Mitronen

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

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.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Thadh (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you've been adding a number of fairly hit-and-miss Erzya cognates for Finnish words. Are you working off of a source or anything for these? Many of these look strange enough that they would certainly call for a source. In most cases you would be probably better off adding less certain etymologies on the Erzya words themselves (or better yet, on dedicated Proto-Mordvinic entries if you feel like starting work on creating more of those). --Tropylium (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, Vershinin's dictionary apparently. I advice some caution, his work has many poor proposals that don't take pre-existing work on (e.g.) Finnish etymology into account. --Tropylium (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Quick tip, Keresztes seems to use urmd. for pre-Mordvinic and vormd. for Proto-Uralic. When you link to Proto-Mordvinic, what you want is the reconstruction before the urmd.. Seems this caused a great deal of confusion to you. (also, no need to include pre-Mordvinic at all, Keresztes gives it because it is sometimes more transparent as to morpheme boundaries, but we have etymology sections for that). Thadh (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vor-#German Anazarenko (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I quote a source, I have to do it carefully, right? Or can I interpret the sources as I wish? Anazarenko (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://i.ibb.co/1vnGD9v/Sieppaa.png

• jäzənə isn't a Proto-Permic form definitely

Anazarenko (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

vormd. (including jäzənə) is basically "What construction would the Mordvinic reflex stem from if it existed in PU?" That doesn't mean this construction did exist in PU, just that it uses the phonological system of PU.

Yes, you should interpret sources carefully, and in this case that would mean understanding what terminology Keresztes uses and what it corresponds to on Wiktionary. To make a comparison, Lytkin in his Komi etymological dictionary uses общеперм. (common Permic) for what we call "Proto-Permic", доперм. (pre-Permic) for Proto-Finno-Ugric and праурал. (Proto-Uralic) for Proto-Uralic-Yukaghir, with both of the latter now being outdated reconstructions. Thadh (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where did Keresztes write that he use urmd. for pre-Mordvinic and vormd. for Proto-Uralic? Can you be more specific or is it just what you think?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ur-#German

German ur- means 'proto'. Anazarenko (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Mordvinic is by definition the last common ancestor of Mordvinic languages. It is clear as day from the reconstructions given that that is the first given reconstruction, no?

E.g. Erzya /joʒo/, Moksha /joʒə/ (dialectal /joʒ/) are reconstructed to various stages as *joʒə, *juʒə and *juʒa; It is clear that the change u > o preceded the split of Moksha and Erzya, as no lect shows any alteration with the vowel here.

Terminology can be very different in various times, languages and cultures, you need to be careful to make sure the one we handle is the same as theirs. Thadh (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The thing about reconstructions is that they are generally uncertain and should under no circumstances be treated as revealed truth. Nevertheless, if I quote a source, I cannot interpret it freely because something does not suit me personally. In the case of jožo, Keresztes suggests *juža as a Pre-Mordvinic form. Do you think that the Finnish iho could be derived from *juža? What kind of form is this? Anazarenko (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

For example, in Finnish there are two terms: myöhäiskantasuomi and varhaiskantasuomi. Both mean Proto-Finnic. I suppose that's where the misunderstanding comes from. The Proto-Mordvinic language is also divided into several stages and what is given as Proto-Mordvinic is actually Early Proto-Mordvinic, but certainly not Pre-Mordvinic.

Moreover, that when undoing edits based on sources, it's worth writing down what exactly is wrong with them, not just blocking the user for over 24 hours because "someone told me something". This is frivolous and discourages users from doing anything. Especially considering the mess that's going on here. Anazarenko (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

• myöhäiskantasuomi, keskikantasuomi and varhaiskantasuomi

Anazarenko (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For Keresztes' explanation of his periodicization, see p. 43 and up to that point in part 1 of the handbook ("statt Späturmordwinisch schlage ich eher das kürzere Altmordwinisch vor"). His "Vormordwinisch" is not quite Proto-Uralic either as much as the step after common areal innovations extending also to e.g. Mari, like voicing or a few vowel shifts (thus e.g. "vormd." *juža from *jiša for 'skin').

The whole system of three separate proto-stages is maybe handy for exposition but is entirely idiosyncratic, I don't think anyone else follows it. If I have anything to say about it there will be a bunch of papers eventually explicitly demonstrating various problems of that chronology too; a first dispatch on this is currently in press, and the whole vowel relative chronology is of course built on sand now that we no longer reconstruct PU long vowels at all. Various relevance for how to reconstruct Proto-Mordvinic proper too, but we'll cross that bridge once we bring it to water. --Tropylium (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As for the Pre-Mordvinic forms, I will move them later to the Proto-Mordvinic pages. Don't worry about it. Anazarenko (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't link them in any case, you can give them in italics. Thadh (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

What are you doing? Thadh (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you care that the automatic transliteration is wrong?

I just used the Niina Aasmäe's transliteration, which is based on Paasonen's materials and have been used frequently by various linguists. Anazarenko (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://erzja.info/gallery/an%20introductory%20course%20of%20the%20erzya%20language.pdf Anazarenko (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can change the module (Module:myv-translit), but why are you adding links to Erzya showing only the translit (i.e. no Cyrillic)? Thadh (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, i'll also add Cyrillic. Thank you for the link. Anazarenko (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add references to the entries you create? I could help with creating a reference template if you'd like. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're still not doing this. It's important that our readers know where you got the information from, so please reference a dictionary/similar source in every entry. Compare Komi-Zyrian керка (kerka). Thadh (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would it be better to do nothing? I don't have time to do everything at once. I will add sources when I have time. Thank you. Anazarenko (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Honestly? Yes, it would be better to not add an entry at all than to add one without ever sourcing it. Adding one additional template is not a lot of work, please just do it. Thadh (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Most of the articles have no references and somehow no one deleted them. Anazarenko (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Listen, if you want to be productive on Wiktionary for Erzya and Moksha, you can't just copy entries from some obscure online dictionary and call it a day, you need to find yourself a published dictionary (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), and you need to start thinking about creating some infrastructure (inflection, pronunciation)...

If you don't actually care about the entries you create, why create them in the first place? We're trying to create a high-quality dictionary here, this means that we source our info (so our readers know where to check what we claim), and we make entries that have more information than just headword and gloss; Otherwise, what's the point of using us if you can just as well use Giellatekno? Thadh (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you call this http://www.eki.ee/dict/ersa/index.cgi "some obscure online dictionary"? Anazarenko (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I was referring to Giellatekno (diff), but print dictionaries are generally preferred over EKI, too. Thadh (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Printed dictionaries are full of completely unfounded Russian loanwords. Then why create any Mordvinian articles at all when there are already Russian articles? Anazarenko (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, you're trying to create a "high-quality dictionary", but it has nothing to do with high quality and you don't do anything about it, you just pick on those who try to contribute anything. Here's some examples of bogus articles that for some reason have not been removed.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%83%D1%80%D1%86%D1%83%D0%B7_%D0%9F%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%88%D0%B0%D0%B9

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%87%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BA%D0%B0 Anazarenko (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have WT:RFVN for those. Please nominate them, if they don't make sense.

As for "Russian loanwords" - they're still part of a language. We're a descriptive dictionary, it's not our place to say what words are "good" and "bad", so again, if you don't like that, no-one's keeping you here. Thadh (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

And please, don't talk to me about "not doing anything about quality" or "picking on those who try to contribute anything". Feel free to look through my contributions, you'll see that I'm more than doing my own share, source virtually every article I create and have removed hundreds of unsourced 'made-up' words in the languages I edit, once they went through the proper channels or were discussed with other editors. Thadh (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't personal. Anazarenko (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

See WT:AMDF. We should look into which orthography to follow, the new one (which I've heard is very unpopular with the speakers) or the old one. Thadh (talk) 09:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how popular it is, but it seems to better reflect the phonetics. Anazarenko (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean the new one Anazarenko (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't mean that we should use it. And the usage of simple consonants is equally as phonetic as using a yer, you just need to make one more mental step (e.g. трв- is a phonologically illegal onset, so there must be a vowel there).

I'll try to ask around more. Thadh (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do you spell ърьвя, ърдаз, пътняфкс, въдь etc? Рьвя, рдаз, птняфкс, вдь? Anazarenko (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thadh (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss before changing modules of languages you don't edit. Me and three other Komi editors worked on this translit version and it's based on a translit system often used by speakers.

I'll be reverting you again and expect you to discuss this before changing it back. Thadh (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please do NOT use this to circumvent the transliteration override. If you feel that the transliteration system for a language needs to be changed, then you need to discuss it with other Uralic editors like @Thadh or @Surjection. Setting all of them manually is a big maintenance headache anyway, because it leads to a bunch of inconsistencies, but doing it like this is even worse, especially when you've been told to discuss transliteration changes loads of times before. Theknightwho (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the case of the Moksha language, the transcription may differ radically from the Cyrillic spelling. This cannot be solved by the transcription module because the rules are irregular and depend, for example, on word stress. Cyrillic spelling, however, is secondary to the original sound and rules of the language. It is based entirely on the standards adopted for the Russian language, which, although it shares some phonetic features with the Mordvinic languages, belongs to a different language family. Anazarenko (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Anazarenko That is a pronunciation issue, not a transliteration one. You have also totally ignored why it was inappropriate to change it like this, too. Theknightwho (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

That od spelling problem, in general. Why can't we use this kind of transcription instead of handicapped transliteration?

https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/rueter/PaasonenMW.shtml Anazarenko (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

od is

instead of the handicapped very defective transliteration Anazarenko (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Of course, I apologize for making the edits without consulting them with other users. Anazarenko (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We have pronunciation sections in our entries for giving pronunciations. We usually give IPA, but it is known to also give other transcription methods. Transliteration is not intended to accurately represent the pronunciation: It is intended simply for people who are not familiar with a certain script (Cyrillic, in this case) to be able to recognise words and tell them apart.

You don't need to give reduction for people to recognise the word with the transliteration. Thadh (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

A lot of your entries from a week or two ago have been showing up in lists of entries categorized in the wrong languages such as Wiktionary:Todo/Lists/Derivation category does not match entry language. In case you haven't already figured this out since then: in templates such as {{inh}} {{bor}} and {{der}} that take two language codes, the first language code is the language of the entry. When you put {{inh|myv|urj-pro|xyz}} in an entry, you're saying that that the entry is an Eryza term inherited from Proto-Uralic. If you copy the same template to a Proto-Mordvinic entry, you have to change the first language code: {{inh|urj-mdv-pro|urj-pro}}. Otherwise you have a Proto-Mordvinic entry in Category:Erzya terms inherited from Proto-Uralic, as was the case with 15 entries in that todo list that I just cleaned up. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

My fault, sorry for the trouble Anazarenko (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any reason why you claim it's derived with *-ľə? It's pretty clear from the form that there's no vowel there, unless there's any phonological rule I'm not aware of? Thadh (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply