User talk:Algentem

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! —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Be careful about removing material like this. We're a descriptive dictionary, so we go by usage, and how we determine usage is by the methods described in our Criteria for inclusion. Granted, the Ido-speaking community is relatively small, but if there's any chance that someone is using a term in Ido somewhere and you haven't run across it- even if it's not the "correct" Ido term- then you should add the {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template (preferably using the "+" in the box it generates to post an explanation at Requests for verification). If no one can document that it's in use according to the standards of WT:CFI, it will be deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ka vu opinias ke ol esus bon ideo inkluzar la Germana vorto "jung" che la etimologio di yuna? La unesma vokalo esas identa (esante klozita dorsala rondigita vokalo). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nula problemo! Kelkafoye to povas esar poke desfacila ye la etimologii di helpolingui, olia vorti tale ofte divenas da mixuro-vorti ek multi lingui. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I have placed teleskopumar to WT:RFV since it looks unattested but maybe I should not have. Can you please help me find attesting quotations for the would-be word that meet WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are you marking it as being only borrowed from English? Is it not borrowed from all the other languages too? —CodeCat 23:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hola! Me jus vidis la lemo brutala, anciena lemo ne facita da ni. La define ibe esas "brutal", ma la radiko kutime signifikas "mankas civilizeso", quale bruto. Ka vu opinias ke "brutish" esus plu bona defino? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, ma brutal signifikas "violentoza", "violentema", "sen-kompata" e "severa", ne "animalatra". La vorto en la angla semblas la problem, ne l'Idala vorto. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nula problemo. Me redaktos la lemo balde konseque, kun "brutish, bestial". Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Me ne esas certa pri ol. La KGD, 11, nur dicas ke la pre-vokala I ed U ne povas havar l'acento e formacas un silabo kun la vokalo lasta, ma asertas nul-loke ke li esas konsonanti ibe. Forsan skribar /i.ˈdi(j)o.to/ es un bon ideo? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Anke videz semivowel. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please note the changes I've made to armoro: diff. The comma puts the entry in Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters. Ultimateria (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ka vu savas bona retosituo por texti en Ido? Esas nur poka texti ye Wikisource en ca linguo. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

From KGD, 12:

"(2) Kad on esas obligata pronuncar i e u quale y e w rispektive avan vokalo? Nule :

on darfas pronuncar indiferente naci-ono o nacyono, mu-elar o mwelar. La sola kozo

importanta, do obligala, esas la justa pozo di l'acento; on pronuncez do quiete : âlio o

âlyo, mânuo o mânwo (Progreso, IV, 142)."

I think that means both pronunciations should in theory be included. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hola, quale vu standas? Me ne savis ke vu anke konocas la Kopta! Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Voluntez indikar la dialekto, kande vu adjuntas kopta tradikuri a tabli. Videz village por exemplo. La Kopta dialekto, quan vu preske sempre uzas, es la Bohaira, dialekto di Alexandria e la delto. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've begun a discussion about yen here that probably concerns you. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pro quo vu forigis punti ek IPA-shabloni kelkafoye? Ne oportas inkluzar nek efacar li. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is the etymology from ⲕⲁϩⲓ (kahi) +‎ ⲣⲏ (rē) supported by any scholarly sources? As far as I can tell it’s a folk etymology. Vycichl, one of the foremost scholars of Coptic etymology, calls اَلْقَاهِرَة (al-qāhira) a native Arabic word meaning “The Victorious”, named after the planet Mars, which passed above the site of the city at the time of the foundation of its walls in 969 CE. This is supported by the other Coptic name of Cairo, ⲕⲉϣⲣⲱⲙⲓ (kešrōmi), which is a calque of the Arabic name. Besides all this, ⲕⲁϩⲓ (kahi) generally refers to a province or district, not a town. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix Hey. Oh, you might be right. I can see that the current city of Cairo wasn't settled before the total Arabification of Egypt. The Wikipedia article for Cairo displays false information about the etymology them. None the less, we should still display the fold etymology along side the Arabic borrowing. Cheers - Algentem (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Algentem, you may find this of interest:

From the inspiration of your Coptic conjugator, I have effected my own conjugator for the Bohairic Dialect @Bohairic Coptic conjugator. It is complete sans verb forms(if they can even be added to the table) i.e. Absolute, Construct, Pronominal, and Qualitative; from my knowledge every verb form set is different for every verb.

As the Bohairic dialect does not have a precursive tense (ⲛⲧⲉⲣⲉ) as in Sahidic, it has been removed. Also, I have added the unreal conditional, created circumstantial tense, changed the focalising tense with circumstantial tense, created the causative affirmative, past preterite, future relative, infinitives, imperatives, renamed - simple present-simple future, and renamed the 'not yet' tense 'subjunctive'. Here is a sample of the verb: ϫⲓⲙⲓ.

--Aearthrise ^{(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ)} 21:07, 6 October 2017‎(UTC)

@Aearthrise Hey dude. I actually wanted to contact you and get your feedback on it.

Thanks for making the Bohairic equivalent! I was actually planning to make a Bohairic one, but I struggled to find good information about Bohairic conjugation. The only thing I'm unsure about in your template, is if the pronouns are actually needed? To my understanding, Coptic didn't use pronouns at all with verbs, but I'm in no way an expert! Also, I was also planning on adding colors to mine, but I think (personally) that the colors are too vibrant in yours. I'd suggest we mimic the Spanish template.

Btw, I went ahead and cleaned it up some, hope you don't mind. ;-P — Algentem (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Algentem Thank you for the cleaning! I have also modified the table a bit; I renamed subjunctive 'formative' added it to a table with limitative, moved the table to non-durative, and added negative conjunctive.

Bohairic Coptic uses pronouns; here is an example of such usage: ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ϯϫⲱ ⳿ⲙⲙⲟⲥ ⲛⲱⲧⲉⲛ ϫⲉ ⲫⲏⲉⲑⲛⲁϩϯ ⳿ⲉⲣⲟⲓ ⲛⲓ⳿ϩⲃⲏⲟⲩⲓ ⳿ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⳿ⲉϯⲣⲁ ⳿ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲉϥ⳿ⲉⲁⲓⲧⲟⲩ ϩⲱϥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ϩⲁⲛⲛⲓϣϯ ⳿ⲉⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϥ⳿ⲉⲁⲓⲧⲟⲩ ϫⲉ ⳿ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ϯⲛⲁϣⲉ ⲛⲏⲓ ϩⲁ ⳿ⲫⲓⲱⲧ. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

I have muted the colors. Please tell me what you think of the palette swap.

--Aearthrise ^{(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ)} 14:46, 7 October 2017‎(UTC)

@Algentem I saw your work on your the Sahidic conjugator, and I updated my table in its style. The Bohairic conjugator is complete, but I don't know what the next step in the process is. I added two templates at Coptic table templates]

--Aearthrise ^{(Ⲁⲉⲁⲣⲑⲣⲓⲥⲉ)} 14:46, 7 October 2017‎(UTC)

Regarding independent pronouns, Bohairic and Sahidic don't use them inside verbs (that is, anywhere between the beginning of the TAM and the infinitive, where special pronominal forms are used) but they can be used before verbs for special information, but that is normally regarded as an extraposition. In the above case it serves to contrast "he" and "I" and it literally translates the Greek use of a pronoun. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Saluto Algentem, would you mind sharing your thoughts at the discussion of standards for Coptic? There have so far only been three participants. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ka vu opinionas ke ni devas inkluzar anke la AFHI-vorti ibe o ne? Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Me opinionas, ke ne. Generale, vorti qua derivesis de vorti substantival en la fonto-lingui, recevis -ac-. Exemple, la vorti exportacar ed importacar derivesis de la vorti exportation ed importation (do, li esas adminime mi-retro-formacita), ne de la verbi export ed import. — Algentem (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This form of recevar (possibly influenced by the Esperanto) seems quite common in older literature. Do you know whether it was an accepted alternative form or a proscribed form back then? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Ido originally inherited all the roots that begin with ri from Esperanto, as well as the prefix re-. Those roots and that prefix lasted quite long, but was eventually changed because people argued that roots were more important than prefixes (almost every root that begins with ri in Esperanto was been mutated from re so not to be ambiguous with the prefix re-.) After a vote, everyone agreed on shifting all the roots that begin with ri to re and they adopted the Italian form of the prefix ri-. Both forms never existed at any time together, but all the re words in Ido comes from Esperanto ri. :-P – Algentem (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've added ricevar as an obsolete form. Did the vote happen to take place in 1912 (the number of uses dives down around that date)?

Also, you may like this. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I'm unsure. I found the following change in 1911:

"On repulsas la chanjo di re- a ri- en omna vorti ube ta unesma silabo apartenas a la radiko (t.e. ne esas la prefixo re-), per 9 no, 1 yes." The complete change from ri- to re- happened in waves. (Do note that some people adopted and started using this change some time after the official vote, some might actually have already begun using this before it was officially voted upon.)

Good. You can probably add an obsolete form to most words that begin with re- if you want to.

Ah yes, de Beaufront. Such a nice recording. :3 — Algentem (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks like {{io-head}} doesn't allow the accelerated creation of verb forms, compare komprenesar and alflosi. Any idea on the cause? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 13:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Sorry for the late respond. Going through the modules, it looks like it doesn't exist for verbs at all. I'm going to attempt to add it. — Algentem (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was curious about where you got the information in the usage notes at glavo (and also espado), because the cites I can find tend to involve physical swords (though typically classical ones, which were usually shorter than mediaeval swords). ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Hey. I combed through the Progresi, but couldn't find the instance where espado was adopted. But I could find evidence that it happened quite late (somewhere between 1915—1925 maybe), and that it was — most probably — a full replacement for glavo, which was the sole word for "sword" (like in Espo) at that time. After espado replaced glavo, glavo was probably kept around for a specific purpose.

I most frequently cite the Dyer dictionary, because it was written in 1924 (after all of the major changes occurred) and most people use it when learning Ido, and it's also quite faithful to the Progresi. The word "sword" is translated as "(in gen.) espado," and glavo can be found as "(esp. fig.) glavo." Further than that, every translation related to "sword" uses espado: "dumanua espado," "espadagar," "espadozono," etc. It should note "dumanua glavo," "glavagar," "glavozono," etc. if glavo would be regarded as a full synonym. The only example of glavo in Dyer is: "sword of justice: glavo di yusteso."

Looking at the quotes you found, I bet you the first — from 1908 — is before espado was adopted and would be translated as "espado" in "Modern Ido." In today's usage, I've never seen glavo being used. Also, "Esperantisms" aren't that uncommon in Ido. Maybe it would be wiser if we gave it two definitions?

— Algentem (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you're correct about the older quotes being closer to the Esperanto sense, but I think I came across it meaning a physical sword in more recent texts as well. Splitting definitions may be a good solution, but I do not know whether we have enough readily available cites for that. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Well, it does say "esp," and I wrote "in general." I know Jean Martignon, and he learned Espo before he learned Ido. I'm pretty sure he mixes the two up sometimes and I think that goes for most of the quotes. Maybe we could label it as an "Esperantism." — Algentem (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think one out of eight cites (1913) justifies Dyer's "esp.", and I've included every independent cite I could find via Google. But a split in a figurative sense and a physical sense "short sword" matches very well with glaive. Martignon's use might be an Esperantism but the quote matches short swords well, because archaic Greek sword usually were short swords. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the usage note a bit. Does it look fine to you? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo That looks good to me. Nice. — Algentem (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is your basis for this claim? It seems to be a very old word in Ido, though it would be a neologism if used in Esperanto. Finsternish (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Finsternish Well, this area of Ido is a bit shaky. It is not the original word for “dictionary” in Ido, the compound “vortolibro” has been used since the dawn of the language, and is what replace Espo’s “vortaro”. Dicionario is probably not “a new word” per say, but it’s not an original word in Ido, and that’s why it becomes hard to say.

Basically, every decision (word adoption, word replacements, discussions, etc.) take place in a magazine called Progreso (progress) that was at the end of each year compiled into a single book at around a thousand pages each. The Academy (later ULI) made the Progresi up until the 1920s, when Ido went into a phase called “the years of stabilization”. No new Progresi, no changes to the language, etc. Interestingly (and sadly), that was just before the WWII started to take off, so it was prolonged. At this time, vortolibro” was the sole word.

They started to bring back the Progreso after “the stabilization”, but they initially didn’t adopt any changes, but rather merely discuss their possibilities. This is when things get shaky. At around 50-60s, the Progresi started to become rare, and ULI (stupidly) did not keep track of their own adoptions. This is bad, because this is when they decided to drastically reshape Ido in some areas.

Now, the problem is to identify what is official and what is not. I have no idea when dicionario was starting to be used, if it replaced vortolibro or not, and ULI themselves doesn’t know either (we have contacted them...) That’s why I’m unsure if “dicionario”, “amba” (originally “omna du”), “genitoro” (“patro”), etc. is official or not, and for that matter when they started to be used.

As someone that has all the Progresi til the 40s, I am positive that “dicionario” cannot be found (along with the other two said words). Unless you can find some evidence proving that it is official usage, I think we should label it as a neo, since officoialality is very important in Ido.

P.S. I’ve started work on a Template that we can use in etymologies to show which decision a word was adopted, and in which Prog. with quotes, amount of votes, etc. — Algentem (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think, regardless of the rest of this discussion and whether we should label a word unofficial or official, it doesn't make sense to call a word a neologism unless it started being used fairly recently and/or isn't widely used now. Dicionario is ubiquitous.

And by "doesn't make sense" I mean in the context of Wiktionary. Language communities might have idiosyncratic definitions of neologism, but Wiktionary has a definition of it (I can't remember where) that I don't think dicionario would qualify under. Finsternish (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think this about Esperanto words as well. Unofficial isn't synonymous with neologism, and coinages that happen after the invention of a language but still a long time ago are hardly neologisms either. Few people would call "judo" a neologism in Esperanto, despite it replacing the fundamenta word hebreo... and words tend to get officialized in Esperanto after a period of long unofficial use, so if the word had never been officialized it would probably still be just as ubiquitous.

With that said all the rest of what you're talking about is a great idea; a template for when something is officialized or where it originated would be a really good idea. Finsternish (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Finsternish Yeah, I know I've kind of misused the neologism label, but I don't think we should delete the labels all together. We need some way of displaying whether a word is "official" or not, as that is very important in Ido. Unlike Esperanto, lengthy usage of unofficial words in Ido don't get automatically (more or less) officialised after some time, and in literature, the writer has to display that a word is unofficial, if it is. I think, then, that we should come up with a solution for displaying officiality/unofficiality: "official" as a label (which i've been hesitant to use), in usage notes? — Algentem (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! I hope you don’t mind, but I’ve expanded the Coptic alphabet table you were making for the Wikipedia article. Feel free to revert if you’d rather I didn’t. In my opinion the table is pretty much ready to be inserted at the article, if you want to edit it in in place of the old table. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 01:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix Great. Thanks! The only problem now, is that I’ve lately adopted the vowel qualitative hypothesis (i.e. Ⲉ /ɛ, ə/, Ⲏ /e/, etc.)... I’ve mainly been reading Peust, and there are some great evidence supporting it. I don’t know what to do now... — Algentem (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to reply to you so late; I’ve been doing further research of my own, and I believe you (and Peust) are very likely correct about the distinction being one of quality rather than quantity (although I’m unconvinced by some of Peust’s other suggestions, like the lack of a glottal stop). This view also seems to be gradually becoming more popular among scholars; I’m hard pressed to find a paper published since 2000 that evaluates both vowel hypotheses and comes out in favour of a quantity distinction. If you’d like, you can change the chart to follow the quality hypothesis (maybe with a note that says some scholars alternatively think the distinction is one of quantity?). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 04:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix Hey. Nice to see that we agree on it. I really enjoy Peust’s book. He makes some very bold and compelling statements in there. Yeah, I agree we should move the quantitative hypothesis to the footnotes. I see that you’ve already done that, so thanks! I also saw that you gave Ϫ the sound of /t͡ʃ’, t͡ʃ(ʰ)/. I believe (now) that the pronunciation for it (and Ϭ) are /c~ɟ/ and /k^j/ (/c~ɟ/ and /c~ɟ^h/ in Bohairic) respectively (Loprieno and Peust). Other than that, I think we more or less agree on everything. — Algentem (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing! Regarding /t͡ʃ/ vs. /c/, I think two pieces of evidence, taken together, are compelling:

1. Semitic loanwords show that the Egyptian predecessors ṯ and ḏ were probably affricates since the end of the Middle Kingdom, as articulated for example in {{R:egy:Hoch 1994}}, p. 429–430: “The use of Egyptian ṯ and ḏ to represent Semitic fricatives (sibilants and interdentals) suggests that the Egyptian sounds were not articulated as stops, but rather as continuants. Yet the use of ṯ (ta₅) with the value and also the occurrence of ḏ in ma⸗ḏa⸗ḥa⸗t (no. 242) for /ṭ/ and in ḏ⸗p⸗ḥu (no. 563) for /d/ suggests that these Egyptian phonemes also exhibited or could exhibit some features of stops. Since Egyptian ṯ and ḏ exhibit features of both spirant / interdental continuants and dental / aveolar stops, they were very likely articulated as the affricates / and (or perhaps emphatic: ) / . The earliest certain attestation of Egyptian ṯ for samekh dates to the end of the Middle Kingdom. ” etc. In general, Egyptian ṯ renders Semitic ḏ , s , t , ṯ̣ , and ḏ renders Semitic ḏ , ḏ̣ , ṣ , ṭ , ṯ̣ , z (values as reconstructed for Proto- and early Semitic).
2. In Coptic, and possibly even in earlier Egyptian, the sequence t + š can be found to coalesce into or interchange with ṯ/Ϫ (Peust mentions this on p. 125.).

Peust and Loprieno never really argue that it wasn’t , so they don’t adduce any evidence against such an interpretation; it seems like they just use /c/ as a conventional representation of the phoneme without prejudice to what its exact articulation might have been. (For the same reason, I wouldn’t be opposed to calling the phoneme /c/, although the normal realization of the phoneme seems likely to have been ). — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix Hm... I’m not totally sold on it, I would like to think about it some more. But you clearly have more knowledge of Egyptian phonology and phonological evolution than I do (I’ve read your appendix on Egyptian phonology, great article! Very interesting!). At least we should add another note, saying “scholars generally render these sounds as ...” or something. Thanks for your help, btw. Also, would you help me create/think that I should create an appendix for Coptic pronunciation? We’ll leave out all the evolution and link to the Egyptian one. — Algentem (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, it should probably be changed to /c/, /kʲ/ in the table, as you suggest. It’s not wrong from a phonemic standpoint, and it is what the cited sources say; the actual phonetic realization doesn’t need to be brought into it.

I think an appendix on Coptic pronunciation would be a great idea! We’ll definitely have to note some of the existing scholarly debates, but it should be doable. Some of the existing appendices in Category:Pronunciation by language could be useful as models. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix Hey again. I’ve read up on it some more, and I think I’m starting to believe it a little. But I think we should leave the table more in line with the cited books. I also think we should simplify (for example) Ⲕ to “/k/“, just to make it cleaner and simpler. But I totally think we should add all that to the appendix and all the related discussions. We can quote every big Coptologist and make it an excellent source/guide for Coptic pronunciation. I made this as a start, it’s a bit of a blend of Sahidic and Bohairic, and there’s some missing sounds, but we can use it as a base. We can even link the Wikipedia page(s) to the appendix. — Algentem (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

All right; I’ve changed the table accordingly. I’ll look at the appendix and see if I can add anything! — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 02:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

What is this supposed to do? Please add documentation and an explanation. DTLHS (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since you have taken an interest in Idiom Neutral influences on Ido, some derivational suffixes like -atra, -ala, -eskar and perhaps -oza look like they originate from Idiom Neutral. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Lingo Bingo Dingo I’ve been thinking about this. Since close to 50% of the original Ido supporters were former IN speakers, I do believe that IN had a bigger and more subtle impact on Ido than what most people realize. But it seems to be very hard to figure out which words were actually directly borrowed from IN (with partiso we had actual written evidence, for example). Words like -atra and -eskar were likely borrowed from IN, imo. — Algentem (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd let you know that I've nominated a number of Ido entries at WT:RFVN. I suspect some of them might be citable by means of older Ido texts that are not accessible via Google. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Lingo Bingo Dingo. I did an surface analysis, and I can pretty certainly say that agnostika is a neologism and unofficial. You probably wont find it any older works. Nodizar is somewhat strange to me. It’s certainly not an older word. Infuzar was imported from Esperanto, so you could theoretically find it in older writing. There were some early Japanese supporters for Ido, if I do recall correctly, so maybe you can find Japono in use. Busolagar is also strange to me. It’s modern, and I think the preferred word would be orientar. The other two (alegreto and alumetuyo) is probably findable in older literature, but then you would have to scour through them. I’ll keep an eye out for them. — Algentem (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Algentem,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email [email protected].

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply