Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Will you be continuing to correct the Median, Old Persian, Saka and Scythian entries that I had created now that you are back? Antiquistik (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Would you like me to email you the studies on the Scyhian language I mentioned in the beer parlour that I could not link there? Because, given that we both tend to edit entries in Old Iranian languages on Wiktionary, I feel like the best way to avoid more going in circles would be to share with you the linguistic research due to which I had been disagreeing with you on how to deal with the Scythian languages. This way we can resolve our misunderstandings before having to run in circles again. Antiquistik (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
It doesn't matter if you think it's been attested: we still need to go through the process of having a discussion. If you look at what I wrote on both entries, the issue is whether the terms are attested in Proto-Brythonic or Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Neither of those discussions show any kind of consensus; they just petered out. Feel free to address the reason behind the nomination, by the way. Theknightwho (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I deleted my RFV and instead cleaned it up. My comment regarding religious terminology borrowings was chiefly referring to this. The nominalisation of PII *HwiHwáswāns just means "the shining one", which can be extended to a deity, the sun, dawn, etc. --{{victar|talk}}00:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The geolocation is wrong and neither are proxies. Besides which, most of the second IP's edits don't even mention Persian even when they could have shoehorned in Irman-style bad Persian etymologies. Right or wrong, I don't think they're Irman. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cool, but you deleted the content without moving it, as expressed in my edit comment, "create the entry first, then move". -- Sokkjō05:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What is your basis for reverting my Pashto edits? They were all wrongly reverted. Both شیر and روشن are obvious Persian loanwords in Pashto (identical to their Persian form), with روڼ being the inherited form in Pashto. So I removed them as they were listed as inherited forms. It is fine to list those words, but they should be specified as being Persian loanwords in Pashto rather than as inherited forms. And the transliteration of ښ in Pashto is <ṣ>, but <ṣ̌> and <x̌> are also seen as acceptable. It represents the /ʂ/ sound. Gharandune (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Gharandune, if they're borrowings from Persian, you need to mark them as such, not simply delete them. We mark borrowings using {{desc}} template with the |bor=1 parameter. As for transliterations, please use our guide at WT:PS TR. --{{victar|talk}}17:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Do you know of any version of the Indo-Aryan Inherited Lexicon where the entry for "ks·ay [1]" is not missing? The only one I have at my disposition does not have this entry, and instead has "ks·ay [2]" immediately following "ks·av." Antiquistik (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have emailed the author of the Indo-Aryan Inherited Lexicon. He replied that he has incorporated it into his upcoming database which will become available next year, the Indo-Iranian Etymological Dictionary. Antiquistik (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion
If you insist on removing the umlaut, the correct form is Koebler, not Kobler. There are several of Köbler's dictionaries implemented as templates here, all of which use Köbler. Helrasincke (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Helrasincke: Stripping combing characters is the standard method for sanitizing template names. Unless you're familiar with each language's orthography, you're not going to know that German /ö/ = /oe/ or Lithuanian /ę/ = /en/. -- Sokkjō20:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I take your point that it may not be self-evident, but really the same argument could be made for templates based on transliterations from other scripts (especially those scripts where the translit systems themselves are somewhat arbitrary or have competing norms, say for cyrillic). I'm all for accessibility, but I don't find the logic here compelling, especially since we have on-screen input buttons for non-English characters. I would have preferred it were at least left as a redirect like all the others, since if you don't know what an umlaut is or how to input or even respell one you probably also have little business or interest in providing citations for Germanic sources. And can I ask how exactly deleting the documentation page instead of moving it to the new location helps this presumed aim to improve accessibility? Helrasincke (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Is there any reason why some Old Persian terms end with -ʰ while the other reconstruction entries you have edited recently now end with -h instead of -ʰ? Additionally, the Old Median term *masištah is attested, per Tavernier, so is there any reason why you have removed it? Antiquistik (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ngl, it's a bit frustrating you don't read edit comments, especially when you're pinged in them. See diff. As for the Median, don't create reconstructions without descendants. --{{victar|talk}}16:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I had read the ping, but I had initially misunderstood it. For the Median, does this mean there should be Middle Median and later descendants for there to be reconstructions? Antiquistik (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Essentially, <ʰ> and <ⁿ> are only used in transcription of attested OP terms to denote that they are in the word, but are not being expressed in the cuneiform. There should never be any reconstructions, either as an entry or in a descendants list, without noting attested descendants, derivatives, or borrowings. --{{victar|talk}}23:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you have a look at other r/n-stems, in late-PIE and its descendants they were nearly all rebuilt to new stems, so *póyh₂w-eh₂ is practically expected. Not the case with u-stems, even neuter u-stems, which if rebuilt, just become masculine u-stems. --{{victar|talk}}11:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
If you look at *watōr ~ *watiniz it either gets reanalised as *watōr based on the strong stem or *watna- based on the weak stem. Or if they really couldn't deal with r/n-stems they could plausibly give it up entirely and rederive a different word from a different base. But I've never heard of what you're suggesting. So can you please explain what you mean and give some other examples? —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Do you not understand what I mean? When words are rebuilt the new stem is based on an existing form. All descendants of *sóh₂wl̥ have either an l or an n, or whatever these sounds change into through regular sound change. Sometimes words change under the influence of other vocabulary items, but in that case you need to name those and explain how the analogy worked. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it's a terminology issue that is confusing. Let me try this way. If a stem class no longer exists, it needs to be rebuilt into a different class. Proto-Germanic, for example, does not possess an r/n-stem class, so the language demands that it be rebuilt as a class it does. This process of rebuilding r/n-stems as a different stem class was already occurring during late nuclear PIE. Not so for u-stems, which still survives as a productive class to this day. --{{victar|talk}}14:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I get that stem classes evolve. The question is: how? What is the process? You say we start with *péyh₂wr̥ ~ *pih₂wéns. How do we get to *póyh₂weh₂? Historical linguists spend a lot of time and effort arguing how one form could get reanalysed as something else. For some reason you seem to be skipping this. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
How depends on the word and the class, but with r/n-stems, they often become n-stems, due to their similarity in declension. How or why doesn't really matter in this case. The only question is "which form is more likely to be rebuilt, an r/n-stem, or a u-stem", and the answer is r/n-stem, full stop. --{{victar|talk}}23:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It matters how and why. Yes I have looked through the r/n l/n stems on the project. Please name some examples of Greek words which were rebuilt in a similar way. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm really trying to understand where you're coming from, but you're giving me nothing. A similar change to *péyh₂-wr̥ ~ *pih₂-wén-s > *póyh₂w-eh₂. Please. A few examples that lead you to say "practically expected". —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The whole point of my moving *póyh₂w-eh₂ was that it doesn't contain r or n. You insisted it belonged to *péyh₂-wr̥ ~ *pih₂-wén-s despite that. I keep asking you to explain and provide examples. You finally give me an example which retains the r/n. Making it not similar. At all. And you accuse me of arguing for the sake of it? Please just answer the question or admit you don't know. I'd like to be able to work with you because you make tons of great edits, but sometimes you're so strangely obstinate. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Caoimhin ceallach Before you start wheel-warring, please read the sources I added. Regardless of anything I wrote above, sources derive Sanskrit पीवस्(pī́vas, “fat”) from PIE *péyh₂wr̥. The stress on the term clearly points to a secondary formation, either from a PIE mobile noun, or a intra-PII derivation, i.e. this cant not be derived directly from the root. --{{victar|talk}}22:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It's unfortunate we don't have anything detailing comparative Nuristani, besides Morgenstierne's inaccessible NTS notes (at least online) and DN Nelson's "The Historical Development of the Nuristani Languages", which is also inaccessible since ProQuest only offers a preview and appears to be preliminary. Jakob Halfmann has been researching for a few years now, and has published an article tentatively linking a Nuristani word to Bactrian, alongside some sound rules. I wonder if you could refer to him as a reliable source for future Nuristani research, alongside the possibility of contacting him and also Irén Hegedűs. Thank you. Kwékwlos (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Kwékwlos, the problem with Proto-Nuristani reconstructions is two-fold: 1) As you mentioned, we don't have great sources, chiefly because there hasn't much research on the family. Nelson's paper is really old -- typed on a typewriter -- but is covered in modern papers. 2) If we're going to reconstruct Proto-Nuristani, it should be done from the point that all the extant Nuristani languages diverged, not simply slightly modified PII.
What needs to be done is someone needs to create a table, like I did for User:Victar/Reflexes/Proto-Indo-Iranian, illustrating all the steps from Proto-Nuristani to modern Nuristani languages. Only with that can we formulate a common ancestral form. Until then, these reconstructions should be deleted as they're apocryphal. --{{victar|talk}}07:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I assume the current "limbo" state is due to the fact that not many researchers are willing to brave Afghanistan's political climate to collect data from the Nuristani languages and therefore set up a preliminary reconstruction of Proto-Nuristani (aside from Nelson's), and also due to late attestation (within the past few centuries only). Fortunately, Jakob Halfmann has already submitted a grammar on Katë (Kamkata-vari), which hasn't been published yet. There's also a Dari-language grammar on the Zhonchigal dialect of Nuristani Kalasha (Waigali) by Samiullah Taza, if we exclude Degener's German article on the Nisheygram dialect and Gryunberg's Russian article on the Kata-vari dialect.
PS: Jakob Halfmann has his own Twitter (@bitmalang), so you may want to reach out to him there, including possibly obtaining access to Morgenstierne's numerous notes on Nuristani languages. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
There should be an upcoming project called "An Etymological Dictionary of the Nuristani Nominal Lexicon". When it is published, we can then cite it for our Proto-Nuristani reconstructions should they appear. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Meanwhile, Proto-Germanic *rammaz is showing up in a maintenance category I monitor because {{desctree}} can't find a Descendants section at Proto-West Germanic *ramm under the relevant ID due to it's being disguised as a Derived terms section. Unless you can figure out some way to fix that, all the descendants you removed when you cleaned up the entry are just gone. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not about the forms, but the edit: you told the template to link to "German Low German Broot, Bread, Braud ", instead of "German Low German Broot ", "German Low German Bread " and "German Low German Braud ". To properly fix the edit would require verifying that all three actually exist, and we only have an entry for the one that was already there. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My issue is not the gender, but how it's being shown by the desctree template. Because it is showing alternative forms, it's placing the "f" between hrama and rama. It should come after rama. This is glitch that should be addressed. Leasnam (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks @Kutchkutch, I'm all for using labels, just not a supporter, per the literature, of a genetic South Dravidian above supposed SDI and SDII. Correct, in keeping of other languages which use dialectal labels in this way, I dropped the proto prefix. Thanks for moving forward with this. --{{victar|talk}}06:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Might get rid of proto langs like iir-pro, gem-pro and reconstruct all branch specific words like *matsyas and *kutas to PIE and label them similarly too? *cinki a words attested in just 4 languages of the same inner branch gets reconstructed to PD even if it isnt attested to that time? also stop comparing branches like SD to recent inner branches like west Germanic, literary languages like Tamil itself is attested to ~3 cen bce, the same time as proto Germanic; PSD is comparable to proto Balto-Slavic.
@Victar: When you first reverted the changes, I thought that you would oppose this. However, it is good to see that you are willing to use labels.
@AleksiB 1945: You are understandably still upset about not having separate language codes for Proto-South Dravidian, PSD I, PSD II, etc. However, this at least is some progress without having a larger discussion or vote. Now there are categories that can be created such as:
It was agreed by everyone to make SD Tamil-Tulu, SCD Telugu-Kui and name Tamil-Telugu something like macro-south.
How do you enter the etymology in a page like திங்கள்(tiṅkaḷ) without those codes? and why is just Dravidian branches not having the codes while west Germanic which existed like 1200 years ago (around the same time Malayalam split) have the lang code? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Why did you delete affix segmentation hyphens on that page twice when they are standard in PIE entries (and hence I followed that model)? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
PIE entries have a different, more academic, formatting than other languages. The standard for formatting entries is to not use hyphens in descendants lists, cf. Latin, Proto-Germanic, etc. While you're here, never use {{m}} or raw text for entry list items, and only use |pos= for parts of speech. -- Sokkjō16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO Proto-Celtic should allow PIE-style hyphens. It is standard to cite prefixed derivatives with hyphens like that in Celtic studies and increases reconstruction transparency and readability. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Victar Mass-removing these after a discussion has been posted about this is unacceptable, and it's far from the first time you've done this kind of thing. I've given you a block for 3 days, as this is is yet another example of you failing to collaborate in a reasonable manner. Theknightwho (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely absurd block. For cleaning up the recent entries User:Mellohi! created? Most has nothing to do with #Segmentation_hyphens_in_*ɸiɸoike_derived_terms_sections, and for the few that did, not hyphenating Celtic derived terms lists is the status quo. Who gets blocked for following standard formatting conventions? Clear abuse of power by User:Theknightwho in a very long line of abuses.
The issue is not about what you think are the standard formatting conventions. The issue is edits like this (and others) while you know there is an ongoing discussion, as part of a much larger pattern of the same behaviour which you have engaged in for years. It is extremely tiresome, and given that you have consistently ignored (or responded rudely to) requests by others to not do this kind of thing, there is little else that can be done but give you a time-out. Or need I bring up the whole plus-template debacle? Theknightwho (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issue is absolutely formatting standard. I told them above that if they want to change the status quo on how we format derived terms list, they're more than welcome to, but the onerous is on them to do so. Until then, standard formatting applies.
I don't see how your past form for doing this with the plus-templates could be relevant to any kind of personal vendetta by me, since I wasn't editing then; nor your endless etymology-section edit wars with Djkcel, your consistent rude behaviour towards Vininn126, or any of the many other personal feuds you seem to keep getting into. What I do know, though, is that it all points towards a much larger pattern. Trying to make this about me is simply yet another excuse to avoid the issue that your behaviour is the problem here. Enough. Theknightwho (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've unblocked Victar (but not Sokkjo, since I'm unclear on the reason for the second account). The changes in hyphenation on Proto-Celtic pages are unproblematic, though they were also unproblematic before: we don't use hyphens in Reconstruction entry names, but {{l|cel-pro||*ati-noweti}} doesn't create a link, so it's OK. {{l|cel-pro|*atinoweti}} is also OK; {{l|cel-pro|*atinoweti|*ati-noweti}} would be an acceptable compromise. I had no idea TKW was an admin; that's pretty appalling given his relentless "my way or the highway" style of interacting with other editors. —Mahāgaja · talk07:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree, and have unblocked the account Sokkjo following your unblock of Victar: the two accounts were blocked over the same issue. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
TKW had viewed a mass hyphen deletion as retaliatory for me asking about it on his talk page and in Beer Parlor, hence the block. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mellohi!: Of the 14 of yours edits I cleaned up yesterday, only 3[diff][diff][diff] has any affect on hyphenation. Hardly a "mass hyphen deletion" and why would I take "retaliatory" action for something I recommend you do. For the record, I didn't even see your Beer Parlour post because, for some reason, you didn't tag me. --{{victar|talk}}16:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: What do "plus-templates" have anything to do with this? Really what happened was User:Mellohi! complained on the en.Wikt discord, editors User:Djkcel and User:Vininn126 made inflammatory comments like "Victar is an ass", and you, in complete bad faith, blocked me. Your ignorance to the matter is made plain by the fact that you reverted all my edits, not just the 3 mentioned above. --{{victar|talk}}18:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
TKW, you do a lot of skillful and useful technical work, and I didn't support either of the previous votes to desysop you because they were trying to desysop you for doing ultimately correct stuff (e.g. blocking Dan Polansky) ... and you tend to only do temperature-raising / less-than-ideal things when other people are doing such things and are unsympathetic/problematic themselves, so it's hard to defend any one of them ... but at a certain point, it becomes noticeable that in the multiple situations which keep coming up where "another editor and you are behaving in less-than-ideal ways, and then (e.g.) you issue a block or page-protection/lock which it would've been better if someone else, or no-one, had issued", the common factor is you. I have to admit I've started to wonder if things would go more smoothly if you were a Template Editor and Interface Editor rather than an Admin...? - -sche(discuss)18:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
In scrolling through Old Saxon vocabulary, I often see edits made by you regarding Ravensbergisch-Lippisch vocabulary terms. I have a PDF of a Ravensbergisch-Hochdeutsch Dictionary, however some terms in there are different than those in these edits. I was wondering if I may know what source you are using; I am very interested in this dialect, and this makes me think that there may be other dictionaries that I have not found.
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While it's true on the face of it that the paradigms given in *h₂éwsōs and *-ōs don't match, there are additional complexities to consider: First, I was greatly surprised that the suffix is defined as acrostatic, as long suffixal ō is usually the hallmark of amphikinetic inflection; the descendants don't help out definitively because accented root vowel features in both paradigms, Greek generalizes (é)-(o)-E anyways as evidenced by *awhóh-os, and the Latin nouns are really hard to disentangle from their respective -eō verbs. So unless you have a good source saying otherwise I would suggest editing the paradigm in *-ōs to (é)-ōs/(0)-(0)-és (from which the Greek and Latin paradigms could be traditionally leveled; alternatively this plus "later acrostatic inflection"), and linking to -ōs in the etymology of h2éwsōs.
Additionally I need to point out how badly the paradigmatic approach works for Wiktionary. The paradigms are idealized abstractions and usually dont fit the reflex data without much analogy, leading to so many unconventional paradigms implemented on various pages (which often don't really fit the data very well either). Case in point the other s-stems which traditionally would be reconstructed as proterokinetic (é)-(0)s-E/(0)-(é)s-E later remodeled to (tentatively acrostatic) (é)-(o)s-E/(é)-(e)s-E, hysterokinetic (0)-(é)s-s/(0)-(0)-(é) though I don't know if its ever attested like that, and amphikinetic (é)-(o)-s/(0)-(0)-és.
Don't you think it would be true to principle to give all of them like that even though they almost never show up like that? And then maybe add a small dossier of common analogical changes in the reflexes. Or make it easier and let the hodge-podge back-projections of the reflexes remain but dont call them by their traditional paradigm names.
Anatol Rath (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Anatol Rath. I'm fine with you changing the paradigm on *-ōs to amphikinetic, just please mention in a reconstruction note that Sihler reconstructs it with a non-ablauting stem. Thanks for following up. And yes, idealized reconstructions vs. reality is always going to be a headache. --{{victar|talk}}23:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Question about Reconstruction:Proto-West Germanic/aland
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The entry states: Possibly from Proto-Indo-European *alandī (“nourishing, healing”), present participle of *alan (“to nourish”). Instead of Proto-Indo-European, should that read Proto-Germanic *alandī or Proto-West Germanic *alandī? Thanks so much! ElkandAcquerne (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are many other words that are limited to West Germanic as there are in North Germanic and East Germanic, but that is not a good reason to move their respective Proto-Germanic pages. Mannrinn (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was poking around your user pages and I saw this interesting project your briefly worked on in 2017. Are you still interested in implementing it? I think it should be relatively simple to integrate this functionality into {{etymon}}. The way it would work is that English father, Spanish padre, etc. would be added into Category:Direct descendants of Proto-Indo-European *ph₂tḗr. Then the template would access this category (mw.site.stats.pagesInCategory) and generate the text "Cognate with X, Y, and Z." or maybe create a list. And of course a cognate in the same language is actually a doublet. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Hello and good afternoon,
In the page for the Proto-Indo-European *h₁ésh₂r̥ you had edited in a Sudovian, asing, and Curonian, šinga and a Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstructed ancestor for said terms. What I wanted to ask is what your source for the Curonian and Sudovian terms is, because I cannot seem to find them anywhere. I am curious in regards to this as up to this point I was under the impression that there were no concretely attested Curonian words, just some terms reconstructed mostly from Lithuanian or Latvian toponyms. In regards to the Sudovian term, I simply couldn't find it anywhere. There is a single dictionary for Yotvingian/Sudovian with an online glossary and it does not mention the term and finding other sources for the language online is difficult to say the least. TheFearlessHussar (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok so before I go ahead and read the source that said source mentions for those terms(W. Euler, “Schweiß” und “Blut” in den baltischen Sprachen: Überlegungen zur Stellung des Altpreussischen und Nehrungskurischen, pp. 33-34 and Z. Zinkevičius, “A Polish-Yatvingian Vocabulary?”, Linguistic and Oriental Studies from Poznań, vol. 1, Poznań 1992, pp. 99-133, esp. 118.), you should change the curonian entry to "latvian, dialectal, kursenieki" and swap the two terms around. The mention in your source is for a Jatvingian(aka Yotvingian aka Sudovian) singa(si<n>ga) and a "Nehrungskurische(NCr.)" asing. As the german term used for this language suggests, this is not Curonian, but "Curonian of the Spit" which is better known in english as "Kursenieki". Kursenieki is not Curonian even though it might have had a few Curonian elements in the beginning and at the end of the day Kursenieki is a Latvian dialect. TheFearlessHussar (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
For the Sudovian singa, it is as both the original and the source you stated, unclear. The source which you state only lists "ſi.ga" to portray that fact and reconstructs the terms as si<n>ga. The original source(Z. Zinkevičius, “A Polish-Yatvingian Vocabulary?”) mentions in lithuanian that: "Some words are completely unclear or difficult to interpret:" and then lists a few words with this unclear "ſi...ga" being among them and listed as being equivalent to "kraujas(blood)". So you could say that it checks out? Kinda? Moreover note that whilst that source is useful, its accuracy is dubious at best and that in turn is mentioned. It is based a purportedly Yotvingian dictionary found in the forests of Belarus in the 1970s and might be a mix of Lithuanian and Yotvingian and hence why there is a "?" in its title. A summary of this info exists at this link: https://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/90. A download link exists at this link for an analysis of that dictionary: https://www.baltistica.lt/index.php/baltistica/article/view/90/55. To download click ATSISIŲSTI PDF FAILĄ below the info box. Note that the pdf is in lithuanian. TheFearlessHussar (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have not yet been able to find "W. Euler, “Schweiß” und “Blut” in den baltischen Sprachen: Überlegungen zur Stellung des Altpreussischen und Nehrungskurischen". I will try again, but I doubt it will lead to anything. TheFearlessHussar (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
After a discussion on a different matter, another editor pointed me to a source which also happened to mention the kursenieki asing. The source is the "Kurisches Wörterbuch - P.Kwauka, R.Pietsch". "asing" is noted in page 23 of that dictionary. If you can and have the time please add the source to the page of the Proto-Indo-European *h₁ésh₂r̥. TheFearlessHussar (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello and good morning,
This is a rather simple request of mine in regards to the contents of the page mentioned. I recently made some edits on the contents of that page and specifically removed the entry for Skalvian, as tiewe is dialectal Old Prussian not Skalvian though I do note further in regards to that there, and I also fixed the spelling for the Curonian entry. I somehow managed to add a link to the source that has the information I am referring to, but I think that overal the edits have not been made in the most, well, elegant way, owing to the fact that I don't know how to edit wiktionary pages. Would it be possible for you to check the contents of that page and polish them if need be? I did not know who else to ask about this.
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, what's up? It's been more than a year by now I think and I assume you have forgotten about it, but anyways, everything aside, I wanted to apologise for calling PIE entries your playground on a server you weren't present in. It was unfair and in any case not a productive thing to do. I was a bit stressed, hope you'll understand. Catonif (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago11 comments5 people in discussion
@Sokkjo I follow the established formatting of entries as much as possible, even when I disagree with it. I appreciate when you point out any mistakes I made. However when there is no established convention, editors have a certain amount of leeway to format an entry as they see fit. I don't think it is right that you should impose your personal preferences in the reconstruction namespace on everyone else.
One option would be to state why your formating is better than mine. In the past I have often found myself agreeing with you. Alternatively, or if we aren't able to agree, we could have a discussion about it so everyone can give their input, so that we can add appropriate sections to WT:AINE or WT:RECONS.
Regarding specific changes:
At WT:AINE it currently says: "Derivations are listed in alphabetical order by the suffix." I think we should follow that. That means éye- before ye-.
I don't know Ossetian, but I know there is an Ossetian term. Rather than add an incorrect one I left a placeholder so someone more knowledgeable can add it.
I don't understand why you keep removing important references.
It is not desirable to have redlinks for reconstructed terms with only one descendant. On the other hand terms with multiple descendants and which are securely reconstructed are fine to have a redlink. The reason for that is that a redlink is an invitation to create an entry and we don't want people creating the wrong ones.
@Caoimhin ceallach, let's get this clear: these are not my formatting standards -- they were set long before I came to the project by the likes of User:JohnC5 and User:Rua. My only interest in this is consistency, and your push for your own formatting preferences breaks that. With that out of the way, here are the issues with your edits to RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰeh₁(y)-:
You are correct to point out that WT:AINE at odds with common practice of sorting by grade and suffix, as opposed to simply suffix, as User:Ruacodified into the guidelines there. I don't really care either way, beyond wanting consistency, but, as is, the vast majority of entries short by grade. Either WT:AINE should be changed, or all entries should be changed.
At no time do we create blank descendant tree end nodes simply because we think an entry should exist there. If I saw an IP doing that, I would report them as a vandal.
Adding references to the entry that do not add any new information is just clutter, detracting from the helpful sources. In this case, the references was supporting the Proto-Celtic reconstruction, which has its own entry containing that same reference.
If you look at the formatting on other PIE entries, there are no redlinks in the descendants lists. Even if a term has multiple descendants, that doesn't mean those descendants aren't secondary, and great scrutiny should be used before creating an entry. As you pointed out, we don't want to invite users to create entries without proper critical thinking.
For some reason I don't understand, you keep removing the redlinks for Proto-Indo-Iranian entries, and without any rational in your edit comments, continue to revert me. Why?
Here are some other edits I don't understand, but I assume are due to your bulk revert:
Moving Proto-Hellenic above Proto-Armenian, instead of below Proto-Germanic.
Changing {{desc|hyx-pro|-}} to {{desc|hyx-pro}}, which is done because we don't reconstruct Proto-Armenian.
Changing *dʰeh₁(i)-lw-ih₂-k-s to *dʰeh₁(y)-l̥w-ih₂-k-s, even though the sequence *-h₁yl- would become *-h₁il-.
Changing *dʰeh₁(i)-n-os to *dʰeh₁(i)-n-os ~ *dʰeh₁(i)-n-es-os, even though we only list two forms if there is a change on the root.
Thank you for clarifying. It is impossible for me to verify whether these conventions came from @JohnC5 and @Rua. Maybe they want to comment here? It would be very helpful. Absent that, I can only tell you what it looks like from my point of view: you pulling 'conventions upheld since time immemorial' out of thin air. In some cases that is even hard to deny, when they fly in the face of the few explicit guidelines we have.
Case in point.
You haven't given a reason why not, only an Appeal to tradition. I added the branch consciously, as I've told you now twice, and I added a reference for that (LIV) at the root of the branch.
The aforementioned is precisely the reason why I add references "that do not add any new information". As I've said before, I think it should be visible at first glance what scholarship a reconstruction is based on, without having to click away.
I've said why these redlinks are justified: they are securely reconstructed. I took great care checking that. And I backed it up with references. They are not secondary.
I did say why I removed those redlinks: they have only one descendant. This was a topic of discussion that you also took part in: Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Reconstruction#Proto-Italic_terms_with_only_one_descendant. A large majority find reconstructed entries (not just Italic) with only one descendant undesirable. The reason for that is that they don't contain new information.
Those are fair points. Side note: I'd like to have all those derived terms with only Italic descendants gone. Most of them certainly aren't reconstructable. I only left them because I don't know what to do with the information and I don't want to carelessly delete it. I made the small changes I did because if they existed in PIE, then they must have followed PIE syllabification rules. That means *dʰeh₁(y)-l̥w-ih₂-k-s, not *dʰeh₁(i)-lw-ih₂-k-s. The fact that this appears impossible proves my point.
I also care about consistency, which you may know because it has come up in several of our discussions. That is why I always write entries with a close eye on existing entries. But on some points I diverge, which is allowed, important even: too much rigour is stifling. Just as I don't revert your edits only because they aren't my cup of tea, it is not unreasonable for me to ask you to grant me that same courtesy.
If you find some or all of my reasoned preferences unpalatable, that is also fine. But instead of edit-warring, let's get those undocumented conventions you keep referencing documented by having a discussion where everyone who wants to can have their say. I will play a constructive part in it. It would save you time, effort, and frustration too, not having to constantly point them out to editors who can hardly be expected to know of them. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Caoimhin ceallach: I don't know how I can hammer this point home anymore than I have: these are not my conventions and I'm not "pulling [them] out of thin air" -- there are plenty of examples of this formatting in use, far pre-dating even me. It is you that are breaking from the standards set by the community, so please don't misrepresent the situation as this being me versus you.
1. Per above, your "case in point" is moot, but if you want to follow WT:AINE to a tee, we can just change the language there to reflect the status quo.
2. @Mahagaja, @Nicodene, or some other editor, if you want to comment on having strings of blank {{desc}}s in descendant trees (see diff), be my guest.
3. Arguing that references should be repeated on all pages simply because you think people would want that is a logical fallacy.
4. As I've said before, just because a reconstruction can be sourced, doesn't mean it should have trusted, let alone have an entry, but sure, let's go over your recent revert:
Sanskrit धिनोति(dhinoti) can actually be derived directly from new-present *dʰh₁i-néw-ti. There is absolutely no reason to assume it was rebuilt from a nasal-infix, and if RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰinéh₁ti was created, I would RFD it.
There is no such thing as an "éye-present" in PIE, only an eye-causative/iterative, which would give us *dʰoh₁y-éye-ti. Sanskrit धयति(dháyati) looks very much like a secondary full-grade from an original *dʰh₁i- zero-grade, or perhaps from metathesized thematic present *dʰéyh₁-e-ti (per Mayrhofer). Proto-Slavic *dojìti could derive from *dʰoyh₁-éye-ti via laryngeal metathesis, but PS causative suffix *-iti was highly productive, and very likely points to a secondary form (per Rix and Derksen). Would also RFD RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰh₁éyeti in a heartbeat.
The third redlink is the only one with any traction, but as *dʰéh₁-e-ti, which is demanded by the Slavic, and viable for the Germanic. Old Armenian դիեմ(diem), hoverver, could belong just about anywhere, i.e. *dʰéh₁y-, *dʰéyh₁-, *dʰéh₁-, *dʰih₁-, so it can't be used as an example for any particular reconstruction, and Ancient Greek θῆσθαι(thêsthai) is a secondary form which Frisk (and Beekes) claims is rebuilt from aorist θήσατο(thḗsato). With just Old High German tāen, Middle High German tāen, and Low German däirn beside lonesome Latvian dêt, I would recommend against an RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéh₁eti entry, and would RFD an RC:Proto-Indo-European/dʰéh₁yeti entry.
To be fully blunt, your hubris outpaces your actual knowledge of Proto-Indo-European and are overly reliant on sources in an attempt to compensate. This is a continuing theme and I really think you should better verse yourself before edit warring PIE entries.
5. Perhaps you're not aware, but I'm also a leading PII editor on the project (lowkey wrote the book). Sometimes I will remove PIA redlinks, due to specific reasons for not wanting PIA entries, but never has it been a convention to remove redlinks from Proto-Indo-Iranian or Proto-Iranian reconstructions, even with a single descendant. You would find yourself in hot water doing so in Germanic as well. You've misinterpreted a vote on Proto-Italic thinking it applies to all languages, when it does not.
1) I support (and myself practice) the removal of redlinks in cases where leaving them would encourage the creation of entries that really don't need to exist. In this case the convention for PIE on Wiktionary has, as long as I can remember, been to ‘centralize’ derived terms and their descendants under one entry. If that is to be changed, it would call for a discussion.
2) If the source in question only concerns itself with Proto-Celtic and descendants thereof, and has no useful comment to offer on the higher-level reconstruction (PIE), I see no benefit in citing it under *dʰeh₁(y)-. The Proto-Celtic entry exists and already hosts that source, and a reader should expect to find sources for descendants on the entries for those descendants. Note for instance that the entry for Vulgar Latin *pectiniculum simply hosts the source that directly mentions and supports that reconstruction, rather than the fifteen sources focussing on individual descendants thereof, which are found on the descendant entries where they are relevant. I'd rather not have to dig through sixteen sources under *pectiniculum to find the one which actually talks about that reconstruction. Granted this is (for illustrative purposes) a more extreme example than the above, but the principle stands. Nicodene (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. It is Victar himself who creates separate pages for large subbranches. I've never protested that but in the absense of explicit guidelines I have edited with that possibility in mind. If no redlinks in desctrees and no repetition of references is what we decide, I'm fine with that. If we don't want guidelines it is only reasonable that editors get a little bit of flexibility to edit as they see fit. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are no standards set by the community. If you find it important that certain formatting should be standardised, let's talk about it.
We could do that. Or we could change all the entries that were erroneously ordered.
As probably the person with the most expertise in Indo-Iranian on the project, you could have made this a moot point by now. It would have taken you about 10 seconds.
The reference supports the Proto-Celtic reconstruction in that form at that position in the descendants tree. Without it the house is built on loose sand. I argued no such thing. I find it important that everything is well-referenced and I've explained why.
At the risk of getting distracted from the point at hand:
That is possible. However considering that the Celtic reconstruction is secure that wouldn't be the best bet. Note also that there are more Sanskrit verbs that were moved from the -nā- to the -no- class, e.g. पिन्वते(pinvate, “to swell”).
Your reasoning here is methodologically unsound. Obscure terms which demand an explanation carry extraordinary weight. You can't hand-wave them away.
If you had read LIV2 you'd know that there is (page 19 (1s)), 15 certain, 21 uncertain. I'm not going to respond to the rest, except to ask you to try and keep it professional. Insults are uncalled for.
I know the vote was about Italic, but the same reasoning applies, arguments from tradition notwithstanding.
@Caoimhin ceallach: In your own words, you "edit as [you] see fit", and as further illustrated above, in disregard for conventions and the expertise of your fellow contributors, stubbornly entrenching yourself on principle, instead of working cooperatively in good faith. I truly don't see any way forward without admin intervention. @Benwing2, DCDuring, Mahagaja, Thadh, This, that and the other --{{victar|talk}}16:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Victar If you're going to pull someone up on not following conventions, it's only fair that those conventions be written down somewhere, whether it be at WT:EL, WT:AINE, WT:References, or somewhere else. What this discussion tells me is that there is a need to update some or all of these pages, because they have fallen out of step with community practices. I think it would be fair to move this discussion to Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-European or the beer parlour to solicit broader community input about any required changes. This, that and the other (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. I do think that it's advisable, in general, to look at comparable entries to see how things are done. That said, it would only take a minute or two to update AINE#Derived terms and descendants to reflect the current handling of things, and having a clear description to point to won't hurt. Incidentally it'd help to have 'about' pages be higher-profile/more prominently displayed somewhere. Nicodene (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I had inserted some redlinks to some uncreated PIE verbs, for the intention of creating those verb entries later. I usually do alt-unlink otherwise. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Later" as in within a day after creating the redlink; it saves me effort navigating to the destination than without making the redlink i.e. I don't have to type or copy-paste the whole "Reconstruction:[LANGNAME]". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
🤷 How am I supposed to know when you're going to get around to it, or if there even is enough evidence to support an entry altogether? --{{victar|talk}}05:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I simply don't link in the first place if I don't have any confidence in the evidence. Just delink if I forget to make the entry, like you just did today. I'm not upset about you removing them, I only wanted to explain what I was doing in the first place. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Per the theory of reconstructing Proto-Scythian and Proto-Saka that you adhere to, how would you reconstruct names like:
Ἄριαπείθης, commonly reconstructed as Ar(i)ya-paiθa-,
Ἀτέας/ΑΤΑΙΑΣ , theorised to represent *haθya-,
Προτοθύης (Greek)/Partatua (Akkadian), commonly reconstructed as either Pr̥ϑutava- or Pṛtatava-
Σπαργαπείθης, commonly reconstructed as *Sparga-paiθa-
Σπαργαπίσης, commonly reconstructed as either *Spargapis- or *Sparga-p-ica-
and Τόμυρις, commonly reconstructed as Taumuriya?
How do we handle entries where the sources have both earlier and later forms of the same term in Old Persian, such as *Spihradāta-: < *Spiθra-dāta in Tavernier, or both uncontracted and contracted forms of the same Old Persian term, such as *Haxāmanisī-: < Haxāmanisiya- in Tavernier again? Do we make separate entries for each, or put both forms in the same page? Antiquistik (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
RC:Old Persian/Bayaçāh is a great example of when you shouldn't create a reconstruction entry. The etymology of Imperial Aramaic: 𐡁𐡉𐡎(bys) is beyond dubious, with no Iranian cognates -- not even a OP word for the alleged second element. This should only exist as a wild conjecture in the etymology on Aramaic: 𐡁𐡉𐡎(bys). --{{victar|talk}}08:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello @Victar. You pinged me earlier in your edit to *Ātr̥pātah, questioning how the Middle Persian /d/ could become /z/ in New Persian. The answer is quite simple: in early New Persian, all post-vocalic instances of /d/ shifted to /ð/, a sound Persian thereafter lost only a few centuries after having gained, when all instances of /ð/ either returned to /d/ or merged into /z/. Some examples where it ended up as /z/ include آذر(âzar), پذیرفتن(paziroftan), and گذاشتن(gozâštan), from Middle Persian 𐭭𐭥𐭥𐭠(ādur), [script needed] (padīriftan), and a derivative of [script needed] (widaštan). In these cases, Persian orthography still spells with them with the letter ذ that originally denoted /ð/, despite the pronunciation of it having merged into /z/. See the following excerpt from Encyclopaedia Iranica for further explanation:
Postvocalic d was written with letter δāl and pronounced [δ] in words of Iranian origin in many ENPA manuscripts up to the 13th century. It may be considered an allophone of d in this position, and it was shifted back to [d] from the 13th century onwards, probably under the influence of certain northeastern Persian dialects that had always preserved [d] (with a few exceptions like guδaštan).
Arabicisation is not involved in the shift of /d/ > /z/, both of which are sounds that exist in Arabic, but it did affect the change of /g/ > /d͡ʒ/. You can compare جوزجان(jowzjân) or بروجرد(borujerd) in that respect, which come from the earlier گوزگان(gowzgân) and بروگرد(borugerd). Samiollah1357 (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Victar, please do not cite sources to support claims the sources did not make. Two examples of this that I ran into include:
On Latin rutilus recently, you cited two scholars to support your notion that the Proto-Italic *-elos(diminutive suffix) was involved in this word, but they both claim the exact opposite (they say that the original second vowel of rutilus was *i, and that different non-diminutive suffixes were attached).
On what is now Proto-Brythonic *giow, you cited two sources (EDPC and McCone) for a Proto-Celtic athematic root noun as the etymon for this word (they both in fact reconstruct thematic o-stem Proto-Celtic *gyos).
These are dragged up good-faith edits from years apart, only disagreeing on where a citation should be placed. Grounds for a block, they are not, and the only reason TKW is involved is out of spite for me. --{{victar|talk}}20:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Victar The issue that concerns most of us is - and has always been - the fact that you refuse to understand the problem with these past edits, and continue to defend them, so it is completely irrelevant if they date from years ago as you evidently still stand by them. The fact remains that citing sources in a way which gives the false impression that your own original research is supported by them is highly misleading, and you have given no indication whatsoever that you are going to stop doing this, because you claim not to understand the problem in the first place; something you are still trying to do here, by claiming you were "blocked for adding sources". Who do you think you're kidding when you say things like that?
There were very real concerns raised in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/October#User:Victar and false citations, and you will need to acknowledge and address those if you want us (the Wiktionary community) to be able to trust you will demarcate your own original research from the views given in the sources you cite going forward, and if you can't bring yourself to do that then I'm afraid we have a serious problem. Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't take you seriously if you actually think 3 edits of the course of 5+ years is ramifications for a block. What a ridiculous thing to try and defend. --{{victar|talk}}03:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
