, sagt ja auch Jberkel auf deiner Ansprechseite, “etwas zu lernen”); etwa jedenfalls habe ich hier alle arabischen Pflanzen- und Tiernamen durchexerziert und das erste etymologische Wörterbuch der Sprache gibt es obendrein hier auf en.Wiktionary. Fay Freak (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Aha, jetzt weiß ich, wie ein rechter Anarchist tickt ;-)
Ich hatte ja in meinem Einführungstext geschrieben, dass ich nur die Englisch-Deutsch-Übersetzungen machen will. Da bin ich relativ stilsicher und kann "nobel" von "edel" und "vornehm" unterscheiden, was vielen anderen bereits schwerfällt, da sie gewöhnlich mit "endgeil" alles beschreiben können. Damit bin ich quasi durch; hie und da wird noch was gekleckert, wenn ich drüber stolpere, aber ich suche nicht aktiv.
Der Zähler zählt übrigens falsch. Er zählt nur, wie oft man ändert. Das kann also dasselbe Wort sein oder wie häufig bei mir, 5 Bedeutungen einer Vokabel und je zwei Synonyme in einem Rutsch. Somit dürfte ich eher bei 3000 Neueinträgen gelandet sein. Innerhalb von 30 Tagen. Da bleibt zu Hause viel liegen, was wichtiger wäre. Aber manchmal braucht der Kopf kurzfristige Erfolge. Wegen der Hormonausschüttung und so. (Wo kriegt man hier eigentlich die Emojis her?)
Von Tiernamen bin ich erst einmal geheilt, nachdem ich gefühlte 250 Vögelein übersetzt habe. Dem müsste auch ein Riegel vorgeschoben werden, dass jeder, der eine Seite erstellt, gleich einen ganzen Satz Übersetzungsanfragen mit integriert. Ich habe das nur aus Ehrgeiz gemacht und weil ich vermutlich besser recherchieren kann als der Durchschnitt. Aber es war und ist eine Zumutung und man unterstützt wahrscheinlich mit seiner Hilfe anderer Leute Faulheit, denn bei solchen Begriffen braucht es kein Sprachverständnis, sondern "nur" eine Datenbank.
@Herr de Worde: Gibt noch IRC und Discord, wo paar sind, ich aber nicht, denn was ich schreibe, kann sich lesen lassen, und ich will in diesen ganzen Kanälen gar nicht abhängen, zumal da noch alles letztlich gelöscht wird oder hinten verschwindet. Nutzer können auf ihrer Nutzerseite geemailt werden, wenn sie es so eingerichtet haben. Also bei »Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten« stelle ich mir jetzt nur soziale Medien, Messengerdienste und E-Briefe vor.
Seltsame Zeichen gebe ich unmittelbar ein, vermöge einer IME, in Betracht kommen vor allem IBus und Fcitx. Gibt auch Seiten zum Herauskopieren wie Emojipedia. Machst du bißchen Linux, kriegst du auch Hormonausschüttung.
Übersetzungsanfragen werden von mir eingebracht, wenn ich urteile, daß das Tier oder die Sache in der Sprache vorkommt oder sonst bekannt ist. Gewisse Personen verlangen gar nach solchen Anfragen, um nicht nach Einträgen suchen zu müssen, die Übersetzungen ermangeln, deshalb ist insonderheit die finnische Kategorie immer leer. Mußt du so sehen. Fay Freak (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dass bei vielen Vokabeln neben deutschen nur finnische Übersetzungen vorhanden sind, ist mir auch schon aufgefallen. Vielleicht ist da auch jemand nur sehr fleißig und kann vorhandene Hilferufe in der finnischen Kategorie einfach nicht ertragen? 🤔 Herr de Worde (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi! Are you sure about this[15]? Potet is sometimes wildly of the mark, and this appears to be another case. The miraculous loss of final a might still be in the range of irregularities found with borrowings, but the regular correspondences for *R in many languages (especially initial g in Maranao and Berawan[16]) should put Potet's musings to rest. /r/ > /g/ does not happen in borrowings in Maranao. Blust's entries still have much hidden Malay-derived wanderwörter, but his analysis of the distribution of inherited and borrowed descendants of *Ribu looks good to me. –Austronesier (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Austronesier: Forsooth I am not sure and this has reflected in my formulation. I said “late enough to be borrowed” and not “borrowed” in consideration of this skepticism. I respect Potet’s learning in spite of realizing that he is probably an outsider in many respects, but I don’t blindly follow authors anyway.
Large numbers more frequently borrowed, even more recently as small a numeral as “thousand” in the case of Serbo-Croatianхи̏љада / Macedonianилјада(iljada) / Bulgarianхиляда(hiljada). On the other hand I have a specific reason to have a tendency against that theory, the fact that I don’t consider Arabicرِبْوَة(ribwa) a much used word. For completion however I did not hide this derivation and offered it to the reader anyhow. Fay Freak (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree we can give room to alternative interpretations as long as they speculate within normal parameters (as Potet does). Talking about outsiders, Potet is of course much more careful and more knowledgeable of the data than other "outsiders" who have entered the field of historical SE Asian linguistics (if you haven't guessed, I'm talking about Blench and Vovin). I'll add the IMO strong etymology from a non-borrowed proto-form as reconstructed by Blust, and leave Potet's proposal as food for thought. –Austronesier (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
You have to provide the source to the Arabic connection inside the etymology section, with a footnote going to the reference section, and your commentary after it, so it doesn't look like it's your own invention. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: No, I don’t have to, it doesn’t look like it. You just fail to look. Obviously Austronesier hasn’t failed. In fact it would be somewhat misleading to put a footnote since the way I put it is cautiously less strong than in the actual reference, even though I could put a note after the word “borrowed”. Fay Freak (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Are we allowed to edit this list? I have quite a few terms I could add, that I've put in my userspace over the years to save them for the day of Wiktionary's inevitable CFI reform. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
@PseudoSkull: You man are surely invited to edit it, it is only in my userspace because I had no better idea where to put it, I even suspect that the list is meagre without others partaking in adding to it. Fay Freak (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Much wikilove, and in your able hands then, as I am but a regex- and Derksen-assisted freaky dabbler here.
Speaking of which: 1. do take a look also at my Talk:rżeć - so as to link all of them via this "From Proto-Slavic*rъžati" etc., after this scriptorium thread resolves with a consensus. 2. Ta again for that small latoś fix too back then. 3. Pure linguistic chitchat, as you can speak Slavic: this "ś = si" apart, look at this beauty: "-ń", resulting from the yers in PraSla "jъ"s, and now deriving into e.g. valid uń, with my quick pl comments and a sample here: https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dyskusja:-ń#Pozostałość_biernika . (It somehow reminds me of krk#Czech, but let me end these digressions over the morning coffee....)
@ShlomoKatzav: In the Neo-Assyrian Empire, when Akkadian was still a living language, scribes learnt a limited selection of phonograms, which was not the full arsenal of more literary Akkadian, with Sumerian long being defunct as an influence in spelling. I don’t know though how @Sartma knows which exact signs belong to that usage, these are already the particulars when one learns Akkadian. Fay Freak (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ShlomoKatzav, @Fay Freak: To be honest, the syllabary existed since Old Babilonian times. We could rename the Category to "Cuneiform syllabary" or "Basic cuneiform signs"... I used that category because I found it on a couple of entries when I started working on cuneiform signs, so if you think that it would be better called something different, I'm ok with changing it any time. Sartma (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
It is good that the Neo-Assyrian category exists. As I discerned there is a place to invest more work, in order to elaborate the :characters of this category. My idea is to create more true characters which will represent the actual characters of the
Neo-Assyrian period. I'm trying to investigate more this subject.
@ShlomoKatzav The current cuneiform signs are also "true"! :D It's just an older style. The Hammurabi code is written with cuneiform syllabary in the lapidary style. There's nothing "fake" or "false" about the signs you see on Wiktionary! :D Sartma (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dominikmatus: I am repeating myself. No. How hard is it to understand that being written together is not wholly sufficient to warrant inclusion? You also have to find avert superabundance—-que can be added to anything, so you would have to duplicate every dictionary entry with -que. It is like making an entry ievery Czech word. By the way Arabic وَ(wa, “and”) is also written together with the next word, and every preposition consisting of but one character is written together with the next word in Arabic. On the other hand Romans wrote scriptio continua. Fay Freak (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I understand, but I think that's actually not a problem since wiktionary is not a paper version. There could be separate pages for each declension which is impossible in paper version. I know you know Latin well, but I personally use wiktionary in cases when I need to translate something. And in this case I haven't found out that toto in totoque is from totus. I know that if I would know the Latin there would be no need to search for it. But that's why I asked if it could be at least mentioned somewhere. Maybe on the page of Toto. No offense. ;-) Dominikmatus (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sure, you are right, but it's still one word, that's why my I even asked. Ad to your point about czech, "i slovo" is still two separate parts, not like největší which is nej- plus větší. But let it be, your arguments are still valid. Dominikmatus (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dominikmatus: You have been reading archival records with Latin in them since probably at least a year now, and in accordance with the references you make to your professionial activities you will continue to encounter Latin terminology. I recommend you to therefore, of course not without having suffered some introduction into the sparing grammar, just grab a Latin-Czech edition of some stageplay, e.g. Terence which I checked exists in Czech translation, and a Latin-Czech dictionary and read the booklet side by side. Soon, after and even while reading but Andria, you will read Latin sentences and recognize the function words, for there is Latin as used in dialogues, and you would not need to repair to someone else to “know Latin well” inasmuch as you know it yourself. A Philistine like me doesn’t know anymore what the play was about but the language proficiency abides; the workout took perhaps two weeks. Me and @Brutal Russian would love to hear back in year and find out that, without great clog, you read Latin, proving again that it is one of the easier languages and quicker to acquire than all modern languages, by its trifling bulk of wordhoard. Fay Freak (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm already looking for some grammar summary also (I'm not sure if there is some in czech, just schoolbooks), but yeah, you are right I'm doing it from the wrong side. I'm sorry for that dumb question in the beginning. Dominikmatus (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Fay Freak,
I have created the Bashkir entry for на, as you suggested.
However,
1. I don't believe the Russian на(na, “here, take it”) and ну(nu, “giddyup”) are etymologically the same entity.
2. I don't believe the Russian на(na, “here, take it”) has any relationship to Bashkir на(na, “giddyup”) for semantic reasons.
3. I don't believe the Russian ну(nu, “giddyup”) has any relationship to Bashkir на(na, “giddyup”) for phonetic reasons.
4. I am not aware of any loans from Russian into Bashkir that would relate to horses. Historically, Bashkirs as nomads have had much more intimate relations with horses, and, accordingly, the language has quite a developed equestrian nomenclature which is obviously broader than that in Russian. So, I think postulating such a loanword is problematic.
5. Russian, on the contrary, has quite a number of Turkic borrowings in its equestrian nomenclature ― лошадь(lošadʹ), телега(telega), бурый(buryj), каурый(kauryj), буланый(bulanyj), чубарый(čubaryj), чалый(čalyj), битюг(bitjug), кумыс(kumys), ертаул(jertaul), ям(jam), etc. Borovi4ok (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Borovi4ok: Thanks. I was thinking more of the colloquial Russian на(na) passing into Bashkir, perhaps proscribed, e.g. like коро́че(koróče) and a whole lot of other idioms employed in Kazakh which one hears all the time but dictionaries do not recognize (for some reason we even have the word in Turkish after all!). People use such words translingually without realizing that they are specific to one language.
For the meaning in на, I was looking into the entry of ЭССЯ linked at the Proto-Slavic page where the Serbo-Croatian even is glossed “междометие подзывания домашных животных”: The relation obviously is that one calls domestic animals to hand them out (“here you are!”) food. There is some degree of arbitrariness in the vowel as from Proto-Slavic*nъ allegedly well-known Russian ну(nu) as well as Russian но(no) derives. We find in the Belarusian Etymological Dictionary, where the word is cited for all of the Slavia, that all of *na, *no and *nъ are “etymologically close”. Fay Freak (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
Hi,
Do you have any source for this? I have added more ethymologies; Only the derivation from فهشنگ (I couldn't find anything more about it) is sourced. I think derivation from the attested فش(fesh) is the most plausible one. --Z11:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ZxxZxxZ: The etymology I added is the usual one, e.g. clearly assumed in this Serbian journal, although I am unsurprised that the story goes differently if you are sitting in Iran. I don’t where I originally got it (perhaps copied over from another Wiktionary page) but I assure you that it is passed around in literature. The Turkish etymological dictionaries often omit the word however somehow. @Vahagn Petrosyan will probably find half a dozen of cites repeating that and another half a dozen of additional etymologies, if you’ve already begun to present two in addition to the Greek. Your second one does not make any sense, what is فهشنگ(fehšang)? Don’t cite random made up ghost words; this etymology looks so bad that it could be from the Middle Ages.
Whereas the first makes sense in parallel to تفنگ(tofang) which has the same suffix from sound imitation, but then again since when is the Persian term attested? Why not troll and consider this فشنگ(fešang) a Turkic borrowing too if it is not attested before the eleventh century, which it necessarily – gunpowder revolution – isn’t if it isn’t in a previous meaning, as since the Turks were such Barbarian warriors we demonstrably have Turkic weapon terms in Arabic even before Džengis Kan, like دَبُّوس(dabbūs), خَازُوق(ḵāzūq). (And even the sixth century CE according to يَلَب(yalab), I dared writing when I did not find treatments of occurrences predating the 12th century—I may have to revise this article.)
Excuse me now, I have been preeing my Wiktionary but between the sets and had not even been too deeply looking into that word in the beginning. Woe these 50 minutes, they often suffice for a full-body workout! Fay Freak (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the extensive reply, I thought maybe the Greek word was added mistakenly since there looked to be little relation semantically. I found fahshang in Dehkhoda, the sense is stalagmite. Borrowing from Turkic looks plausible too, considering تفنگ tofang. I guess a more thorough research is needed. --Z18:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
By the way, Turkic-speaking warriors came into the region long before the Mongols (notably the Seljuks). --Z18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@ZxxZxxZ, Vahagn Petrosyan: Yo, now I remember the an entry for stalagmite which I have found obscure, now linked in the etymology section. Any chance to cite this کلفخشنگ(kalafaxšang) from poetry or something? Apparently I am not good at finding Persian on the web.
And yeah, there was contact with the areas Seljuk dynasty is from (as described by Wikipedia), now I remember the strange term قَانٍ(qānin, “blood”, as in blood-red) I derived from Khorezmian Turkic as the 10th century guy writting it in Arabic is literally hoten al-ḵwārizmī. I surpass it by noting that there appear traces of Turkic in the Middle Iranian toponymy: I mentioned this for the Armenian place of دَبِيل(dabīl) after the Iranica article (the Minorsky article Le nom de Dvin en Arménie I could not access, way too little Iranian studies digitally accessible). Fay Freak (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Minorsky's article is available here. The Arabic form is treated from page 54. Obviously, this old toponym (Old ArmenianԴուին(Duin) is attested since the 5th century) cannot be from Turkic. Minorsky's idea is that the Parthian Arsacids brought the word from their original homeland in what is now the Turkmen steppe. Therefore, the toponym is "Turkish" like Santa Claus born in Lycia is "Turkish". Vahag (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Ok, I can see you seething. The idea was that contact gradually permeated various domains of vocabulary, beginning with borrowed personal and place names as being passed on the fastest, then traded items (beside weapons, خُتُو(ḵutū), also tenth century). But there is little to suggest that it started that early that far even in that domain. It does not even appear that Minorsky actually utters the word “Turkmen”, if I have read it correctly that fast, this looks like fake news from the Iranians again—“Turkmen steppe” did not exist as Turkmen. Fay Freak (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know, there was no direct connection between Arabic and Aghwan prior to arrival of Caliphate in Caucasus. If you are suggesting that Arabic took it from Aghwan, I don't see how it could. If you are implying a common root, one must check Syriac or Middle Persian. I haven't found any etymology for yal yet. Cavidaga (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Cavidaga: I just know that the names of apparel and accessoires can be Caucasian in that in Ancient Arabia, examples being بُرْد(burd), بَرُود(barūd), and تِلِّيس(tillīs), سَوْط(sawṭ); probably none came directly. The thing with traded items. There must be more lingering around since Arabists don’t know the details of Caucasian languages simultaneously. Fay Freak (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan, Cavidaga: I can make sense of that, you should add these words. As I have now envisioned, all may have kicked off as a Semitic *ḫalap- ~ *ḫalab- and then been borrowed not only into those Os. xælaf, Kryz halov, Arm. halaw, but we now know that somewhere in Middle Aramaic it could be *yalap- ~ *yalab-; and as certain Caucasian languages like monosyllables, they would have interpreted the later half as something so that we come up with Aghwan𐔺𐔰𐔾(yal). Attested Aramaicחלבא / ܚܠܒܐ(ḥelbā, “fatty tissue, omentum, membrane, diaphragm”) must be narrowed down in meaning and owed to specialist contexts of attestation. Fay Freak (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
I made հալաւ(halaw). Can we derive the Akkadian, Sabaean and Ugaritic from your root *ḫalap-? Perhaps with sense development "to slip into (clothing)" or "to change into (clothing)" or "a change (set) of clothes". For the Arabic yalab see here, page 474. Vahag (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Yes, I have even forgotten that this Proto-Semitic page existed and was sure enough for it long ago; when updating يَلَب(yalab) 10 days ago I was a bit unsure about the interrelations of the various roots mentioned, خ ل ب(ḵ-l-b) and خ ل ف(ḵ-l-f), but the former may well be a voicing like بُرْغُوث(burḡūṯ) from *purḡūṯ-. Going with the nails or claws through something is also a kind of “slipping”.
Ačaṙean’s deriving from a “cognate” of that particular Akkadian form is of course of questionable accuracy and only attestation bias (if I don’t err this na- prefix is not found in Aramaic while in Akkadian as for the sources of مِرْزَاب(mirzāb); this my memory is confirmed by {{R:sem:Lipinski|page=224 seq.|section=29.26}} about noun formation basically considering it an innovation in Akkadian of m(V)- prefix otherwise well known, compare a prefix of the same shape having been innovated in Akkadian for verbs {{R:sem:Lipinski|page=401 seqq.|section=41.15}} ), although we agree in general with him and this may be his rough way of saying that it would be another word from the same root, while this listing in Ehret is so obviously coincidental that it merits no mention, the more so with our more attractive comparisons. Fay Freak (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan: Some of your descendants meaning “carpet” has made made stagger. In addition to that Aghwan, is Persian خالی(xâli, “carpet”) also from a reanalyzed Caucasian form? These fabric names, you never know if some 10,000 speaker community ultimately invented it. For the variation I think of Classical Persian زیلو(zīlū, zēlū, zaylū, a type of carpet) (also not resolved), switched to end by ī in its descendants. Fay Freak (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, Acharyan doesn't say "cognate". I summarized him badly. As for the connection with xâli, the thought crossed my mind and is indeed hinted at by Хайдаков 1973: 84b. IMO the connection is too risky without more data. Vahag (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Fay, ich sehe ja schon auf dieser Seite, wie du einmal für deinen Sprachstil angefeidet wurdest. Dem wollte ich mich nun nicht direkt anschließen, denn ich habe für mein dürftiges Englisch durchaus schon mal Kritik geerntet. Zum einen scheinen wortwörtliche Übersetzungen durch. So meine ich z.B. überbieten für "I surpassed" lesen zu können und ich denke nicht, dass das richtig ist.
Jedenfalls kann ich dem letzten Abschnitt über ES: плита, etc. gar nicht mehr folgen. Das ist wohl gemerkt selten und liegt hier auch zum Teil an den sperrigen Verweisen, die den Lesefluss stören und in ähnlicher Weise auch den Schreibfluss gestört haben mögen, und die man vielleicht gelesen haben sollte. Zwar verstehe ich den Ansatz und das Fazit. Das Argument, dass Nebenformen Entlehnung beweisen, kann ich nicht nachvollziehen. Im Gegenteil gilt zu weilen, the center innovates, obwohl es Auslegungssache zu sein scheint, wo die Sprachwissenschaft den Schwerpunkt sieht, also the center of gravity. Zu guter letzt hast du den Eintrag nochmal überarbeitet; das erkenne ich ohne in die Historie zu schaun schon am Duktus. Deine Lehnübersetzung eines anscheinend idiomatischen Begriffs trägt dort leider nicht zur Etymologie bei. Den Verweis auf Kachel und tegula finde ich nicht wirklich überzeugend: i. "brick" ungewisser Herkunft > "slab; stove" ii. "cover" > "tile" (von Ziegelstein "brick", Schmelztiegel "meltingpot" o.ä. steht dort leider nichts, nicht direkt) iii. "pot" ungewisser Herkunft > "tile; pot" (Kachelofen ist dort nur eine Randnotiz) – was soll ich da vergleichen? Auf den ersten Blick ist keine Parallele zu erkennen, allenfalls Überschneidungen. Dem ließe sich übrigens *uhnaz und sicherlich noch mehr hinzufügen und wie wieder unschwer zu erkennen ist, hast du erst kürzlich daran gearbeitet, obwohl dort Beispiele aus Russisch und Arabisch nur peripher tangieren sollten.
Natürlich sieht das bei mir nicht besser aus, zumal erhebliche Vertipper und andere Formfehler im Gegenteil noch den letzten Funken Sinngehalt aus dem Zusammenhang reißen. Daher erspare ich mir Verbesserungsvorschläge lieber. Darüber sollte ich mir eigentlich viel mehr sorgen machen. Darum dachte ich wir starten einen Klub der Toten Dichter oder so als Selbsthilfegruppe, frei von der Leber. Ich meine, darüber zu schreiben wie schlimm meine Schreibe ist – also wirklich painlich – das wärja höchst paradox. Auch ist das hier nicht der Ort oder die Zeit. Statt dessen halte ich es mit Tailor Mali (Speak with Conviction, "... So I implore you, I entreat you, and I challenge you, to speak with conviction. ... it is not enough these days to question authority, you gotta speak with it, too." the delivery is what really sells it). I see you understand that.
So, to end on a positive note, I got two requests.
1. Following your working on Georgia, what can you make of the name of Azerbaijan? I think the Iranian etymology might be folk etymology, and that an ethnonym may be found in Adhyge, for example.
2. When I went out on a limb about friend on the matter of English participles (Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2021/October#-ing ES Oct '21) I perused the translations and used an opportunity to consult with an Iranian native speaker about friends and foes. After došt he suggested next an Arabic word that I do not quite recall, which he glossed "Arschloch". The next day, I see جوره(“1. (Tajik) friend; 2. companion”) which he does not recognize, but he agreed that hamjure would resemble his Arabic word. Albeit, when prompted to spell the Arabic for me, he was suddenly not sure anymore what word it was!? Now the curious thing is that the etymology looks very similar to that of دوست, don't you think? I believe, I hope, my argument was a little more involved but I don't have my notes handy and I should keep it simple anyway.
@ApisAzuli: Es ist zuvörderst ein Irrtum, daß man in einer Fremdsprache, bei einigem Fortschritte, überhaupt »für« irgend etwas in einer anderen Sprache schreibt. Ich denke natürlich unmittelbar die englischen Wörter, wobei es denn aufgrund des Argumentationsaufbaus oder des Stils sein kann, daß ich gezwungen bin, ein Wort zu setzen, ohne daß es ein schmiegliches gibt oder ich mich eines solchen entsinne. Oft sind die Bedeutungen von Wörtern, wie sie benutzt werden, gewagt oder an ihrem Rande, und das fügt sich zu dem Umstande, daß die Denkungsart imgleichen Grenzen auszureizen bestrebt ist.
Zum übrigen sage ich, daß deine Bedeutungsbeziehungen regelmäßig wirrer und schwerer ergründlich sind als meine, so daß du darauf vertrauen kannst, daß sie überlesen werden. Was du selber zu erahnen scheinst.
Ich betone allerdings, daß ich nicht grundsätzlich das bloße Vorhandensein von Varianten als Grund für eine Entlehnung herhalten lasse, da vielmehr andere Ursachen Variation zugrundeliegen, oft naheliegende Umdeutungen oder die Seltengehörtheit einer Bezeichnung, wofür ich schon einige Male auf бересклет verwiesen habe, was in Ansehung der üblichen Verfahrensweisen akademischen Sprachforschern Irrsinn erscheint, da sie allgemeine Gesetzmäßigkeiten versehen und andererseits jedermann mit weiteren Kenntnissen neiden. Man muß ständig Beekesens Behauptung verlachen, die etwa so geht, daß »the presence of variants proves pre-Greek origin«. In dem Falle von плита ging es um die Variationen, die zu erwarten waren, wenn das Wort aus dem fraglichen griechischen Worte entlehnt ist, und ohnehin kommt ф in eigentlich slavischen Wörtern nicht oder nur sekundär vor. Bei Siegmund Fraenkel haben gewisse Variationen belegt, daß keine eigenständige Bildung im Arabischen vorliege sondern eine Entlehnung innerhalb des Semitischen, und dieser Gedanke hat sich in hunderten Neuaufdeckungen und -abhandlungen auf Wiktionary, die den heimischen und entlehnten Wortschatzanteil geschieden haben, als fruchtbar erwiesen. Es liegt zum Beispiel auf der Hand, daß sollte der Wechsel von تُوت(tūt) mit تُوث(tūṯ) echt vorhanden und nicht bloßer taṣḥīf sein, allein hiedurch Aramaismus bewiesen ist (wo »bewiesen« entsprechend dem Rechte bedeutet: vernünftige Zweifel ausschließender Grad an Wahrscheinlichkeit, nicht absolute, gar philosophische Gewissheit), da Arabisch kein begedkefet hat: a maiore ad minus beeinflussen Variationen in anderen Fällen immerhin die Wahrscheinlichkeiten, die wir sehen.
Eigentlich mache ich keine Ortsnamen oder gar Gewässernamen, da verrennt man sich. Ich hab doch nur so ein paar erstellt, die man zum Verständnis alter Texte suchte, oder aus OWL, weil ich parteiisch sein darf und vielleicht zufällig das Schrifttum in dem Bereich kenne (da ist eigentlich alles bis auf den letzten Hügel abgehandelt, sollen diese Germanisten das selber einpflegen, während hingegen zu nahöstlichen Namen oft nichts zu sagen ist). Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ja gut, ob meine Deutung auf Deutsch zutreffend ist, sei dahingestellt. Ich bin bzgl. L2 Thematik nicht bewandert, doch behaupte mal dass L2 so gut wie immer mittelbar bleibt.
Ja nun, ob mir einer oder keiner Antwortet, merke ich schon. Ob es gelesen wird, sei wiederum dahingestellt.
Nun ja, nochmals zu 1. Adyghe (nicht "Adhyge", mein Fehler) ist auf den ersten Blick kein Orts- oder Gewässername, und auch auf den zweiten würde die Entfernung von Nord zu Süd-Kaukas' leichter anhand eines nicht-ortsgebundenen Begriffs zu erklären sein, obwohl Ortsnamen natürlich auch wandern können. Germanisten dürften hiermit nicht so viel zu tun haben, außer du meintest, es handele sich womöglich um eine Hinterlassenschaft der Skythen – die Theorie zu den Skythischen Gewässernamen ist mir leider nicht bekannt, nur Lubotsky's Arbeit zu farnah, die *xʷ vorraussetzt (s.v. *húHarnah).
"Die Alternative "from Proto-Indo-Iranian *párHnas with unexplained fricatization, from Proto-Indo-European *pélh₁-nos, from *pleh₁- (“to fill”)" ist wiederum mit Hinblick auf плита und Feueraltare bemerkenswert, s.a. splendid, blendend. Mag natürlich zufall sein.
Zufällig könnte Caucasus auch dem Skythischen zugerechnet werden. Nachdem bzgl. Yi. gorn gerade erst zwei Vergleiche zu Ru. 'Feuerstelle'(?) bzw. Blg. 'hoch' (ferner Ru. 'Berg', Pl. 'top', etc.) ausgeschlagen wurden, bin ich aus Weinreich noch nicht schlau geworden. Da ergibt sich auf den ersten Blick ein Zirkelschluss, wenn Vergleiche in Klammern angeführt werden (De. Gaden) um in erster Linie eine Lautgesetzlichkeit zu bekräftigen, worauf hin wir den Vergleich annehmen und durch das Lautgesetz als erwiesen betrachten, ohne aber auf die Herkunft des Deutschen einzugehen.
Zufällig wird azer- ja auch mit 'Feuer' begründet. Das ist in der Tat zu viel für mich um es auf einen Streich zu erschlagen, dennoch nicht genug Material. Keine Frage! Ich verrenne mich da nicht, ich bin ja willens mehr zu lernen. Allenfalls überschlage ich mich und gebe auf, oder ab, je nach dem. Solange bei Adyghe nichts steht, kann ich dazu nicht viel mehr sagen. Darum bitte ich schlicht um Aufmerksamkeit.
Und hamjure? Der Vergleich ist mir wieder eingefallen, nämlich Türkisch amca, was zur Zeit in meinem Umfeld vorallem 'Polizei' bedeutet und somit hervorragend zu der Herleitung aus *h₂óyu ~ *h₂yéws (> jur) mit der Nebenbedeutung 'law' passen würde (vgl. aye z.B., wobei mir die Bedeutungsentwicklung noch unklar erscheint). Offen bleibt, wie sich das auf ham- vel sim. übertragen haben sollte. Die hintergründige Frage ist daher, ob es mit *ǵews- (> došt) vereinbar sei, weil ich insbesondere wegen De. ge- Auge auf velare Prefixe lege. Siehe bspw. *wers- neben *gʷer-. Da bspw. Bulle (copper, bobby) als Beleidigung zählt, mag ferner ein Arabisches "Arsch" aus demselben Stammbaum (oder derselben Welle) nicht unwahrscheinlich sein. ApisAzuli (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hallo Fay Freak, deine Belegeliste unter ምሼት#Harari enthält eine Vorlage mit leerem "passage"-Parameter:
{{R:sem-eth:Conti Rossini|TH|page=413 first line|lang=har|instead=1|passage=}}
Vielleicht willst du da noch was nachtragen oder das Ding löschen.
--178.2.192.9715:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@178.2.192.97: Das kommt bewußt vor: Auf das Abtippen des ersten Textes ist eben verzichtet worden, zumal andere eingepflegt worden sind. Wenn man die Zeit hat, kann man es abtippen. Verstehe bitte, daß ich zuweilen bei der Durchsicht eines Werkes, zu dem ich eine Vorlage erstellt habe, mithilfe der Vorlage gleich an einem Tage zehn, zwanzig, dreißig Belegstellen in Wiktionary einsetze, ohne alle auch abtippen zu können: so war es bei {{R:ar:Lévi-Provençal:1934}}, wie du an den Seiten siehst, die auf diese Vorlage verlinken: da war gleich eine halbe Sommerwoche weg. Es ist nicht nur das Abtippen (für das ich bei der äthiopischen Schrift keine Übung habe, während diese bei der arabischen mittlerweile vorliegt), sondern die Auswahl eines Satzes oder mehrerer Sätze aus einem längeren Abschnitt (der bei älteren Texten der Zeichensetzung und somit Abgrenzung der Sätze mangelt), die ich als Sinneinheit bestimmen müßte, sodann die Fehlersicht, und vielleicht die Übersetzung, die ja oft fehlt und als offen eingeordnet wird: Ebenso ist das beim Haupttext der Fall. Ich hätte auch {{quote}} ohne gefüllten Parameter |2= setzen können, dann stünde da “primary text needed”, was nicht grundsätzlich unzulässig ist. Wir sind hier unterbezahlt. Fay Freak (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: It is, medieval Arabic dictionaries hint a transferred usage: a black point or dark figure in the distance; distant tents; throngs, rabble, crowds; copious troops; baggages, everything that follows suit with an army leader; cultivated villages or lands about a city, particularly in Kũfa and al-Baṣra (which is in Iraq, near Iran). Fay Freak (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Allahverdi Verdizade: No, it’s the bougie people living in the outskirts. That’s even in Sweden and Germany. (Ticky-tackysuburbs exist but in US usage where poor niggers live and make those hood rap videos.) As of 1900, the rich officials at Bielefeld lived at the streets up Johannisberg and the Sparrenberg which got incorporated in 1900 and was thus outside the city limits, still unaffordable. In al-Baṣra the social distance seems even more symbolic topographically, and it must have looked the more so from the water. (I have entered the conspicuous luxury of Stockholm once by ferry, it is slow and you get to see where wealthy people even from Germany house.) Fay Freak (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it is not possible to have this linguistic insight from the mere dictionary meanings of words, only from their contextual application. Fay Freak (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is a touchy subject so let's be clear. You are saying that districts can become isolated, protecting either who's on the inside or on the outside. These exist everywhere for various reasons whether on purpose or unintentionally. These can become symbolic for their poor and noble status. Therefore – nonsequitur – P. "literacy" is from A. "black", because the older Arabic dictionaries suggest various senses for a certain letter combination, and it has certainly not come through a sense of "ink".
I must admit I am not sure I understood you correctly. It takes only a minute to compare the Persian word and it's etymology for "black" to recognize that it is nearly identical to the Arabic word. This explains however very little.
I won't say that your explanation sounds like guesswork, but you do leave the reader guessing. I meant to offer support for your notion on account of a parallel case with reckon and rex, count count, and German Graf, but those are either mistaken on my part or at least uncertain. I do know somebody called Schreiber "writer", but this derives from the profession in office, surely (and not, for the sake of the argument, from rube). I still disagree in general with color etymologies, because it seems like reductio ad absurdo. We do have Krishna, though. I don't know how, so I remain incredulous.
@Vininn126: I think it is worth notable that there is no fixed term in relation to cheesemaking, and also the English term “caseate” was not about cheese specifically (not at all and ever?), so @DTLHS had a sharp eye, but both the Arabic and German I added when I started the translation table have the medical sense, so again the Polish term I have added turns out correct as a “literal” or etymological meaning for literal cheese is not always sought, and so I noted whether a literal sense for cheese is present in the translation and what is present—my open, labelless definition of the English fooled us a bit, not explicitly pointing at the problem or question of attestation of a cheesemaking and a medicine sense. (Something to say here also about the prevalence of cheese consumption across even European countries: in Germany 40% of milk has went into cheese production within the last years. Man has to look whether less in English-speaking countries and Poland.)
The terms you mention belong to cheesemaking: where EU documents also have e.g. przekształcania mleka w masę serową, German Käseerzeugung and English cheesemaking. There is a little distinction with this English term here: 1. the process of making cheese, an individual instance of milk becoming cheese 2. the whole profession of making cheese, of which we have translated the second with serowarstwo, while the first is used in that regulation.
I think in that case I'm going to leave the translation section blank. Thanks for your input. If I come across some term in my piles of dictionaries at home, I'll add it right away. Vininn126 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, didn’t occur to me how using low volume (of gadget) can affect one’s perception of sounds: the /θ/ really sounded /s/ to me, but using higher volume makes it clear. I learned a lesson. ·~dictátor·mundꟾ16:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sartma: I don’t know if I need to, only you know, and the needed may be not congruent with the liked. It’s just that it is one of many times where someone has raised attention to this particular kind of contradiction. Still great entries, keep up to good work 👍🏼. With the extraordinary layout and subject-matter of Akkadian entries it surely strains relatively more attention not to introduce inconsistencies, and it might be of doubtful boot to add any more in respect of this trifle, but on the other hand I am rightfully explicit in my commit messages for the unrelated reason that later one shall easily unwind why an edit has taken place. Fay Freak (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: You must have misunderstood my words, so allow me to rephrase: I have nothing to say about the content of your comments, I'm fine with you being concise and to the point, that's what's expected.
What I'm telling you above is that you've been, and generally are, unreasonably rude in your comments. I don't know if you're willingly being a smart-ass in your reply or just naive, but the need of being rude is not something "I only know". If you have to be a cunt, own it at least.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand or apologise or anything (I've been reading you for a while here and there and I don't think you're man enough for that), so I have a very simple request for you that doesn't require any of the above: next time you leave a comment for me (or for anyone else, for what it's worth), don't start any sentence with "you". There's no Wiktionary edit summary that requires a second person pronoun as subject. Stick to what you changed and why, that'll be more than enough. Thank you. Sartma (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Sartma, that's just Fay Freak's interesting style of communication. Don't take it personally. I am sure he didn't mean it rudely. Vahag (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan: I'm not questioning his intentions (in the best case scenario, only he himself knows what they are), but his being rude is quite objective. I don't take it personally, I know well that that's the way he is with everybody, but speaking for myself, I just don't think I need to put up with the abuse. If others are happy being bullied, they're welcome to enjoy it, to each their own. But I'm not. I'm not asking for the world or for him to change who he is; I just don't want to read "you" ever again as the subject of any sentence in the comment of an edit. Edits are about things, not about people. I swear to god I'll be here complaining about it any time it happens, until it stops. Sartma (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is an interesting opinion. The summary was like “you yourself noted [the thing, not people follows]”. One could of course have used the passive, or “OP has noted”, but this is circumventive, and potentially it is ruder to talk about someone in the third person. One still can reckon oneself addressed even if one has not been. If the page is larger though one sometimes tracks down which edit introduced an inconsistency, and if it isn’t larger it is more polite to not call someone’s name but just “you” that he whom it may concern will find. So it is objectively not “abuse”. There is no evidence for bullying, and I think cyberbullying would work very differently. You are misapplying paradigms of the meatworld. The same reproaches when given face to face to a person have to be considered different when it is to fill some blank space. I must really hope for you to not become insulted as fast by strangers on the internet. Fay Freak (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
"Seriously, you yourself noted the most obvious thing that the calendar terms in Hebrew as in Aramaic are borrowed from Akkadian, yet still list it contradicting your own descendants entry as a cognate."
It's about me, and what I noted, and what I contradictorily listed. It's about what I did, not about the entry. There's no need to talk about me and what I did. If there's a mistake, correct it and write why it's wrong. Anyway, as I said above, I don't expect you to understand or apologise or anything else. Just don't use "you" as a subject when you find mistakes on entries I created, and you won't hear from me anymore. Thanks. Sartma (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Just as an outside observer... what is going on in your head @Sartma: when you think that perfectly flat descriptions like the one linked are not only in any way insulting (it wasn't: they were your own words being accurately described) but give you any allowance to start with direct personal and gendered slurs and cursewords? Then you repeat it. If this is just an issue with having learned English from an Australian, eh, fine, but that word doesn't work well outside of close friends in any dialect and not at all in semiprofessional international spaces like Wiktionary. — LlywelynII20:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Anything on the mere level of "unreasonably rude" MUST be allowed. If people have to go around wondering if they have been "unreasonable rude", there will be no room to think. Rudeness is a personal choice. I try to be polite and I fail. I also get my ass slapped back and forth all over this website. No prob. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Geographyinitiative: 💛 This is like my opinion. Additionally I always consider that we collect words—and we are varyingly good at deploying them.
While it is true that, as LlywelynII says, that c-word (not the rona one; I am yet tracking this signification, which with two occurrences in the linked video it also has) “doesn’t work well”. I mean, nothing wrong about literal cunny, so if you try to transfer the meaning of the word to denote something oblique, your point will also be but depicted roughly and opaque, and that is the degree only to which other significations of it have lexicalized. For epistemologic achievement, it is a good rule of thumb not to call anyone body parts or animals unless you have seen him to bear resemblance—which was originally the origin of such terminology, but is poorly applicable to the internet, as implied by LlywelynII, in a mode which boils down to the same idea. Fay Freak (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
"(not sure where to put this) "If you have to be a cunt, own it at least." Not at all! We don't want to legitimize foul language. At best, if the sentiment of an edit has any bearing, we might want to record it in the appropriate choice of words. Summaries prefer brevity, so I could see a transgression. A minor problem is that tone can be mistaken, so "good faith" is required from any recipient. Eg. I can read "cunt" still in a jokular tone. It's problematic when jokes are inappropriate.
That said, the criticizm would be more convincing if one wouldn't use "you" when criticizing "you", eh.
As regards the entry, the form of borrowings could be Akkadian, doesn't mean the meaning wasn't common before. There is no further etymology. We are, alas, using {{cog}} so broadly for much less than true congeners, especially in competing hypotheses, that I cannot find any fault in the questionable edit either way. Except that top-heavy referals to Hebrew unfairly skew the view for those whose view is, rightly or not, skewed to begin with.
The definition, "... (approximately February-March)" is not convincing in a moon calender, but the signs for moon and sun are fairly confusing and I don't know the background. Such ambiguities would be the actual source of anger, like when I'm stuck in traffic it's hardly anyone else's fault.
By the way, if per chance adda-rum read backwards to equate with "rum-adan" implies that "ITI-ŠE" should likewise equate with "6", then albeit the lights seem red on that one. ApisAzuli (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
ekinezyaIPA(key): /faɪ.dɐ/?? One step higher than an eponym
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Maybe I'm wrong, take a closer look.IPA(key): /faɪ.dɐ/ I know, I know ! Copy n paste is not a sin, and in my wildest imagination I can make some sense. I know, Iknow ! ekinezya
is fayda lı,and healthy.
Like any bandying Of words or toys, it ministers to health.
It very likely quickens and refines us.
Never mind! I'm only half a mind, that we'd call a spade a spade. Much use for anyone who does.
Flāvidus (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, could you perhaps take a look at the Hebrew root pages I made recently? They could all use some cleanup wrt etymology. (I also didn't try to determine which roots deserve separate etymology headings and which can be lumped together.) I figured creating a skeleton was better than nothing. 70.172.194.2506:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Fay Freak Thanks for the ping at WT:ES, and sorry about the late reply. Your observation that खेटर(kheṭar) is outmoded when compared to खडावा(khaḍāvā) is accurate. Since खडावा(khaḍāvā) is mentioned in entry 3127 *kāṣṭhapādukā in {{R:CDIAL}} as inherited from Prakrit 𑀓𑀝𑁆𑀞𑀧𑀸𑀉𑀬𑀸(kaṭṭhapāuyā) as M. khaḍā̆v, ˚ḍã̄v f., a relation to Ottoman Turkish or Arabic can be ruled out. However, the etymology of खेटर(kheṭar) is still uncertain. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch: It is parsimonious then, if you know no etymology else, as per Occam's razor to note that this outmoded term could have been acquired from Iraqi Arabic, as even al-Baṣra was part of the Ottoman dominion, and they borrowed Marathi terms directly in the three following centuries, for instance عَمْبَة(ʕamba). Fay Freak (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Concerning etymological edits I did on some arabic entries
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I just have seen that you have reverted some of them. If any mistakes had been made, I apologize. As you may have already noted, I'm not a native speaker of a Semitic language and in no way am I going to argue. All of my edits were done in a good faith and in no way had I thought about adding fallacious information. Greetings, Christian IYI681 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please let me repeat my question that you have previously removed. Burundi#translations gives "بُورُنْدِي m (burundī), بُورُونْدِي m (burundī)". ب "bey" reads /b/ per se, and و "wau" parses as vowel, at least in Persian " بوروندی (burundi)". Nevertheless we see a diacrit spelling "بُو" (bu). I suppose that's conventional, after I have seen the same when I browsed through بیکار. Is the spelling really regular?
The Arabic layout of a soft-keyboard that I'm using does not even have it, apparently. From the little information which I have found in de.WP it's not certain, whether the shape of the diacrit derives from Wau, nor is it clear why the respective article is in such bad shape failing to name it correctly. Also, editing L2R2L text is just baneful. For these and other reasons I tried to circumscribe the question rather than copy-paste. I hope it's clearer now.
I'm curious, since you have mentioned an isolated instance of "Warundi" in German, simply because b ~ v is fairly common. It has precedent in ivrit ("Hebrew"), wherefore Arabic with p ~ f might be similar. If it's a dud because it clearly has to read /b/, I remain confused about the convention. Or in short: 2. Why is it spelled like that?
I hope you know the answer. Consider the question entirely rhethorical in case there' s no immediate answer. Do note that the implied line of reasoning extends to bi, "without", bi "with", and our with, by, mit, etc., but, to the relief of everyone, my battery went flat before I could post to the ES (I'd argue that Geselle "young professional" besides Junggeselle "bachelor" could swing the favour towards Arabic, or a common source, in the case of bi-kar; albeit, the phenomenon of "(not) any" observed in various languages would lead to far astray). ApisAzuli (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
@ApisAzuli: This now is perhaps not incomprehensible but by interpretation I can extract multiple questions: بُو bū is written with diacritic because there is also بَو baw. Short bu is بُ but as it is a foreign word in Arabic one tries to be particularly clear and writes the vowel plene in spite of it not being long: this reflects the functional load of vowels in other languages, which are compelled to employ graphs to express their vowels, so Arabic does it too for their words, naturally and instinctively (without being like me able to formulate why they do this).
Now if your question is about the glyph origin of the ḍamma sign, I don’t recall it and there is special literature on it. It looks like wāw but it may be stylized and originate in arbitrary markers introduced for fastest distinction, just like the dots upon the rasm: In Arne A. Ambros’s Einführung in die moderne arabische Schriftsprache (which I recommend to learn Arabic) it is described as dull as being a Häkchen von Beistrichgestalt while the fatḥa and kasra are kurzer Schrägstrich.
For comparison we also have arbitrary signs, largely dots, in the Eastern vocalization of the Syriac script, and in competing systems for the Hebrew square script: Now we have the Tiberian vocalization but there was Palestinian vocalization and Babylonian vocalization which aren’t even in Unicode although the fact that some readings differ could make it interesting. In the development of the Geʽez script they instead gradually wrote the signs differently or something and I have entries from inscriptions before these clear distinctions: መሀር(mähär/məhr/). This even exists in individual handwriting: Man at various stages of life decides to modify and stylize letters in a certain way. Fay Freak (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I missed this edit at the time: [17]. I'm pretty sure this sense does exist. It's in the Quran. It's in Wehr. It's not clear to me that the botanical senses preceded the religious sense. If the religious sense came first, that would certainly justify its inclusion; and even if not, I still think it belongs there. 70.172.194.2503:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Man, the question is, is it a tree of phantasy in the Qurʾān, or is it a reference to one of the poisonous plants referred to by the word as a phytonym today or at least yore? Of course even in the latter case it is used in the Scripture for symbolic reason and translators render it very roughly, especially if their own vernaculars do not have vernacular names for the particular plant even if they knew the particular plant. Therefore we have absurdities like bananas in Qurʾān translations (→ طَلْح(ṭalḥ)). But we describe the general meanings in a language and not one in a particular book (→ WT:FICTION); if some readers of the book were unsure about the meaning this is a story for literary studies and could become a literary reference (this is the sense of having a Wikipedia article about a place in a book) but I do not see that thereby the plant name gained an additional meaning, nor that the vague fancy is the original one: I deny the notion that desert dwellers would have named many species due to remembering some Qurʾān passages, this is the kind of thing that men of letters do in their armchairs, and again the Qurʾān also uses particular plant names which then theist pen pushers fail to accurately identify, so the presumption must be the latter. You should have read other things than a single book to be able to contextualize it – the method of learning Arabic by straight diving into the Qurʾān is no good, even if it has been more influential than any other book on the whole language.
And this all is not even saying that Qurʾān vocabulary choice sometimes is incorrect, abusive or corrupt, as is the case for the similarly influential (?) King James Bible which messes up the designations of oriental plants regularly (e.g. camphire), but piety and naturalist ignorance are strong enough still in the English-speaking world for one to systematically come to grips with the corruptions of scripture—how much higher can it be in the Arab world, where textual criticism of that particular scripture is just pioneering in turtle pace with few persecuted scholars? Fay Freak (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Most Western linguists have learned some Latin so not few admins here understand enough to avert the worst. But PUC (talk • contribs) is a professional and admin. I also have the impression that Benwing2 (talk • contribs) and Erutuon (talk • contribs) have detailled ideas of the Latin language, being however very busy with applying their technical expertise. But since Latin is so easy—editors devote their time to the harder stuff (we all like Arabic), so few look into what happens there, as it is boring and most done. Brutal Russian (talk • contribs) and Nicodene (talk • contribs) who are not admins have been most specific about Latin, from all I have seen, sadly fiercely championing opposite standpoints: maybe this is a sign of the great entries having been made already, so one seeks all kinds of obscure points in pronunciation, late variants and uncertain hapaxes like catanum, it is preprogrammed since the Latin corpus is overseeable and hardly becoming larger after 1900. Fay Freak (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Which policy (not BP discussion) states that alternative spellings shouldn't be categorized? Last I checked, they're still legitimate words. The idea of "alternative spellings" has no lexical basis, and it's ridiculous for us to give certain words second-class treatment based on a concept that doesn't exist outside of Wiktionary. Should we also turn these spellings into hard redirects so they don't take up room in the lemma categories? Binarystep (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Binarystep: They don’t have a conceptual basis and they are not ”words”, meaning on the type level. The circumstance that you realize that we could turn spelling variants into hard-redirects like other dictionaries if this would not conflict with our covering many languages (that may have different soft redirect targets) shows you that the soft redirects pages are only tolerated in so far as they serve the specific need to redirect, therefore there is a whole bag of exceptions where even hard redirects are allowed when there is no likelihood of language conflicts, there is no going the whole hog but to avoid duplication we strive to centralize at one form even if the decision for it is arbitrary—arbitrariness is still better than duplication and indeed avoidance of duplication is a longstanding principle of Wiktionary, or if you want “policy” (the idea of unwritten rules will not be foreign to you).
The reason why the principle of avoidance of duplication as well applies in this case and not only as an ideologeme is that their categorization is noisy. When I started making many pages and using categories more I also just copied the categories for alt form pages but over time came to the conclusion (noticing I had not been thinking through enough) that this made the category pages annoying to use, to get overviews of what is contained by them. Fay Freak (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
You asked me to “elucidate the Turkish”. I’ve only encountered Turkish baba as a noun, the common term for “father” (also figuratively, and also used as a mode of address), which can moreover mean “godfather” in the sense of crime boss. As far as I can tell, “bu ceket çok baba görünüyor” is about as strange as English “this jacket looks so daddy”. --Lambiam13:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Lambiam: This is difficult to search, especially for someone who is not really active in Turkish. One of the glosses given by Sesli Sözlük is “very good”; and since I have heard it enough in German (with the nose too deep in Fashion vloggers) and it is obviously Turkish (after phonetic details and most frequent origin of its speakers), there must be some truth behind it there. Somebody else should find it, I did not see which Turk is most available (having judged from recent edits in Turkish entries, no one is around 😢, and I realized that I would have to agree with you if you shall consider yourself too old be acquainted with such usage). Fay Freak (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Right. There's Old Georgian კოკაჲ(ḳoḳay). I don't really understand how Semitic borrowings work in Kartvelian languages, i.e., why we sometimes borrow Semitic q as ყ(q̇), კ(ḳ), or sometimes even as ხ(x). For Syriac it probably makes more sense to have Armenian act as an intermediary. კვარია (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
კ(ḳ) can be a sign of Armenian mediation because we don't have barbarous q-like sounds and replace it with k. ხ(x) may be a sign of Turkic mediation. Vahag (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Right, that's my own suspicion as well. Tsereteli's article is really good (I'll upload it later), I'm still not too sure though so asking for help. :) კვარია (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You have a fair point about Dehkhoda not being a sufficient source in this case. Can you provide me with the source used for the etymology of مهر? Precisely where you got the second part of the etymology.--MarkParker1221 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MarkParker1221: The answer is found in the edit summaries from 30th of April 2022: Wiktionary was inconsistent or contradicting itself, so I took over from मुद्रा(mudrā), for it is somewhat of an unexpected place for the ultimate origin of the Iranian word. Fay Freak (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What do you mean by "Wasn't that user already been warned not to create entries he can't even spell"????
What do you mean by that?? And I wasn't even told that I was warned in the first place!! Wtf are you talking about, I think that's your problem and Wikipedia's problem, what have I done wrong???
Once you work rightly, judge ppl. And stop messing with their works and reversing them. This is no accepted thing here in Wikipedia. Don't disturb Joe (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
This page seems to be different forms of the Arabic root خ ت ن (ḵ-t-n). I was going to change it but wanted to double-check to make sure this wasn't intentional.--MarkParker1221 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed that a couple years ago, you updated the etymologies of Hebrewתמר, Aramaicתמרא, Arabicتمر, etc. to reflect the theory that all the other Semitic languages borrowed this term from Aramaic. It seems that this theory is sparked by the existence of Arabicثمر, since this would imply a different consonant in most of the Semitic languages other than Aramaic. However, in the references you added, all mentions of this theory are rather old. The more recent sources make no mention of this theory, including The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook which reconstructs Proto-Semitic*tam(a)r-, and I think I saw a source, but can't remember which one, that stated that Arabicثمر is actually not related, but just has a coincidentally similar meaning. It seems that postulating that these are natural descendants from Proto-Semitic*tam(a)r- is more reasonable than that they were all very early borrowings from Aramaic. I can especially note that considering the importance of dates in the Hebrew Bible and their occurrence in sections of the text where Aramaic borrowings are extremely rare make this term very unlikely to have been borrowed from Aramaic. --WikiTiki8916:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Wikitiki89: Some of the intra-Semitic borrowings are also extremely old, that is, to specify, they have happened before the usual attestation of the languages borrowed into. For plant names borrowing is more likely enough, the more so inasmuch as the plant is foreign and cultivated. I have given such good arguments on the page—one is free then anyway to believe it not of course, the main thing is the arguments, the way to the solution and not the solution itself (as in legal argumentation). Please also note that my wording at the Arabicتمر was cautious enough even not to take position but give the theory followed by arguments. Fay Freak (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Normally it is not reasonable to assume a far proto-term inheritance for a meaning as specific as a plant, it is still easier to assume a borrowing. Another example that now comes to my mind for early Hebrew borrowing from Aramaic is Hebrewאֶרֶז(ʾérez, “cedar”) (I have specifically looked into the distribution of the plant; though my larger connection at Proto-Iranian *hampr̥sā may be an exaggeration, I was surprised a bit about the possibilities, but I don’t know which one would be wrong). Another one I have found claimed is אֱנוֹשׁm(ʾĕnôš), which reminds that sometimes Hebrew vocalizations are late fakes (recent books by general linguists often forget). Since Aramaic was the neighbour language of Hebrew all the time it is of course a wrong dogm that there were no Aramaic borrowings in the earliest Hebrew books—I acknowledge their relative scarcity but not their absence.
Also since this is not Wikipedia but Wiktionary is a secondary source, after working through the reference material we don’t give much on their opinions anymore but know ourselves how the etymology assumptions – nothing to be afraid of if we give reasoning. The Semitic Languages: An International Handbook certainly has some reprehensible etymologies (not looking into it again now; really I have worked through Fraenkel multiple times and various other relevant books on the topic off intra-Semitic borrowing so I am confident to expose some combined wisdom and know the basis on which various “sources” work (it’s a magical word over there on Wikipedia but we are not bad at source criticism)); those general linguists are also culpable of not sighting the primary material in the language that much, in such fashion we see تُوت(tūt, “mulberry”) and نُون(nūn, “fish”) (it does not exist) reconstructed for Proto-Semitic, so you see in which group of absurdity I see the insinuation of the term for date there being Proto-Semitic. I think you yourself once warned that we don’t actually know that much about Proto-Semitic as we pretend to, I think on Reconstruction talk:Proto-Semitic/ṭāb-. In general linguistics, reconstructions for language groups often seem like guesswork on the basis of presence in multiple languages (I have seen them doing this in seminars from tables) while missing to consider very specific meanings, making reconstructions suspicious; then they are like “there has been no compelling reason” to assume borrowing; yes, this is often the case that the reasons are not compelling, as formal grounds cannot always be there for all borrowings, but the suspicions are bare, and inheritance is no default assumption.
However it is more amenable to posit your *tamar for Proto-Northwest Semitic, I might to have been too hasty to declare the Hebrew borrowed from Aramaic specifically, if you are right about their occurrence in sections of the text where Aramaic borrowings are extremely rare, which you can feel better than me (rare is not absent though); it was kind of a paralogism to assume that because Arabic most likely borrowed Hebrew did too, although in other cases it helps borrowing argumentation if somewhere else we are certain about the borrowing. Fay Freak (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The functions of these 3 templates are unclear to me. Which one is supposed to be used for the main form of a suffix and which one for other vowels and postvocalic forms? Existing entries are inconsistent. Orexan (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orexan: Apparently one takes tr-suffix for the header of an arbitrarily chosen main entry, then links allomorphs with the header constituted by head|tr|suffix form (we categorize entries differently by “lemma” and “non-lemma” forms, which classically are inflections, while vowel harmony variants do not perfectly fit into the scheme) and the definition by tr-def-suffix form. I cannot exclude of course that somebody did something wrong and inconsistent and it has not been spotted and cleaned up (you yourself see how many things one can miss when one is new). Fay Freak (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, "tr-suffix" for the main entry, "head|tr|suffix" for the vowel harmony variants. Thanks. What do you mean by "definition"? About the main entry, most suffixes seem to have "i" or "e" variants as main, is it intended or arbitrary? Orexan (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Orexan: The definition line. Also called gloss. Where we describe the meaning. The latter question is a false dichotomy, but there probably is no rule; I think however that the reason for the distribution is that one (subconsciously) takes a high vowel for the lemma because the mouth is less open with them and an unlabialized one equally because the unlabialized state of the mouth is comprehended as its default. Fay Freak (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In brief, I wish you could provide me of pictures or links to the reference you used in the word حلوف, written by G. Marcy, as I need it in a researche project. TLM13CEN (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
In there Arabic section for خان it says the work is a doublet of doublet of خاقان (ḵāqān) an earlier form, from Middle Persian hʾkʾn' (xāgān). There is no source for xāgān and I can't find the word in any of the book I have. Do you happen to know a source for this ? Thanks for your time mate. CaesarVafadar (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi bro,
Is there a reason for why there is two different pages for شکر and شكر? shouldn't they be merged ? I understand that there is a sound different but other pages aren't divide because of sound difference. CaesarVafadar (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
The former is U 06A9, the latter is U 0643. If you mix them up, it's going to cause issues, not easily found. Even some known online dictionaries mix them. The other to watch for is Persian/Urdu ی and Arabic/Pashto ي(y) and ى. Anatoli T.(обсудить/вклад)04:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Alright, In that case I'm gonna add Persian شکر with the meaning of thanks, since in Persian there is no Arabic ك (kāf). Didn't realized there was a difference between the two "k"'s. Thanks for you explanation. CaesarVafadar (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don’t see why you begin with quod erat demonstrandum. I am a mathematician, so I understand the Latin. Do you mean perhaps something roughly akin to, “Here is what you asked for”?
“the smartphone is most evident to govern lives.” Do you mean perhaps that the topic of smartphones is the one most likely to arise in everyday conversation?
“smart … is the most notorious one.” Do you mean perhaps the most widely known?
“Since in German that sequence became /ʃm/.” Do you perhaps mean that when it entered German it acquired the Germanized pronunciation /ʃm/?
“Only in the latter the functional load of the sequences befitted for the term to gain distinction.” I cannot even venture a guess at how to interpret this sentence. The latter what? Which sequences? Sequences of what? I don’t understand what you mean here by distinction—it’s linked to an article entitled “trademark distinctiveness.”
I meant that our thinking in that particular direction let us to a quite convincing a priori proof, or argument, or demonstration, whatever the difference is. Going beyond that, you have not understood me wrong. And as trademarks are language the same principles apply to other “memes”; the jurists sometimes just have found most suitable lingo to analyze language (as they have to, human intercourse being regulated). Fay Freak (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It’s a term I did not know. I notice that you created its entry, and I have a few questions and comments.
If I understand the intended meaning of the definition, the preposition by should be with.
The definition uses the term opposition in a way that is absolutely unclear, at least to this native speaker of American English. And although the word’s occurrence is linked to our entry, that entry provides no help. If there is some sense of opposition that is accepted in linguistics, then we should add that sense to our entry.
Being at a disadvantage because I don’t know what you meant by opposition, I nonetheless have to wonder whether any particular opposition’s occurrence and it’s becoming relevant aren’t phenomena distinct enough to render the current definition too ambiguous. If only one or the other has come to pass, by how much does the frequency find itself increased?
1. It could also be “in which”. A question of perspective. But the frequency is also the means, hence “by” is correct here.
2. It uses opposition in a technical way that is absolutely clear to the educated mind or linguists exclusively. Catering to colloquial understanding can’t always help, in particular when it is clear that no one without a sufficient conceptual background will get the idea anyway. You will find a lot if you search the combination phonetic opposition. Interestingly only German and Russian Wikipedia also has a general article: Opposition (Linguistik). Of course there are not only phonetic but also graphic and other oppositions, the phonetic one is just the easiest to illustrate (and the first when one learns a new language). Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
3. Definitions use to be intentionally ambiguous in as much as usage is. It can be bent a bit, also according to perspective of what the users wants to express. I don’t think my definition is bad, you are overthinking it. Frequency for me as a non-mathematician, as it shapes language, is a subjective impression that the user and subsequently the language investigator acquires. As there is no set of all sets onto which you could apply the idea of an objective “frequency”, but various corpora of diverse disadvantages; in the most realistic view of human behaviour with language everyone just encounters her features with certain likelihoods, as expressed by the idea of semantic holism.
On a deeper epistemological level, one has to reject Cartesian attempts of reaching out for absolutely certainty, other than in the antiempirical special-case science of mathematics, which is the emprise of not ballparking anything. We lose the bulk of information by such approaches, as Vico wrote in Studiorum ratione § III: ”Ut autem scientia a veris oritur, error a falsis, ita a verisimilibus gignitur sensus communis. Verisimilia namque vera inter et falsa sunt quasi media: ut quae fere plerumque vera, perraro falsa. Itaque, cum maxime adolescentibus sensus communis educi deberet, verendum ne iis nostra critica praefocetur.”
Ultimately it is a duplicity making people unable to voice balanced views most of the time, such that societies suffer under extremisms to this day because of one certain dogmatic stifle of reason: “periculum subest, ne nostra critica adolescentes reddat eloquentiae ineptiores. Denique nostri critici ante, extra, supra omnes corporum imagines suum primum elocant verum. Sed id adolescentibus immature atque acerbe praecipiunt. Nam ut senectus ratione, ita adolescentia phantasia pollet: neque sane pueris, quae beatissimum futurae indolis specimen semper habita est, excaecari ullo modo oportet. Et memoriam, quae cum phantasia, nisi eadem, certe pene eadem est, in pueris, qui nulla alia mentis facultate praestant, excoli impense necesse est: neque ingenia ad artes, quae phantasia, vel memoria, vel utraque valent, ut pictura, poëtica, oratoria, iurisprudentia, quicquam sunt hebetanda: neque critica, quae omnium artium scientiarumque instrumentum nostris commune est, ulli debet esse impedimento. […]
Deinde sola hodie critica celebratur; topica nedum non praemissa, sed omnino posthabita. Incommode iterum: nam ut argumentorum inventio prior natura est, quam de eorum veritate diiudicatio, ita topica prior critica debet esse doctrina. At enim eam nostri facessunt, et nullius usus putant: nam sat est, inquiunt, homines modo critici sint, rem doceri, ut quid in ea veri inest inveniant; et quae circumstant verisimilia, eadem ipsa veri regula, nullam topicam docti vident. Sed qui certi esse possunt vidisse omnia? Unde illa summa et rara orationis virtus existit, qua «plena» dicitur, quae nihil intactum, nihil non in medium adductum, nihil auditoribus desiderandum relinquit. Natura enim incerta est, et praecipuus, immo unus artium finis, ut nos certos reddat, recte fecisse: et critica est ars verae orationis, topica autem copiosae.” Fay Freak (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Festucalex: Lots of formatting mistakes and deleting likely legit content by AdrianAbdulBaha. We include Arabic dialects as languages in addition to Arabic page. So if you vouch for the correctness of your Arabic page then you may add it. Also you can’t rely on anything posted on Wikipedia in linguistic matters in general; I have now searched the Arabic usage and answered in my commit messages at Trafalgar to it. Fay Freak (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
As for the formatting mistakes, I apologize. I'm a Wikipedia editor who only occasionally contributes to Wiktionary. As for the correctness, I vouch for it as a word I use daily (well, maybe not daily, I'm kind of polite in real life). AdrianAbdulBaha's definition is dead wrong, as well as the root م ن ي ك (which doesn't exist in Arabic or any of its dialects), and the word "بمنيك" which is a typo for بتمنيك, which I plan to add at some point in the future. Festucalex (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fenakhay despite the fact that the current lemma is wrong on several counts (part of speech, root, etymology, definition, and related verb form) and that the word never, ever occurs in the way it's listed? Festucalex (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello!
First, I just wanted to sincerely say thank you for working to improve the definition I recently added to cross-link.
The quotation that you’ve added, however, seems to use the word in an incorrect way—what the quote is actually describing is back-linking (i.e. adding hyperlinks that connect to websites/social media sites external of the domain to which the page with those hyperlinks belongs). In fact, “cross-linking” and “back-linking” are not synonymous, although this isn’t the first time I have seen erroneous usage of the former term, confusing it with the latter. “Cross-linking” is adding hyperlinks that connect different content/pages belonging to the same website/web domain, usually as a strategy to drive traffic to less-visited parts of a website, keep visitors on a site longer by suggesting additional content to them, or in optimizing a site for search engines by giving search engines more relevant content for them to index (and thus more opportunities to return a web page in search results).
I’ve replaced the quotation you added with one from a book on SEO that is available on Google Books that better illustrates the particular meaning of “cross-link” in this sense, and helps to differentiate it from its often-confused cousin, “back-link”.
That’s all—I really appreciate your addition to the definition, and I just wanted to provide you with a more detailed explanation of why I changed the quotation.
@Hermes Thrice Great: This is unconvincing as a rule, since cross- does not imply such a restriction as usually reflected by intra- as opposed to inter-. In the quote I gave the lexeme cannot easily be replaced by “back-link” either without sounding dubious or more reformulation. There may a specific online marketing restriction.
Nor does it subtract from the fact that the word can be employed in such an environment anyway and has to be documented, since for a broad circle of users this is not problematic. Fay Freak (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You are speaking of abstract linguistic concepts, and in that context I would I agree with you.
But in its actual usage—which is what this project is meant to record—in relation to the definition given (labeled “Internet”), cross-link has a very specific meaning, distinct from and complementary to back-link, and this distinction is spelled out in numerous textbooks and articles on the subject.
This usage was coined specifically for online marketing, so such a restriction is part and parcel of the definition. If you would like to change the label to “marketing” or “Internet marketing”, I wouldn’t protest, but as it is used in this way by several IT professions, I think it’s better as-is. Prior to the rise of search engines, when newsgroups, directories, and portals were the primary tools netizens used to find new content on the internet, no one used either of the terms back-link or cross-link—the preferred term was simply hyperlink or just link. It was only after search’s rise to dominance and the advent of SEO and online marketing as a discipline in the late 90s and early 00s that either term began to be used. Because this usage of the word originated in online marketing and continues to be used in that sense, it’s only appropriate that the definition and any quotations supporting it reflect that. Incorrect use of neologisms by a single publication you found is not tantamount to attestation of broad usage nor indicative of a general definition appropriate to a broad circle of users. This is a highly-specific usage, just as specific as the usage of cross-link given for biochemistry on the same page.
I see you have added your quotation in again, and added to the definition, although you neglected to also change the noun definition. I think the added mention of marketing is helpful, however, as I explained in this and my previous posts here, the addition of “or different domains” is just incorrect, as is the quotation. Regarding your statement “the lexeme cannot easily be replaced by back-link”—in the first instance the usage of cross-link is appropriate, as it relates to additional content on the same site, but the second instance is definitely incorrect, as it is referencing hyperlinking between “Chafea’s website” and a completely different website, “DG SANTE’s website”, and here it can easily be replaced. Your quote uses cross-link with the preposition “with” (side note: this makes it a phrasal/prepositional verb, when used transitively, and this probably ought to be documented), whereas back-link is usually used with the the preposition “to”. Your quotation then should actually read:
Over 220 news items on Chafea’s website were cross-linked with social media promotion, webinars on funding opportunities, communication guidance for beneficiaries and an upgrade of the database’s download features. In addition, back-linking to DG SANTE’s website and the Health-EU Newsletter improved the communication of Commission measures to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
If you believe that this example belongs to a broader usage of the word, then I would draw your attention to noun definition #3 on cross-link:
3. A connection between a set of data.
I would suggest the second, very specific verb definition for cross-link (“To bolster up the references of databases or elements in a database to each other”) be emended to match the more general definition given for the third noun definition, since the former is the noun form of the latter, but written in a more general way, and in this more general definition your broad usage would fit nicely. You could move the quotation then into that definition, and leave the definition I added, which has a much more distinct usage/definition with a label of “marketing” or “Internet marketing”.
Otherwise, I am happy to reproduce this thread on the discussion page for the term and loop some more people into this to get additional input.
@Hermes Thrice Great: I like how you are as well explicit as confident about the history of a term from your whole experience. It is best if we expatiate upon both originalist and careless usage, but it only materializes if the editor has a chronology inkling of sufficient magnitude. The dictionary reader needs to know what norms in the minds of language users concerning a term he can expect. Unfortunately myself it was shallow to me where the semantic field begins and end, and attempts to define have run the risk of either omitting to elucidate usual instances of the word or accepted restrictions in other instances. Now with your explicit stance we probably have an accurate coverage. Fay Freak (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak I am pleased where we ended up on this. As a web developer/IT professional for over 25 years, I feel that I have an adequate level of experience with the particular usage in question, but I recognize that it is indeed only my experience. The great thing about this project, though, is that the future is open for innumerable others to improve upon the listing and mitigate the limitations of a single editor (or even two). I sincerely appreciate your contributions to this term and your own experience as an editor and clear dedication to what is best for the project, and I enjoyed the discussion that ensued.
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Fay Freak,
I wanted to thank you for pointing out the error I made in the creation of the Sabaean term 𐩱𐩨𐩥. I assume that I mistakenly assigned the definition of 𐩱𐩨 to this spelling, not realizing that it's marked as a root in my source. As much as I want to contribute to the development of Sabaean terminology on this page, I am an amateur in Semitic linguistics and read the source wrong, so I'm glad you caught this. If 𐩱𐩨𐩥 is indeed a root, would it be wise to develop a Sabaean root template similar to the Hebrew and Arabic root templates and list the entry as such, or should it simply be deleted?
@BenPulliam: An analogon to {{ar-rootbox}} would make sense. Due to the occasionality of attestation, and work upon the language which you cannot well provide, I doubt that full root pages will be necessary, instead of us being content with the categories, which we can produce anyway by abusing {{root}} intralingually as I have done on Tigre and has caught one for other Ethiopian Semitic editors. In any case the page name will not be the three letters but following the analogy of Hebrew, Syriac/Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Arabic, and apparently Ethiopian Semitic, it would have to have some hyphens or spaces between the letters, or similar. The indication of a root needs to be set apart somehow from the notation of actually employed lexical material.
You should have realized your ineptness with the script first, to cease being an amateur, otherwise all emprise of indicating roots is futile: The practice of indicating a geminated consonant by doubling it in writing is European and shouldn’t have been assumed to be mirrored in the writing of a transcribed word, independently of whether you have been sottish enough to mistake a given root for a transcription of a spelling (which would not have happened either if you were secure in this other matter): just as the vowels are not indicated, “consonant doubling” is not. Latter from the Old South Arabian script the Ethiopic one developed which shows vowels in its syllabic signs but still not gemination, which could be indicated in the dictionary in the manner described at Module talk:Ethi-translit. You can inspect inscription facsimilia in the edition of the Deutsche Aksum-Expedition linked in my entry መሀር. Fay Freak (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the feedback and assistance in error analysis. I'll be sure to examine the facsimilia in the reading you've provided, as well as look into writing conventions associated with Sabaean and the accompanying Old South Arabian script.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for showing me the page where this suffix was covered. For some reason I could not find it after a while of searching for it and thought it was missing so I decided to add it myself. I am not quite familiar with the formatting, or some of the other editing laws/customs in Wikitionary. I added a source in the already existing page for the New Persian ـی suffix, but have no clue how to format it so if you could fix that it would be great.
Also, in the page covering the New Persian suffix, it says that the Persian suffix was "Later influenced by Arabic ـِيّ (-iyy)." Do you happen to know which source states this? and what type of influence are we speaking of here? The Concise Pahlavi Dictionary lists the New Persian ـی suffix as a direct descendant of the Middle Persian 'ig' suffix. I havent been able to find any sources that speak of the relation between the Arabic ـِيّ and the New Persian ـی suffixes. The fact that the 'g' at the end of the 'ig' suffix was eliminated from the New Persian descendant is in accordance with the rest of the changes of words from Middle Persian to New Persian. So im wondering, where does this leave room for Arabic influence? I am aware that you aren't the one that made that page so if this isnt the right place to discuss this I understand. I was just hoping you know something I dont about this. --MarkParker1221 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@MarkParker1221: I don’t know such a source and won’t search since even if we had one it would still likely be unsubstantiated guessing—not everything in references is granted. Due to the abstract significations of the respective suffixes it is hard to conceptualize a difference which would then have to be assumed levelled out by semantic loan.
I can also tell you from experience that conversely that the Arabic suffixes ـِيّ(-iyy) and ـِيَّة(-iyya) are not influenced by the Persian ones on ـی (because after countless entry and etymology creations and readings I have yet had zero even contextual motive to assume it), and about their etymologies and reconstructions various attempts have been in Semitist literature (I have no particular ones in mind since I chose to ignore the matter due to the complicated matter, I would wish to know more Semitic languages first to wield; it is easy to get confused in various models of Proto-Semitic sentence structures). Fay Freak (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see, thanks for the input. What would be the ideal next move from here? I suppose removing the "Later influenced by Arabic ـِيّ (-iyy)" and simply not discussing the relationship between the two suffixes doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Since the matter is a complex one and we currently don't have a source that discusses it, which even if we did, the source would still be guessing the relationship between the two suffixes. If this were not the case with the sources I would have wanted to find some on this topic but I myself do not have much knowledge of Semitic languages so I don't even know where to start looking for a source. Although based on what you said there is no point to look for one anyways. Let me know what you think about removing the aforementioned statement. MarkParker1221 (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
We use to write “the similary to X is a coincidence”. You can of course use less stereotypical wording and write for instance: “A relation to Arabic ـِيّ(-iyy) and its Semitic family is without substantiation.” Meaning currently we see the similarity but have no grounds to even suspect a relation. Fay Freak (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are saying, «We use to write “the similary to X is a coincidence”» and «... Meaning currently we see the similarity but have no grounds to even suspect a relation.»
That aside, on which grounds do you revert my posts and pitty the reader? You should know that "somebody would have sooner or later" is not a permissable defense in criminal court. 2A00:20:6008:76C2:5922:DD9E:AB77:9C8818:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Because you are still insufficiently weighing the verisimilitudes of interpretations, instead trying to blur the limits between science and trolling. One should consistently recognize an effort to use the human intellect instead of you putting a simulation together that more likely passes due to its resemblance to previous texts in the field, as an AI does, rather than through reliance on vivid (non-psychotic) experience. Fay Freak (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to make an entry for the root I verb which appears in Kazimirski and Lane as جَفَأَ, and for the root ج ف أ, but I can't work out how Wiktionary handles roots ending in أ. I thought you might be able to tell me what I should do? Thanks!
In case it helps you to understand which verb I mean, the senses (according to Kazimirski) are:
to deposit flotsam on the shore or riverbank, to wash up
to deposit foam on the sides of a boiling pot
to remove foam or debris from the side of a river or pot
to tip over (a pot, to empty the contents into the bowl)
Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I feel like your English additions haven't gotten enough appreciation on this page. I'm currently going through {{R:Right Rhymes}} and I'm looking up terms I've never even heard of only to find out that you added them years ago. diff is a very impressive find, by the way (and it's a pretty crazy coincidence that I was listening to BLP Kosher just yesterday). Keep up the good work! Ioaxxere (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Denazz: Don’t forget, for your searches, that the same typos occur in the reconstruction namespace, for such a word even oftener, I have seen from fixing some variant misspellings, as “fro”. Fay Freak (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Denazz: I don’t believe you. Today I was waking up and thinking about what Wonderfool told me, sweet, since we are pathic lexicographomaniacs and I regarded that I might have seen the repetition but have not attained a reasonable attitude towards retrenching my contributions, probably because I like the sound of my own voice, apart from a liking of repetition being a diagnosis requirement, determining my damaged executive functions. We all know that you care very much about Wiktionary and also close discussions about reconstructions on substantive grounds, and do not wholly snub the appendix namespace which formerly comprised the reconstructions. There never was a clear line with the mainspace; reconstructed senses of attested words need to be entered into the mainspace, as on ܐܘܣܬܢܐ(ʾustānā), we but have not decided how to format it. Some words are most appropriately situated in appendices such as my appendix of Aramaic terms only witnessed by borrowings, being an appendix to the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, or Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, Appendix:English unattested phobias; Semitic root pages also are, while homaging the structure of paper dictionaries, like indices with often exclusive content we are too embarrassed to expose at the front door. Fay Freak (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Howdy! Is it you who added the etymology on كركند? I don't understand, is it from Ancient Greek or was it borrowed into Ancient Greek? Cuz y'know, Khalkidon as the city name is not borrowed from Hittite. And why do you think that Hebrew כדכד is related to it? Tollef Salemann (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tollef Salemann: Of course borrowed into Ancient Greek, as precious stones use to be, and not inherited from some mythological ancestor like “Pre-Greek”. Hittite origin was after Leslau’s Gəʕəz dictionary following a more detailled Israeli work which I can’t read in the foreseeable future, Talk:ընկոյզ. Why would I relate the gem name to the city? Fay Freak (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see that Klein is mentioning the same etymology for the Hebrew word. But does all this means that the etymology for Frenchcalcédoine (related to Russianколчедан(kolčedan)) is wrong? I was thinking to create entries on כדכד and колчедан, but now i'm confused. What do you think about the French one? Tollef Salemann (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tollef Salemann: Yes. Of course until Bedřich Hrozný Europeans could not imagine anything of the like and mineralogues could only explain the mineral by the settlement or profess ignorance. It is left to us to track down this origin story of the city now part of Istanbul. 2019 Oxford handbook about Phoenician explorations says the Adriatic and the Black Sea seem to have been untouched! So the Phoenician explanation appears to be based on an ancient misconception about the History of Phoenicia, though even Horace in his Odes 2, 13, 14 noted navita Bosphorum Poenus perhorrescit(“The Phoenician seaman dreads the Bosphorus”)! In view of this state of research, we must retort and maintain that the city name is from something else, perhaps from the mineral. Fay Freak (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: I don’t see the evidence for this. Connecting a Persian term to a random Proto-Indo-European root with an analogous Old Persian sound sequence is not an etymology. Iranian data is needed, in support of an Iranian etymology. And if the attestation is not before the 10th century then it can be from Turkic in either case. The author obviously didn’t want to look much into the field, only listing a few mainstream references we all Orientalists on Wiktionary know. What I noted in the other thread: Iranian etymologies have to be a lot of work with specialist sources and primary materials. PIE connections superficially impressing to the uninvited are produced like a rat up a drainpipe. We have the same problem with Albanian: too many gaps in the past. Fay Freak (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see, it can be from Turkic but in the Wiki page it states it IS from Turkic without any arguments. Even Nişanyan Sözlük citing Doerfer and says:
"Karş. Farsça turb تُرب (aynı anlamda). Doerfer, Türk. und Mong. Elementen im Neupersisch sf. 2:504-505 sözcüğün nihai kökeninin İrani olduğunu savunur. Ancak kanımızca turma biçiminin varlığı Türkçe kaynağa işaret eder.
Macarca torma "turp" bir Türk dilinden alıntıdır."
It also seems that all the Turkic languages present in Wiki page for *turp are the ones in contact with Persian. Maybe it better to edit the page and emphasize on the uncertainty. Kamran.nef (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: Well for one, Doerfer does not stoop to this root connection and considers Turkic and hence possibly Persian having taken over the word from a third source not earlier than the 8th century. And the only argument for non-Turkic origin is the form variation turb, turub, turf, in Persian, which can also be explained by begadkefat variant metathesis of *lapt-, which is the etymology assumed by ku:tivir, for the again metathesized Kurdish form.
I don’t have to pass the question to @Yorınçga573, BurakD53 as Proto-Turkic editors though. “The derivation from Persian” in Laufer, Berthold (1919) Sino-Iranica: Chinese contributions to the history of civilization in ancient Iran, with special reference to the history of cultivated plants and products (Fieldiana, Anthropology; 15), volume 3, Chicago: University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, page 574, as also Laufer, Berthold (1916) “The Si-hia Language, a Study in Indo-Chinese Philology”, in T'oung Pao[19], volume 17, number 1, →DOI, page 84, is without argument. From a 21st century view Persian origin is objectively not intuitive, in detail as I don’t see weight in the alleged Persian variant turf, which unlike turb, turub Laufer does not spell out, so that oral knowledge of this word is implied, likely a quite irrelevant late Afghan pronunciation, as شفدر(šafdar) for شبدر(šabdar). This is to show that Doerfer’s whole argument for Persian rather than Turkic origin rests ondeficient knowledge of peripheral Persian dialects. It’s fun that I can refute him with little Persian proficiency but a list of Afghan phytonyms published meanwhile. Fay Freak (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for your answer and your time. Just one more thing I want to ask in this regard, in An Etymological Dictionary of pre-thirteenth-century Turkish by Gerard Clauson, in the page 549 for the root turma it says in the the Picture. Does he mean is it a loan from persian or from turkic? It is rather ambiguous. Kamran.nef (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It means it has been borrowed from Persian even in other Iranian languages. With the notion that “Turkish” (Turkic) etymology is impossible (not shared by our Turkic editors), it claims that it is a loanword in Turkic, since the dictionary is about pre-thirteenth-century Turkic. Fay Freak (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nice find. It's թրեֆ(tʻref) in the dialect of New Julfa and Chaharmahal. Radlof's source is Villotte, who was a Jesuit missionary working with New Julfa Armenians. The Armenian reveals an Iranian dialectal form the Isfahan area, in addition to the dialectal Iranian forms listed in Tsabolov, some of which I have now added to ترب(torob).
I don't know Iranian or Turkic sound laws and can't judge about the ultimate origin, but I find it hard to believe that Persians would borrow the name of a garden vegetable from some nomadic savages. It's like an Eskimo borrowing the word for snow from a Saracen. Vahag (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
The term "دماغ" is predominantly used in Iran to refer to the nose. According to dictionaries, its origin is traced back to Arabic, where it originally denoted the brain. However, there are alternative views on its etymology. Garnik Asatrian suggests a different root, *damāk, derived from the verb "dam-" meaning "to breathe." Additionally, Gerardo Barbera's paper "Bashkardi and Garmsiri body part terms: A study in the dialects of southeast Iran" mentions Mohammad Hasandust's etymological dictionary of Persian, proposing "NPrs. damāγ, dumāγ" from the root "dam-" with the suffix "-āga," akin to "NPrs. čerāγ" meaning "lamp, luminaire, etc." Though the paper was previously accessible on academia.edu, it seems to be unavailable at present. Are these assertions plausible? What is your perspective? Kamran.nef (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: There are lots of reasons why this is insanely ignorant. Maybe they deleted the article for bad linguistics.
غ(γ) shall not occur in native Persian words, for one, and seemingly Iranian words which have it are Northwestern Iranian borrowings, as چراغ is and variants of اسپرم are, Talk:თალგამი. And I would expect variants of the word with different ending if it were perceived an Iranian word in Early New Persian, but obviously everyone assumed it an originally Arabic word and hence spelt it like in Arabic, where it is attested copiously in pre-Islamic times while no quote for Middle Iranian is provided, which should exist for a major body part. And the cognate exists as often in the Ethiopic Bible, so not paying heed to the kindred Semitic words can only be explained by propagandistic aversion to neighbouring Arabic countries the current regime nurses. We see again how easy it is to posit Indo-European roots for anything you like and you will have an impressive publication if you only superimpose grammar rules on doculects but don’t do the philologic drudgery of balancing frequencies and timeframes of words. Fay Freak (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, just to be clear neither paper claims that the Arabic word is from Iranian. They say they are different words. Maybe I have done a disservice to the article by quoting small parts of it. here's the whole entry for damâg:
Prevailing view held by Paul Horn, James Darmesteter, Wilhelm Eilers, H. W. Bailey, Martin Schwartz?
Müller, Friedrich (1896) “Neupersische und armenische Etymologien”, in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes (in German), volume 10, pages 179–180 with a different alleged Iranian root at least tries to fit in the Arabic, however with an idiosyncratic explanation: أُمّ دِمَاغ(ʔumm dimāḡ) is according to him mother of the nose, after the cited Hyrtl, Joseph (1879) Das Arabische und Hebräische in der Anatomie[21] (in German), Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, page 108, without etymological speculation, comprehended this combination meninges. If mater capitis was Scheitel then at best the brain was the mother of the crown. The connection by Horn, Paul (1893) Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie (in German), Strasbourg: K.J. Trübner, page 127 Nr. 572 is as little substantiated as possible. But okay, it was then all not that easy to find that it is transmitted at various places from the time of Islam.
H.W. Bailey does not contain this etymology in the two references given by Garnik Asatrian, notably not in The template Template:R:kho:Bailey does not use the parameter(s):
entry=dam-
Please see Module:checkparams for help with this warning.Bailey, H. W. (1979) Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University press, page 152.
Wilhelm Eilers, in a review of a previous book of Arabic words in Persian by Asya Asbaghi we lack, apparently implying that even she held the word Arabic, is very explicit in Die Welt des Islams 1992, 127 about his assuming an “old participle” and at least explains why the semantics are nose and brain together: Geruch steigt ins Hirn! Fay Freak (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is suddenly less attractive for me to expend my creative power to doomscroll Wiktionary anymore, though I will afford it, as this right time it flipped a switch in me to be informed that I have passed the written law school exams, supposedly the most challenging performance controls for German civilians. I could barely sit down to have my lunch. Nothing substantial to be done anyway, eh? You would expect me to become greedy, but evidently I am overfond of taking my time and specifically raised my disdain for creative writing. The personality that allowed me to relish belles-lettres had to be reassembled. The pre-batsoup-fever year where I quit bashing balmy books technically I only read them already to excerpt words. So any Wiktionarian (EU) fancying to partake of my literature taste?
Particularly @PUC, Fenakhay I would like to bind a gift parcel comprising of primary and secondary sources in languages they are interested in. Like I got the choicest German books obviously in particular cheap, and I am gonna be rich anyway so there cannot regret to cornucopiate my only companions. I still have {{R:ar:Wehr-5-de}} (2 kg) around though I already use {{R:ar:Wehr-6-de}}. I can definitely get PUC going with Arabic materials (as the essentials are in my head obviously, unlike some libellous IPs nag) and support with Russian and Serbo-Croatian ones, of course also everything for @Vahagn Petrosyan to his local plug or @Victar if he eventually visits beautiful Westphalia. For @Nicodene I might have insane stuff but I have no information about his abodes so we would definitely need to chat. Maybe I should create a Telegram oikumene to facilitate exchange of classified data, currently not on פiscorפ.
I am thinking of a 5 kg (€ 6.99 inside DE) or 10 kg (€ 10.49 inside DE) DHL parcel for any veteran with an EEA address—don’t want to do customs declarations and commercial invoices, only an invoice for shipment costs and the case that you wanna tip me if you are drunk, as in this 🤡 country, unlike e.g. Denmark, students don’t get gibs, only neets and randomers from the world over. (Yes, you get paid if quitting studies and unenrolling, but I guess one has to study law ten years to recognize the violation of the main maxim of the constitution, human dignity, by a perverse incentive.) I also have Fay Freak fan snapbacks for everyone (no joke, in the early 2010s there was a US premium-mediocre cap brand Flat Fitty with the logo FF, which you still find in American fashion archives, and mine, but I guess I will have to wear suits now 😩). Fay Freak (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations on passing the exams. And I'm sorry to hear you're leaving (if I've read correctly).
@Nicodene: Not really what I wrote, or at least not in a sense to be sorry about. I am purely observational and assess that it is suddenly less attractive, though I will afford it, just that on the other hand I would do things to become attractive, which ultimately should lead to more attractive participation, even though few might be left to acknowledge me for it? You see for me everything is a great broken balance, and I made it my profession to surround myself with cautelary clauses and hedges. Nobody forces me to take decisions, not even myself. Just a year ago I have learnt that people can directly sense volition, which is foreign to me, though I do know that volition is required for or at least conducive to completing tasks, which I can reorder, better than ever, and complete by applying manipulative methods to subdue the indirectly concluded volition: if there are opportunities, I can get lost, and there are more opportunities now, which I’d like to take advantage of—maybe the convolution of circumstances also propels motivation for language acquirement or deepening, this is not planned and might happen anyway and probably be exciting by habit, but currently the drab monotony of day activities holds me back even in that which I originally joined the dictionary for, when I am actually in front of it, it being a reinforced vocabulary sheet I am not desirous to scrutinize the primary material for, owing to me not being able to find a connection to real life, me having created a sterile fantastic environment of academia which I now leave for good! I am surely interested to see how Wiktionary looks in two, four, eight years etc. and have regular checks of this website in my calculations. But personality development requires distance, and language acquisition even necessitates new personality and surroundings: “learning a new language”, like dieting, doesn’t work, for most people, because to maintain the tribal affiliations, one situates oneself in—precisely by the default mode network as the region tasked with making life-plans when man is idle, which always relate back to societal status, thus status quo due to current moment bias—, both the objectives of language and of personality are dogmatized only skewly, with unrealistic stability in mind. To make best use of the limited resources, one succeeds with ambiguity tolerance, having this is a known personality trait of hyperpolyglots: Keep the abilities and eject the hampers! Instead of commonplace definite excuses: the three Ps of learned helplessness are that problems are “permanent, personal and pervasive”. Maybe people intuitive realize it if they just leave without telling. Personally, I will leave impervasively in the medium term. Fay Freak (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations! Can you tell me with whom I can discuss Iranian etymologies here? It's kind of difficult to find users based on their expertise. Kamran.nef (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: Currently barely with anyone at all, I have looked in Recent changes to Proto-Iranian lemmas. Victar/Sokkjo can but probably won’t discuss, rather make new pages, but perhaps Mahagaja (talk • contribs) and new Agamemenon (talk • contribs) whom I see having added Indo-Iranian quite exactly. Not much happening on Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Reconstruction. Seems like the bulk of users got attrited around the CCP virus, but there never were many for Indo-Iranian: I mean this site is here twenty years and there are now 298 Proto-Iranian entry pages, most of which were created by Victar. Some by Ariamihr (talk • contribs) who I think will be happy to respond and capably reach to the Middle Iranian area but probably with days delay.
Like unless you get a community elsewhere there will only be one Proto-Iranian entry per month, though this is even the most successful one. I know what all those scientists are mostly doing: Only upping their status, not giving back as though there were nothing of value that can be done if one is not paid for it: this tribal intuition I have talked about; I had it too when I was not motivated any more to study in university when with reference to lacking performance evidence money was suspended half-way, nor were the sovok parents intelligent enough to provide stimulus, so I only did what I wanted, not that which I even reckoned correct, and added four more languages to my repertoire—and people ask how one can learn so many languages, people are stupid; I can’t make an association between that which one wills and that which one considers right. If you know what is right you also know to set right stimuli, and once used to it even have attained motivation to set stimuli. Why are people so invested in free will but never free intellect? They suppress recognition of what to recognize is disadvantageous to them—and then they waste away anyhow, nowadays likely even faster because they don’t utilize modern insights about the body and mind allowing their optimization, they just give in to the sugar or tobacco or other cravings. There are incentives not to know, which people aren’t even conscious of and hence not economize. That’s why you find only two people in eight billion editing a major reconstructed ancestral language or modern national language at any given month. Fay Freak (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
You will be a fine and well-remembered lawyer as long as you use normal language and don't speak weird for status. Equinox◑03:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Talking weird and quickly in a legal setting intimidates and impresses people, which is kind of the point as a lawyer. It's only an issue if he talks like this in pyjama time :-) Shoshin000 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations! I hope you are not quitting Wiktionary completely. Even though I usually understand only about 60% of what you are saying, you are one of the few sane and competent people around here. Vahag (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I humbly come here as a pilgrim to a shrine to wish you best of luck and express the most heartfelt thanks on behalf of the whole project. Catonif (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations, and I too hope we'll still see you around, even if it's in a less intensive manner.
@PUC: Then you write me an e-mail with your physical address, or even better an e-mail with your Telegram handle or for the same application phone number (used in international shipping anyway) so I can exchange some photographs of other volumes I deem helpful in real time to determine whether you will like them, and endow you the impression of pre-excitement (you see I am all in the art of creating motivators), since if I am making a parcel once then I fill up the space and make best use of the shipping-costs, who ever bears them (2 kg EU EUR 14.49, 5 kg EUR 16.49, 10 kg EUR 21.49), and a dictionary alone makes no language knowledge yet (→ doculect), e.g. I probably should thus recycle an Arabic novella with side-by-side German which latter you appear to understand. Fay Freak (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Abirtel: It’s too bad. We are committed to keep the Etymology Scriptorium readable. You could have looked on India#English to see that your theory is fantastic. Some ideas should be kept for yourself longer before being published to others. Unfortunately we even have actual schizophrenics dropping their misguided texts. Cheers Fay Freak (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
but ancient Greek text never portrays how Indos or even Indike became term India?
Moreover ancient Indos was a just a small piece of land/river which lies present day Pakistan. Rest areas were small and were under separate political entities. Abirtel (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Abirtel: They don’t need to tell, the ancient Greeks used Ancient Greek grammar, upon a word borrowed from Old Persian, as we say on Ἰνδία. And then Greek was loaned into Latin and from Latin the English learned the name. Fay Freak (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
They need not to tell if it was from grammar!
Now for your historic consistency only present day Pakistan could be termed as "India" if it was from Indos (Persian Hidus).
Now what was about other territories?
[Even term India was the synonymous term for Mogul empire.
@Abirtel: The exact territory doesn’t really matter. If one is sitting in Europe without a map at hand then India is only a vague house-number; dominions change, culture stays, with a periphery of what is India and what not. Do you know the concept of Farther India? The similarity of the ending ِـيَّة(iyya) to -ῐ́ᾱ(-íā) is a coincidence. Fay Freak (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
So called further India was an administrative term to designate outside historic Hindian territories, after brits got control of Dehli in 1802.
Historically Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Shaivaism along with Buddhism were also introduced in south east Asia by Pala, Vijaya nagara and chola empires.
Even though those empires were not considered Hindia by their respective times, "Indo (which is evolved from Persian term Hindoo) term was awarded to identify their influences in east.
Like Indonesia term for example.
Now what about south India as India/Hindiyyah?
South became part of Hindiyyah/Hindoostan during the era of emperor Aurangzeb.
But designating any unknown land as India was not a British problem, but a Spanish problem. This was started after Spanish reconquest.
Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, in my first question in the scriptorium, I cited this book. I think at least it should be considered by editors especially when the number of sources for Arabic etymologies is low and the fact that when we click on the Arabic three letter roots (e.g., ع ط ش ) it leads to a page with examples of its forms and no further etymologies. In most cases it's a dead end. This book is a collection of Arabic words with their supposed Persian origin. Tha majority of the words are plants which is logical. What do you think? Can it be reliable? You can find it here. Kamran.nef (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: I don’t know why you have asked me again a month after it. I also think a lot, and not full-time in linguistics, so I haven’t suddenly devoured that book. Again you are an editor and can create reference templates, by copying over the formatting of one of many, and cite etymologies with them. As you see yourself, this single book will only help with Iranianisms though, and hardly answer to three-letter roots. Fay Freak (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was looking for a second opinion about the book. Because I was introduced to it in a nationalist forum and nationalists tend to claim the origin of common words belong to them. I've seen this especially from Persians and Azeris. The author of the book not being Persian kind of assures me in a way but I still am unsure about its scientific accuracy. It contains a lot of well-known Persian loanwords in Arabic but on the other hand it also claims that عطش (thirsty) is from Persian تش, and since I'm not a familiar with Arabic and Semitic etymologies, I was hesitant to use it as a reference. Thank you for making the template. Kamran.nef (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: Well you made out by yourself the shady invention 😛🫡 Those which I have not added already by other means are either such helpless fabrications or barely seen by anyone in use, like طَبَنْدَر(ṭabandar) cited after a dictionary (you only find dictionaries with this word, which does not imply it did not exist but at least that the loss from forgoing an entry is negligible as such is not gathered from organically reading literature). Fay Freak (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param in {{desc}} and maybe also the <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}} and {{ant}}. Both of these are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2: We don’t want to shoehorn more features into {{l}}, but it’s funny that I have to write * {{desc|de|Sittich|lb=prison slang|nolb=1}} at Sittenstrolch, where |nolb= means a different label than that of |lb=, and I am concerned that bots are stunned by {{desc}}. Can you confirm or deny any degree of desirability of {{desc}} in derived terms sections? I also suppose that due to the rarity of |nolb=, or its visual and otherwise confusability, it should be renamed to |nolangname= for example. Fay Freak (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak This is a good point and I thought of it when I made this shift but decided not to do anything about it. Someone might complain that |nolangname= is too long, although it conveys much more clearly what is going on than |nolb=. An alternative that might possibly work is |notag=, now that "tag" no longer has the meaning of "label". Or maybe an abbreviation |noln= = |nolangname=. I dunno. Benwing2 (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I see you are (ab)using {{desc}} in Derived terms. Maybe we should instead have some other template for this use. {{alt}} would probably actually work just fine even though it's currently thought of as specific to Alternative forms sections. If we were to create a new template, it could be called {{terms}}; but it would probably end up working just like {{desc|nolb=1}} or {{alt}}. Benwing2 (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2:: |notag= would be the utter confusion for anyone who knows the previous tag syntax or similar, for the time being, reinforcing the old parameter name which we are now supposed to forget. |nolang= would work. ====Derived terms==== could have {{dt}}, and {{dttree}}, in analogy to {{desctree}}. Or {{dert}} and {{derttree}}. Fay Freak (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ioaxxere: Category. I avoided collecting more of these entries because from my viewpoint any ⟨c⟩ or /k/ could have this change and it was intransparent whether such a form penetrated into general AAVE, or perhaps whether a particular rapper actually aligned with a certain gang, which would be a bit like “words I and my friends use”. Fay Freak (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak: Well, it doesn't really matter how broadly used a term is as long it at meets CFI. This book has a list of several other terms which don't seem attestable. There's also this, which is apparently used by two rappers. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Ioaxxere: there's also the issue of whether it's just applying simple substitution rules to ordinary words, like "igpay atinLay" does. This could theoretically be applied to any word starting with a "b", though I somehow don't expect "bontradistinction" or "calustrade"... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz: The extraexpectational is then what recommends collection of those words, inasmuch as we very much should not pass over verlan, though the latter is argually more difficult to guess, and then again verlan is employed in whole quartals of France while these American substitutions might be of lesser lexicalization, idiolectally as well as sociologically. Mere repeated durable occurrences may represent artifacts more than facts, since contemporary English is always the best-attested language even when it is not language, the stipulation of “meeting CFI” is a petitio principii. Fay Freak (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
I believe the comments made here are inappropriate. They assume bad faith, they assert a motive that is inaccurate, and they are a personal attack. Please remember in RfD discussions to comment on entry, not creator. Purplebackpack8915:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
You wrote a comment speculating on another editor's mental health, and you even questioned at the time, whether that constitutes a personal attack. I'll help you out here: yes it does. It is extremely arrogant, judgemental and rude to speculate on the mental condition of an editor you don't know. Please refrain from commenting on editors and stick to the content. Thank you.
@Elizium23: I deny the veracity of your judgments about what I said. I do not cast aspersions on people’s private and personal lives ironically but conclude their personhoods literally, inasmuch as explains the content they create, which is often not comprehensible per se but by editing history. I would not meet the editor in question personally but interpret the material everyone provides to the public by himself. “On the internet everyone is a dog.” If he appears to have changed, I will find occasion to acknowledge this. I condemn your calumniatory innuendo that I acted from intent to harm or spite (as casting aspersions is defined) instead of being well-meaning for either the person themselves, the project or the Foundation. I even deny having experienced the feelings of intent or spite ever in my whole life, this is discriminatory language from an antiautistic paradigm, violating 3.3. of the UCoC (“Hate speech in any form, or discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals … on the basis of … their personal beliefs”).
Since you are already blocked from Wiktionary for inflammatory remarks, I spare you from incriminating yourself by making another answer to me. I will continue to apply my discretion in acting in the project’s best interest, which having followed daily for years I am able to recognize in ways that you cannot, as in this case. What you have lost is in particular that the present project voted about, and then rejected, a policy about personal attacks where the question was what constitutes a personal attack under it; I was not communicating any statement about general Wikimedia documents. Under those I haven’t made a personal attack, there is no question, only unironic positive motivators. What do you or does the Foundation do to maintain editors’ sanity? We have to call the want of it out respectfully. “Practice empathy …”, 2.1 of the UCoC, which specifically requires making assumptions about mental health that are more or less likely to apply to an editor, inasmuch as we have data on them and do not violate their privacy by discussing it. Fay Freak (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I find this word problematic. Fran, ERHJ and ESSJa claims this word a Proto-Slavic word, and surprisingly none of the authors mention the article you referred to. While it is true that some inter-Slavic borrowings may blurred the true origin, I really don't find the conclusion convincing. It may be a Proto-Slavic South dialectism thus explain the cognate of Russian Church Slavonic. Machek also claimed it of unclear origin, if it is a super apparent borrowing, why did he not just say derived from the root česati? also to borrow a word in č- and then coined into a c- is somewhat strange. I understand there were lots of reverts. But don't you find this word needs more research? I don't speak German so it's hard for me to read that article though, but West Slavic borrowed from South Slavic can be confirmed. Chihunglu83 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chihunglu83: Not many people overall have read this article, which has been published late as well as remotely enough not to have influenced the influence of an already often copied derivation. I must have only seen the preview of that article in 2019 and still wait for digitization of Studia Slavica Finlandensia. As I read thecatalogues, not a single library in NRW has the volume and one inTrier and no exemplar is on the German market. I am not pricked to revisit the paper.
The specific meaning of this plant should flash the warning lights. Given the range of the relevant species it is quite absurd to imagine ancient Slavs at the Polesian swamps sharing a term for it even “dialectally”, and likewise we must be very skeptical about the idea of a late medieval Russian man without special connections getting to see it, or parts of it. Of course on the other hand it could be planted or sent around around 1500 – at this point we already have the absurdest borrowings of phytonyms and ichthyonyms from the West, things that did not move that well in antiquity.
Then cross-linguistically designations of this plant were also very late. As shown in the descendants of Georgian ბაძგი(baʒgi, “holly”); no Medieval Arabic term exists and I could not even find Arabic acquaintance with the plant before the 20th century, checking the range of other species too, leading me to the idea that بَهَشِيَّة(bahašiyya, “holly”) could be from Georgian due to Ilex colchica. The occurrence of the Turkish and Persian terms for holly is somewhat earlier than the Arabic due to where the languages where spoken but matches the 1500 line of the Russian attestations. There was something going on with planting this genus around.
The likelihood of this term having existed in Proto-Slavic is … rather low, in spite of the formal trigger for such a reconstruction. Serbo-Croatian and Slovene were forced to invent a name, obviously, in the Middle Ages already, but who would dare claim it existed in the oldest layer of Old Slovene? Fay Freak (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Don't mind me too much but I figured it be worth to mention the term sounds similar to Italo-Romance crespino, in its dialectal variants trespino, trespina, especially its Russian CS forms with r (also note the SC forms with v), with the ultimate form then ultimately influenced by the scratch verb. Catonif (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif, Chihunglu83: Yeah, it’s alleged origin word ὀξυάκανθα(oxuákantha) has also been held as ‘barberry’ and ‘holly’ instead of ‘firethorn’, though already the Theatrum Botanicum 1640 about the barberry knew firethorn to be the “real meaning” of the ancients’ ὀξυάκανθα(oxuákantha), and all these plants were confused in the past (Il Rinio confuse il crespino coll'agazzino … […] però lo distinse dal licio(“boxthorn”) […]).
Looking closely again, Russians could even confuse the holly with sweet cherries, or at least etymologically identify the heard česmina with their proper name descended from *čeršьňa, so this is the reason why we have the forms чрѣсмина(črěsmina), чересмина(čeresmina). Miklosich, Franz (1886) Etymologisches Wörterbuch der slavischen Sprachen (in German), Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, page 35b saw its gloss = черешня(čerešnja, “sweety cherry”), so in Daľ and passed around as an equation to this day, and was not inclined towards a reconstruction. Sometimes variants in form and/or meaning support common inheritance rather than borrowing, sometimes no …
And guess what Turkish پرنال / pırnal(“holly”) is from: πρῖνος(prînos, “Quercus ilex”); Bailly actually gives it as houx, πρίνου ἄκανθαι and πρῖνος ὀξύφυλλος(prînos oxúphullos), missing in our Greek entry, but I wonder whether this not the same as prūnus, προύνη(proúnē), προῦμνος(proûmnos). A “plum” cultivated 2500 years of selective breeding earlier would not have looked and tasted much greater than firethorn, barberry or boxthorn, look how similar the cherry plum looked in fact. One would call me insane if it I were to give this equation outside all the context, but it’s not from the present horizon to assess what confusion is plausible … Fay Freak (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, would you take a look at Wörter aus Xurāsān und ihre Herkunft Nr 257. Monchi-Zadeh seems to imply that Arabic ذرة is from Iranian "yavartaak" he also gives Persian زرت. If you look at Dehkhoda entry for زرت, he says it might be Arabized. But Steingass says the Persian term is from Arabic. What do you think? Kamran.nef (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: I don’t know how this would work. It is also not always clear what Monchi-Zadeh wants to contend and if anything at all. He seems to imply that Persian زرت(zurt) / زرد(zurd) is from Arabic ذُرَّة(ḏurra). His reference to Bailey 1943 p. 93 seems useless from today’s view.
I searched it in dictionaries and it seems it should be زغیر, even Afghan sources in the web use this form. Dehkhoda says it's the native term for flax. Dehkhoda also says some sources recorded it as زعیر, but if it is Persian the form with غ seems more natural. I think it is better to mention زغیر as the main entry and زغر and زعیر as alternative forms.
I have done research on some words but I'm not comfortable with editing pages. If I direct you to the sources would you be interested in using them? For example the word کنه seems to be Iranic and according to "Этимологический словарь тюркских языков: Общетюркские и межтюркские основы на буквы 'К', 'Қ' page 64" the Turkic form is borrowed. Edelman drives it from the root *kan- in "Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Т.4. i - k page 208", which is very convincing. In "A New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto page 39" it is mentioned that the Pashto word is not connected with Persian but others say it is borrowed from Persian. Kamran.nef (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kamran.nef: زغیر is also where Vullers in his Persian-Latin dictionary has it, with another helpful gloss of a kind of food together with زغار(zagâr) elsewhere glossed as زمین نمناك(“moist soil”): though Irman’s English glosses are unreliable to a smaller degree than his etymologies, we probably can keep his derivation of this word from Sogdian even for the flax word more than we can keep his glosses as “dampness” and “rust”. There are probably more relations to be found in the Sogdian researchers.
Hasandoust has both entries of زغار and زغیر. For زغار he says it is from Sogdian and it is related to آغاردن. Based on this I searched Etymological dictionary of the Iranian Verb by Johnny Cheung, and in page 108 under the root *garh3- you can find Sogdian term. In Hasandoust's book there is also زغاره "millet" which he doubtfully says it might be related to گال id. For زغیر however, there's no etymology suggested. Kamran.nef (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, because too few have cared about Afghan Persian, and we only find such things when we start from the phytonyms. But the wide diffusion of the verbal stem supports the plant name’s etymology. Some Proto-Iranian verb to be reconstructed for آغشتن(âğeštan), with a lot of tedious-to-spellcheck languages, cited there in Cheung. Fay Freak (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikis contain stubs and are a work in progress, have you noticed? The largest roots are particularly challenging to author completely in one go. Fay Freak (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do you think these old lexicographic abbreviations merit inclusion? I've first encountered them in Lexer's work and I'm not really sure if they're used outside his work and derivations. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fytcha: I don’t remember them either. It sounds/reads idiosyncratic by 19th century standards, like some professor’s quirk, so of course some student picked it up, and then it was like now and yore with some taxonomic terms whose users fit in a very small room. There were long ways for one’s obscurity being called out, in that time’s social environment, like Eduard Engel had to explain himself his whole life after having to deal with mispronounced made-up foreignisms as a Reichstag stenographer. Fay Freak (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
