. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
dōm can pretty easily come from Old Polish - there was some wavering if the vowel was long or short depending on the dialect, as can be seen also in Middle Polish - Silesian inherited the long vowel variation and Modern Polish the short, as Modern Polish didn't lengthen as much before liquids. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: Firstly, Silesian does not come from Old Polish. Secondly, I have not seen a vote in which it would be decided that this is not the case or vice versa. Thirdly, I think that you did it arbitrarily abusing privileges, but I may be wrong. ɶLerman (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- There was a beer parlour discussion in which I point to many different regular sound changes, and there was general consensus to do so, and other regular Slavic editors incluing KamiruPL and Zombear seem to show agreement by listing Old Polish inheritance in entries. If you look at CAT:Silesian terms inherited from Old Polish you'll very clear inheritance, as opposed to it being Czechoslovak. Finally, please WT:Assume good faith. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Finally, the discussion was mentioned in the change diff, so it's all been documented. Vininn126 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: Too little material was presented in this discussion, and I also still disagree with Zombear about the origin of Ukrainian and Belarusian from Ruthenian. So it's all questionable. I didn't say anything about Czechoslovak at all. Finally, I follow this. ɶLerman (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Well you have the right to your opinion, but there's still an overwhelming number of editors who disagree with you. Vininn126 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: Of course, but this imaginary overwhelming majority has no evidence of the existence of such language origins. I consider it pseudoscientific for 2023. ɶLerman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Okay bud. How the inheritance of nasal vowels, Old Polish long vowels, and inheritance of Old Polish semantics and aorist is insufficient for you, as well as the numerous sources on Silesian language, I don't get. It has to be either Czechoslovakian or Old Polish, it's not its own branch, and the vast majority of sources and reflexes point to Old Polish. I'm sorry, but you've not provided any counterarguments, and I have provided numerous regular sound and grammatical correspondences and sources on Wikipedia, so at this point I'm going to ignore you. The fact you DIDN'T mention Czechoslovakian shows you haven't done much research on this. Vininn126 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: Because this does not indicate that Silesian originated from Old Polish. Did I argue with sound and grammatical correspondences? No. Fortunately, I am not interested in pseudoscientific research. ɶLerman (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- You argued nothing - you made a claim with no proof. That is closer to the definition of pseudoscience that the proof I have presented. Do you hear yourself? Vininn126 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: No, I just rejected your unsubstantiated claims of kinship. ɶLerman (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Well, it still doesn't matter. You're the only dissenter, and don't go around removing it as not inherited. Vininn126 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vininn126: Don't you dare threaten me. ɶLerman (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I didn't, I made a request. Vininn126 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @ɶLerman Lol, just because you don't agree with some mainstream views doesn't mean they're up for debate. Anti-scientific conspiracy theories spread by kooks like you don't matter. Ukrainian and Belarusian both come from the Ruthenian dialect continuum, and Silesian and Polish come from Old Polish, they're sister languages, no matter what stupid conspiracy theory you come up with. Thank you for your attention. RainbowFlames (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: It’s interesting to read you from the point of view of post-positivism, it looks like an anecdote :) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC) ɶLerman (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- If you don't know, I have always disliked the mainstream, quite recently I came across Feyerabend's work and saw in it the same behavior that I have always used. I was pleasantly surprised. That's why I don't agree with you. Haha. ɶLerman (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- lol, disagreeing with the mainstream just to be edgy and different is just stupid. especially since the mainstream is statistically almost always right when the consensus is based on the scientific method of falsifiability. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Feyerabend - ugh, anarchists are probably the dumbest group on Earth. Just ask them who would produce insulin and what would be the incentive to do so in their stateless and profitless society xd RainbowFlames (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Finally, philosophy is for people who are too dumb to understand maths and physics (which are the only real sciences) but who still want to feel smart. The only philosophical theory that makes sense is logical positivism/physicalism cause it's basically equivalent to maths. People who believe in relativistic theories are just woke dullards who are too afraid to face the real world, sorry. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: It's strange, but the teachers I know who teach philosophy of science understand both mathematics and physics well. Maybe you were taught wrong? ɶLerman (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Anarchism is not the main thing. ɶLerman (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: Yes, the most important thing is to call this method scientific and it will be scientific. ɶLerman (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- https://imgur.com/fzt6cHU RainbowFlames (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: By the way, I personally believe, and so far I have not seen such an idea from anyone, that Karl Popper picked up the idea of falsifiability from Vladimir Lenin. ɶLerman (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Lenin was a fckng dumbass. "I have not seen such an idea from anyone" - HMM I WONDER WHY. oh wait, maybe because it makes no sense at all and is based on literally nothing??? RainbowFlames (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: OMG, dumbass? Indirectly there is. By the way, I know that Karl Popper participated in the translations of Lenin into German. ɶLerman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
A dictionary is cited by its headword. In {{R:cau:NCED}}, the Proto-North Caucasian reconstruction is the headword, not the Proto-Nakh reconstruction. See an example. Therefore, you should put the Proto-North Caucasian reconstruction as the first parameter of {{R:cau:NCED}}. You should also add a URL, like this. Do you understand? Vahag (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: Hi. Yes, but there is no such language. Therefore, I refer to the PN corpus. ɶLerman (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I agree that there is no such language, but this is about bibliography and scholarly citing practice, not about substance. You have to refer to that dictionary by "Proto-North Caucasian" reconstruction because that is how it is organized. Vahag (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: No, I don't owe anyone anything. And no one owes me anything. ɶLerman (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @ɶLerman: You don’t do it for them, you do it for the truth, which you are committed to. Also, if you are explicit about the errors of others you appear even smarter than them and your proto-reconstructions are more outstanding. Fay Freak (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Fay Freak: Hi. Have you listened to the field recordings? ɶLerman (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @ɶLerman: Yes. I see no relation to the matter. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Fay Freak: Are you really interested in discussing his bureaucracy, I'm not. LOL ɶLerman (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- NCED's reconstructions are unreliable;
{{R:cau-nec:NDSG}} flatout calls its reconstructions incomprehensible. It's a good resource for actual cognate sets though. I believe that a good compromise is creating templates for each subfamily, i.e., {{R:cau-nkh:NCED}}. At the very least it must be done for Abkhazo-Adyghean so at least someone is saved from tinfoil hat reconstructions. კვარია (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Guys, this is not about the reliability. You can't falsify bibliographic data when referring to a source. Link to NCED using their fake headwords, but don't rely on their reconstruction in the actual entry. Or, if you are squemish, don't type a headword in
{{R:cau:NCED}} (first paramater or entry=) and link with url= to the subsection you want. But DON'T put Proto-Nakh *bɦoḳ́ as the headword because if I went to a library and opened the book at the supposed *bɦoḳ́ entry, I would not find anything. Do you all understand how dictionaries work? NCED is an actual, print dictionary. I have seen it and held it in my hands. Vahag (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- That's what I said, it should be done automatically with a template. That's what templates are for. For other templates that could benefit from such division, see
{{R:trk-pro:SDM}} which is misused in exactly the same way. კვარია (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- No new templates are needed. You can do like this. Vahag (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- This is tedious, error-prone, and makes the link harder to notice. კვარია (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- On further thought, the correct headword is obligatory. If there is no headword and the URL stops working how am I supposed to know which part you are referencing? A page number without a headword would work too, but you proles do not have the print edition. Vahag (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- So is this the final iteration? Oh boy, have you got yourself one big helicopter-mothering task monitoring all current and future use-cases of
{{R:cau:NCED}} and {{R:trk-pro:SDM}}. კვარია (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Or you can all create a new template for the subbranches of NCED's Starling database.
{{R:cau:NCED}} is for the paper version: note the year 1994, place of publication and publisher. Vahag (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Fay Freak: Hi. Oh, about the truth, I like the quote: “To defend such a theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against unfounded attacks and at tempts to corrupt it is not to imply that you are an enemy of all criticism.” I like criticism in the style of Alexander Vovin. I'm trying to use his “template.” However, because of this, the volume of work grows and not every magazine will publish it, well, let it not publish, it doesn't matter to me. ɶLerman (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Marx was at best a boring science fiction writer and at worst a lousy philosopher. The idiotic Marxist way of thinking is that material conditions determine one's outcomes, which is a very naïve idea. Marx believed that once economic inequality was eliminated, people would be eternally happy and cooperative, and everyone would have the same chance to succeed in society. Too bad everyone always forgets that Das Kapital was published only 8 years after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, or Marxists simply ignore genetics and evolution and the fact that genes determine things like intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. But you can pretend that genes don't exist, it's your choice to be an anti-scientific conspiracy theorist; you're not much different from right-wing flat-earthers in your beliefs. Darwinian evolution and Marxism are incompatible because the latter is naïve idealism. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- The most logical and ethical position today is to embrace social democracy (with slightly more socialist than capitalist elements) and reject such destabilising and radical ideologies as communism and anarcho-capitalism altogether. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: Yes, I knew that Western and Russian anti-communists had similar thoughts. You didn't give me anything new, but thanks for the interesting comments :) ɶLerman (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- bobs and vegana uprawa SEXXU RainbowFlames (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @RainbowFlames: The most important thing is not to get angry when discussing such things xD ɶLerman (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- https://imgur.com/a/soNc8iX RainbowFlames (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Okay, I’m off to bed, it’s always been interesting to communicate with crazy people like you, I think you’re a genius. ɶLerman (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
- https://imgur.com/a/NI3yOyn RainbowFlames (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
When you move pages to a different spelling, please check the "What links here" tool before and correct any links to the misspelled page. Then, when nominating the redirect page for deletion, please include a reason in the {{d}} template (like "misspelling of X") and don't blank the page. Thanks! Ultimateria (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm simply checking whether or not you know this, but are you aware of the hidden categories Category:Requests for gender in Chechen entries and Category:Requests for gender in Ingush entries?
Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Apisite: Hi. What do you want me to do? ɶLerman (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I wanted to let you know, that I have been adding entries to the aforementioned categories. --Apisite (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
- @Apisite: Oh, I think it's a useless job. Although there really is a lot of work to do here and I'm unlikely to be able to do it alone. But thanks anyway. ɶLerman (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems, that my favorite language or two changes often. -- Apisite (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello! Nice to see work on Chechen infrastructure. Note however about the declension templates you tagged for deletion that {{ce-decl-noun-1a}} is still called on гӏаймакх and беркат, and {{ce-decl-noun-3}} on тӏом and пачхьалкх, which means those entries are now consequently flagged for deletion as well. Catonif (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Catonif: I will no longer edit because of the disgusting administrator Fenakhay, after the block I will delete all my Caucasian contributions and leave. Lerman (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Vahagn Petrosyan: I was blocked by a dishonest administrator. He does not edit Caucasian languages. Changes templates without even discussing them with me. Can you unblock me? Lerman (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- So your edit warring with me has nothing to do with it? I'm cleaning up your messy wikitext and the use of a non-standard and hacky template for splitting the entry into two lines instead of using
{{l}} properly. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 18:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Fenakhay: You have started a war of edits. The old template is great, and it's not up to you to determine which is better. Lerman (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- That gave me a good laugh, thanks! And just to add to what I said earlier, your template isn’t mobile-friendly or dark mode compatible either. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 18:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Fenakhay: There are a lot of such templates, do you think I came up with them myself? I have now personally logged in from my phone and opened the Ingush москал (moskal) with the old template, and everything is working for me. Dark mode is in beta. Lerman (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- No Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2025/May#Enabling Dark mode for logged-out users. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 18:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Fenakhay: I still have Color (beta) written on the sidebar. Lerman (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Fenakhay has made the same changes to Armenian templates. Now our tables look much better both in light mode and dark mode. Stop resisting every change, the colleagues are improving things for everyone. Vahag (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: I tried to make them look like the Finnish templates. Many templates do not support dark mode, but for some reason this administrator decided to change only the templates for Chechen. The taunts of this administrator clearly indicate his bias. Lerman (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- He has been gradually switching the templates to the new format for all languages. As I said, Armenian was switched a few months ago. Please rest assured no one is trying to sabotage you. Let the technically more advanced users help us. Vahag (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Vahagn Petrosyan: He just ruined everything. He just didn't like the fact that I was against removing Babel. Lerman (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I didn't ruin anything. I made changes to improve consistency and accessibility. Let's keep the discussion focused on the content, not personal attacks. — Fenakhay (حيطي · مساهماتي) 19:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Could you clean up these entries? They're both links to Proto-Circassian forms using Cyrillic instead of Latin script: Adyghe шӏу (šʷʼu) Etymology 2 and Kabardian гу (gʷu) Etymology 3. I could probably figure out the right replacements, but both of these are due to well-meaning cleanup work by someone who knows more than I do and should have known better, so I don't want to risk continuing the trend...
Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- I might as well throw in Georgian ოზურგეთი (ozurgeti), which links to Proto-Georgian-Zan *ზუგი (“hill”)- different script, different proto-language, but same problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- And Georgian აჭარა (ač̣ara), with Proto-Kartvelian *წყალ- (“water”), just to make a complete set. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Chuck Entz: Hi. I fixed it. Lerman (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why are you deleting the ergative, genitive, and plural forms? Do you even know Avar? All of those forms are actually in use. Why did you delete the etymology? You use Starostin too. Elnur Artun-Pashayev (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Elnur Artun-Pashayev: You remove the stress from the original form. Also, your listing of forms with slashes results in incorrect page creation (гӏорцӏеналъ / гӏорцӏмаца / гӏорцӏмица). I know that these forms are used, but they belong to some dialects. I check Starostin’s reconstructions according to his preface to the etymological dictionary. And I don’t just copy how you do it. But I don't copy them blindly. Lerman (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- How many " / " have I written like that and only now you're calling it a mistake ? Those forms exist in standard Avar as well. You can't make sweeping judgments based on just one dictionary. Replace '/' with something else, but don't delete those words, okay ? Secondly, I'm not the only one copying directly from Starostin. Have you read the entries for ʁʷirc̣im and q̇ʷirc̣im? Why are you ignoring them ? Elnur Artun-Pashayev (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Elnur Artun-Pashayev: Simply because you are the only active (if I may say so) editor of the Avar language. So there is no one to correct your mistakes. Besides, I created this page and I am very concerned about how it is designed. I edit Nakh languages, but not Avar.
- Anyone can pull these useless ergative, genitive, and absolutive plural wordforms out of dictionaries. As history shows, such dictionaries are extremely useless in terms of word declension. Therefore, if you are a native speaker of the Avar language, it would be better if you made templates for the full declension of the words. Lerman (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- No, no bruv. That's a mistaken idea. In Avar, the genitive, ergative cases and the form of the plural are important. The form a noun takes affects how it is declined. In the Avar language, a noun has a direct and oblique form, and the declension varies depending on that form. That's why specifying them is important.
- Some words are not found in the dictionary, so I have to get in touch with Avar linguists.
- My priority is to review the words again. Once that's done, I'll provide full declensions for all of them. I've already done it for a few. Elnur Artun-Pashayev (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- Don't delete them. If you want to create a structure for ʁʷirc̣im and q̇ʷirc̣im in your own way, go ahead but don't ignore them. Let the " ʷ " characters remain too; as you can see, w appears in the Antsukh dialect. Elnur Artun-Pashayev (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
If your "usex" for постсоветизм is a quote, you MUST use {{quote-book}} or similar and source it properly, otherwise I will delete it and lock the page so you can't edit it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- In general I should note that usexes and quotes should NOT express extreme positions. You have been called out before for this and if you continue in this fashion you may be blocked. Benwing2 (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
- @Benwing2: I also criticized you, but you did not pay attention, because there are extreme positions in many other places on the pages, but you only pestered me. Moreover, such political terms are always accompanied by a certain extremeness in contexts. Lerman (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply