User talk:Ankitdimania

Welcome!

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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for you contributions. Just wanted to briefly explain why I reverted some of them:

• Please don't add prefix/suffix categorizations for words which are not directly derived from those prefixes/suffixes.
• The links you added with {{R:Etymonline}} should go in the "Further reading" section, not "References", unless they are referenced in the entry.
• Please read Wiktionary:Entry layout. You can't just make up headers like "Unrelated terms". There are some "free-form" fields like "Usage notes" which can sometimes be used to convey this type of information.
• Don't delete existing references to related terms.

– Jberkel 20:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

When an entry has multiple etymologies, we make each header section one level down. See Wiktionary:Entry layout#Etymology. Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You really really really need to learn what a root is before you do more! —Rua (mew) 01:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. I'll check your reverts and learn. Ankitdimania (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You created another root category for something that isn't a root, so I think the article I linked wasn't clear enough. I'll summarise some points:

1. A root only has one syllable, ever. If it has two syllables, it's never a root no matter what. Consonants with a ring under them count as vowels and thus take up a syllable.
2. A root is not a full-formed word, which is why {{PIE root}} puts a hyphen after it.
3. A root has one vowel and that vowel is always e. Anything with another vowel is not a root, or at the very least an extremely unusual and suspicious root.
4. A root has consonants on both sides of that e, but there is always a strict ordering of the consonants. Roots never begin or end in a vowel. Consonants with a ring under them count as vowels.
5. A root has no accents.

For these reasons *sóh₂wl̥ is not a root: It has two syllables, it's a fully-formed word with no hyphen, it doesn't have e as the only vowel, and it has an accent. —Rua (mew) 11:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh and another thing I remembered. If one root is derived from another, only use the longer root in {{PIE root}}. So if terms derive from *ǵʰewd-, use that root but not *ǵʰew-. If you include multiple roots in {{PIE root}}, then the word should be a combination of all those roots, i.e. a compound. —Rua (mew) 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Gotcha. Thanks Ankitdimania (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

A reminder about rule 3 above. —Rua (mew) 21:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regarding palla and relatives, it was actually Wiktionary's own etymology that was wrong. I've replaced it with a sourced etymology now. You should take great care when adding categories based on Wiktionary etymologies, some of our etymologies are actually terrible and completely untrustworthy. Etymologies that are sourced to known linguists are usually safe, but even then not always. Pokorny's dictionary of Indo-European is badly out of date, to name one. As a rule, the more recent, the more reliable. —Rua (mew) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks, Unfortunately, I was relying solely on wikitionary. What all sources do you use to figure out etymologies for Latin and English?

  I have etymology dictionaries for Germanic (by Kroonen), Italic/Latin (by De Vaan) and Slavic (by Derksen). There's also a bunch of other sources like Don Ringe's book series on the history of English, Etymologiebank for Dutch words, Etymology Online for English, and so on. The online sources aren't always as reliable or linguistically sound as the books, though, but they usually point in the right direction even if they get some details wrong. When I see an etymology that looks implausible I usually have a look in one of my books to see what their take on the matter is.

  Sadly, a lot of the work in knowing what is plausible or not comes down to experience. I've been working on Wiktionary, and the history and development of some languages, for many years now, and I've also worked on Wikipedia articles on the topic. As you study how things work in-depth, you start to get a sense for what is right and what isn't. This isn't something you can learn in one day, but I hope that I can nudge you in the right direction. Still, the only proper way to understand what's going on is to read and read a lot of different sources and views. A lot of stuff is available online if you know what to look for, I've gathered quite a lot of linguistic papers on my computer over time. Getting different perspectives on things is important too, because not all linguists follow mainstream ideas, some are more radical/tradition-breaking than others. And to know what is mainstream and what isn't... you guessed it, you just have to read and learn.

  For you, I would advise the following. Don't add root categories if the root itself has no page on Wiktionary yet. Usually that's a sign that the root is too dubious or that there are other problems with the reconstruction. And if there is a page for it already, avoid the ones in Category:Proto-Indo-European irregular-shape roots, which are often rather suspiciuous to various degrees (some violate one of the 5 rules I gave you) and need someone to check them. Some of them are valid and well-supported in sources, like *bʰuH-, but to err on the side of caution, it's better to avoid anything in that category for now. If there is currently no page for a root but you think there should be one, you can send me a message and I'll have a look. —Rua (mew) 22:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks for your help on this. Ankitdimania (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tendo&diff=52367251&oldid=52285850 I tried making one more change. is this correct?

De Vaan does not reconstruct this root for vitium. In fact he seems to reconstruct no root at all. —Rua (mew) 16:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Can you please update the etymology to reflect all the information you have?

I've updated the etymology of vitium and vitilīgō. There is no root here, but instead they derive directly from the number "two". This did not have any root in PIE, since the stem of the number consisted of only the consonants *dw-. —Rua (mew) 17:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, seems like I missed this update. I've reverted the changes. Ankitdimania (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It appears that there's two of these roots. The one meaning "wash", which we already have a PIE entry for, is reconstructed as *lewh₃- by De Vaan. But the other one, meaning "cut loose", is given as *lewH- by De Vaan instead, with an unknown laryngeal. For *leusaną, also from that second root, Kroonen gives *lewh₁- (“to loosen”). —Rua (mew) 12:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Just to clarify, is this edit correct then? Ankitdimania (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Probably not, no. They're not the same root, so if we give them the same root shape they should probably be given a different ID. But I'm not sure if the second one should be *lewh₃- anyway, given the two sources I cited above. I just don't know what should be used instead, because they also disagree with each other. Maybe someone else has further sources that swing it in favour of one or the other. I'll post about it in WT:ES. —Rua (mew) 14:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/2019/May#Etymology of the second verb at luo —Rua (mew) 14:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was such a unexpected moment that I saw a person like me who thinks that “destructivity” is a word. I was about to create a crisis to make the world recognize this word but I guess I no longer have a reason to do that since you accidentally halted the decision of my will by creating “destructivity” here. I guess the world should be grateful to you for stopping my extreme plan before it was executed. 2001:EE0:4B4C:9EF0:88D0:F619:A863:1A6A 14:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC) A grateful stranger.Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply