User talk:Anglish4699

Hi. Some of your additions to farseer etc. seem to be a made-up form of alternative English that wouldn't be used by real speakers. Examples need to be realistic (or, even better, actual print citations). Equinox ◑ 16:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

           - Answer: I fully agree and see your point, I have taken it out — This unsigned comment was added by Anglish4699 (talk • contribs).

As Equinox said in an edit comment, you shouldn't be using obscure senses of words in entries for other terms. The reason for definitions and glosses is for people to be able to understand as easily as possible. When you insert things that people don't understand, they then have to look then up. That may be what you want, because you want people to learn about those obscure terms, but it's not what the readers want, and it violates our neutral point of view principle. Please also remember that we're a descriptive dictionary: we document how the language is or has been used, not how you or I think it ought to be used. The kind of usage you're interested in exists, but it's extremely rare and most would consider it nonstandard. Don't try to make it seem more widespread or standard than it is. It should tell you something that most of your edits have been reverted or otherwise removed. If you persist in making edits that we keep having to revert, we might have to block you. Please don't make it come to that. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did you see these in print? Equinox ◑ 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

1827, William Tennant, Papistry storm'd: " As if his hand begrasp't already An iron-geddok; " and 1873, The Contemporary Review - Volume 21 - Page 218: "I am now realmless; Me have so hard the clasps of Hell Firmly begrasped." For begrip, 2012, Wilyem Clark, Steadfast: "He came to be known as Peritus because he seemed expert at every task he begripped him."Anglish4699 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! We should refrain from using obscure terms in definitions. The purpose of definitions is to help the user grasp the meaning of words, not to have them go on a hunt for what those definitions mean ;) Leasnam (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I see. Thank you for overseeing the definitions. Always want to do the best ;) Anglish4699 (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! The conjugation table at fyllan can be used for gefyllan, just tag on the prefix ! ;) Leasnam (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh!, Okay, I'll get on it. Thank you Anglish4699 (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

One more thing, can this be done with most or all ġe- verbs? (Like ġewyrtian from wyrtian) Anglish4699 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes ! In Old English (as with most germanic languages) a prefix usually doesn't change how the stem verb is conjugated :) Leasnam (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you for this knowledge! I wasn't fully sure ;) Anglish4699 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

With most class 2 weak verbs, you can use this template {{ang-conj-weak-2|<add your verb stem here>}} and it will generate the conjugation for you. Please look at wyrtian/gewyrtian for more, and Thank you for all you do here. It is appreciated ! :) Leasnam (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the table. I saw what happened with the mix up. FORGIVE ME. I've been using the site Old English To Modern English Translator, but now it doesn't seem so trustworthy. I'll look more carefully into conjugating from now on. Again, thanks for the table! Anglish4699 (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! I undid your addition to touch, mainly because the etymology is already exceedingly long; and because we shouldn't use words like "inborn" for native...If you decide you want to continue to add it back, Middle English had rinen and repen for "touch" :) Leasnam (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed it is VERY long. Perhaps a cognate table would fit? Anglish4699 (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure ! Go for it ! :) Leasnam (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reconstructions must have descendants or derived terms. If they don't, then there is no basis for reconstructing them and they are likely to be deleted. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Going off mad's etymology (shows ġemǣdan -> ġemǣded -> ME madd -> Eng. mad). Anglish4699 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Synchronic etymologies, which only show the formation of the word, don't have cognates. Cognates are words that have a common origin, i.e. they were formed once in an ancestral language, and then inherited into their modern form. Parallel formations, where the same word was formed in multiple languages, are not cognates. There must demonstrably be a common ancestor form for there to be cognates. —Rua (mew) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! What is English forlere ? Leasnam (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, on it's surface, it should be "to teach wrongly" but I do not know for sure. This is coming from B&T where is says "N.E.D. forlere." If it is not in the N.E.D., I will take it out. Anglish4699 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It probably is in the New English Dictionary, but that doesn't necessarily make it a Modern English word. The NED kinda reminds me of the OED, where it is so conservative, that it holds onto older words that have long gone out of use. Oftentimes, it shows what the word might look like had it survived, and forlere is likely one of these, a forward-cast of Middle English forleren Leasnam (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mark as (obsolete) or should it be taken out all together? Fine with either one. Anglish4699 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you can find Modern English uses, I would leave it. If not, I would remove it until such uses can be located :) Leasnam (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Basically don't add words that don't exist. I think this is the third time so let me know if you want me to shout louder. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Forgive, didn't know. Anglish4699 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I changed your edit back to suffix. The formation is similar to forward, where it's from the adverb wither + -ward; and not from the prefix Leasnam (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Mistook wiþer-weard on B&T as being through the prefix. Thank you for righting it! Anglish4699 (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Totally up to you, but if you would like to "formalise" your English and Spanish skills on your user page, you could use the Babel box, for example {{Babel-11|en|es-3}}. The benefit is that this automatically includes you in generated categories of people who speak those languages. Equinox ◑ 05:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I've been wondering how to get that (just haven't gotten around to it). Anglish4699 (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I generally remove cognates if they are already listed as descendants on the page of an ancestral term, or if they can be expected to be listed there in the future. Descendants are much clearer and more useful for listing cognates, certainly better than cluttering up individual etymologies with them. Listing them in entries also leads to a lot of unnecessary duplication. —Rua (mew) 18:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see, thank you for this advice. I'll be cleaning the cognates from now on. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed your edit summaries here. As far as I can tell, *stāną and *standaną were perfect synonyms of each other, and were used interchangeably. Inevitably, then, the derived verbs appear with both base forms too, so both *bistāną and *bistandaną are attested in languages, perhaps even the same language. I'm not sure what the best solution is. Clearly, they are more than just synonyms, they are more like alternative forms of each other. I'm inclined to treat *standaną and its derived verbs as the primarily lemma and *stāną as the alternative form, although the descendants of both should be kept separate. My reasoning is that Gothic preserves only the latter, and the root of the latter is also used in derived terms such as *standaz, even in languages which use the other form of the verb. —Rua (mew) 18:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I had the same concern. Since the English stand didn't directly come from *stāną, I didn't quite know what to do here. Indeed they are more than just synonyms (the Proto-Germanic verbs even shared the same past conjugation), and I believe your answer to this problem is the best. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

My own rule for creating etymologies is that if the current term derives from a form that is not the main lemma but rather an alternative form, I list both the main lemma and the alternative form, in that order. Look at how I did beduiden for example. I think this same approach can be done for bestehen. —Rua (mew) 19:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anglish4699 ! I just saw your edit on crēopan, especially the mutstem argument crȳp. Since we both do a lot of editing on OE, what do you feel is the best solution to the verb conjugations regarding their displayed forms ? 1). there is the train of thought that says that we should only use attested verb forms (where available); and 2). that we can normalise the forms (based on analogy to other similar verbs and etymology). I'm fine with either, but I am a stickler for consistency. Which do you feel is the way we should approach this ? Leasnam (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Or maybe we can show an alternative: as in mutstem=*crīep|mutstem2=crȳp ? this might require reworking the template...Leasnam (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think the best way to go about this is to show the generalized form as well as the attested form (since it is attested). Indeed, the generalized form may very well have been in Old English . So yes, The "mutstem=*crīep|mutstem2=crȳp" would be great. I didn't know templates could do such a thing. Anglish4699 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, sounds good. Yeah, you can make a template do almost anything you want it to do, so long as its outcome is predictable and regular Leasnam (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This Old Engli.sh site does show cīepþ for the 3rd present, but I couldn't find it on B&T. So I was in the wrong here. I'll slow myself down and take a closer look at things like this. Thanks for catching that! Anglish4699 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, no, no...you didn't do anything wrong. crȳpþ is completely right...but like you said above, crīepþ probably also existed (in fact, crȳpþ is just a later and/or dialectal development of crīepþ. You're good! :) Leasnam (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't mean to be such a bother, but I can't seem to figure out how to get that other mutstem in the template! I've already written it over again in the template below

Lua error in Module:ang-verb at line 1550: Parameter "class" is not used by this template.

If there is a cleaner way, it would help a lot! Here is the former template { {ang-conj-strong|class=2|crēop|mutstem=crȳp|crēap|crup|crop} } Anglish4699 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so sorry man, but I haven't had any time yet to look at the addl mutstem :( maybe tonight :) Leasnam (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No worries! If it doesn't work out, it's fine. Anglish4699 (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! I just noticed we're missing a sense at līhtan, meaning "to make light/easy, relieve"...would you like to add it ? I think it would belong under Etym 2 Leasnam (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sure. "Under Etym 2" meaning being a part of Etym. 2 right? Anglish4699 (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thanks ! Leasnam (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, regarding oferdrīfan, I updated the template to not show (ġe) in front of the past participle when it is explicit Leasnam (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much! I kept seeing it before the prefixes and it always irked me. Again, many thanks! Anglish4699 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed you ask this question often in the edit summary. Not sure what the hard distinction is between the two, but I pretty much stick to this rule: When a term comes immediately from a previous stage of the same language, and if the word is the same POS as its predecessor, and it has all the components parts (affixes) of its predecessor, then it's an inherited term--assuming there was no break in usage, and no derivational change to the term occurred. Otherwise, if it there is an affix added (e.g. Middle English hovel) from Old English hof, or if it was a noun in say, Old English, but became a verb in Middle English (see whelm as an example), etc., then it becomes a derived term at that point--a change in the form/POS occurred. Same thing applies at the PIE to PGmc juncture, if the PIE is a stem (ends in *"-") and the PGmc term is a full word, then it's derived from that stem. But if the PIE word is fully reconstructed, then inherited can and should be utilised. And obviously, for terms borrowed at previous stages between languages, it's derived. Some may have differing opinions on this, and they are welcome to chime in. Hope this helps :) Leasnam (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is pretty much how I use it. As soon as there's a "break" of any sort in the chain of continuous inheritance of the same word, anything from that point backwards is not an inheritance. The {{inh}} template actually barks at you if you give it a language that isn't an ancestor of the current one, so that is also a hint. But even within a chain of inheritance of languages there can still be a break. English is a direct descendant of PIE, so it can inherit and has inherited terms from it. But hound is not inherited from *ḱwṓ; at some point, an additional -t- was added, which then became -d- to give *hundaz. *hundaz is the oldest known ancestor of hound, anything older is not inherited. —Rua (mew) 18:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

My biggest reason for putting an English term as "derived" is that there is such a big date gap between Middle English and New English (kinda like what happened at withspeak) (1) OR I cannot find the Middle English term with the source that I have now (like with behelm from Middle English *bihelmen *behelmen from Old English behelmian (2). In those situations, I feel like I'm in a pickle, and put the "inh? der?." I wanted to be careful and not mark something as "inherited" when it wasn't, but I will indeed keep those helpful rules above in mind! Anglish4699 (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I gotcha, but I'm not sure that der would have been the correct one to use in those situations either, however, I agree its use has become sort of a catch-all for situations that seem unclear. So for words not attested in Middle English, but likely from Old English, they are inherited. Take for instance the word stay (“a mast rope”), it's obviously inherited from OE stæġ, as it follows all the classic phonological changes of passing through Middle English, however without any written record of it. It's not derived, per se. Even if there is a gap, like with withspeak, that would make it a (re)borrowing, not a derivation. der really should only be used when something is a derivative of a word (like happily from happy, freedom from free, etc.), but we have come to also use it for borrowings from other languages at earlier stages because we don't want it categorising the terms the way that bor does, at the most recent stage of the language, hence the catch-all use Leasnam (talk) 06:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there ! Just saw your edit to halfdead. I undid it, because I think there is a push to use the more universal affix template, which can be used for both prefixes and suffixes, so it's cleaner/more efficient vs. the prefix/suffix. Granted, I still haven't converted over yet fully myself, and you don't really have to either if you don't want to, but I think it's a sensible step we might all want to consider making :) Leasnam (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

So if you choose not to use it, prefix/suffix is fine, but we certainly don't want to undo all the work someone's already made in converting to affix ;) Leasnam (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I will do so from now on. Thank for letting me know! Anglish4699 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

diff DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for catching this! Anglish4699 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

diff This is also a mistake. Look at the table of contents- now derived terms is a child of declension. DTLHS (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, I see. I will fix these. Anglish4699 (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi ! I see you added a request for more etymological information at flatten. Is flat + -en not enough ? Leasnam (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, flat + -en is enough. I had forgotten that I put that there, and I needed to take it down ><. Thanks! Anglish4699 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wes þu hal.

I am a member of an Old English discord. We thought that it would be good to reach out to you and to invite you to our discord. Our skills are diverse. I for one am an amateur with modest ability in writing and reading, but we also have very experienced members. For security, there is an immortal link in this reddit-post. You are also welcome to use the r/OldEnglish subreddit too. The subreddit and discord have some overlap in members. https://www.reddit.com/r/OldEnglish/comments/8hymnu/%C3%A6nglis%C4%8B_discord_%C4%93ala_w%C4%93_gr%C4%93ta%C3%B0_%C3%BEe%C4%8B/ Ælfric of Eynsham (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, If I am not mistaken the Etymology of Old English (OE) gamen in https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/gamen#Old_English was added by you. I am new to Wiktionary as a user, and luckily I know my way around a bit. I found the following entry (insertion) in the history of the page: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?diff=47260009&oldid=44964099&title=gamen&diffmode=visual#Etymology, and I don't know how to contact you so I started a new discussion here. I hope you don't mind it.

I couldn't find the ancestor of OE gamen in all the etymological dictionaries that we have at the library, and I have this homework where I have to demonstrate the etymology of English (E) game (I am a student of Linguistics). All the dictionaries that I have access to claim that OE gamen is of unknown origin, some of those sources are more than 50 years old, and it could be that you have some fresh information. I am trying to contact you to ask you if you could please tell me what are your sources?

Honestly spoken, I think that it would be more helpful if the sources are mentioned, for the general public and a curious person like me to read, especially since you have many contributions, which is much appreciated. I am not a native speaker of English, and I'm not questioning your judgement on the matter. Rather, I think it's of a great value (especially for my homework :-)).

Thanks in advance. FadHasan (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply