User talk:Atitarev/2020/2012-2013

Just added these two Mandarin entries and I noticed there is no Japanese entry for 男装 while there is for 女装. Could you add it for 男装 if it does exist? By the way, a new user has been adding cross-dressing senses for the Korean (Hanja) readings of 男裝 and 女裝, do you think these are legitimate? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Both Japanese and Korean seem to have this cross-dressing senses but the Japanese 女装 also has the "women's clothing" sense. See Japanese verbs: 男装する, 女装する (remove する to see noun senses). Confirmed the Korean senses from the Korean wiki. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's hot. — — 02:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear from you, buddy :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Thanks for that Anatoli. I don't believe there is an exact term for cross-dressing in Mandarin. The translations given at cross-dress are a bit strange, but they are fine as references. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a fluent speaker of another language (Russian), let me suggest that there are many cases when a translation cannot be 100% equivalent or perfect, if you take into account various usages, cultural aspects, usage, frequency, etc. Still, most terms are translatable. When we say in Russian "переодеваться в женщину" (i.e. "to dress as a woman"), it may be not be 100% equivalent to the verb "to cross-dress" in all cases, as it doesn't always convey the same attitude. Like with momma's boy, a close reference will do for the lack of a 100% equivalent. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I fear the Mandarin translation you added doesn't convey the negative connotation of the original term but unfortunately I can't think of any better translations as yet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's close enough, though (as close as you can get). The other translations are also somewhat broad in their negative connotations. Feel free to add translations to sissy, a more negative term. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This verb is shown as imperfect. What is the perfect equivalent, if there is one? (And if there isn't, how can you tell that this one is imperfect?) —CodeCat 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are two perfective forms (not perfect) for this verb: сесть (sestʹ) and посидеть (posidétʹ). The first means a complete action of "sitting down" (from a standing position), the second mean "to sit for a while", similarly: побе́гать (run for a while), походи́ть (walk for a while), поигра́ть (play for a while). There is no clear indication in this verb that it is imperfective, so it has to be known. There are only a few pointers (prefixes or absence thereof, suffixes like -овывать) that can tell you whether a verb is perfective or imperfective, only the conjugation (perfective have no present tense) and meaning can help determine it precisely. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

сесть (sestʹ) is also the perfective aspect of садиться (sadítʹsja) (sit down). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{ar-nisba}} — — 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shit, I found a flaw. If you put the stress in, the translits will be wrong. Eh, I can fix that later if I care enough. — — 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean but good luck :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's more for you (and whoever else wants to add Arabic) than for me since I don't edit a tenth as much as I used to. I figured you might like it. — — 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I used the template, it's good but I wasn't sure what stresses cause the translits to be wrong. It's great if you can fix it. I hardly work on Arabic, though, I add translations sometimes (the usual). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll add "mtr=" since that's the one that's different. So for 'arabiyy, it'll be tr='arabíyy and mtr='árabiyy. I'll do that right now. — — 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, changed my mind and took that back out. It would have worked had I not insisted on including the gray nunation. ʿá-ra-biyy vs ʿa-ra-bíy-yun. — — 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! We're just starting a focus week for the Foreign Word of the Day on terms derived from German, and I was wondering if you could help to translate some of the quotes on featured pages. Specifically, アルバイト and абитуриент#Bulgarian need translations of short texts, and I would also appreciate it if you could check my translation of the French at vasistas (my French was never any good, now it's worse than my other Romance languages). If you can't do any of these, it's OK, but I figured that your wide-ranging language skills might come in handy for this selection of languages. Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Sorry but I'm actually struggling to translate the Japanese book title and the Bulgarian dialogue 100% right. I have some doubts whether I understand them well. It's better to ask native speakers on both: User:TAKASUGI Shinji and User:Bogorm. The French translation seems OK but you can ask User:Xhienne to be sure. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'll try them, and thanks anyway —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

(But in case they don't respond in time, your translation might be the best we can get even if it isn't 100%.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You should have a look at this User:Dick Laurent/Sandbox and try to find my fuck ups. I took it kinda slow and checked stuff as I went, but I'm sure to have overlooked something. I'm also shaky on some of the dual and plural accusative and genitive definite and construct forms. (I'll do the vowelling for the definite forms when I wake up in the morning, those damnable sun letters ruin everything.) — — 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great job, looks good. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Really? It can't be perfect. — — 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Promise to check more thoroughly and using reference books but you'll have to wait. I can only do it from home when I'm free. It looked OK at first glance from what I know from memory. I would change ألـ to الـ in definite forms, hamza is not used in articles, as the alif is elidable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

malikātaka, malikātahu, ... should be malikātika, malikātihu, ... I think. BTW al- should always be written without hamza. --Z 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know that diptotes have u, a and i when they're followed by possessive suffixes. I wanted to be certain that these others, like -āt (which apparently aren't technically diptotes?) don't also change their endings when there's a possessive suffix.

My most trusted resource is the Routledge essential grammar, which uses a hamza for al-, and makes sure the reader understands that it's a hamzatu l-wasli, which is why I didn't write " ʾal-", like words that start with إ. I understand that to be a matter of style. — — 15:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't there a special character for that? Namely: ٱ. --WikiTiki89 15:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the book, they only use that in context. Just like the examples in the entry. Particularly the وٱسم ٱلبنت أنهار one. ألوصل versus همزة ٱلوصل — — 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind working your magic so both of these entries (as well as their simplified counterparts) are linked to the Persian derivations category? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! How about 饢? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops, missed one, fixed now. I have now fixed 10 entries in Category:Mandarin terms derived from Persian trad. and simp. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's great that you're mass-producing Russian entries, but why are you not putting in declension and conjugation tables? At least put {{rfinfl|ru}} so that you remember to fix them all... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I will get back to them in the near future if someone else doesn't help. I just find it easier that way. I've requested Ruakh to add {{rfinfl|ru}} into the template. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

"why are you not putting in declension and conjugation tables?"

I lold. — — 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anatoli, I support your creation of Russian entries without inflection. Semantics first. A script can fairly easily identify entries without an inflection table, so {{rfinfl|ru}} is fairly pointless anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, which script can identify entries without an inflection table? I'd like to be able to have such a list/category. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I do not have the script. A Python script that uses the dump and finds Russian verb entries without an "inflection" section should be fairly easy to write. Have you changed your mind since User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2012#statistics_on_translations, and are you interested in running a Python script on a dump? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, although I'm interested in getting statistics on translations, I never got around to write scripting on database dumps. I've never used Python. As I said, I only program at work, at Wiktionary I only work languages, which is also quite time-consuming. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Russian, what determines whether a noun is animate or not? Are there certain kinds of nouns that are always animate, without exception? Some kinds that are occasionally animate? —CodeCat 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In most cases you can't determine this by the form of the noun, it's about the meaning - ALL humans, animals, creatures (including mystical or dead(!), like corpses, zombies, manikins, robots, etc.) are animates. The same word can be both animate and inanimate when they mean a living thing and an inanimate object, e.g козёл (kozjól) is a he-goat (animate) but also a gymnastics tool (not sure what you call it in English, will check later buck) - inanimate, when it means a popular card came, it's also animate(!), so there could be some difficulty for foreigners to determine in some cases. Groups of people - police, army, class, group are inanimates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so if I understand it correctly, if it is an individual with a will of its own, it is always animate without exception? What about plants or other non-animal life forms? And I suppose substances or abstract concepts are generally inanimate, but what about living substances? Or are they considered groups and therefore inanimate? Actually... are there any uncountable animates at all? Or is that semantically not possible (I can't imagine an uncountable individual!)? —CodeCat 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

(typed this BEFORE edit conflict) I'm sure the Slovene tekač is animate. Representation of humans, including chess figures are animates in Russian, so it could be the case in Slovene. You can test this the following way. I'll use a Russian analogy, you can use Slovene:

"Я вижу слона", "я бью слона" (ja vížu sloná, ja bʹju sloná)- I see an elephant/I hit (take) a bishop (chess). In accusative the word in both senses is different from nominative because they are animate, otherwise they would be "я вижу слон", "я бью слон" (sounds weird). Search for quoted strings using animate/inanimate, you should be able to check what they are! Feel free to ask if I can help. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

(typed this AFTER edit conflict).

Yes, all individuals are animates (except for groups and organisations).

Plants are inanimate (good question!)

Substances are inanimate but please give me some examples to be sure. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Slovene is not as big on the internet but anyway "vidím tekača" gives five hits in Google, "vidím tekač" - none. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well if plants are inanimate I suppose so is salad. And meat. It is strange that a manikin is animate though... I wonder what thought is behind that. Is it because it is perceived as a "person"? So what about...

• Bees or even bacteria? Since a bacterium is a living individual, is it animate?
• Professions and names for ethnicities? I think they would be animate since they refer to people?
• All "agent" nouns (ending in -ar and -telj) would be animate? Actually that is a good question... are there suffixes that are always animate, or are there exceptions there depending on what it refers to?

—CodeCat 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some more details:

Sorry, I lied, mannequins can be both inanimate and animate, usually the former but both forms are allowed. Idols are animate. Cooked crabs, fried fish and roasted lams are animate.

Corpse - труп is inanimate, мертвец is animate. It makes me wonder myself.

Salad is inanimate.

Microbes, bacteria, viruses, insects, all invertebrates are animate.

Professions are animate (the doer words), i.e. chemist (person), not chemistry.

Agent nouns are theoretically all animate but those endings can be added to words denoting mechanism, materials, like Russian двигатель (motor), воздухоочиститель (air purifier) - look-like agent words, or as I said they can be both animate and inanimate.

Products, things called using human or animal words, for examples дворник (janitor; windshield wiper) become inanimate, same case as with козёл (he-goat; buck (gymnastics) above.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see... thank you! I think intuition can help a lot with animacy, unlike with gender. And I guess that unless you have a good reason to consider something animate, the default is inanimate? It is still strange that a virus would be animate but not a tree..? —CodeCat 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I may butt in just to expand a bit on chess pieces (this also applies to mannequins). Chess pieces are not some sort of strange exception. The idea here is that the names of chess pieces don't refer to the pieces themselves but to the animate beings that pieces represent. The words фишка and фигура, which refer to the pieces themselves, are inanimate. And ладья ("rook") is also inanimate because the concept it represents is an inanimate object. For example, "Я выставил мои ладьи." and "Я схватил его фигуры.", as opposed to "Он съест твоих коней". The same applies to card games, video games, manikins, and any other situation where an inanimate object is used as a metaphor for an animate being.

As Atitarev said, words that refer to a profession or ethnicity are inanimate (chemistry), but (much more commonly) words that refer to people belonging to a profession or ethnicity (chemist) are animate. Agent nouns need not be animate (mechanical parts are often inanimate agent nouns for example). Also, the word вирус and грипп are inanimate, only words that refer to individual germs or virus cells are animate (even when used collectively in the plural). For example, микроб is animate but стафилококк (staphylococcus) is inanimate. --WikiTiki89 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some topics are complicated even for native speakers. You asked me and I started wondering myself, although I do pay attention to how I speak in Russian. I found whole articles in Russian talking about this. Hmm, embryos эмбрион, зародыш can be both. Oysters (food) устрица have been used as both animate/inanimate by Russian writers (they are animate for most people these days). Inanimate things in fairy tales are animate (when they come to life) or when they are used as nicknames, names, etc. The thing about virus must be cultural. Slavs must have thought that viruses have mind of their own in the past :)

@Wikitiki89, thanks for clarifying the chess figures, yes, only figures that represent humans or animals are animate.

Addition to the above - corpse - труп is inanimate, мертвец and покойник are animate. It makes me wonder myself. (added покойник) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the second mistake, yes, вирус is usually inanimate but микроб can be both, амёба is animate, although some sources say it's not. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wait, do feminine nouns have an animacy distinction? I tried comparing каша with Маша and can't think of any differences. --WikiTiki89 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Only in plural accusative, as I mentioned oysters, I say for "I eat oysters" - "я ем устриц" (animate) but some authors say "я ем устрицы" (inanimate). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that is different for different languages. In Slovene, there is only a difference in masculine singular, not in dual or plural, nor in feminine or neuter. —CodeCat 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's right, it makes it easier for some languages but it's still worth checking what determines animacy, even if it's only for Slovene masculines. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks! I didn't think of the plural for some reason. --WikiTiki89 03:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am having some trouble with this word. Slovenski pravopis (the normative spelling and grammar dictionary) doesn't show this as an animate noun, but because of its meaning I don't know how it couldn't be. It also belongs to the small group of masculine nouns ending in -a, which tend to be almost all animate nouns because their gender is implied by the natural gender of what they refer to. For the noun itself it doesn't matter whether it is animate or not, because the nominative and genitive both end in -a, but it would surely matter for adjectives that modify it. For now I have assumed that it is animate, but do you think you could help? —CodeCat 20:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Russian, masculine nouns ending in "-а" use the feminine declension, which does not differentiate between animate and inanimate in the singular. If this is the case in Slovene, then since Slovene never differentiates between animate inanimate in the plural, there would be differentiation at all in a masculine noun ending in "-a". --WikiTiki89 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Slovene it is a bit mixed in that regard. Masculine nouns in -a often decline as either feminine nouns (with their distinct accusative form in -o) or as masculine nouns with an anomalous nominative. In both cases, the noun inflection itself doesn't display animacy overtly. But the idea of whether something is animate or not presumably still matters for adjectives that modify something. In the case of kuža, when saying "I see a small doggy", would you say "vidim majhen kuža" or "vidim majhnega kuža"? —CodeCat 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did some searching and found many results for "imam/imaš majhnega kuža" but none for "majhen"... so it seems that the genitive is used in the accusative and therefore it is animate. —CodeCat 21:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point, I didn't think of adjectives. And yeah, the word for "doggy" in Russian (собачка) is most definitely animate. Based on your search, I guess the dictionary must be wrong. --WikiTiki89 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It may not be wrong as much as incomplete. It has a bit of a roundabout way of indicating animacy... instead of saying "animate" it says something about the general grammatical category something belongs to, like "person", "animal", "concept" but most often there is nothing at all. As a user you are expected to understand that person or animal implies animate, that concept implies uncountable, and so on. In the case of kuža, it didn't say anything at all, but it's possible that they just neglected to mention that it was animate because the word itself doesn't inflect for animacy. —CodeCat 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

It must be animate. Kuža, and kužek (the latter seems to be more common), it mean "puppy", not just "doggy". I'm not sure about the declension. I was able to check accusative and genitive singular - kuža, dative - kužu. Which cases do you have doubts about? Or all of them? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm slovene and it's me who created the article kuža but i changed the account. And i can tell you that it declines on both ways (it's possible to add both endings; -a or -e in the genitive (although -a is more common)). You can find out more at http://besana.amebis.si/pregibanje/ by taping kuža in search engine. It will automatically find and show you how it declines. You can use it also to see how other words inflect (not only verbs). If you can any other question just ask me :) Rumpel77 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for that link. I've added the alternative declension to the entry. Would you be able to tell me if all masculine words ending in -a can be declined both ways? Or do some of them always decline one way or another? —CodeCat 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I have advised User:CodeCat. Please add more Slovene contents! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Fell free to talk to me in russian hotya u menya net russkoj klaviatury... One more quwstion, although it maybe doesnt go here; on russian wikislovar I have noticed some differences between IPA and МФА pronounciations, for example for word всякий http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9 there are 2 different pronounciations described in each language. So my question is if IPA is the same thing than МФА or there are any differences between them. Can i just copy IPA pronounciation from english website and copy it to russian one? Rumpel77 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's the same thing (МФА and IPA). I usually don't add IPA, it's User:Wanjuscha. I have corrected the IPA in the English Wiktionary, (the Russian Wiktionary is correct). Of course /v/ is reduced to /f/ but it can be both /fʲ/ and /f/ in front of another palatalised consonant. We need more Russian contents as well (in fact, any language is welcome), if you're Russian but Slovene needs more attention than Russian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rumpel77, you haven't answered CodeCat's question about the declension. I'm curious too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Amm sorry, what do you mean? Do you mean the question about conjugation of rasti? Ok, i'll try to add some new entries in slovene. I would like to add them to russian wikislovar too... Do you have any tamplate for it? I have one for slovene nouns here. Could you please edit it? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bjWfJCDihkaCCtDku1FQZU90boz0LadogLnsZ3EytRk/edit Rumpel77 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think if the noun is animate, it uses animate agreement, regardless of the superficial forms the word itself takes, so "vidim majhnega kuža". — — 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Rumpel77. The question was "Would you be able to tell me if all masculine words ending in -a can be declined both ways? Or do some of them always decline one way or another?". Sorry, I don't work on the Russian wikislovar. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

My bad lol. We only have five of those guys. Category:Slovene masculine a-stem nouns. Almost all of them are names. — — 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem, man. I thought we should get a native speaker while he is here (although I don't know if he is Slovene or Russian). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. First let me tell you the answer. Femine nouns ending of -a decline, of course on second way. If we talk about masculine nouns ending on -a, generaly all nouns can decline in both ways. I'll tell you if i find any exeption. Btw, you have to pay attention in words as luka and Luka; first one is femine, but second is masculine (declines both ways).

Laurent, here are some other masculine nouns of second masculine I could add or you try to add them in future: Luka (Luke), sluga (servant), ata (dad ..= oče), baraba (rascal, scoundrel).. But anyway, there are not many nouns that belong here. I'm half Slovene, half Russian; I still talk Slovene little better because I live in Slovenia. Rumpel77 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я составил список слов которых я буду добавлять на моем "to-do list". Можно вас попрасить чтоб вы провелили что они правельно написаны?

Еще вопрос, слово спелировать/спеллировать использывается в России, или это англицизм?

Спасибо, --WikiTiki89 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Готово. Давай на "ты"?

Слово спелировать/спеллировать - слэнговое, не очень часто используется. Обычно люди говорят: писать/говорить по буквам.

Английский глагол "spell" часто переводится другими словами:

How do you spell? - Как пишется?

Spelling - орфография, правописание, об английском языке также - спеллинг (читается: спэллинг)

He can't spell - он не умеет правильно писать, он делает ошибки в письме

Ты не против, чтоб я исправил некоторые ошибки? Мои исправления. попросить, правильно, используется; попросить, чтоб (запятая); слов, которые (запятая) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо большое! Мне уже стыдно становится сколько у меня ошибок. Мне некого спрашивать потому что радители уже забывают какие слова существуют(ся?), и какие нет. Мы здесь давно уже "спелируем", "берем" автобусы, и едем в горы "хайкать". --WikiTiki89 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ничего страшного, всегда пожалуйста. Мы в Австралии уже пятнадцать лет. Ты думал, что я живу в России? Боюсь, наша дочь (20 лет) забудет русский, когда будет жить отдельно. Мы речь-то ее исправляем, но вот чтение и письмо! Только недавно стала самостоятельно читать по-русски, но не книги, а блоги и статьи. Почти совсем не пишет. Самим приходится задумываться иногда, как выразить правильно ту или иную мысль. С сыном (8 лет) тоже говорим только по-русски, кроме занятий английским или когда у нас англоговорящие гости. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

радители -> родители. Пожалуйста не стыдись ошибок! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Нет я знал что ты в Австралии живешь но не знал как долго. Мне самому 20 лет а родители здесь 25 лет живут (уже как раз больше пол жизни). У нас в доме никогда не было правил на каком языке можно говорить, но я уже сам понял что мне надо стараться, где можно, как много больше по-русски говорить, а то забуду. --WikiTiki89 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ты в Австралии или США?

как много больше-> как можно больше . --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

США. --WikiTiki89 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you can take your time translating the following into Russian if you want (I also wonder if there are Russian, Arabic, Khmer, Polish, German, Finnish, Dutch, Greek, Korean, Japanese, or French language translations of ASSK's Freedom from Fear and other works of hers):

Aung San Suu Kyi:

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

"Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day."

"Please use your liberty to promote ours."

"To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity."

From the FaceBook group The Equality Mantra:

"Love is a terrible thing to hate."

From Gandalf the Grey in the 2012 film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:

"True courage is about not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one."

Just as I've stated before, take your time and don't hurry. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, may I ask why you need this? Here we go:

Aung San Suu Kyi:

«Не власть портит, а страх. Страх потерять власть портит тех, кто ею обладает, страх наказания властью портит тех, кто ей подчиняется.»

«В той системе, которая отрицает существование основных прав человека, страх обычно становится закономерностью.»

«Пожалуйста используйте свою свободу, чтобы содействовать нашей.»

«Быть забытым. Французы говорят, что расставаться — значит немного умереть. Быть забытым значит немного умереть. Это значит потерять некоторые из связей, которые привязывают нас с остальным человечеством.»

From the FaceBook group The Equality Mantra:

«Ненавидеть любовь — ужасно."»

From Gandalf the Grey in the 2012 film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:

«Настоящая отвага не в том, чтобы знать, когда лишить жизни, а когда пощадить.» --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just out of recreation and to share something with The Equality Mantra and other FB pages. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know the appropriate translation of двувидовые глаголы in the Russian Wiktionary catatory, Категория:Двувидовые глаголы. I wonder if you can help me tranlate this phrase into English? Thank you in advance. I'm trying to make more categories for Russian verbs in the Korean Wiktionary. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

biaspectual verbs. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Stephen and KoreanQuoter. @KoreanQuoter, you may get information on all Russian verb conjugations from the Russian Wiktionary. Most verb templates based on Andrey Zaliznyak's massive work have been implemented there. User Al Silonov‎ is probably the person to talk to but there are just too many templates to import them easily. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I hope a genius Russian Wikitionary contributor has time to make the important templates for Russian verbs. I'm trying my best to make more articles on Russian verbs for the Korean Wiktionary. (as well as putting IPAs on Korean words in the Russian Wiktionary) Oh, and there's a serious dispute that the only moderator in the Korean Wiktionary is becoming very rude to the very few contributors. But still, adding Russian verbs for the Korean Wiktionary is more important. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I've seen your work on the Russian and Korean Wiktionaries and talked to you on the Russian Wiktionaries. I'm not a template guru and other contributors seem to have lost interest in Russian. Making better templates for verbs is important but it's a rather big undertaking. Adding each verb form manually is a pain in the butt but at the English Wiktionary I don't see another option at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Maybe somebody like CodeCat would like to help you import and adjust the Russian conjugational templates for Wiktionary? If not, I can try (but not now). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been putting each verb form manually in the Korean Wiktionary. It doesn't look nice and it is indeed a very tiresome task. I just can't copy and past a template because of some regulation. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please? 감사합니다！:) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I saw the request. I can't understand it either.

The first sentence becomes something "Jangseung is lost tomorrow at Sanha". The 2nd I don't understand at all, except for the first word - deity. Try Stephen or Shinji. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks anyway... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've asked on a language forum. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am confused about the meaning of Вот (во) даёт. It doesn't look like a common way of using давать. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's uncommon and very colloquial. It expresses a big (both pleasant and unpleasant) surprise about someone's actions or words. When addressing directly, "ну ты даёшь" is used. It's hard to translate.

Here's a dialogue (Youtube)] from a Soviet comedy "Джентльмены удачи" (Gentlemen of good fortune), where Косо́й (Squint-eye), a long-time criminal but a rather dumb fellow is talking to a taxi driver (undercover cop), describing a place where there was a monument. The pun is about the word "сидеть" (to sit), in criminal slang it means "to do time (in prison)"

Сиди́т?

Кто?

Ну, мужи́к э́тот твой.

Ха-ха-ха! О дере́вня, а?! Ну ты даёшь! Кто ж его́ поса́дит?! Он же па́мятник!

(Is he) sitting?

Who?

Well, that guy of yours?

Ha-ha-ha! What a redneck, huh?! ???? Who will make him do time/who will jail him?! He's a monument, you know!

ABBYY Lingvo's translation of давать gives one example (at the bottom) - "ну он даёт!" (colloquial) — "wow!, isn't that cute of him!" but as I said, this phrase can be used to express an unpleasant surprise. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you --KoreanQuoter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping out with the Proto-Slavic entries. I am not really familiar enough with the East Slavic languages (I seem to drift towards South and West more for some reason) so it's very helpful that you can fill in the gaps for me! —CodeCat 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. You can't be interested in all languages and know them all equally. And resources for some languages leave much more to be desired. Keep up the good work in Slovene and Proto-Slavic! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would like to bring your attention to this comment on WT:FB. :) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli. What's going on with Mandarin entries at the moment, e.g. 快要? Not only is there now a massive space where the "simpl. and trad. box" is, but there is also now a sentence inserted in the middle of the entry reading "This template needs documentation and categorisation. Please create the documentation page." Do you know what's going on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Carl. Check with User:Jamesjiao. He is doing something with Template:zh-hanzi, which causes it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

When I read some Russian content in some Russian websites, I found a lot of когда же. I don't know, but is this phrase common enough to be included in Wiktionary? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, these are two words. See же (že) (often abbreviated to just ж (ž)), sense 4. The particle can be used with other question words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

(from the previous conversation) Forgive me for the late reply. It was great. I was too busy these day and at the same time, I was too sad that the templates in the Korean Wiktionary are poorly designed in general. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Anatoli --

I've been chewing on the issue of romanized entries for a bit, following our exchange in the Beer Parlor. It occurred to me that the issues affect not just pinyin and romaji entries, but really all romanized / transliterated entries. I'm thinking about making a proposal about these, but first I want to touch base with you and make sure I understand what your concerns are.

As best I understand it:

1. One of your main standpoints on transliterated entries is that they should be just stub entries, and that most information about the term should go under the lemma form. For example, the shénme entry should, at most, give a brief gloss and point the reader to the 什麼／什么 or 什么 entries for full details.
2. Another of your key concerns, related to the above, is that editors do not add extra detail to the stub entries.
3. A related concern I noticed in the BP discussion is a mention (I think it was by Ruakh) that users might not know 1) what the lemma entry is, and/or 2) that they should go to the lemma entry to get the details about the term.

Have I correctly understood the above?

If so, my idea is for there to be a header template for such soft-redirect stub entries that would be very obvious and displayed across the top of the entry, perhaps looking similar to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/header or w:Template:Notability. This header would clearly explain to users and editors that this entry is a transliterated entry and is purely for soft-redirection purposes, and that 1) users should click through to the lemmata entries for full details, and that 2) editors should not add extra detail to this entry.

In addition, I think we should rework our {{ja-def}}, {{pinyin reading of}}, and related templates to make it more obvious that users should click on the lemma entry links to get the full entries. Maybe something like the following, assuming a listing under the ] entry:

* {{ja-def|付く|to ], to ] to}}

to produce:

• to attach, to stick to: see 付く for the full entry

Does that all make sense? Would that help produce transliterated / romanized entries more in line with your ideas? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

We had no disagreement with the short definitions (although I'd prefer them unwikified in romaji entries) and agreed on having just one category related to the relevant language romanisation but we disagreed on headers. The only header pinyin entries have is Romanization, no matter how many words and parts of speech a romanisation entry represents. See bàng. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the link.

I thought your desire for just one heading and for no wikification came from your desire to 1) keep stub entries simple, and 2) encourage users to view the lemma entry. Is that correct? And / or do you have other reasons for preferring this format? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes those two + maintenance - ease of use for both editors and bots. Done once and forgotten. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think, you should also use the Latin alphabet for the Russian list (Appendix:Russian Swadesh list).IPA is not enough! Regards, Böri (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will address this but it's cumbersome, have other priorities at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

If you are currently eating, I say bon appétit! But how should I know how to say it to somebody speaking the Bosnian language only, if you revert it from the translation page - as I noticed, twice? --Sae1962 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. All Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian entries and translations are unified under Serbo-Croatian per Wiktionary policies. Multiplying the same information under different headings only causes duplication and as you can see, is also error-prone. We already have prijatno and пријатно and a Serbo-Croatian translation of bon appétit. If you want to change this policy, don't talk to me but to the community, otherwise, you'll have to repeat this question on other talk pages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Really? You're believing the dodginess of iciba.com over Chinese-Chinese dictionaries such as , , , , etc. which do not include this entry? 再 can collocate with almost any verb in Chinese, I fail to see how this is a word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's my opinion, confirmed with a dictionary, which I don't consider dodgy. The prefix is quite productive, no doubt, like the English re-. 再生产 reproduction, 再保险 reinsurance, 再包装 repackage, 再编制 reorganisation, 再重复 reduplicate, 再出口 reexport, 再分配 zàifēnpèi redistribution are a few dictionary examples. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

But iciba.com creates these kind of entries because they are back-translations from English words, not because they are considered words per se by Chinese linguists. Even Wenlin doesn't list this as a word, even though the ABC dictionary is one of the most inclusive of its type. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry but I don't see your arguments as a good reason not to include the word. There are many Chinese words here that could be considered back-translations, like 澳大利亚人 (澳大利亚 + 人), therefore deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

note: I DON'T KNOW RUSSIAN! (but Latin alphabet is better than the IPA! The Russian words should also be written in Latin alphabet.) I showed ch sound with "ç" ; sh sound with "ş" ; I also used "ö"... and I used "ı"(= this is "e" sound of the word "open" in English!). I nearly wrote all of the words, but I couldn't write some of them. You can make a better list. Regards, Böri (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

WT:RU TR — — 16:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Böri, have you considered not editing in languages you don't speak? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I reverted your addition of нары to today's Foreign Word of the Day partly because we already have a FWOTD today, but mostly because нары was never listed at Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/Nominations and isn't eligible in its current state anyway as it has neither a pronunciation section nor any citations. —Angr 10:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I ask you to stop reverting my reverts of content removals that lack evidence of consensus. You have failed to produce evidence of consensus. I have succeeded in producing two opposing votes for the lack of "#". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: "so, the "#" issue is also addressed by the template itself": It is not. "#" has to be present in the wiki code in the page, just like with other romanization entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The policy on Japanese romaji was created without your involvement and it has now changed without your involvement. The fact that "#" is produced from the template, Liliana is probably aware of this now. KassadBot won't pick them up as badly formatted. It doesn't have to be exactly as other romanisation entries.

The thousands of pinyin entries converted by me and Mglovesfun converted didn't have definitions, although I was neutral. The Japanese editors who created those entries in the first place decided to have it that way and that's what we are doing. That's material. They have created, they have edited. If you have objections, then you should create a vote, not editors who just do what they think is right. I'm going to bed, will check any responses some time tomorrow if I can. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. Changes in status quo require a vote; my opposition to changes in status quo do not require me to gain consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are you going to be responsible for maintaining ans synchronising many thousand romaji, kana and kanji pages? No? Thought so. Stop vandalising romanisation pages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dan, you're just plain wrong. We had a vote about this kind of thing, remember? I don't want to argue with you about whether or not that vote applies here; you can take your wikilawyering someplace else. The fact is that there's consensus, and you're ignoring it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Metaknowledge, the vote to which you point says that "Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE." Thus, per the vote, any substantial change requires a vote. The vote actually only pertains to formal policies, but, nonetheless, you should better actually read the vote before you start arguing with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not arguing with it, I'm agreeing with it. But it looks like you're displaying an inability to read and comprehend anyone else's comments, so I'm not going to comment here again. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The vote says that any substantial change requires a vote. Clear? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atitarev, I just took another look at Appendix:JLPT/N1 and noticed that the server gave up before it reached the end of the page and produced lines like this:

{{Node-count limit exceeded|ja|漏る}}, {{Node-count limit exceeded|ja|もる}} -to leak, to run out

It looks like the page has to be divided into a few smaller ones. I would go ahead and do it myself but I though I should ask you about it first. --Haplology (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• The node-count limit stuff starts after the page successfully lists 2,884 entries. I dunno if other folks might get different results, but that's what I'm finding.

I might suggest creating subpages for each initial reading kana, like a subpage for all the terms starting with あ, then い, etc. Or at least for each 行, like a subpage for あ, then か, etc. Then maybe transclude all the subpages into the main page for one complete listing, kinda like we already do for the Grease Pit or Beer Parlor. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Guys, please do what you need to do. I had problems using the appendix myself. Splitting by initial kana reading may not be a bad idea. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I came across this abbreviation on some Youtube videos. Do you know what it might mean? —CodeCat 22:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I only know one ЛЭП (pronounced "lep")- "линия электропередачи" (línija elktroperedáči) - "electric power transmission". Only I don't know how this could be related to Youtube videos. If you give me the link, I could double-check. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

That was what the videos were about, so it fits. Thank you! Do you think you could make an entry for it? —CodeCat 02:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Minor Q, but shouldn't the romanization be elektroperedáči? Or does that first е in электропередачи really disappear? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for spotting! I made a mistake here and copied it to the entry. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ta! I find that asking when I'm ignorant about something usually helps; sometimes asking even winds up accidentally helping others.  :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Japanese Romaji romanization - format and content, you voted "support" without having started the vote by removing the yellow-orangish banner. If you really intend to start the vote, can you please remove the banner? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me in advance. I don't understand the translation of this phrase. It is not used as often. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't apologise. You're welcome to ask, "было (bylo) достигнуто (dostignuto) взаимопонимание (vzaimoponimanije)" means "a mutual understanding (consensus) was reached". The structure of the sentence is normal, not unusual, please ask if you have grammar questions. I've added the terms, see if you they make sense to you. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yes. Overapologizing is my "bad" habit. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed, I responded on my talk page. There's all what I was able to collect ATM. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that in most Slavic languages, the participle in -n is normal, but a few verbs have -t instead. Would you happen to know if there are any rules or patterns that explain when -t is used? In Russian specifically, but if you can say more about other languages, them too. —CodeCat 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean past participles passive, like сделанный (sdelannyj) (sdélannyj) ("made") vs открытый (otkrytyj) (otkrýtyj) ("opened")? The ending seems to depend on the preceding vowels, -н- follows а, я, е, ё, о and -т- follows и, ы, у but this has to be verified. Well, спетый (spetyj) (spétyj) ("sung") doesn't follow this pattern. The first type is more common, so -н- is also more common than -т-. Do you want to also check with Stephen G Brown and Vahagn Petrosyan? I'll see if I can find anything else but if I'm not mistaken, there are 16 distinct verb conjugation patterns (which include past participles passive) with many subtypes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that is what I meant, although I wasn't expecting there to be a double -nn-, but I guess that is a specific Russian thing. I am trying to determine what the Proto-Slavic pattern is, if there even is one, and whether it is based on the last consonant of the present stem. But it seems that different languages may differ too. kriti in Serbo-Croatian (which I assume is cognate with крыть (krytʹ)) has an n-participle kriven instead. On the other hand, its close relative Slovene keeps the (presumably older) t-participle krit. —CodeCat 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Serbo-Croatian inserted an "-e-" in kriven. Maybe that's why?

Yes, double -нн- in participles is Russian only with some rules when they are doubled, short forms lose the second "н" or change to "-нен" in masculine. Even Ukrainian/Belarusian don't have doubling. ---Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it's more interesting than that. I looked for the word in an OCS grammar book, and apparently the form krŭvenŭ existed then already... so the stem is actually krŭv- in Slavic, which contracts to kry- when a consonant follows. SC preserves the original form (except that it has replaced etymological *krven with kriven), while the Slovene and Russian forms are newer. But that is not really important for my question, because I wonder if you can discern any patterns in the t- or n-participles. You said that in Russian it depends on the vowel before it (t with a high vowel, n with others), but you also named an exception. Can you find any other exceptions? —CodeCat 23:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot. Perhaps "е" is different. In оде́тый, гре́тый, etc., "е" is stressed, in жа́ренный, ва́ренный it's unstressed (but there's an adjective варёный). I haven't found anything definite yet. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the case of оде́тый, the stem is different though, at least if the conjugation table of одеть (odetʹ) is correct. In that verb, the final vowel is really part of the root and not an extra suffix that forms the verb (it's from *děti, PIE *dʰeh₁-). I'm not sure about греть (gretʹ), apparently the e is not part of the root originally (it's *gr-ěj-, the root is *žer-/*gor-/*gr- by ablaut). Perhaps it was interpreted as a vowel-final root vowel later on, and it therefore received a t-participle? —CodeCat 23:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I looked in the OCS grammar book and it gave the following cases where t-participles are used: The suffix -t- is restricted to certain sonorant-stems, and it effects truncation. It is regular with stems in ь + nasal. It is used also with -vьj-ǫtъ 'wind' ~ -vitъ, pro-lьj-ǫtъ 'pour out' ~ prolitъ; pěti pojǫtъ 'sing' ~ pětъ; požьr-ǫtъ 'swallow' ~ požьrьtъ (but požrenъ 'sacrificed'); -vrьz-ǫtъ -vrěsti 'tie' ~ otvrьstъ 'open'; and uvęstъ 'crowned' from uvęzǫtъ. It's not really clear what "certain sonorant stems" mean, but I'd assume that includes l, r (which have "polnoglasije" in Russian) and m, n (which turn into nasal vowels > ja, u in Russian). —CodeCat 23:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: the "certain sonorant stems". Does it mean nasal stems? This can be seen in the modern Polish - they are stems with ogonek - ą or ę. In Russian, the former nasal vowels are usually realised as "я" (or after "а" ж, ш, ч, щ) or "у". Examples: Polish giąć -> zgięty, Russian гнуть -> гнутый (to bend -> bent). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes I kind of said that already... (the "> ja, u in Russian" part). Anyway, Wikipedia's article about OCS grammar says t-participles apply to: Verbs with stem ending in -ę, -u, -i and -ě (obtained by liquid metathesis). Liquid metathesis is the equivalent of Russian polnoglasije (Russian мереть (meretʹ) ~ OCS мрѣти (mrěti)). From that I infer that t-participles are applied to Proto-Slavic:

• Verbs which ended in -iti (Present -ьj- or -ij-?), -uti (Present -uj-). There is no mention of -yti verbs (Present -ъj-) though...
• Verbs which ended in -rti and -lti (> Russian -eret', -orot', -olot')
• Verbs which ended in -ęti and -ǫti (> Russian -jat', -ut')

That still doesn't really explain everything though. It doesn't explain why *grěti also has a t-participle in both Russian and Slovene. It certainly didn't have metathesis, because if the original form had been *gerti then the e would have palatalised the g before it and the final form would have been *žerti (> Russian *žeret, Slovene *žreti) and that's not what we find... —CodeCat 00:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be better equipped than me on this topic (:blush:). Well done! I've got a downloaded book on Russian grammar by famous Zaliznyak at home (it's not searchable - they are images). Very decent and classifies all Russian parts of speech. Will check there but I won't hold my breath. Since this is a common Slavic question, other Slavicists might help - Ivan Štambuk, Dan Polansky, Maro, Biblbroks, etc. As I mentioned, S. Brown and V. Petrosyan. (Amazing to see so much similarity between Russian and Slovene - they are the furthest apart.) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I used Russian and Slovene as examples because I am more familiar with Slovene. I think it may be useful to have different grammars of each language which describe this situation in more detail. I realise that it's primarily a Proto-Slavic problem, but surely the question can't have escaped the people who have made grammars for Russian and other modern language, without any knowledge of Proto-Slavic. I hope that maybe, if we can get a clear enough picture of the rules and exceptions for several Slavic languages, we can figure out what the original rule might have been. So far, it seems like the rule involves, at least, vowel stems and stems originally ending in sonorants, but the exact details aren't clear yet. It's a shame that it's not as clear as it is in Germanic, where all strong verbs have n-participles and weak verbs have t-participles. And Latin doesn't even have n-participles at all as far as I know. —CodeCat 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stephen G. Brown found this: причастие.

On participles with -t-:

...
     в) От некоторых глаголов страдательные причастия прошедшего времени образуются при помощи суффикса -т-:
    мы-ть – мытый; ви-ть – витый; мя-ть – мятый; трону-ть – тронутый; тере-ть – тёртый; запере-ть – запертый;
    моло-ть – молотый; коло-ть –  колотый.

     П р и м е ч а н и я.  1. К глаголам группы "в" относятся глаголы 1-го спряжения, если основа неопределённой
  формы оканчивается на и, ы, у, о, a также я (а), чередующееся с н или м: ви-ть – витый, мы-ть – мытый,
  трону-ть – тронутый, коло-ть – колотый, мять (мн-у) – мятый, сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.
     2. У глаголов, основа неопределённой формы которых оканчивается на -ере-, конечное е основы пропускается: тере-ть – тёртый. 
...

Let me know if you need the full translation or exactly, which part. The paragraph gives sample verbs

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, a translation would be helpful. I can read Cyrillic (slowly) but I don't necessarily know what the words mean. —CodeCat 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Loose translation:

The past participles passive are formed from Russian infinitives according to these rules:

1. If the base of the infinitive ends in -а, -я, or -е, the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -нн-:

• виде-ть – виденный
• посея-ть – посеянный
• чита-ть – читанный

2. If the base of the infinitive ends with a consonant or и (the и being dropped in the participle), then the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -енн-/-ённ-:

• запеч-ь – запечённый
• освети-ть – освещённый
• прослави-ть – прославленный
• раскраси-ть – раскрашенный
• убеди-ть – убеждённый
• унес-ти – унесённый

(Note that in verbs of the 2nd conjugation, consonant mutation takes place: д,з→ж, д→жд, х,с→ш, к,т→ч, ск,ст→щ, в→вл, and so on)

3. If the base of a 1st-conjugation infinitive ends with

• -и, -ы, -у, -о
• -я (-а) which is being interchanged with н or м

...then the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -т-:

• ви-ть – витый
• запере-ть – запертый
• коло-ть – колотый
• моло-ть – молотый
• мы-ть – мытый
• мять (мн-у) – мятый
• сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый
• тере-ть – тёртый
• трону-ть – тронутый

Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending in -ере-, the final е of the base is dropped:

• тере-ть – тёртый

The short forms have the same letter as the one in the long forms:

• доказанный – доказан
• положенный – положен
• принятый – принят
• открытый – открыт
• разъяснённый – разъяснён
• сделанный – сделан
• сшитый – сшит —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the translation, Stephen! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here I have collected verb templates used in the Russian Wiktionary - User:Atitarev/Russian_verb_templates. I only converted some - most useful, blue-linked. Some patterns only have a few verbs. There are not just many variations but the verbs are split into perfective/imperfective, + reflexive. Russian verbs are rather discouraging, especially for a person like me, without good skills and experience in templates. Besides, I enjoy semantics and translations. The variety of verbs can be compared to Arabic, rather than Germanic but Arabic has less truly irregular verbs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like to think that many irregularities aren't really irregular, but have a reason behind them. I'm rather shocked by that huge list of templates... why would you need so many? —CodeCat 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

w:Andrey Zaliznyak classified verbs into 16 distinct groups, if I remember this number correctly, with subgroups. The simplest ones use two stems, the harder ones - three types of stem. Reflexive (-ся) double the number of patterns. Some perfective/imperfective conjugate similarly but have a different number of forms and labels (perfective doen't have present tense, only future). Verbs differ in stress patterns, ending consonants, which affect whether e.g. "у" or "ю" is used. Some patterns cater for irregular forms. I also suspect some patterns were created in error (as a duplicate to another) pattern - or to cater for a small irregularity (not all templates are don by the same person). The types names (numbers, symbols) in the Russian Wiktionary match roughly what Zaliznyak (Зализня́к) used in his classifications. The file I mentioned before - is his works on classification, it's in Russian in DjVu format (about 16 MB) I downloaded using torrent. Al_Silonov@Russian Wiktionary used the same book to create templates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

When trying to classify Proto-Slavic verbs, I started off with an Old Church Slavonic grammar and I ended up with this. It's quite compact and easy to understand, but it gives a good idea of the general system. That division doesn't consider accent classes at all, which is something I am not terribly familiar with yet. But accent classes are clearly not the most important distinction, more like a secondary addition just like reflexive verbs are. Now, within those classes there will be exceptions or irregularities, and maybe a few verbs that don't even belong to any of those groups. But I think it's more useful to get the general divisions first, before looking at specific exceptions. I found out that the Proto-Slavic division works almost perfectly for Slovene as well, so I write about it at w:Slovene verbs. Maybe it would also work for Russian? —CodeCat 02:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will look at it in more details but in Russian, stress is important, so ru:бросить (бросить) uses Шаблон:гл_ru_4a-стСВ and w:попросить (попросить) uses Шаблон:гл_ru_4c-тСВ. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great job on Slovene and OCS, perhaps you get interested in Russian eventually? If you ever consider this, will be happily testing/using the templates. I haven't given up on template conversion myself, just put it off. We have manual verb templates, where all forms are added manually. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I may be able to help with the Russian templates if you could start off by matching the templates to the Proto-Slavic verb classes as much as possible. That way I will have more of an idea how the current templates fit together with what I know. —CodeCat 02:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've looked at the tables and I have some questions. Firstly, is there any difference between perfective and imperfective in the way that the verb forms are actually formed (i.e. are there different rules, or does one have a certain form that the other doesn't?). I ask that because if the difference is only in the meaning and not in the conjugation itself, then they can both use the same template. Secondly, does that also apply to reflexive verbs? Are reflexive verbs just normal verbs with a particle stuck onto the end of each form? (More specifically: could the reflexive forms always be created just by adding more letters to a word, never by subtracting or replacing letters?) —CodeCat 03:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No difference in the basic form for verbs conjugated by the same pattern - questions 1 and 2 (verbal nouns should be excluded and they are, in my converted templates). E.g. ru:делать, ru:сделать, ru:делаться, ru:сделаться. Reflexive just add -ся/-сь to the verb. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

In that case I think that we could remove the distinction between reflexive and nonreflexive verbs, and just make it a parameter of the templates, which should cut the number of templates almost in half. We could probably do the same for perfective and imperfective as well (since they are conjugated the same, as you say), which would eliminate half of the templates again. I think that would be a good start. —CodeCat 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sounds interesting. I may not be able to make a full reference to Slovene or OCS conjugation patterns, though. Slovene looks simpler at first glance. So, I'll make a new template (Template:ru-verb-1a) out of Template:ru-verb-1a-impf, Template:ru-verb-1a-pf, Template:ru-verb-1a-ся-impf and Template:ru-verb-1a-ся-pf. That means parameters and lots of "if" statements. I will think about how to change it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend making a single template Template:ru-conj-table that just creates the table, but that relies on another template to supply the forms that actually go into the table. That way, the table doesn't have to be copied into every single conjugation template, which makes maintenance easier. —CodeCat 12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I will follow your recommendations, thank you. See the above topic, I posted there as well. It's confirming what you said before. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've created {{ru-conj-table}} now, based on {{ru-verb-1a-impf}}. Apart from the labels of "present" and "imperfective", what would need to be changed so that it applies to perfective verbs as well? (And aside from that, is there any difference in meaning between the imperfective future with the auxiliary verb, and the perfective future that uses the present-tense conjugation?) I can try to make the table structured more like {{sl-conj-table}} if you like that, see govoriti or kupovati for an example. —CodeCat 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I've added some stuff for perfective. Will make some comments on the templates talk page. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do Russian reflexive verbs have a passive participle? And if so, does it have the reflexive particle at the end as well? —CodeCat 14:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, I noticed добавлять has a present passive participle but not a past passive participle. Why is that? —CodeCat 18:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Reflexive verbs don't have a passive participle, even if they are reflexive by form only and don't have a normal (non-reflexive) equivalent. Two parameters - reflexive and transitive can't be included together. Don't know if this should and could be done in templates.

Bugger! It doesn't exist for this verb. "доба́вленный" is "past passive participle" of добавить (perfective). That's why I made this an optional parameter in Template:ru-verb-1a-impf. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it does, because that means that reflexive is just a third type: intransitive, transitive, reflexive. The first and third have no passive participles, the second does.

Do you know why this verb has no past passive participle? Like, if you tried to form it in the normal way, what would you get? —CodeCat 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. The Russian wiktionary doesn't add past passive participle for imperfective verbs.

The past passive participles are actually quite irregular, the often change the word stress, take different shapes and can be absent. I made a mistake in the conversion to the new style, just looking at делать. Re: trying to form it the normal way. "Добавля́нный" doesn't exist and "доба́влянный" doesn't exist either. It would sound like "доба́вленный" (because of the vowel reduction). Prefer to make it optional but an important parameter. The verbs that do have past passive participle would benefit to show it, especially because it can be formed in a strange way. Sorry for too many changes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess we can keep it as a parameter then. But would it make sense to have a default value anyway? Is there a default that is actually correct at least half the time? Or is this form just so random and irregular that you can't really predict it for any verb? Also, what about the present passive participle? The older templates have a parameter for that, too. —CodeCat 23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed there are 8 results for добавлянный on Google search. So while it's rare, people do apparently use it occasionally. —CodeCat 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I looked at a bunch of verbs in verbs using Шаблон:гл ru 1a and no, there could be no default parameter and verbs that do have the form are a minority. Some people who used "добавлянный" seem to be non-native speakers, the other hits I just can't explain. It's a wrong form.

Present passive participle always exist for transitive verbs and is predictable. I made it optional because of intransitive verbs.

Present and past participle active participles decline using the same pattern. At least this part is easy and predictable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so just so I understand it:

• All verbs have the past active participle and past adverbial participle, but reflexive verbs do not have the short form of the past adverbial participle.
• All imperfective verbs have the present active participle and present adverbial participle, perfective verbs do not have them.
• All transitive imperfective verbs have the present passive participle. Perfective, intransitive or reflexive verbs do not have it.
• Only a few of the transitive verbs (imperfective or perfective) have the past passive participle, but the majority of transitive verbs do not. There is no regular way to form it, so it should be specified explicitly.

Is this correct? —CodeCat 23:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, exactly right. I had to reread, check and double-check. Must be hard for you to work on a template for a language you don't know. :)

Can I add more requests? This could be simple. I'd like all verbs categorised (even if the verb header templates adds impf/pf categories but some verbs may have opposite uses and can be both perfective and imperfective, like "казнить", "русифицировать", etc.). Some categories don't exist yet - will create later. Categories I want to be included in templates: Category:Russian perfective verbs, Category:Russian imperfective verbs, Category:Russian transitive verbs, Category:Russian intransitive verbs, Category:Russian reflexive verbs

I already tried to do it in my versions of Template:ru-conj-1a and Template:ru-conj-2a: <noinclude>{{#switch:{{{1}}}|vt=]|vi=]}}</noinclude> --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that shouldn't be a problem. I wanted to categorise verbs by their conjugation as well, but for that we'd have to first sort out which conjugations we actually need templates/module functions for. —CodeCat 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

We could already start categorising using "1a", "2a" as conjugation types (there are only 1a and 2a, no b, c, though). Types 1 and 2 already cover a very big number of verbs. There are 16 supertypes and several subtypes. It's easier to have, at least some reference to Andrey Zaliznyak and the Russian Wiktionary. User:Atitarev/Russian_verb_templates shows 16 distinct types. You'll see they differ by additional symbols, letters and numbers, e.g. "безл." (безличный - impersonal), "-ся" (for reflexive). A new template could be used as a new category. Whether we need so many (even if divided by four) I don't know yet. Similar types may differ on the consonant changes and stresses in more complex, multi-stem conjugations. Compare similar but different verbs "поʹртить" (to spoil) (type 4a) and "будиʹть" (to wake) (type 4c). They both belong to the basic type 4. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's true. But I'm not really familiar with Zaliznyak's system at all, it's very different from the system I'm familiar with in OCS and Slovene, which divides up the verbs based on the present and infinitive stems. So in Slovene you have Category:Slovene verb inflection-table templates which are named for the vowels/consonants of those two stems, like -ati (infinitive) / -am (first person singular) or -iti / -im. This is also the system I have adopted for Proto-Slavic verbs, which I showed you earlier. So on one side, Zaliznyak's system is very complete and it is (I presume) well known, but it also seems so unlike the classification systems of the other Slavic languages that I've seen (the Polish system resembles that of Slovene as well). How does Zaliznyak's sytem handle the differences between -at' / -aju verbs, -ovat' / -uju and -it' / -ju verbs (kind of guessing at the endings there)? —CodeCat 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The most common -ать/-ять (-аю/-яю), -овать/-евать (-ую) are just the templates we have just created - 1a and 2a (ru:потеть belongs there, even if it ends in -еть) but that doesn't cover the verbs, which may also end -ать/-ять but conjugate differently. I don't know how complete Slovene and OCS templates are. They seem simpler and fewer but I don't know if they cover all verbs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have template for individual verbs in Slovene, like dati, hoteti, imeti, jesti, etc. Russian equivalents ru:дать, ru:хотеть, ru:иметь, ru:есть have all been classified and have more generic templates in the Russian wiki. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

They cover most verbs, from what I've been able to see, but I don't know all the fine details of Slovene conjugation so I can't say for sure. There will always be some verbs that don't fit the regular conjugation groups, like biti or hoteti, but they are also usually more or less unique so to call this a "conjugational pattern" or a specific "type" of verb seems strange. They're just irregular. I mean, how many verbs like хотеть does Russian have? I'd be surprised if there's more than one!

I am kind of surprised that the templates we just created are for those verb types, because that really didn't seem obvious to me at all. That is kind of what I meant that the Zaliznyak system doesn't really make sense to me. Personally, I would prefer it if the templates had names that somehow reflected the endings of the verbs, like the Slovene and Proto-Slavic templates do. That would hopefully make it more obvious to normal users... something like {{ru-conj-ать-аю}} is just a lot clearer than {{ru-conj-1a}}, probably not just to me. I don't know how to make the different accent patterns fit into that. Proto-Slavic accents are reasonably easy, there are 3 patterns, A, B and C (I think those are the same in Zaliznyak's system) but Russian seems to have a lot more. One approach would be to stick a letter onto the end of the name, like {{ru-conj-ать-аю-a}}, but we could also try to combine all the patterns into a single template (they all have the same letters and endings after all, only the accent placement is different, so duplicating all of that would be wasteful). I'm not sure which approach is better yet, I'd need more knowledge and experience with Russian verbs first. —CodeCat 01:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It may be hard for me to check if I cover all verbs if we deviate from Zaliznyak naming convention. Merging different patterns will be possible, I guess, especially if we have override possibilities. I will provide docs for each verb template and a look up page. The way we add noun noun templates, for example, at the moment is by finding a similar noun. Remembering all template names by heart will be difficult, anyway, whether we use "1a" or "ать-аю". Sorry, perhaps this should be different from Slovene?

There are many common verbs, which don't fit common patterns, verbs like ru:пить only have a few examples - 11b/c (btw. this list is incomplete).

Once a few complete templates are done, I will be able to add new ones with little help from you, so don't be daunted by the number of templates. I think the final number may be 20 to 50 templates and we could still use the manual templates - old and new. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What I am saying is that we may not even need that many templates if we are able to choose our verb types wisely, so that they cover many verbs in a relatively straightforward way. For example, verbs like пить belong to a larger class of vowel-root stems, which would also include крыть and such. Yes, those two verbs do have quite different forms, but look more closely. They do have one very important thing in common: they both have two stems, one for the present and one for the past/infinitive. So if you start with those two stems (which could be parameters), they are really conjugated the same. The change from ь to е́ isn't really irregular either, it's a result of the historical change which turned the first into the second when it was stressed, and in this case an extra specific rule can be added, "if the present stem ends in ь, turn it to е́ in the imperative". I am actually starting to suspect that if I were to continue this kind of "merging" of similar patterns, I would eventually end up with a system similar to Slovene anyway. So Zaliznyak's system is really the same, but with all the patterns split into subpatterns and subsubpatterns so far that it's really hard to get a general idea of the system. What I hope to do is to merge some of those subpatterns based on properties they have in common, so that we can make do with far less templates. I mean, we already did this with impf/pf and with reflexive verbs, so why not see how far we can go without making the code too complex? If we have less templates, that means they are easier to maintain and understand, by us and by people who want to create new Russian entries. —CodeCat 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know exactly what you mean, so some templates may be skipped when they are addressed. I've already thought about this. It's hard to see the full picture, even for me, a native speaker, especially if you have to look at all forms, not just present. I've seen Russian templates using manual overrides for some forms but I don't remember now or occasional errors where a wrong form is shown because a wrong template is used or no override, оби́деть shows past participle passive as "оби́денный", it should be "оби́женный" - I commented there but nobody has fixed. Manual overrides could make the number of templates less.

ru:пить and ru:крыть are similar but they use different stress patterns. I think it's better to start building some templates and look at commonalities and differences. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and I think we should probably start with the verb types that we know there will be many of, because there were many of them in Proto-Slavic too. I will try to make a list of the templates we would need for the biggest types, then we could look at the smaller types later. —CodeCat 02:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The types 1a and 2a by far are the biggest and cover all ever increasing borrowings. All other types are smaller. What do you think of Template:ru-verb-5b-ш-impf, like бурчать, etc. in terms of Slovene. Does this type exist? What type would ru:гнуть, ru:тянуть ru:плюснуть fit? Note that "ru:гнуть"'s adverbial "гня" is marked as awkward in red. I agree. I wouldn't use without a risk of being abused as illiterate. Rather than saying "awkward", would skip altogether. Shoot, number 4 is rich with templates! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

That would be the type of slišati, -ati / -im. This was really originally (in Proto-Slavic) a subtype of the infinitive -ěti / 3rd person -itĭ group, where the preceding consonant underwent the first palatalisation; after that, the change happened where ě became a after a palatal consonant. So long ago there was slysjěti, 3rd person slysjitĭ > slyšěti, slyšitĭ > slyšati, slyšitĭ. All of these verbs have a palatal consonant like š, č, ľ and so on (not the same as the Russian palatalised consonants) at the end of the stem. Those other three verbs are Slavic -nǫti / -netĭ (Slovene -niti / -nem) type verbs. —CodeCat 02:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I want to put the IPA for также.Is correct? It's kind of confusing. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It already has IPA, which is right. Well, normally, in the middle of the word the unstressed "е" gets reduced to /ʲɪ/ or /ɪ/, (or /ɨ/ after unpalatalised hushing sounds (ʂ, ʐ) andafter t͡s) but in the final position, it becomes /ə/, see also поле. "к" is pronounced /g/ because the next consonant is voiced. Which part is confusing? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

BTW, according to the Russian version of поле, it's without the schwa. Now I understand at least 75% of this sound rule. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's arguable but perhaps is more correct than or both pronunciations are OK. IPA is not my forte, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Thanks for the Tajik fix. Can you tell me why the word "Ин" in the third sentence in your test example is showing up as "Yin"? It should never do that when the word begins with a vowel. It should only do that when "и" is preceded by any other vowel. --Dijan (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it the same rule for "е" (e/ye)? I'm not good with Lua, I copied some logic from another module and changed the vowels. ZxxZxxZ seems to be doing some fixes there. Let's see what the result will. I'll to fix if I can if he doesn't manage to do it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Где-то существует ошибка, которая создаёт «ход́ив» и «xod́iv» (с ударением на д́ / d́). —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, исправил. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be useful to create this page with a description of Zaliznyak's system for verbs. The information that is currently on User talk:Atitarev/Russian verb templates and Appendix:Russian stress patterns - verbs could be placed there. Appendix:Russian stress patterns - nouns could probably be merged into Appendix:Russian nouns as well. —CodeCat 14:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know, I know. I will start documenting at templates and modules. Types 1 and 2 are two easy. From 3 onwards verbs need explanations but it's kind of hard to do both at the same time - have to test my understanding first and check why there are so many templates in ru:wikt. If you now have some time, please tell me, which type you want to have a go at next - I will try to describe/test it for you. I'm using Module:ru-verb-testmodule, working on type 4. Also using "conjugations" as it seems there are some unpredictable imperatives - ь vs и in unstressed endings (a). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Creating a page for Zaliznyak's system for verbs would be very awesome and makes Russian less foreign for non-Russian speakers. But as for the new verb templates, it would be rather difficult to make links to the verb forms (ex. what I did to читать a while ago). --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, linking to verb forms may be hard, especially if there are more than one form but it's possible. Will check with CodeCat. I don't it's too important and verb forms may still be generated by bots, even if they are not linked. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've created the page and moved the content over to it, but it needs to be cleaned up and a lot of information is still unclear or missing. —CodeCat 22:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I found out that задвигать is a very useful Russian verb. It's rather um..... difficult to use because it has two separate meanings. I know you are very busy but you can take your time for this. Thank you in advance. Uh, yes. I'm doing my best to create more Russian entries in the Korean Wiktionary. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Meaning can be found here: "задвигать" on Lingvo. Yes, I'm busy. The conjugation is of the same type as делать (1a) for both senses. Will make an entry later. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay. The entry is done, please take a look. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. It looks marvelous. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As they are so similar, it might be more efficient to have one page that documents them all. I have done this with the Dutch templates, where each documentation page is a redirect to the "real" one. —CodeCat 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll have a look to see how you have done it but I'd like some important things like common parameters (impf, pf, impf-intr, etc.) and usage to be seen on all conjugation templates. It's also helpful for the templates to show, what type of verbs they are for. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Could you give me an example? Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation has the documentation. Which template links to it? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you go to Template:nl-conj-st/documentation you see it's just a redirect. In this case I chose one of the pages as the place to put the documentation and redirected all the others. But you could also put the documentation at Module:ru-verb/documentation... I think that would be better actually. And then Template:ru-conj-1a/documentation can redirect there. After all, it's really the module that makes the templates work, the templates themselves don't really do anything. —CodeCat 02:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

But the simple documentation would be intended for editors who are going to use conjugation type/stress pattern specific templates, so that they choose the right one. Of course, the module could combine the info for all conjugation types and all templates but it could be confusing. To add a new conjugation table to a verb entry, you don't need use the module directly. As for the Dutch templates, I am bit confused (I'm not a template guru) but will have a look a bit more. How is Template:nl-conj-wk including all info from Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation? I've never used Template:documentation before. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{documentation}} will transclude the subpage called /documentation. So when it is placed on {{nl-conj-st}}, it transcludes Template:nl-conj-st/documentation. But that page is a redirect to Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation, so it ends up transcluding that page instead. —CodeCat 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks, I'll play with this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Template:ru-conj-1a and Template:ru-conj-2a --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've generated a list of all Russian verbs (all in Category:Russian verbs) that do not contain {{ru-verb}} on the page. It looks like there are some mistakes there as well. I thought it would be useful so you could find them and fix them easily.

—CodeCat 14:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll look into them as well. I was converting some verbs using old Template:ru-conj. For some there are no functions yet, I will leave them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Russian translation of this word says it has three genders. Is that really correct? I'd expect, based on the ending of the noun, that the noun is feminine, or possibly masculine. But neuter? —CodeCat 18:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I've taken the n out. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

An anon made примерить (primeritʹ), can you improve it? User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Done --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it necessary to add IPA symbols for all the forms of Russian words?? The simplicity and neatness are greatly affected. — This unsigned comment was added by Symnodas (talk • contribs).

Why? If you have complaints about the structure of Wiktionary entries, you can ask questions them at WT:BP --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. Я замечаю на этой странице, что «еб́ав, еба́вши» делает ссылку на ебав, ебавши. Кроме того, первый акцент на «еб́ав, еба́вши» находится над буквой «б́». —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, Стивен, исправил. :) Формы правильные, но неправильно стоял знак ударения. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Но «ебав, ебавши» делает ссылку на ебав, ебавши все вместе. Должны быть отдельными: ебав и ебавши. Разве это не так? —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Точно. Спасибо! Я раньше не заметил. Эта проблема была для всех глаголов с двумя формами деепричастия. Исправил. Правда они теперь показываются в другом виде.

Все конвертированные (использующие модуль) глаголы здесь: Category:Russian verbs by class. Часть из них использует Module:ru-verb, другие пока Module:ru-verb-testmodule.

Все новые шаблоны здесь: Category:Russian verb inflection-table templates.

Rudely butting in to share a fun fact: In Lithuanian l, m, n and r can take the stress with the tilde accent. Ding! — — 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Czech, Slovak and Macedonian (Bulgarian cognates use ъ) also have many non-vowel words with l, m, n and r but they don't mark the stress in any way. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually now that I think about it, I lied; the tilde actually shows pitch accent. But only the stressed syllable has pitch. So in those syllables, if the vowel is short but the accent is still tilde (which is usually used for long vowels), the accent goes on the liquid consonant. — — 14:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see. BTW, your Persian must be going up. :) Good night, time for bed here. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I've pretty much hit that point where I can't make much progress without using it daily, which I don't. Schlaf gut lol. — — 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

An anon miscreant added empty formatting crap as an entry for 钢琴曲. I'm wondering now though, does that term merit a real entry? Google translate say it means piano but I see we have an translation for it as this minus the final Hanzi. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 01:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The term 钢琴 (gāngqín)曲 (gāngqínqǔ) means "a piece of music designed for piano". It may merit a real entry but not so important, it's easily understood from its parts. See 钢琴曲@Nciku dictionary. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well thanks for the response. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you give a moment to go to Talk:ya3 and give a little input? Maybe they have already been placated or just disappeared offsite momentarily but a certain anon seems to be a little frustrated about the new format of pinyin entries... User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)‎Reply

I noticed that this template will create links to the transcription if the component parts are linked:

• Russian: состояние неопределённости (sostojanije neopredeljónnosti)

I imagine this isn't intended behavior. Letting you know since you're the last one who edited it. DTLHS (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the result looks good to me, as intended because I edited it to link to the transliteration module, if <tr> is missing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I see the problem now, no, transliteration shouldn't be linked, I misunderstood your question. I'll try to fix it but I don't know how. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops yeah I meant transliteration, sorry. DTLHS (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to show you my demo of the Japanese frequency list. It's pretty simple and this version has lemmas instead of inflected forms. I tried using a list with inflected forms myself, and it didn't feel more useful than a list of lemmas. It seemed like there was no more useful information and the list of lemmas looked better to my eyes. Just a few forms were different anyway.

By my quick count, WT is just 56 entries short of having all of the 1000 most common words in Japanese. Very close!

I like the list as it is now but it would be possible to make adjustments because I still have all of the data and it would be no problem to run the scripts again. Of course the database goes beyond 1000 words but I only made one list for now. --Haplology (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great job. I agree the list should be tweaked to show the lemma forms. Perhaps also using a more common spelling. (Eventually, hiragana and alternatives need to be created as well). BTW, blue-linked single-character entries may be deceptive, as they may only contain translingual or very limited Japanese info. It's less of a problem with Japanese but more with Mandarin entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would the plural of tovash be tovashi? 94.211.59.112 19:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've answered there. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

What would be the apporopriate translation of Какой пиздец? I've seen this phrase occasionally on the internet. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

("What a) fucking hell!" or something like that. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

This user has been adding a few Belarusian entries and has added conjugation tables as well. But we don't really have any Belarusian templates so they've been adding just raw wikicode tables. Given that Belarusian is probably very similar to Russian, do you think you could help them out and maybe work on making a basic module/set of templates for Belarusian? —CodeCat 02:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I don't know where to start. Belarusian conjugation is not simpler than Russian if not harder. I can't define how many conjugation types there are. Belarusian verbs are not well described, compared to Russian, at least. The conjugation the user has created is only for the present tense. Perhaps a generic template could be created where all forms are just passed, like {{ru-conj-table}}? I'll check with the user. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That would be more useful as a start, at least. —CodeCat 02:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've converted the template - {{be-conj-table}} and also made a simpler version - without participles {{be-conj-table-simple}}. I don't know Belarusian participles well (I'll understand them when I see them). Take a look at рабіць and хадзіць. The user hasn't answered to my message and I don't know if they actually speak Russian or Belarusian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

делающий — які робіць

делавший — які рабіў

делаемый — які робіцца

деланный — які рабіўся

делая — робячы

делав (делавши) — рабіўшы --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Дзякуй, Ўладзіславе. У беларускай няма дзеепрыметнікаў? Для мяне гэта сюрпрыз! Далучайцеся да нас, нам патрэбныя рэдактары розных моў. Беларускія артыкулы ў жудасным стане або іх вельмі мала. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

"В белорусском языке нет страдательных причастий настоящего времени (нельзя сказать так «используемая литература»); также отсутствуют возвратные формы (с суффиксом -ся); для белорусского языка нехарактерно образование причастий с помощью суффиксов -уч- (-юч-), -ущ- (-ющ-), -ем- (-ім-), -ач- (-яч-); наличие таких причастий говорит о заимствованном характере слова; не употребляются краткие страдательные причастия прошедшего времени в именительном падеже (Музей создан)". Я недавно пытался делать правки в белорусском разделе Викисловаря, но интерфейс оказался недружелюбным к новичкам. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Думаю, сложности связаны с тем, что в белорусском викисловаре нет шаблонов. Я могу помочь сделать простые шаблоны для существительных и прилагательных здесь. Для глаголов я уже сделал. Подобные шаблоны потом можно перенести в белорусский викисловарь и куда угодно. В этих шаблонах нужно будет выставлять все формы склонения и спряжения.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. Когда я смотрел на глаголы предвосхищать и предвосхитить ({{ru-verb-1-impf}} и {{ru-verb-1-pf}}), я увидел проблему. Во-первых, центрирование текста продолжается после того, как шаблон завершается (то есть, в следующих разделах также по центру). А во-вторых, двойной пропуск предшествует некоторые из транслитераций, но только один интервал предшествует другие транслитерации. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, Стивен. Мне придётся обратиться за помощью, так как я сам не могу исправить. Я только хотел добавить транслитерацию и возможность сворачивать и разворачивать таблицу. Последние три дня я был на технических курсах и очень устал, не могу делать что-то очень сложное. В бливайшие дни обязательно исправлю, если никто не поможет. В крайнем случае верну всё обратно как было. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я поменял шаблон на старый в {{ru-verb-1-impf}}, но двойной пропуск все равно есть, пока не знаю как исправить. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я не знаю, если это важно, но я определил, что символ «{» происходит 351 раз в шаблоне. Символ «}» происходит 360 раз. Разве не необходимо, что эти два числа то же самое? —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Это тоже важно, какой-то из тэгов не закрыт или просто использованы лишние «}». CodeCat уже ответила на мой вопрос по этой проблеме.

Нужно скорее переводить глаголы на новый модуль Module:ru-verb, тогда все вопросы решатся. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Анатолий, что-то очень странное происходит в склонении она (ona) ({{ru-decl-noun}}). —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Кажется исправил, но не очень красиво. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli, I had a look at the page for новы again and found the forms for the declension seem to be in the wrong place.Vedac13 (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I made an article of a Russian verb form in the perfective aspect. I'm not too sure about this since I only create/organize articles of Russian verb forms in the imperfective aspect. I need your input. You can edit this article if you wish and I'll follow this pattern from now on. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would make it like this but I'll leave it up to you:

==Russian==

===Verb===
{{head|ru|verb form|tr=pozovú}}
# 1st-person singular future tense of {{term|позвать||to call, to invite|lang=ru}}

The definition line would become:

1. 1st-person singular future tense of позвать (pozvatʹ, “to call, to invite”)

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You'll get somebody complaining that you haven't used one of those fucking form-of templates. — — 13:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I forgot about them. Could you show KoreanQuoter a better example? I'm going to sleep, LOL. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I went to bed last night in the middle of discussion. I didn't mean to leave it altogether.

What Ric meant was, you probably need to use {{first-person singular of}} (and other similar templates derived from {{form of}}) to be safe.

To rewrite the above, it would be:

==Russian==

===Verb===
{{head|ru|verb form|tr=pozovú}}
# {{first-person singular of|позвать|lang=ru}}

Please don't pay much attention to Ric's swearing, he's not that bad :). I haven't used these templates myself but I think I should but I haven't done many derived form entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Case closed. Thank you, Atitarev and Stephen. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

konichiwa may not be a "correct" Japanese romanization, but we are descriptive, not proscriptive. It is very well attested. Do we not have a format for common incorrect romanizations? bd2412 T 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

konichiwa redirects to a Japanese entry, as it has little to do with the Japanese spelling and pronunciation (double consonants are pronounced differently in Japanese and never ignored). It may be an English alternative spelling (as an English word used in the Japanese context) of a more common and correct spelling "konnichi wa", "konnichiwa" or "konnichi-wa" but we don't have an English entry for it. "konnichi ha" / "konnichiha" are other Japanese romanisations, which show the actual Japanese spelling. The particle は is pronounced as "wa" but is written as "ha". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah, what Anatoli said.  :)  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Instead of creating duplicate entires, I think it would be better to have only one. A new template named {{be-verb cons form of}} might be useful too. —CodeCat 13:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It might be OK. I've split into two entries to demonstrate a typical example у/ў words are quite typical, same as Ukrainian у/в. This applies to one-letter prepositions у/ў as well. Feel free to have a go at your suggestion. I won't create many Belarusian entries, just trying to help. Let me know if you have any questions. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

геаграфічны is one of the rare cases in Belarusian where the г is pronounced as 'g' due to it being a loanword. An option is needed in the automatic transliteration system in declension tables where г can be transliterated as 'g' in loanwords.Vedac13 (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me assure you that these words are pronounced as "/ɦ/" despite being a loanword. Sound /g/ is used extremely rare in Belarusian if at all. Most Belarusians are fluent in Russian but they often replace Russian "/g/" with "/ɦ/" when they speak Russian. In any case, "hjeahráfija" would be more common and natural than "hjeahráfija" and it's not really possible for the transliteration module to cover such cases. Russian entries have manual transliteration and exceptions are added manually. I have corrected the entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it OK to quote from works of literature to illustrate usage? If so, what format should the quotation take? If you want to see what I mean, look in the entry for дапытлівы.Vedac13 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the entry. You can use this method. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Following званный, I wonder if there's a way to upgrade the participle format to include

{{past passive participle of|звать|lang=ru}}

based on

{{past participle of|звать|lang=ru}}

Thank you. By the way, I'm using Stephen's suggestion of using a verb form template to sort out Russian verb forms. It's rather decent and simpler. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, I think. I've also created a copy of a declension table (I think all passive participles can use - present and past, watch for о/об parameter), which adds to Category:Russian passive participles. I don't know if it's the best way. We have a lot of participles in the category Category:Russian verb forms - active, passive, past and present, also categorised as "adjectives" because of the declension table. Perhaps they need to be moved to use the participle templates. If the approach is correct, the same should apply for active participles -щий/-щийся, which I haven't done yet. The templates to copy/edit would be {{ru-adjective3}} (-щий) and {{ru-adj3-sja}} (-щийся). See also двигаемый for a new present passive participle example I made. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me know if you have any trouble with these templates or need more. I don't mind if you get a second opinion on this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

It looks unexpectingly nice as it is. Thank you very much. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've had a look at the revised Belarusian adjective template. The spacing certainly looks better, but I'm not keen on the location of the transliterated forms. I prefer it to appear below the word - as they do for the Russian adjectives.

I'd like to put in Belarusian numeral declensions. I could use a slightly altered version of the uncountable noun template (by removing the phrase 'uncountable' for example) for numbers three and above. However 'one' has forms for all genders and plural ('some'), and 'two' has masculine and feminine-neuter. Do you have any suggestions for possible templates? Vedac13 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've changed one template back. It looks better now, anyway. We don't have declension tables for numerals but you can copy-edit Russian tables. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli, I was in the middle of changing the template for the above number that I have created and unfortunately the internet cut out (despite being in a country that's supposed to have the best connection and speed in the world - it often happens). I can't get back into the template to continue the changes. Could you help me?Vedac13 (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, please check {{be-decl-адзін}} and адзін. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the template. I wonder if it would be possible (or even necessary) to use this as template for all numbers ending in one.Vedac13 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you try building tables inside entries? I don't know, numerals are irregular in terms how many genders would be required for each number. Why don't you build just 1 to 10, 20, thirty, etc. and then stop? An appendix describing how Belarusian numerals work would suffice, IMO. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you have a look at Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/June#Do we want "imperfective" and "perfective" to be treated as genders? ? —CodeCat 17:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the sense # 1 (Present participle of come out of the closet) perfectly explains the sense # 2. Sense # 2 is nothing but normal usage of the present participle. I recommend deletion for the sense # 2. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okey, done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the additions you made to the Karelian pages I created. I can only read Russian, so I wouldn't have been able to find the correct etymology. Porokello (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

moved to Module talk:ar-verb --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've created a template for the above verbs, but I cannot figure out how to make an em dash appear for the 1st and 2nd persons in the present tense. Could you fix please?Vedac13 (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Grammatically this verbs has all other forms like Russian начинаться. The verb пачынацца has 1st and 2nd person forms as well - пачынаюся, пачынаешся, etc. For impersonal verbs, e.g. лічыцца (to count as, be considered) you could just put "—" after a pipe, like this but the verb can be non-impersonal verb as well:

|-
! ] ] ({{l|be|я}})
| —
| —
...

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This category contains a list of entries that use a script code without specifying a language code. Can you help with sorting these out? In most cases I have seen so far, the problem is in usage examples. These should probably be converted to use {{usex}} (like diff) rather than {{Cyrl}}, which is intended for that purpose. A few of the problem entries are caused by templates, so the templates need to be fixed then (I can do that). —CodeCat 17:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. With user examples, which have transliterations on a separate line, I'll just remove {{Cyrl}}. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{usex}} also has parameters for transliterations and translations though. You should probably add them to the template too. Also, for all other cases, you can use {{lang|ru|...}} which is equivalent to {{Cyrl|...|lang=ru}} but a bit nicer. —CodeCat 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are too many of them now. Is there an easier way to do this? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

A bot would make too many mistakes trying to figure out what to do. The best thing I can think of for now is to replace {{Cyrl}} with {{lang|ru}} within all Russian sections. That would probably take care of most of them and would be fairly safe to do. But if you think this is a lot, look at the Arabic category... :/ —CodeCat 00:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I can imagine. Please replace with {{lang|ru}} in the Russian entries if you can. IMHO, it's also safe to remove {{Cyrl}} altogether because a Russian entry may contain words in other Cyrillic-based languages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

The French marchand seems to refer to all types of merchants. I was preparing to put in a second defintion, but it would look very redundant. Is it that whenever anybody says marchand in French, they typically associate it with an art dealer? Also, on an irrelevant topic, how would it be in Italian, the pluralised form of art dealer? Would it be something like art dealeri or the English art dealers? I am going to create a new Italian section on art dealer. Воображение

After a more thorough checking, I've removed the French marchand from art_dealer#Translations, even though the word is the origin of "art dealer" in other languages. The Italian plural is invariable for "art dealer" and can be both masculine and feminine. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I believe that some of the terms of the translations in art dealer sound like gallerist, and in most cases, are translated as gallerist. Google translate and a few select trusted dictionaries I use agree with me. You may have made a few careless errors there. Воображение

You may be right to some degree but Google Translate also provide alternative translations for most languages, which match these translations, Wikipedia and the original translations, e.g Italian galerista was provided by User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. I'll move all translations to gallerist if this seems to be a problem. I didn't use Google Translate for this entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese galerista can mean both gallerist (owner of an art gallery) and art dealer (buyer/seller of works of art). Italian gallerista had art dealer as its definition when I added it as a translation, and the Dizionario Italiano-Bolognese (Emilian) lists galeréssta as the translation of Italian gallerista. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please re-add those translations you are certain of, especially Portuguese. I wasn't able to confirm that a few translations also mean "art dealer". I have change the Italian definition but will add both "art dealer" and "gallerist" . I wonder why German (and other) Wikipedia article had "Galerist" and its cognates. Perhaps people who work in this area consider "art dealer" and "gallerist" synonyms? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese is the only one I’m certain of. Italian I had added trusting our entry, as it was added by a trustworthy contributor. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 01:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I had the same considerations. Re-added Italian and Emilian. French, German and Spanish would need to be further verified or "tea room'ed". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you change the example sentence to something that makes sense? Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been looking around some online Turkish-English dictionaries, and have found that this term is used in roughly half of them. Do you think that that is enough to have this added to the translation table for biomass? Thanks, Razorflame 01:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't add since I can't check it. You can ask User:Sae1962. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

All right. Will do :) Razorflame 03:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I want to try to make a transliteration module for Old Cyrillic. This script is currently used by Old Church Slavonic as well as Old East Slavic. There are no difference between the two when it comes to spelling or transliteration so they could use the same module. Except for one thing and that is the letter Щ. Unlike all the other letters, this letter is not "cognate" between the two languages. In OCS it represents št and derives from the Proto-Slavic sound *ť, from earlier *tj and *kt. But in OES that same sound developed into č and so it was presumably spelled with Ч in those positions. So was Щ used at all in OES and if so, what sound did it represent and what was its etymological origin? —CodeCat 02:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's a difficult question. I can't answer it at the moment. In the past (till about 19th century) Russian "щ" was pronounced similar to Ukrainian "щ", Polish "szcz" and Belarusian "шч" - /ʃt͡ʃ/, modern pronunciation is /ɕɕ/. The Bulgarian "щ" is "št" (/ʃt/) and they are all cognates of Russian/Ukrainian "щ" and Belarusian "шч". I assume you can romanise it as "šč" in OES but I will check further, the OCS should be "št". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Correction: according to the Russian Wikipedia (Щ), the use of "шч" and "щ" was equal but the pronunciation in OES was "" (which is contradictory). So, perhaps "št" would be more appropriate. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

According to this, page 11, OES щ comes from *stj and *skj. *tj yielded ч in OES, but щ in OCS. A third source of OES words with щ are the numerous borrowings from OCS. I think it's best to transliterate щ the same way in both languages, so that the borrowings would have the same transliteration. --Vahag (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

If what you say is true, though, then this letter was pronounced šč right from the beginning in OES: the *tj and *kj would have yielded *č, so the combinations *stj and *skj were similarly *šč. By the same reasoning, though, *stj yielded *št in OCS and was therefore also written with Щ. So there would have been words that were etymologically spelled with Щ in both languages. But I do think that we should be correct and write *šč if that was the actual pronunciation. —CodeCat 12:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This document (page 40) confirms that "щ" in OES Slavic was pronounced "" (as in the file). It mentions that South Slavic's "щ" was "" (Serbian later eliminated the letter). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, what do you think about having a single transliteration module for all Cyrillic-script languages? This approach (script-based transliteration for all languages) has many advantages. Are there any other important difference except the rule for е/э? (I mean a difference for which we need to change the algorithm and not just character mapping) --Z 13:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Technically it's all possible but I'm worried about Russian reading exceptions, which are handled partially by Module:ru-translit. I'd like to add more but handling exceptions is hated by some editors who prefer to do letter to letter. Most other Cyrillic-based languages can be transliterated exception-free but there are also differences in transliteration and some additional rules. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

We could do it like this: First apply all the language-specific rules. Then, apply a set of "default" rules for the remainder. The default rules would be used for letters that are common to most languages, the "basic" Cyrillic so to say. That way, the transliteration for individual languages only needs to concern itself with rules that differ from the default, which might make it a bit easier. On the other hand, changes to the default rules would affect all the languages, which could have a lot of unforeseen consequences. —CodeCat 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I understand this, I was referring to rules specific to Russian with no affect on others (I saw what you did in Module:Cyrs-translit, the split of languages). The module may become a bit too cluttered, since the Russian module has a separate function to handle adjectives (only used by Russian adjective templates), there are some other exceptions. Tajik has some minor complexities too. A few letters have different transliteration rules and this will grow if we add more Cyrillic based languages. I don't want to stop your efforts, though. I'm going to bed, guys. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do we use ru-translit for automatic transliteration? I thought we don't .. --Z 14:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have made Module:ady-translit, which is very different from Module:ru-translit. --Vahag (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's not all that different if you think about it. Most of the letters listed in the top part are transliterated the same as their Russian counterparts. So it's really still basic Cyrillic with some replacements and a lot of extras. —CodeCat 15:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's probably a good thing unless it makes it difficult for relative noobs like me to add more languages. If you look through all the Cyrillic translit modules we have, you'll see that the sum of the differences between the languages is pretty substantial. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Stopping noobs from editing languages they don't know is a good thing. — — 18:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meant adding translit modules, not adding entries. I'm a Lua noob (read: I know almost nothing about it.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know any Lua until Scribunto was installed here. —CodeCat 19:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but you 1) can actually code well, unlike me and 2) care more about learning it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is what this module is supposed to look like: Module:User:ZxxZxxZ/Cyrl-translit --Z 18:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did some tests and found out that you can replace sequences of several characters through a table as well. The catch is that tables are not ordered, so you have to do the replacements with several characters before doing the replacement with less characters. The pattern you specify to gsub specifies how many characters as you want to search for. So you need to replace "...", then "..", then ".". —CodeCat 19:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes I've thought about that, but that's a bit slow - things like "..." will capture many strings, little of which need to be replaced. --Z 19:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

That depends on how gsub is implemented. A nice implementation would probably just search for all the table keys, so it wouldn't be slow at all. I don't think you should optimise for that, as it can always change and we have no control over it. —CodeCat 19:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I found a Russian word already created on the English Wiktionary for this word, so I added it to the translation table for this term. I added the transliteration that was on that Russian entry on this Wiktionary to as the transliteration on the translation table, as well as the gender. Could you just make sure it is right? Thanks, Razorflame 03:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Razorflame 03:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I wanted to get your feedback about an I had an idea for some new categories for Japanese entries. I also pinged Eirikr about it here. My thinking is that we already have readings for kanji listed on their respective pages, but the common ones are listed right next to the rare ones, and the readings are not connected to the kanji that they belong to. It would be easier for learners to learn the readings if they could see them all in use and know which ones are more common. Categories serve both of those purposes very well. One of the main struggles I have is with reading material that doesn't have furigana, encountering words I don't know, and then trying to guess the reading so that I can enter it in a dictionary, and I imagine many other people have the same problem. --Haplology (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I'll watch the discussion but I have nothing to add at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've come across this term in my searches over the Internet, and was wondering if you could create it here. Thanks, Razorflame 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why is this word important? It's an adjective and it means "of or related to polyurethane". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I knew what it meant. I was hoping you knew what the word was :) And besides, now that I've asked you, you could still create the entry, right? Razorflame 01:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know know why you ask to create entries. There's nothing special about it and it's rare. I choose to create common and useful entries, if I do. I'll create this one, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I ask other people to create entries because I can't make them myself. I don't know anything about Russian, and I've said I wouldn't edit in Russian in the past, so I just ask people who know a lot about Russian to make the entry for me. Believe me, if I knew enough Russian to make entries in Russian, I would be making them myself :) Thank you for making the entry! Razorflame 01:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Who's active on this Wiktionary that speaks Turkish well? I've got questions about declensions and stuff like that that I'd like to ask that user. Thanks, Razorflame 02:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've already told about User:Sae1962. I don't know another active user. Otherwise ask in the tea room about specific words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

User:Sinek, User:George Animal, and User:Madina are all active Turkish speaking editors. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for some reason I mixed up Sinek and Sae1962, thinking it was the same person :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Last time I checked, Sae1962 was blocked...anyways, I'll go ahead and ask some of those users. Thanks, Razorflame 03:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re diff, "seks" is not a Czech spelling of a word; there is Czech "sex". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does this term require a declension table for the adjective sense by chance? Thanks, Razorflame 03:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, I normally don't create Russian entries, but this one was an easy one for me to create, since I found some interesting online sources as well as a translation table on the entry for custody which made it very easy to make the entry. I didn't include the declension table since I don't know the declension for it, nor did I include the plural. While I did not include everything possible in the entry, everything that I did include in the entry was completely correct. I hope you can add the declension to this. If you'd like me to not do this again, let me know, OK? Thanks, Razorflame 03:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Short vowels are only used in the nominative, so the adjective form мрачно doesn't need a declension table. It lacked "short", though, like a few others.

Added a declension table to хранение‎.

Are you asking me if I let you create Russian entries? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nope. I was just asking if you minded me doing that this once? If you do, I'll stop :) Razorflame 19:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your cmn translation is fine, but I would slim it down to 搭车者 or 搭车人. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're the boss, it's your language :) It wasn't my translation actually, I only reformatted it and it looked OK to me. Perhaps you can add, rather than replace, if 搭便车的旅行者 is also used and is a correct SoP translation? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

On a second thought, I've slimmed it down. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

(After edit conflict) It's definitely correct, but it sounds like a movie title lol. I can't imagine anyone saying that in a conversation. In fact, you will most likely hear 搭车的 - an adjective used substantivally. Thanks for the edit :). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I will add 搭车的 as well. For this type of translations, alt= should be used, so it links to the lemma: 搭车的 (dāchē de). Thank you too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Anatoli! I'd give ANYTHING to be able to know all the languages you do on your user page that is listed under your babel! I'm trying, but I am still finding it very difficult, what with all the things that happen to me here on the project and everything else. I wish I could learn languages as easily as you have!

Anyways, I have a request: Could you semi-protect, indefinitely, the editing of these two pages and sysop-move protect these two pages for me: User:Razorflame/Current tasks and User:Razorflame/To do? They are integral parts of my page and don't need to be moved by anyone but sysops and edited by any anonymous editors. Thanks, Razorflame 03:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Please check. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but could you make the move protection sysop-only? Thanks, Razorflame 03:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Which option is that? I have "allow only administrators". Is this the one? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but only for move permission, not edit permission. Cheers, Razorflame 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see. I got it now. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you protect this highly visible template (autoconfirmed users for move) please? Thanks, Razorflame 22:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Razorflame 23:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you plan on standardizing all of them to a single-line format? I can give you a list if so. DTLHS (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was just cleaning up the errors generated by User:Kephir/gadgets/xte, it didn't recognise the nested formatting. I hope it's in line with the current translation standards. Anyway, {{qualifier}} is always safe. Feel free to change but User:Kephir needs to know about the nesting for Kabuverdianu, so that he changes his tool. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion; I was just wondering if you did (we really need a centralized place to store this kind of information) DTLHS (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have no strong opinion either. However, with Mandarin, I use {{qualifier}} to mark Taiwan or PRC usage. It's hard to plan something for each subdialect of a language, Creole language, especially if there are few contributions in them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the advise regarding Telugu transliteration. I am a Medical doctor; Pathologist by profession. With interest in Telugu language, I am using this Wiki platform to introduce my mother tongue to other people of different languages. I would like to take your help in adding IPA to all Telugu words I am adding here. Thank you once again.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

• he - 그이, 그놈 rather than 그, 그녀 : In korean, there was no 3rd personal pronouns actually. People don't use them in their MOUTH. The word make us as a translation version :( so I edited the word: 그이(그 the + 이 man, person), 그놈(그 the + 놈 man(derogatory)

• you(plural) − 너희. -들 means "the noun is plural", but 너희 has the plural meaning actually. In korean writing class, we are learnt "it is wrong expression :("

• they - same as 'he'. 그+네(persons e.g.영희네 Ms.Yeonghuis) 그이들(plural of 그이) 그놈들(plural of 그놈)

• many - I don't know why the meaning of "many" is written in adjective form rather than the root form. 많다 -> 많은(form of modifying nouns)

• some - some don't have just one meaning so I added the other meaning in Korean. But now I think '조금' could be deleted because of the next word

• tooth - 이(tooth of humans), 이빨(tooth of animals)

• and - "And" can be used conjugating the sentences, and the words. But the Korean word 그리고 cannot conjugate the words actually :( so I added 와(과) (the form changes whether the cornal of the previous syllable exists or not) which can used for conjugating some words.

well, I'm sorry I've edited without any mentions. Now I'll revert to my edition. Thanks to read, spites of my bad English. Goodbye.

I wonder if there's a perfective form for цвести. And ummmm..... could you change the cojugation table. too? Thank you. (By the way, I was on long vacation. I apologize that I didn't respond to your message on time.) --KoreanQuoter (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The perfective forms are listed, they all change the original meaning a bit. Will change the table later. Don't worry, I understood that you were away. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, Atitarev. I have recently proposed in the Beer parlour that since WT:RFD and WT:RFV are perpetually backlogged with discussions that should have been closed long ago, it would be nice if editors adding a new section to one of these pages would find one of the many old sections ready for closure and close it, or a closed section ready for archiving, and archive it. Since you have added several new RfD sections, please consider closing or archiving some old ones. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you try adding the two Ido words for salvation: salvo and salveso to the translation table on this page and tell me if it works or not. If it works for you and not me, then something is obviously wrong on my end. Thanks, Razorflame 22:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a known bug. There's a {{trreq}} for Indonesian, which immediately precedes Ido alphabetically. You have to add the translations (in the edit mode) manually or add {{trreq}} for Ido first and use the accelerated translation. {{trreq}}'s and {{ttbc}}'s cause this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note :) Razorflame 03:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've attempted to create a template for Old Church Slavonic Verbs. However, there are a couple of problems with it. Could you have a look at it to fix them?Vedac13 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

You haven't given me a link to your template. I had to look for it in your contributions. Here it is: {{cu-conj-table}}.

I don't know anything about OCS grammar, haven't seen any conjugation examples but the table doesn't look right. Could you build on existing conjugation tables, like Belarusian. I can help with the automatic transliteration later on. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Slavic has a set of tables that you can use as a base. They're incomplete, but they should work. —CodeCat 10:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, like this one {{sla-conj-table}}? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But Old Church Slavonic and Proto-Slavic have a lot of consonant and vowel alternations based on the preceding or following letters, which would make it very useful to write it in Lua instead because it can split and match strings. —CodeCat 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Proto-Slavonic template looks good - with the exception that a verb can have up to three different types of aorist (i.e. aorist, sigmatic aorist, and new aorist). It might be a tad too difficult to build on the Belarusian template, as the Old Church Slavonic verbal system was a lot more complex.Vedac13 (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Anatoli, as you know, some West and South Slavic languages have long and short vowels, and some languages such as Serbo-Croatian also have a tonal system. I believe that there are features in Russian that are related to the long vowels and the tones, even though they are not exactly the same in Russian.

For example, in Czech, the long vowels are marked with an acute accent:

aerodynamický, aerodynamická, aerodynamické

These long Czech vowels are equivalent to Russian -ый/-ий, -ая/-яя, -ое/-ее

1. I am less sure about whether the SH tones are somehow mirrored in Russian or not. I have not looked for examples, but I think that many Serbo-Croatian words have the stress placed on the syllable that precedes the one that is stressed in Russian.
2. In Russian, it is very common (but not obligatory) to raise the syllable that precedes the stressed syllable to a high pitch, then lower the stressed syllable to a low pitch, and make the following syllables mid pitch.
3. Often, when a word has enough syllables, the first syllable may be of medium pitch, then all of the following syllables are high pitch until we reach the stressed syllable, which is low pitch.
4. As I said, this is not obligatory, and some people pronounce a word without using the high pitch. The pitch accent, or intonation, does not affect the meaning or comprehension in Russian at all.
5. This feature in Russian reminds me very much of the Japanese pitch accent. In Standard Japanese, as you know, the first syllable of a multisyllabic word or phrase starts at low pitch (unless the first syllable is high pitch), then the next and following syllables are high pitch until you reach the final high pitch syllable (which may be marked in some dictionaries and romaji texts), and then the pitch falls to the low level.

   Examples:

   génki desu (^gé-_{n-ki de-s}).

   kashikomarimáshita (_ka-^{sh-ko-ma-ri-má-}_sh-ta).

   sayōnára (_sa-^yō-ná-_ra).

   yomimásu (_yo-^mi-má-_su).

   wakarimasén deshita (_wa-^{ka-ri-ma-sé-}_{n de-sh-ta}).

   dṓ itashimashite (^dó-_{o i-ta-shi-mash-te}).

   kono chihṓ ni arimasu (_ko-^{no chihó-}_{o ni a-ri-ma-s}).

I make this comparison because the Russian pitch accent is a very foreign and exotic sound to American ears. In English, the stressed syllable is also the syllable with high pitch. Stress and high pitch fall on the same syllable:

1. appréciate (_ap-^prí-_ci-ate).

For this reason, when Americans hear Russian words where the high-pitched syllable precedes the low-pitch stressed syllable, it almost sounds to our ears as though the high-pitched syllable is the stressed syllable. In any case, this feature of Russian pronunciation is the most difficult part of Russian pronunciation for English speakers, and usually we never manage to learn it. It is very, very rare for an English speaker to learn how to use these pitches when speaking Russian.

On the other hand, when Russians learn English, they usually retain the Russian pitch accent while speaking English, and it is the most obvious part of a Russian’s accent when he is speaking English. No other ethnicity speaks English using this unusual pitch accent, and it seems to be as difficult for a Russian to lose it when speaking English as it is for an American to learn to use it when speaking Russian.

I mentioned above that Serbo-Croatian words often stress the syllable that precedes the Russian stressed syllable. I suspect that this regression in the stress could be a result of an earlier high-pitch that preceded the original stress.

As I mentioned on Ivan’s page, the Russian tones are never discussed and never taught, and Russians seems to be completely unaware of their existence. To English ears, the Russian tones have an exotic effect and are very obvious. I will copy some audio files here. Take note of the pitch of each syllable. Note especially that the syllable that precedes the stressed syllable is usually high pitch, while the stressed syllable is low pitch (the opposite of the pattern in English).

Audio; “использовать” (“ispolʹzovatʹ”):

(file)

Audio; “волноваться” (“volnovatʹsja”):

(file)

Audio; “макулатура” (“makulatura”):

(file)

Audio; “поворачивать” (“povoračivatʹ”):

(file)

Audio; “представлять” (“predstavljatʹ”):

(file)

Audio; “сопротивляться” (“soprotivljatʹsja”):

(file)

Audio; “распределение” (“raspredelenije”):

(file)

Audio; “чернильница” (“černilʹnica”):

(file)

Audio; “существовать” (“suščestvovatʹ”):

(file)

—Stephen ^(Talk) 10:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, Стив. Честно говоря, это для меня большая новость. Очень интересное наблюдение. Судя по примерам, это действительно так. Я почти убеждён, но есть ли какое-нибудь исследование тональности в русском языке? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Насколько я знаю, нет никаких исследований в этом вопросе. Я не думаю, что это никогда не обсуждалось. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tweaking my edits there. This IP has been a regular POV factory- you may have noticed that the entry started as "Caucasus Emirates"(!)- and they've hardly missed any chance to present radical-Islamic wishful thinking as fact. I'm doing my best to add balance to their entries, but it's not my part of the world, so I have to read up a lot just to spot where they're crossing the line. I'd appreciate any assistance in keeping an eye on them. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there a real difference between the definitions #1 and #2? What is it, or is it that #2 also provided shelter? --Hekaheka (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those bathing huts as in the Wikipedia page are common in Australia. They are bought or rented. People store their things while on the beach, even cook food. The smaller booths for changing clothes are rare in Australia. Toilets are designed for this. The changing booths are common on the Russian Black Sea coast and are more similar to those you linked in TR. They're really basic, only have clothes hooks. I'm not 100% sure sense 1 is correct for this term but that's what other editors suggested. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. В последнее время ты добавил слово в языке хауса в human being (ha: күн). Я думаю, что ты, вероятно, использовал неправильный код языка, и что не имел в виду хауса. Я не знаю, какой язык это должен быть. —Stephen ^(Talk) 19:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, это калмыцкий (xal). Не знаю, почему так получилось. Пока не могу исправить, еду в поезде, печатаю на айпэде.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Не волнуйся, я исправил. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо :). В русской статье "человек" много других переводов, включая хауса, хотя некоторые стоит проверить. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. Проверь, пожалуйста, слово -таки. Мне кажется, что пример «он-таки пришёл» должен быть записан с дефисом, но кто-то снял дефиса. Нужен ли дефис или нет? Если нет, то слово -таки, возможно, должно быть перемещено в таки. Что ты думаешь? —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я вижу, что ты сделал обе статьи, с и без дефиса - -таки, таки. Есть форма с и без дефиса- "таки - частица, пишется через дефис с предшествующим глаголом (вернулся-таки), наречием (довольно-таки, прямо-таки) и в словах всё-таки, так-таки; в остальных случаях - раздельно (он таки приедет)". Источник: справка на грамота.ру. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Там же: -ТАКИ, частица. Разг. Тем не менее, всё же, однако. Дождался-таки свободы. Успел-таки на поезд. Таки навязался в попутчики. Принес-таки двойку! Она таки сдержала слово. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Таким образом, страница -таки является допустимой, но пример неправилен и должен быть заменен на другой (например, «он вернулся-таки»...he returned after all)? Это то, что ты имеешь в виду? —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Да, верно. Обе статьи должны остаться, только с разными примерами использования. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Хорошо, спасибо, я изменю пример. Я всё ещё не решаюсь о том, что -таки должно быть помечено как частица или суффикс. Я думаю, было бы лучше назвать суффикс. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Не знаю точно. Согласно , это частица. В русском викисловаре "таки" - частица, а "-таки" постфикс. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Постфикс является хорошим термином, но это не выбор, упомянутый в WT:ELE. —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я знаю, просто рассказываю ситуацию. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. Очень странно... на странице защищённый, -щё- транслитерируется правильно в заголовке (ščó), а неправильно в таблице склонений (ščjó). —Stephen ^(Talk) 14:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, Стив, исправил. Причина была в том, что шаблон {{ru-adjective}} использует в модуле Module:ru-translit не функцию "tr" как всё остальное, а "tr_adj" - специально для прилагательных, чтобы окончания -ого/-его транслитерировались как -ovo/-evo. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI, the {{ja-romaji}} template has been changed; see my bot-edit to Tsuittā. If you've been using {{subst:ja new/rom}}, then that's fine: it's been updated appropriately, so you can continue to use it the same way. —Ruakh_TALK 16:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you help me make that a Mandarin alternative form (right now it's come up with "English alternative form")? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Looks like someone filled Category:Mandarin alternative forms with pinyin, hope not another abc123! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am curious as to why you removed "aloha" as a synonym. Some of the citations specifically identify it as one. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Aloha" was used as a comparison. "Ayubowan" for Sri Lanka is the same as "aloha" for Hawaii, "ciao" for Italy, etc. If there were a Wikisaurus for "hello", "hi", then all these terms could be included there. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that "aloha" and "ciao" are in a much smaller universe of terms that mean both "hello" and "goodbye". bd2412 T 00:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, not just smaller but also different cultural and social universes. Anyway, you could use "see also", not "synonyms" but then you would need to use many more loanwords, which are used similarly in English - shalom, assalamu alaikum, ciao, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I invite you to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2013/September#Translations_pairs.2C_copyrighted_translation_dictionaries.2C_and_copyright_violation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет! Ещё раз я писал в ko:사용자토론:Russ(^^). --Russ (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ешё раз я писал ko:사용자토론:Russ сейчас(^^). --112.133.24.83 13:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

At the most basic gears of war, an energy vortex was just formed, FYI; feel free to look up doctorates Mr. Pasteur, Mr. Bechamp, or Mr. Whale, Ph.D. for original research purposes and much needed phrase-books. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry. I was on a very long vacation plus lots of things going on in my life.) About 값, it has unreleased final stops which makes it sort of conformed in generic syllable-timed langauges. Anyways, Korean romanizations are full of controversies and not very unified. And ummm...... yeah. The ㅅ in 값 acts very similar to French liaison. And um... I wouldn't contribute a lot these days. Forgive me but I'll try to if I can. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Could you create an entry for this suffix? It seems rather important but we're missing it. Its origin is the Proto-Slavic possessive suffix *-jь. —CodeCat 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, please take a look. It may need some attention.

Hmm, I made adjectives to be transliterated as "-ovo"/"evo" in {{ru-adjective}} but it's back to "ogo"/"ego". Could you fix it please? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed it was your first entry. It looks like you've come a long way with making entries. :) —CodeCat 01:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was more active at Wikipedia then, which I almost abandoned because of politics, nationalism, bias and ad hominems. My surname causes problems to native speakers as well (it's not very common). My late father stopped correcting people who kept calling him "Ти́тарев" instead of "Титарёв". We are also victims of ё/е controversy in the Russian spelling habits, which continued in Australia - my surname was spelled "Titarev" in my (Russian) travel passport, not Titaryov or Titariov (French spelling was standard then) and my first name Anatoli, not Anatoly (which is better because of English). I didn't bother changing it. So, I wanted to share my frustration but a bit clumsy. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I pronounced your name wrong both ways then. I always think "Titárev" in my head. —CodeCat 01:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I got that as well in Germany and Australia. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think people here are more used to a penultimate stress pattern because of Latin, and maybe Polish too. Russian stress always confuses me because it seems really strange for endings to be accented the way they are. Even Slovene (which preserves free accent) doesn't do that, only a few irregular nouns have stressed endings. —CodeCat 01:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's why East Slavic languages are more difficult to learn than other Slavic languages (Bulgarian (but not Macedonian) has unpredictable word stresses similar to Russian but doesn't have complex noun/adjective inflection). I do agree that for foreigners the stress patterns are unpredictable and hard, even between Russian/Ukrainian/Belarusian there's no predictability. ru/uk до́чка/дочка́, колесо́/ко́лесо, ста́рый/стари́й. Both uneducated and educated Russians make mistakes in stress, there are a lot of spelling/pronunciation variants, regionalisms, including ё/е problems where the difference is just in the stress. Even academics sometimes disagree on what stress is correct. That's why it was also harder to us to write Module:ru-verb (past tenses stress patterns are not handled well but if they were, the module would become too big). Having said this, Russians cherish good pronunciation, including correct stresses and look down on fellow native speakers who mispronounce words, which is both good and bad (it doesn't usually apply to foreigners). That's why Russian is almost the same from Vladivostok to Murmansk. I think only pronunciation of "г" (g/h) remains a big divider - it doesn't cause any comprehension problem but there is some mutual ridiculing. About 20% of Russians pronounce "г" "the Ukrainian way" (по-украински). Other Slavs have little trouble learning to understand Russian but they usually make mistakes in stresses. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

From what I know about Slavic, Russian actually best preserves the Proto-Slavic situation. So the Russian accent is an archaism. —CodeCat 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. This includes Bulgarian, IMHO. Russian and Bulgarian seem to share quite a lot of OCS terms, which also make them differ a bit more from other South and East Slavs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli, did you notice that links to the Chinese Wikipedia no longer appear for translations from English into Mandarin, do you know what's going on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think I do. See Wiktionary:Votes/2013-09/Translation-links to other Wiktionaries. Keφr 11:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The idea is to show the links only when they exist but it's supposed to start working when translations are touched by a bot. By my request, Ruakh added a check for new translations but there are glitches. In short, only {{t+}} show links to FL wikis. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

For zh.wikt, I've decided to change {{t}} to {{t+}} when zh.wikt has an entry with the exact right title, and to leave {{t+}} alone when it doesn't (rather than potentially change a correct {{t+}} to {{t}}). It's obviously less than ideal, but clearly the lack of {{t+|cmn|...}} is a bigger problem. (And, similarly for kk.wikt and iu.wikt.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how much you know about Ukrainian, but I'm asking because maybe you know someone who can help. Judging by w:Ukrainian grammar, animacy is distinguished in the singular and plural for masculine nouns, only in the plural for feminine nouns, and not at all for neuter nouns. I assume that this implies that feminine nouns that have a plural are either animate or inanimate, but those that have only singular forms don't have this distinction. However, I'm a bit confused by the i-stem (third declension) feminine nouns. The tables don't show any animacy distinction, so do those nouns not have such a distinction or is it just missing from the table? And if they really do not have the distinction, what happens when you need the accusative plural case and an adjective is added? Do you get the noun in the nominative plural and the adjective in the feminine genitive plural? —CodeCat 18:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The third declension table could use some fixing, e.g. "я ба́чу сі´рих мише́й" - "I see grey mice". Animate/inanimate distinction is identical in East Slavic languages, even indeclinable nouns will have the same distinction if adjectives are attached to them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so the animacy distinction also applies to i-stem nouns, and it's inherent in the noun even if the inflection doesn't show it. Do neuter nouns ever have it? —CodeCat 21:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wait. My statement is correct but the example is not. The lemma for "mouse" is "ми́ша". There are too few animate feminine nouns ending in a consonant in Ukrainian, that's why the table doesn't show it. The rule is still right for feminine nouns - plural coincides with genitive for animate and with nominative for inanimate. I can think of "тара́нь" but if you remember our previous discussion, fish you can eat can both inanimate and animate, so it's tricky to find any examples. No, neuters never have grammatical animate/inanimate distinction, even with imaginary alive objects. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've done some work to improve the {{uk-noun}} template, based on experience with the Slovene templates. Slovene words always need accents, so it makes sense to use the first parameter rather than head=. Ukrainian (and Russian) is similar so I used the same approach. However, not all Ukrainian nouns are correctly accented yet. Also, quite a few of them have accents in the transliteration rather than on the headword itself. Could you help out with this? You can usually remove the transliteration, so if you find one that has accents, move the accent onto the Cyrillic headword. If there is no transliteration then leave it that way and just add the accents. —CodeCat 23:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll help a bit but I'm not too keen - the list of nouns is too big - I've already fixed some, if you noticed :). I can help add missing stresses, though, especially, if they miss altogether. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that what I asked? What did you think I said? —CodeCat 00:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not too keen on working on reformatting the entries, like removing transliteration and moving the stress to Cyrillic words. I've added stresses to Ukrainian month names - most of them didn't have the stress indicated anywhere. If the transliteration shows the correct stress, you can add it yourself. I said, I'm willing to help when this info is missing altogether (Cyrilli and xlit) and the stress is unknown from the entry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Category:Ukrainian terms needing accents contains all Ukrainian nouns that are missing accents from the headword. —CodeCat 00:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've moved over the stress from all nouns that had the stress in the transliteration. So now there are no more nouns with transliterations at all. There are still 100 nouns left that had neither a transliteration nor an accent. —CodeCat 02:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's much easier now. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Code-Cat, here's one Portuguese word for a memetic keep-sake: hifenização. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What does it have to do with this discussion? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let's just type out that I happened to reverse-engineer both Swahili AND Quechua, right out of sheer-yet-sane boredom. XD --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you think of the changes I have made to the Ukrainian and Slovene templates? Ignore the "please provide..." for a moment, I'm talking mainly about changing the head= to the first parameter, and the gender/animacy and/or perfectivity to the second parameter. Should I change the Russian ones as well so that they match the Ukrainian ones? —CodeCat 00:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about benefits. Why? There are 11,882 Russian nouns now - quite a bit of work! And there are exceptions in readings, which should be given manually. They will all need a word stress on the header, at least. I'm more interested in fixing entries, which don't use {{ru-noun}} and having accelerated or automated creation of inflected forms. -sche (talk • contribs) tried but it didn't work. If you promise to help in conversion with your tricks and describe benefits, bring it to BP, I'm not the only one editing in Russian, although some editors don't participate in discussions, like Wanjuscha (talk • contribs), I'll pass it on. If genitive and plural forms are automatically loaded from the inflection table it may not be such a bad thing. You probably have the skills to do it. I'll have to think about it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Finding entries that don't use {{ru-noun}} is actually very easy with a bot: generate a list of all nouns, then a list of all pages that transclude {{ru-noun}}, and then remove all entries in the second list from the first. Once you find them fixing them is easy too, as long as they use {{head}}. It's harder if they just have the plain headword written. The current template doesn't use any numbered parameters, so I think I could just add the numbered parameters as alternatives to the named ones. That way there is no need for a discussion because nothing is broken and editors won't have to change how they make entries, they can keep doing it like always until we decide to remove the named parameters. I think it's bad to have many parameters that do the same thing, it leads to confusion and it also makes the templates/modules much harder to edit and maintain, so I do think we'd eventually want to remove them, but we don't need to yet. —CodeCat 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you please make a list of nouns that were like апостроф#Russian before this diff, i.e. апостроф (apostróf, apóstrof) m (not using {{ru-noun}}? I still have your list of badly formatted verbs, which I'm going through gradually. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't do that right now. What I will do is look for all entries lacking {{ru-noun}}, and convert {{head}} to it where possible. Any entries still lacking the template after that will probably be entries like that one. —CodeCat 23:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you help me with fixing this грустить article? I think I accidentially messed up. Although I all the core verb forms for грустить. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was correct but I prefer you to use the new templates :). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll try. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you know which parts of our current transliteration scheme can't be predicted from the spelling alone, and therefore need to be manually entered? Is there a list of these words? —CodeCat 14:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, there is no such list, unfortunately. The biggest group would be the list of words, where "е" doesn't palatalise the consonant (like "э"). In alternative forms, the letter may stand for "ё". There are other cases described in the xlit page but there is no list. Abbreviations are not described there, notably США. You can analyse differences by comparing expected with the actual. Are you planning to remove all transliterations, leaving the exceptions? Don't forget word stresses. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to remove at least the transliterations where the module gives the same result from transliterating the headword. The ones that are left then will either be the ones that are needed (which are rare) or the ones that have accents but the headword is missing them (which need to be converted). —CodeCat 21:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note that there are, at least, three ways to transliterate "ь" and "ъ" or they are ignored (which is incorrect, even if they don't affect pronunciation). "Е" is often preceded by ' to mark palatalisation, which is unnecessary or ' is used instead of "j" with letters я,ю, ё. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those will all show up in the categories (I haven't created them yet) as "manual transliteration is not the same as automatic". From there we can see what can be done to fix it. —CodeCat 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re "the ones that have accents but the headword is missing them (which need to be converted)". This category is very big. Converting manually would take a long time and a lot of effort. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It can be done by a bot too. There are two ways it could be done. The first is to "reverse transliterate" the transliteration back to Cyrillic, and see if, once accents are removed, it matches the current headword. If so, replace it. Alternatively, the bot could just try putting accents on every vowel in the word one by one, and then running each attempt through the transliterating module. Once the result matches the transliteration that's in the entry, the headword is replaced. Neither of these methods is really fast because they involve several round trips (requests and responses) between the bot and the server: one to retrieve the page, one to save it, and then one each time a transliteration is requested. But it would be better than doing it all by hand. —CodeCat 01:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why not just put the transliteration code directly in the bot? (And if you worry about changes to the module code, just put the module on the bot's watchlist and halt the task if you get a notification that the module changed.) Keφr 07:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That can work too, but it's more error-prone because I'd have to take account of all the subtle differences in the way Lua works versus Python. —CodeCat 12:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've let the bot do what it can, and quite a lot of the accented transliterations have been removed and the accents moved onto the headword. There are about 2500 entries with transliterations remaining: Category:ru headword with tr. The four subcategories are divided like this: "redundant" is when the transliteration matches the automatically generated one. "headword is pagename" is when the headword is the same as the page name, which means it has no accents yet (the transliteration itself may not have them either). "headword not pagename" is for all other cases, which would include cases where the headword has accents, but the transliteration doesn't match, either because it's wrong or because it has unpredictable things like ɛ in it. This category will probably not be able to be emptied out fully, we can only try to reduce it. The "with links" category contains entries with linked headwords; those are going to be harder for a bot to handle because it has to find the accent placement for each word separately. It can be done, it's just going to be much harder and take more time. —CodeCat 02:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Good job. It's manageable but I will take time to go through the list, to keep myself motivated :). I should also have asked you to check for cases such as ts=c, ya=ja, yu=ju, yo=jo, zh=ž, sh=š, š'=šč,kh,χ=x - common non-standard transliterations. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did check for some of them, and I wanted to do the rest now, but it can be hard to find all the combinations because maybe someone wrote c=ts but still wrote š, and there are many other ways to combine all these varieties. I noticed there are also entries where iotated vowels are written as a preceding apostrophe. So I can try some possible combinations and see if the bot is able to catch some more of them, but getting them all is going to be next to impossible to do. —CodeCat 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are still many entries using {{head|ru|proper noun}}. Obviously, they are not included in the list. BTW, when you edit Russian entries, you can get the nominative stress from the declension table, like in подьезд. Also, multipart entries like рукоятка стояночного тормоза need to be split in the header and use {{ru-decl-noun-see}}. Could you mark them with {{attention|ru}}, please? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to try to add the headword templates to entries that are missing it, but I wanted to get most of the current list first before the pile grows even larger. And I'm not sure what you mean by "split in the header". —CodeCat 22:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, no worries. I meant like this азбука Брайля, giving links to individual parts in the header. Don't do it, if you're not confident, just mark for attention, you can always ask. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

All headwords that I was able to remove the transliteration from now no longer have it. So as far as I can tell, all the entries that have a transliteration are the ones that need it. —CodeCat 23:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've got really good skills. Thank you very much! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think something isn't right with this entry. The accents seem to be placed rather strangely. Can you check it? —CodeCat 21:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you rollback the katorga request on the requested Russian entries page? 83.83.59.46 22:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The request entries page is for, well, requesting for new entries. If you want a pronunciation added, you use the {{rfp}} template on the entry itself under the appropriate language heading. Besides, there is already an IPA entry in there. So your request for 'especially pronunciation' is very unclear. Do you want a new pronunciation added with another transcription scheme or what? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, what Jamesjiao said - the entry exists, so you can't request creation of already existing entries. We don't have an audiofile for каторга. We don't create and upload them here, as far as I know. The place for this type of requests must be MediaWiki. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have {{rfap}} to request audio pronunciations. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 23:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've added the request. Not sure whether this will be filled in the near future. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Huh, must've looked wrong, because I thought the entry did not exist. Sorry 83.83.59.46 08:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've generated a list of all these entries here: User:CodeCat/ru headword template missing. The first half lists the entries that use {{head}}. My bot should be able to fix those fairly easily, so I will focus on them first. The second half, which is unfortunately even longer, has entries that don't use {{head}}. They'll need to be fixed by hand because they mostly have raw bolded headwords and such, which the bot can't easily interpret (or at least not without a chance of errors). So if you want to help you should probably start with those. You can update the list as you work, that's not a problem. I can also regenerate the list but it's done per PoS so it will be faster and easier to do just one PoS than to redo all five. —CodeCat 02:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I's a good list! If you're going to fix "with head", I will only work with "without head" for now as they are really in bad shape. Are you going to add those "with head" to Category:ru headword with tr after the conversion? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The templates automatically add entries to those categories if they have a transliteration. It's easier to do the cleanup in steps, so I will probably first convert the template to a Russian one, and then remove the transliteration and/or transfer the accents to the headword in a separate step like the one I did today and yesterday. —CodeCat 02:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

All the cases where {{head}} was used have now been fixed. What remains would need to be fixed by hand, unless someone has a better solution. I don't quite feel comfortable with parsing raw headwords with wiki markup, it's easy for something to go wrong or get misinterpreted. —CodeCat 16:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for your efforts. I will work on this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on {{ru-adj}} a bit to make the code a little clearer (which makes it easier for me to convert it to Lua when the time comes). But looking at the entries, things confused me somewhat. It looks like comparatives aren't declined, have more than one form, and an adjective can have a comparative but not a superlative. This is very different from how they work in Slovene, where it is much more like English or German: comparative -(e)jši and superlative naj- -(e)jši, or periphrastic with bolj and najbolj. So I looked for more information about it, but Wikipedia has nothing at all. I did find a nice book called "A comprehensive Russian grammar" where things are explained more. As I read it now, I get the feeling that our template isn't really very well suited to Russian. Here is what I understand from the book (correct me if I'm wrong):

• In attributive position (directly modifying a noun) only 6 adjectives have a distinct form that can be declined: хороший (xorošij), плохой (ploxoj), старый (staryj), молодой (molodoj), большой (bolʹšoj), маленький (malenʹkij). All other adjectives use более (boleje), which does not decline but the adjective does.
• In predicative position, most adjectives have a distinct comparative form ending in -ее (-eje), which is pronounced as -ей (-ej) and is written that way colloquially as well. Some adjectives have predicative comparatives in just -е (-e) and Proto-Slavic iotation of the stem-final consonant. These forms, because they occur only predicatively (like short adjectives), are invariable and don't decline.
• The superlative does not distinguish between attributive and predicative position, and uses the same form for both.
• Most adjectives form the superlative using самый (samyj), which declines along with the adjective. наиболее (naiboleje) can be used instead in literary contexts, and it does not decline but the adjective does (so it's like более (boleje)).
• A limited number of adjectives have a separate superlative ending in -ейший (-ejšij) or -айший (-ajšij). A few adjectives form the superlative by prefixing наи- (nai-) to the comparative; presumably this includes the "special 6" comparatives above.
• There is generally no connection between how the comparative is formed and how the superlative is formed. The predicative comparative could be formed with -ее (-eje) while the superlative uses either самый (samyj) or -ейший (-ejšij), for example.

Is this more or less correct? If so, then I would like to make some changes to the template to reflect this. In particular, the comparative that is shown in many entries should really be called "predicative comparative". The special 6 adjectives use have a separate parameter for the attributive comparative. One thing is not quite clear though: хороший (xorošij) lists лу́чше (lúčše) as the comparative and лу́чший (lúčšij) as the superlative, but aren't they both really comparatives, one predicative and one attributive? Or am I mistaken? —CodeCat 01:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a big topic but I will answer some questions first with examples. Yes, Russian (and other East Slavic) comparatives and superlatives are somewhat different from West and South Slavic. It's easier for me to use Russian and Polish. I'll use a more typical adjective Cf. Russian сильне́е/сильне́й, посильне́е, са́мый си́льный, сильне́йший, наисильне́йший to Polish silniejszy, najsilniejszy, silniej.

• predicative comparative: он сильне́е/он сильне́й, он бо́лее си́льный - on jest silniejszy - he is stronger
• attributive comparative: бо́лее си́льный спортсме́н, спортсме́н посильне́е - silniejszy sportowiec - a stronger sportsman. I can say "дай мне книгу поинтере́снее/поинтере́сней", it's less formal than "дай мне бо́лее интере́сную кни́гу" (give me a more interesting book)
• predicative superlative: он са́мый си́льный, он сильне́е/сильне́й всех - on jest najsilniejszy - he is the strongest
• attributive superlative: са́мый си́льный спортсме́н, сильне́йший спортсме́н, наисильне́йший спортсме́н - najsilniejszy sportowiec - the strongest sportsman
• comparative adverb: он бьёт сильне́е/сильне́й - bije silniej - he hits harder
• superlative adverb: он бьёт сильне́е/сильне́й всех - bije naj silniej - he hits the hardest

As you see the comparative adjectives are used like adverbs in many cases (except for your 6). For this group comparative = superlative (correct) but in the predicative it's better to use "са́мый" or "всех" - лучший выбор (better/the best) choice - он (са́мый) лу́чший/он лу́чше всех

старый (staryj) can have старе́е (older of old people and things) and ста́рше (relatively older, can be said of children).

коро́ткий - коро́че but (наи)кратча́йший. . To be continued but please check if it makes any sense :)--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I don't really understand it. The Polish examples don't really help because I don't know much about Polish grammar. I'm struggling to connect what you said to what the book says. From what I get from the book (maybe you can look for it yourself), "спортсме́н посильне́е" would just not be used, only "бо́лее си́льный спортсме́н". It doesn't mention всех at all either as far as I can see. If both types of comparative are used in both predicative and attributive roles, then labelling them as "predicative" and "attributive" would be misleading, but how would we make clear in the headword that the "predicative" comparative isn't normally used to modify a noun? I thought that putting "predicative comparative" instead of just "comparative" (and an additional "attributive comparative" for the 6) but now I'm not so sure if that's really accurate? I do think that it would not be good to just show the different forms with "or" between them, because they are not used the same way and not interchangeable. Also one thing you said seems a bit strange: comparative = superlative? —CodeCat 03:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I used Polish analogy because it seems to match exactly the Slovene you mentioned "comparative -(e)jši and superlative naj- -(e)jši" (Polish: comparative -(e)jszy and superlative naj- -(e)jszy).

Your book probably misses colloquial (but quite standard) forms - "спортсме́н посильне́е", книга поинтере́снее/поинтере́сней" = "бо́лее си́льный спортсме́н", "бо́лее интере́сная кни́га", the latter are more formal. Unlike Slovene (or Polish), сильне́йший, интере́снейший have only superlative meanings. My examples use comparative in the post-position. In that case, grammatically they are probably adverbs, "спортсме́н посильне́е" - "the sportsman who is stronger". "(по)сильне́е спортсме́н" is not grammatically correct, as the comparative forms (such сильнее) cannot modify nouns (unlike Slovene/Polish - "silnjejzy sportowiec"). Forms such "более сильный" CAN modify nouns.

"how would we make clear in the headword that the "predicative" comparative isn't normally used to modify a noun?" I don't know but you can't say "лучше фильм", "интереснее книга" but "более хороший фильм", "более интересная книга".

Re: comparative = superlative. To form comparative and superlative you use the same forms - сильне́е, красиве́е, веселе́е, то́ньше, то́лще but the context and additional words like "чем" (than), "всех" (of all) to make them different, e.g. "она́ красиве́е" - "she is more beautiful". The superlative from the book - "самый" (the most) uses the normal form. "она́ красиве́е всех" is the same as "она́ са́мая краси́вая" (she is the most beautiful), literally meaning "she is more beautiful than all" (всех is just genitive plural of все). The example with "всех" may not be scientific, since "красиве́е" is simply a comparative. Sorry for the confusion. Not sure if I answered your questions well. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please tell what is still confusing/contradictory or if I haven't answered some of your questions. I'll try to help but I can explain in my own way, which may not be the textbook way but with live examples. Like perfective verb forms, comparative synonyms may not be full synonyms - бо́лее/бо́льше, старе́е/ста́рше have some differences but that's probably OK for the template purposes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It is a bit clearer, but that still leaves the question of what to do with for example большой (bolʹšoj). больше (bolʹše) and больший (bolʹšij) are both comparatives, but one is adverbial like all other comparatives and thus cannot modify a noun, whereas the latter is an adjective and can modify nouns. Do you know how the display of {{ru-adj}} can be changed to make this more obvious, rather than showing them as just "alternative forms" of each other (which I am guessing they're not)?

The book also says that superlatives ending in -ейший (-ejšij) are relatively rare and mostly restricted to single-syllable adjectives. So I presume that it's not really productive and that any "new" adjectives form their superlative with самый (samyj). Yet the template {{ru-adj}} assumes that all adjectives with a comparative in -ее (-eje) have a superlative in -ейший (-ejšij) as well, look at абсолютный (absoljutnyj) for example. I don't think that's right? —CodeCat 13:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps бо́льше (bólʹše) should be marked "(adverbial)" and бо́льший (bólʹšij) with nothing? -ейший (-ejšij) is quite productive. "all adjectives with a comparative in -ее (-eje) have a superlative in -ейший (-ejšij)" seems OK. "абсолю́тнейший" is a correct form.

Please note my questions at Template_talk:ru-verb. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've made a list of all Russian adjectives that have comparatives: Category:CodeCat's test category2. Could you check each of them to make sure they're correct and whether all forms are listed? I've temporarily removed the -ей comparative, but that can be easily added back if it's ok to assume that it's just a colloquial alternative spelling of the -ее ending (the module can check if any comparative has -ее and generate the alternative by replacing that with -ей). So you don't need to worry about that for now. —CodeCat 21:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The userex given for the lion definition doesn't really make any sense in English. Imaginably, it's something idiomatic in Russian. Would you have any clue as to what it is? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, this is not common. Today I heard it for the first time (but it does exist). Fixed the userex. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is plural, but do you know what the gender is? It apparently follows the adjective declension which doesn't have any differences between genders in the plural, so I can't tell by the forms alone (I can tell that it's inanimate, at least). —CodeCat 22:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I found some more words like this: брачущиеся, брачующиеся, присные. I also found some plurale tantum words that are indeclinable: баоцзы, гёдза, лавэ, Фиджи. And finally, plurale tantums consisting of two things together: Адам и Ева, альфа и омега, дамы и господа, Сент-Винсент и Гренадины. I don't really know how to determine the gender of these words, and they currently just show "p" without a gender. Is that really valid for Russian? —CodeCat 02:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry, busy Saturday.

Normally, Russian plurale tantum don't have and don't need gender, dictionaries won't show it and you're right, there is no difference in declension for adjectives, there be may be some ( not always reliable) for nouns. The gender for plurale tantum is sometimes useful when the rare, imaginary or original singulars can be found and can be helpful to understand the declension. So, коньки is plural of конёк (its genitive is коньков, which suggests masculine), выходные (weekend, holidays, days off) - plural of выходной день -> выходные дни, ножницы's genitive is ножниц, which suggests feminine.

I suggest to mark месячные (the only possibility I can think of is месячные дни, which is masculine), брачующиеся (couples are masculines too, grammatically, like молодожёны, новобрачные), присные as masculine plural if they really need gender. For the rest of your examples, no gender is needed, it may be confusing or be disputed later (Адам и Ева, дамы и господа include both men and women). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a bit like in Dutch and German then. Those languages don't have any difference between genders in the plural, so there is no way to tell. Do you think that maybe we should drop genders from all plural-only nouns in Russian? That is, change m-p, f-p and n-p to just "p"? After all, if there is no way to tell, then it doesn't really matter what the gender is. —CodeCat 12:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think we should make the gender optional for plural nouns, and supply it only when it is obvious. But also, another clue you can use to determine gender is to find the word in a pre-1917 book and see if it is referred to as они or онѣ. --WikiTiki89 17:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we should make this optional for nouns where pluralia tantum could use the gender info, e.g. knowing that на́рды (nárdy) is a masculine will help determine its genitive form - "на́рдов", not "нард". Good luck with finding this info on "они" or "онѣ" ("оне" is the modern spelling) :). In any case, оне́ (oné) was used for feminines only and они́ (oní) for masculine and neuter, so "они" is still ambiguous, so full gender info would be more helpful. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't оне an anachronistic spelling? I thought that the word died out (or was killed off) together with the letter ѣ. --WikiTiki89 23:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

See the entry and the quotations. It is archaic but is used in original poems for rhyming purposes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The quote is from Pushkin who lived well before the spelling reform. I assumed that it was from a post-reform reprint. --WikiTiki89 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's an archaic form. Of course, it's a reprint. It's not easy to verify if the term was ever used after the reform in this context, like archaic forms are occasionally used in modern languages. Anyway, it's a digression from the original topic. It's not always possible, which gender is appropriate for pluralia tantum nouns. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I've commented at WT:RFV#викифицировать. Please provide attesting quotations in some form, ideally by placing them to Wiktionary, or at least as links. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

do you mind if I were to ask you a few personal questions? Feel free to not answer them, but I ask them because I wish to know something about 'memory' in Russia or with Russians in general. I ask these questions to several native Russian speakers, so forgive me if you encounter these questions on different talkpages. So here are the questions:

• When were you born?

  1967

• Were you 16 or older in the 1980s?

  Yes, mid '80's. I went to the army in 1985.

• Were you born in Russia/Soviet Union? Where?

  Ukraine, childhood, adult life split between Ukraine and Russia

• How do you remember the Soviet-Afghan war/Afghan war?

  I wasn't there. Nearly got sent to Afghanistan, was lucky to serve in Mongolia. I've heard a lot of stories first hand. As a future conscript, not getting to Afghanistan and not getting killed was one of the greatest concerns in the first half of '80's.

• How do you remember the Soviet repression, such as the Gulag or the prison camp system?

  My grandfather (mother's side) was in Gulag - false accusation and because of his ancestry. I was curious in my student years and listened to Liberty, Voice of America, etc. radio stations. I read Gulag Archipelago. Otherwise I knew very little personally as the information was hidden.

• How do you remember the public discussion in the 1980s/1990s about the repression and the prison camp system?

  I remember this vividly, especially the coup - everybody worried that we are going back to repressions. Political activity was everywhere - from public squares to television to classroom discussions.

• How do you feel about the victims of the Afghan war and the victims of the repression?

  I feel sorry for them.

Answer in anyway you like (which includes not answering as well of course), thank you very much.

Kind regards,

User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 12:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

My late reply is between your questions. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sharing this with me, Atitarev. Oh, by the way, what coup are you referring to exactly? The Soviet dissolution or the siege of the White House? Mallerd 07:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

1991 coup. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

All Russian headword templates should now be in their final form, and I've converted them to Lua, which enabled some additional features like checking for the presence of accents. Hopefully everything still works, please let me know if there are any problems? I have wondered about displaying a few inflected forms for verbs. For Slovene, the two most useful forms are the present 1st person singular and the past, so the template displays those two forms. What would be good to display for Russian? The past surely, but which present form is most suitable? —CodeCat 21:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you added some inflected forms for nouns (genitive sg and nominative pl) but without accents. Accents are important and not just for pronunciation but for declension patterns. For verbs the two most important present forms are 1st person sg and 3rd person sg and alternatives (if exist). Zaliznyak used those two for examples. Subgroup "c" (unstable accent - stem or ending) of verbs is best demonstrated with displaying stress patterns for 1st and 3rd persons: люблю́/лю́бит (люби́ть), тяну́/тя́нет (тяну́ть). Some irregular verbs, like хоте́ть (xotétʹ) could use optional 3rd person plural - "хотя́т" (unpredictable).

Could you help with my query in the Grease pit, please? I've lost some variables I used to have. BTW, сыпать is a good example of alternative forms: 1st pers. sg: "сы́плю", 3rd pers. sg: "сы́плет", "сы́пет". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence. Do you mean I added the forms to some entries? If I missed the accents then that is not a big problem, they will appear in Category:Russian noun inflections needing accents.

I can make the 3rd and 4th parameter of {{ru-verb}} display the first and third person singular. Would adding the past form as the 5th make sense at all, or is this a rather predictable form in Russian? Alternative forms would get additional parameters like pres_1sg2= and pres_3sg2=. —CodeCat 22:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: first sentence, I lost that example, perhaps you have fixed it later.

Unfortunately, past tense is often unpredictable, especially if you look at type 3a and some above, often not just masculine but feminine would be needed but I'm not sure if we need to add so much info in the header. Reflexive may even get stressed "-ся́", which makes those verbs complicated even for native speakers - three forms exist for 3rd person sg past - на́чался/нача́лся/начался́ (нача́ться (načátʹsja)). It (question marks???) almost forces to add this info, which is error prone (same with nouns) but inflection table show the forms correctly.

For сыпать, I've made a specific function, so that not to add all alternatives for this verb and its derivatives manually. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can remove the question marks or make it display something else. But I do think it should display something, because it does help. If there is no notice, users don't know that something needs fixing and they stay like that forever. —CodeCat 23:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps present/future 1st and 3rd person sg is enough but as I said, it won't help to figure out ALL forms, like past tense, etc. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't need to work for all verbs, just most. For example if I were to do this with Dutch (which I have wanted to for a while) then I would give two parameters: past and past participle (the present can be derived from the infinitive). But with those three forms you can't figure out the conjugation of kunnen or of zijn, which are both irregular. So it is really just useful for determining quickly what type of verb it is, not how to create every single form. It's similar with Latin verbs, where the four principal parts give you enough information to figure out most other forms. I don't know what forms would be needed to do the same for Russian verbs, because I know that a lot of the forms can be irregularly stressed and such (in Slovene they are). But the present and past are the most important because they are used most often, so which forms are needed to determine those? Is it enough to give the masculine singular past? —CodeCat 23:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've modified User:Conrad.Irwin/editor.js to make use of Module:links's remove_diacritics. It will no longer record the alt=... if it wouldn't affect what page is actually linked to. Please let me know, and/or revert, if you see any issues. —Ruakh_TALK 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is this diff a bug then? --WikiTiki89 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops, yes. Now fixed, thanks. (And annoyingly, due to the way the JavaScript is cached on the client side, we'll probably continue to see that bug for a while . . .) —Ruakh_TALK 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ruakh. Will test and let you know if there any issues. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems to produce "alt=" when THERE IS NO diacritics. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Heh, whoops. Now hopefully fixed, thank you. —Ruakh_TALK 03:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, looks better :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've started to work on improving these and trying to reduce the number of templates. I have removed the templates with -unc in the name, and replaced them with a parameter n=sg that can be applied to all the noun templates. n=pl works too, for plurale tantum nouns. I've now started to work on merging the anim and inan templates using the same method: animate nouns get a anim=1 parameter, while inanimate nouns don't. I think that once this is done, there will only about 60-70 templates left, which is much easier to manage. —CodeCat 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've finished it now and there are 76 templates left. A lot better than the 210 we started with. :) I'm going to try to clean up the templates themselves now. Most of them have separate parameters for accent/no accent, which were needed when we didn't have Lua, but {{l}} can now handle accentss so the accentless parameters aren't needed anymore. I've also been thinking about how we could eventually convert these to Lua. The templates are split up by the final consonant, but Lua can detect that automatically, so all that really matters then is the difference between hard and soft stems, the different types of inflection (consonant, -a, -o and the others) and the accent pattern. We could probably reduce it to maybe 30-40 templates with Lua. —CodeCat 19:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well done! I haven't yet fully digested your changes but it looks very good at first glance. The templates need updated messages, esp. re anim/inan. The numbers are declension types and letters are stress patterns. I wish the nouns to be categorised similar to verb classes, even more - by their stress patterns later on. If minimal changes are required for the noun entries, or changes can easily be done by a bot, then I agree to take part in the noun module development using Lua (will need your guidance). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently the templates use ending letters instead of declension numbers, and numbers for stress patterns. But if we do convert them to Lua then having one set of templates for each type of final sound (like Zaliznyak does) would be very wasteful. Lua could easily determine the final sound itself based on the stem it's given, and decide whether certain kinds of endings need special consideration. For example, it can see when a noun ends in -к and replace the ending -ы with -и accordingly, which would eliminate the need for Zaliznyak's type 3 altogether. We can do similar things to most of the other groups, and I expect that the only ones that are not predictable in that way are 1 and 2 (hard vs soft, which decides whether to use -а or -я for example; can't be determined from the preceding consonant), and type 8. So I think that a Lua-based template system would be more like: ru-noun-hard-b, ru-noun-hard-b-а, etc. But we'll have to see.

I have been working on updating the documentation of the templates. But that is a rather tedious task, because the documentation of the original templates was actually placed inside the template, rather than on a documentation page. It will take me some time to get through it and move all the documentation over to the documentation pages. I haven't actually changed the templates too much yet, I just added anim=1 parameters for animate nouns, n=sg and n=pl for nouns that are only singular and only plural, and merged those templates together, then deleted the remaining ones. The parameters of most templates are still the same, although I will start on that soon. —CodeCat 22:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I think "anim=1" should add nouns to Category:Russian animate nouns. This was available from old templates, the similar should happen with inanimates (when there is no parameter). As for classification, velar nouns are inflected differently (-ы is not -и), so the classification is still possible. If Lua can determine the ending, so it can add to correct categories. No problem with reusing but I think the classification will make sense. Alternatively, a simpler classification could be used, just the 3 types (+ hard and soft, velar, sibilant, etc.) plus irregular nouns. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{ru-noun}} already adds entries to gender and animacy categories, so I'm not sure if it's really necessary to have two templates that add the entry to the same category. We would only need to make sure that the gender is set right on the headword.

I'm aware of the difference between the two vowels. But what I mean is that, for nouns ending in -к, the distinction kind of disappears. -кы is not valid in Russian as far as I can tell, only -ки. This is why Zaliznyak created type 3; to account for nouns that are hard (because к is a hard consonant, and the genitive is -ка, not -кя) but still have the "soft-looking" ending -и replacing the "hard-looking" -ы. Types 4 and 5 are very similar to this. When converting the templates to Lua, though, this distinction can be determined automatically. The module can look at the last consonant of the stem and, if it sees that it's к, then every time it wants to add the ending -ы it can automatically replace it with -и. In other words, a module can automatically detect when a noun is type 3 (or 4 or 5) and so we don't need to specify it manually by using separate templates. —CodeCat 23:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just on anim/inan - a bit of duplication won't hurt, besides it's relatively easy to do (doesn't have to be now). For example, headerless adjectives are added to adjective categories by the declension tables, even if an entry is badly formatted otherwise.

Like I said, we could classify more broadly where -ы and -и endings are grouped into declension 1 category, as in w:Russian_grammar#Nouns. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is more like what I had in mind. We need to distinguish at least hard and soft, because a stem like мал- (just made something up) could be both hard мал / мала / мало and soft маль / маля / мале, and the module can't tell which of the two to use when it only knows the "мал" part. The ambiguity really exists only for final consonants that can be hard or soft. For consonants like к, ж, ц, there is only one possibility for the endings (such consonants are "always hard" or "always soft") so then there is no need to say "hard" or "soft" explicitly. Something like {{ru-noun-soft|ток}} would make no sense because a word ending in к (an "always hard" consonant) can't have soft endings (except for the -и previously mentioned). —CodeCat 23:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

These nouns have neuter declensions, and for the most part they are neuter gender. But they are also appearently animate, the accusative plural equals the genitive plural. подмастерье is animate in the singular as well. How does this fit in? In an earlier discussion above, you said there are no animate neuters...? —CodeCat 21:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your work - I will answer in more detail in GP, having a busy morning. OK, with neuter nouns - there are no animate neuters in grammar, that's right, so e.g. {{ru-noun-anim-ье-1}} and {{ru-noun-inan-ье-1}} produce the same results (the templates can be merged but the nouns using them should be categorized, so that anim/inan info is not lost). It may be useful to mark neuters animate/inanimate in the header or by adding to categories. Animate/inanimate neuters are inflected identically. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

But {{ru-noun-anim-о-1}} is different from {{ru-noun-о-1}}, the accusative plural forms don't match. Is this wrong? And if it is wrong and there really is no difference in animacy for any neuter nouns, what makes them "animate"? Is it just the meaning, so that you'd say "they'd be animate if they weren't neuter"? I don't think we should indicate that in entries as there are no grammatical consequences for it, and it would probably confuse people just like it confused me. —CodeCat 22:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You got me there. There is difference between anim/inan then. Never stop learning. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are the native speaker though. Is it right to use "чад" as the accusative plural or not? —CodeCat 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I did check the animate/inanimate nouns. Yes, to my embarrassment, "чад" as the accusative plural is correct. The inanimate accusative plural would be "ча́да". Sorry for my previous assertion re "no animate neuters". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

For all I know, the Spanish inverted question mark should be put at the beginning of a sentence, but this change makes Module:links strip it from the end of the string (thanks to $). I think you meant to do something else. Keφr 12:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Could you help fix it? Please include the inverted ! as well.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Substituting nothing for ^ (in a separate step) would do it. Keφr 12:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do tomorrow on a desktop computer, using ipad at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is ё always stressed in Belarusian and Ukrainian as it is in Russian? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It does not exist at all in Ukrainian, and it is theoretically always stressed in Belorussian, but I am not sure about loanwords. --WikiTiki89 17:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's correct. A few loanwords in Belarusian have unstressed ё, as in "ра́дыё" (radio). In Belarusian "о" is also stressed in most cases. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, then I won't bother adding ё́ to the edit tools. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

In fact, occurrences of "ё́ " should be avoided in Russian and Belarusian. Both modules transliterate letter "ё" as "jó", because it's mainly stressed but the stress is never indicated explicitly, so "ё" in ёлка (jólka) is both the pronunciation and stress indicator in Russian and Belarusian. In Russian it's normally spelled "елка" (in a running text, not dictionary) with the same pronunciation. To mark the accent on the word, one writes "ёлка" without a stress mark. "ё́ " would produce "jó́", which is undesirable. The rare cases where "ё" is NOT stressed in Russian or Belarusian, should also be manually transliterated, like Belarusian ра́дыё (rádyjo, “radio”), Russian четырёхуго́льник (četyrjoxugólʹnik, “quadrangle”). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Technical issues like that can be solved. For example, the double acute accent can easily be deleted and the "jó" can easily be changed to "jo" in the presence of another accent in the word (I would opt for the latter since "ё́" looks really bad anyway). One thing I would also note, though, is that in Russian (and I would guess also in Belorussian), a "ё" that doesn't have primary stress still receives some sort of secondary stress in order to avoid vowel reduction, which we may or may not want to indicate in transliteration (the same may also occasionally apply to "о"). --WikiTiki89 04:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know what you mean but in words with prefixes "трёх-", "четырёх-" - трёхмерный, трёхкомнатный, трёхголовый I doubt there is a 2nd accent. No, second word accents are not indicated in the transliteration, unless the words are separated by a "-". "ра́дыё" definitely has no 2nd accent, like Russian "ра́дио" where the final "о" is not reduced to /ə/, even if it's unaccented. Yes, removing the double stress or additional stress when there is one explicit sounds like a good idea.

Loanwords in Russian with unstressed "ё" turn into words with "е" - Пхенья́н (Pyongyang), рентге́н (Röntgen, X-ray), Кенигсбе́рг (also Кёнигсберг) (Königsberg). Failure to always write "ё" has created quite a few variants and mispronunciations. The actual pronunciation can still be written out like Polish surname "Пёнтко́вский" instead of "Пентко́вский" (Piątkowski) but it's rare. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your rollback was an error, and worse for having been made with no justification or defense of the (erroneous) idea that the English isn't cribbing the pinyin spelling and not the Chinese character.LlywelynII (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

We had a user who promoted pinyin over Chinese characters who was permablocked several times (used different accounts and multiple IP's). Pinyin is a transliteration and romanisation system. Words are borrowed from languages, not scripts, even if they have standard romanisation systems, such as pinyin or rōmaji, which is also provided in the brackets. If you disagree, bring it up in BP. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can we {{delete}} it now? It seems to have outlived its usefulness. Keφr 17:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Are you planning yo continue to work on the module --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am still waiting for the disagreements to be sorted out. For more testcases, preferably failing ones. And some explanations, because right now I am quite confused as to what I am supposed to implement now. (Also, can Module:User:Atitarev/ar-verb go too?) Keφr 20:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It can go too. I will update test cases to match what has been suggested by Shinji (transcription method) later on. Wyang seems to have the template that does it but I don't how it works and he doesn't take part in the discussion any more. Will see if this can be revived but I've got a bit too much on my plate. Among other things, Arabic verb module needs a lot of attention. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arabic verbs aren't going to get full treatment without someone as insane as me on the project. To use an American phrase I absolutely hate that is nevertheless entirely appropriate: point blank. — — 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's right, Ric. You should join the effort then but this time it's a module, not templates. I'm far from expert but feel a bit more comfortable with coding and understanding Lua (thanks to my participation in Module:ru-verb) and it seems easier to reuse functions. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arabic should be easier than the Hebrew one I'm working on. But have fun! --WikiTiki89 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, this one Module:he-verb? Good luck! The final Arabic module should cover 10 forms with hamzated, doubled (geminated), weak (hollow, assimilated and defective) roots. It's just too much, to many functions will be required, can't say it's easy. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hebrew is like Arabic, with much less regularity. That module is about 5% done maybe. --WikiTiki89 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I created a number of templates for North Frisian verbs recently. However, I forgot to bookmark one (frr-FoehrAmrum-conj-table) and I want to use it as a basis for another one. None of them seemed to have been indexed yet. How do I search for a specific template on Wiktionary?Vedac13 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

How about typing http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Template:frr-FoehrAmrum-conj-table into the address bar? Keφr 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Or you can just type "frr-FoehrAmrum-conj-table" into the search bar and press enter. --WikiTiki89 16:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestions. The first one worked. The second one brings up no results.~~

That's because you probably selected the search option rather than just pressing enter. --WikiTiki89 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atitarev,

I do think your rollback was in error. I might have been less curt, but user:Haplology block reason ("Intimidating behavior/harassment") was at least as curt, in my opinion. --80.114.178.7 00:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, which rollback do you mean? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This diff. --80.114.178.7 03:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It looked like trolling to me. OK, I restored your silliness, will let Haplology deal with you ;/ --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --80.114.178.7 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

O, by the way, "will let Haplology deal with you" is a nice example of Wiktionary:Feedback#main clause. Everyone seems to drop subjects, I first noticed the dropping of het#Dutch when it's the subject of a transitive verb. --80.114.178.7 05:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm Russian, Russian tends to be pro-drop ("pronoun-dropping") language. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Colloquial English seems to like dropping pronouns at the beginning of a sentence or after a pause, never in the middle though. Formal English only allows this in cases where the physical location of the text is the subject ("Contains nuts." on a can of peanut butter). --WikiTiki89 00:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

That ("beginning of a sentence") could very well be a better explanation than "subject", in Dutch I can object-drop too, as long as the object starts the sentence (but both English and Dutch are mostly SVO). --80.114.178.7 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, labels on products allow texts like "made in Germany", where even "is" is dropped. Product descriptions might be like headlines: space restrictions overrule formal grammar. --80.114.178.7 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

You may be Russian, but that doesn't explain all of it, I think, because you mostly (only?) do it when it's hard to notice (it took some time to find back examples: "Pehaps you're right, haven't reached that sprachgefühl yet" at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion) and, IMHO not wrong. --80.114.178.7 20:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я не знаю если этому можно верить но на Википедии написано "However, some Belarusian-speakers continue to use Miensk (spelled Менск) as their preferred name for the city." --WikiTiki89 00:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ты можешь подумать, что я необъективен, но это неправда. Хотя есть новое, довольно слабое националистическое движение, возрождающее старые слова, часто использующее польские слова, отличные от привычных белорусских или слишком близких русским, используют "лацінку". Нужно добавить, что Минск - крайне русифицированный город, но и те, кто говорит по-белорусски, говорят "Мінск" и "Расія", а не "Менск" и "Расея". Это не только стандартные, но и самые распространенные и естественные название. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Может быть написать "dated or nationalistic"? --WikiTiki89 00:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я уже добавил {{context|dated|lang=be}} и "Taraškievica orthography" лучший способ описать ситуацию, связанную с существованием "беларуской (тарашкевіца)‎ Википедии" - Беларуская_Вікіпэдыя (be-x-old). "be-x-old" - альтернативный код "be" для белорусского языка, который не принимают большинство белорусов, которые считают, что тарашкевица навязывает старые нормы произношения и написания. Подобные попытки были и в/на Украине, но украинцы лучше владеют своим языком и эти попытки были отброшены на раннем этапе. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Но ты не будешь возражать если я добавлю or nationalistic? --WikiTiki89 01:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Нет, не буду. Если бы было больше белорусских слов и примеров тарашкевицы, можно было бы создать категорию с объяснением. Здесь не только национализм, а норма правописания ряда слов и форм. Интересные названия в тарашкевице: Брэст - Берасьце, Германія - Нямеччына, Англія - Ангельшчына --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Но это же не только орфография. Интересно говорят люди так сегодня или нет, и кто? --WikiTiki89 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Приветик! Я только что написал модуль Module:ru-noun и шаблон Template:ru-noun-table, которые показывают таблицы склонений для русских существительных. Я еще пока их не использовал в главном неймспейсе, но я сделал пробную страницу User:Wikitiki89/ru-noun-test где можно увидеть как все работает. Все работает одним шаблоном, и он использует меньше параметров чем наши старые шаблоны. Я надеюсь, что им будет легче пользоваться. Если ты хочешь, ты можешь его попробовать. Разумеется, в нем все еще есть много ошибок, которых я еще не нашел, и если ты их найдешь, пожалуйста скажи мне. --WikiTiki89 05:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Спасибо. Молодец. Я изучу внимательнее модуль и отвечу подробнее. В русском 6 образцов ударения существительных, не 4. Одна ошибка пока: винительный падеж от гора - го́ру. У среднего рода тоже есть одушевлёные/неодушевлённые существительные - чадо, чудовище склоняются не так как чудо, туловище. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Да я все 6 и добавил. Винительный падеж слова "гора" было просто опечатка (На моей клавиатуре "ы" рядом с "у"). И я так сделал, что одушевленные склонения работают с любой моделью склонения. Я добавлю слова чадо и чудовище к User:Wikitiki89/ru-noun-test. --WikiTiki89 22:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я теперь понял что ту имел ввиду, сейчас побравлю "го́ру". --WikiTiki89 22:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Как часто винительный падеж у существительного женского рода, которое кончается на "-а́/я́" с ударением на окончании (и в винительном падеже на "-у/ю"), не имеет ударение на окончании "-у́/ю́"? --WikiTiki89 04:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Как борода, голова, гора? Не очень часто. Надо исправить "борода". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Исправил "борода". Кстати, мне стоит исправлять твои орфографические ошибки в русском? Мне это несложно, но не хочу, чтоб ты застеснялся и перестал стараться писать по-русски :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Нет, это мне поможет. Пожалуйста поправляй! --WikiTiki89 04:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Тогда смотри мои правки в твоих фразах. Так быстрее. :)

Спасибо! Некоторые из них были просто опечатки но многие были настоящие ошибки. --WikiTiki89 04:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli! Your input would be helpful here. In particular, do you think we should include some mechanism for knowing whether or not a particular string (say, ba4) is a valid Jyutping romanization of a given character? (What ways are there to tell what the Jyutping romanization of a given character is?) As Ruakh notes, no mechanism for ascertaining the validity of pinyin syllables was included in the pinyin vote, with the result that it's not easy to resolve RFVs like this one. (And the user who RFVed that pinyin syllable has already suggested RFVing Jyutping syllables.) - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it completely predictable from the spelling (with stress marked)? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The short answer is yes - for transliteration purposes. There's some inconsistency in usage of г and ґ, for some Ukrainians /g/ seems "unpronouncable" but some pronounce /g/ in certain loanwords, even if "г" is written. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're referring to IPA transcriptions, then Ukrainian has a vowel reduction system similar to Standard Russian, but with fewer (or none at all) mergers (for most speakers). So I wouldn't add IPA transcriptions before at least reading about that. --WikiTiki89 00:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think Ivan was asking if there need to be any exceptions in transliteration, like in Russian. You can say "it is completely predictable" in standard and careful pronunciation for the purpose of transliteration.

Not sure if Ukrainian vowel reduction can be called similar to Russian, "до до́му" would sound a bit like "ду дому" than Russian (would be) "да дому" but reduction of vowels is much smaller in Ukrainian. Consonant changes are also much smaller. Strikingly, Ukrainian almost lacks consonant devoicing, e.g. "зуб" is still /zub/, not /zup/, very much unlike neighbouring Russian, Belarusian, Polish (Polish has even more devoicing than any other Slavic languages, e.t. twój - /tfuj/) or Slovak. Letter "в" is pronounced as /w/ in final or pre-consonantal positions, e.g. був (he was), бив (he beat) cf. Serbo-Croatian "bio" (biti). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Despite the /o/ reducing in a different direction, Ukrainian vowel reduction is still very similar to Russian. As far as I know, there is a range of different extremities of the reduction; for some speakers "до до́му" would sound exactly the same as "ду до́му", while for others they would be easily distinguishable. As far as consonant devoicing and the letter "в", I think it is also dialectal. I don't want to use YouTube as a source, but out of all the videos I've watched of Ukrainian news or similar, I have mostly heard words like "років" pronounced with a final /f/ and have never heard it as /w/, although every written source I have consulted says it should be /w/ (or at least /ʋ/). --WikiTiki89 02:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ha-ha, I can tell you exactly what's happening. Ukrainians know how to pronounce, at least those who are interested but the urban colloquial pronunciation is still largely based on Russian, even TV announcers use it. Even rural dwellers coming to Kiev change their pronunciation, thinking it sounds more modern or cool. The issue is that most journalists got their education in Russian and Ukrainian is a language they had to learn with some effort. Vowel reduction, mispronunciation of ч, щ (they are always hard in standard Ukrainian and щ sounds more like Polish szcz), в at the end of words, lack of palatalisation after ц ("поліція") and vowel reduction are all Russian influences, which are not easily lost, despite some efforts. It's not easy to find correct Ukrainian pronunciation as it differs from region to region. Western Ukrainians now claim their accent is the best but their accent is influenced by Polish, use old or Polish words, anything that's dissimilar to Russian. Quite recently I read a good guide on Ukrainian correct pronunciation in Russian, if you want, I can try and find it for you. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

(before edit conflict) By the way, my spoken Ukrainian is not so good but I can boast decent pronunciation I learned from Ukrainian songs and jokes.

• Vowel reduction is light. о and е are usually pronounced as o and e.
• No devoicing of consonants
• There is both palatalised and unpalatalised ц, ш, ж, щ and ч. In Russian ц, ш, ж are always hard, щ and ч are always soft. щ and ч are usually hard in Ukrainian. ці/ці, ші/ши, чі/чи, жі/жи pairs are all pronounced differently in Ukrainian.
• Letter в is pronounced like Belarusian ў, Polish ł at the end of words.
• Consonants дж, дз are pronounced as one letter.
• -ться (вмивається) is pronounced almost as written. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought it might be something like that. But these modern urban Russian-influenced pronunciations are now part of the Ukrainian language even they aren't considered "real" Ukrainian by some. What I really find funny about Ukrainian TV is that whenever they interview someone, that person always speaks Russian and not Ukrainian. And sure, I would love to read such a pronunciation guide if you can find it. --WikiTiki89 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, although you have a point there. Ukrainian is still being developed out of oblivion (not unlike Hebrew), so many things are still not set in stone. The guide: Некоторые замечания по украинскому произношению. Обсуждение на LiveInternet - Российский Сервис Онлайн-Дневников — This unsigned comment was added by Atitarev (talk • contribs).

That guide confirms what I was saying that the extent of vowel reduction is dialectal. It also says that it depends on the surrounding vowels as well. --WikiTiki89 03:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean but I meant there was hardly any vowel reduction in Ukrainian and if there is, it's different from Russian. It's safe or even more standard to pronounce vowels as they are written. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I mean: "Редукция безударного о, в той или иной степени, присутствует в некоторых диалектах (и даже допускается в литературном произношении, если в слоге, следующем после безударного о, есть звуки о или у), но всегда в направлении у, т.е. зозуля, до дому произносится как /зузуля, дудому/ и т.п."

The Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias explain Ukrainian vowel reduction in detail: (see w:ru:Украинская фонология#Гласные and w:uk:Українська фонетика#Голосні). What I mean about it being similar to Russian is not that it is nearly the same as Russian (as is the case with Belorussian). When take into account other vowel reduction systems, such as in English, Hebrew, or colloquial Arabic, then you will see that Russian and Ukrainian vowel reduction are in fact very similar. --WikiTiki89 13:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

• I should have emphasized that 1) I'm only interested in modern standard Ukrainian (i.e. don't care about dialects) 2) phonemic transcription. From what I understood, all of those "vowel reductions" are predictable and subphonemic? Is there some kind of authoritative, preferably official guide to "orthoepically correct" spoken Ukrainian? I've seen conflicting descriptions of e.g. double consonants (which are according to some long, and according to others two consonants in a row). Russian and Ukrainian sources are OK as well! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  (1) You can't not care about dialects because Ukrainian is just a collection of dialects (as is any language really). (2) Vowel reductions are predictable and subphonemic in Russian as well, yet we still include them in the IPA transcriptions.

  Anyway, you can read the w:ru:Украинская фонология and w:uk:Українська фонетика, which give a pretty thorough description. If you want something more authoritative than Wikipedia, then maybe Anatoli will know what to recommend. --WikiTiki89 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Almost every language exists in a twofold manner 1) as a collection of vernacular speeches, i.e. dialects 2) some standard idiom. Ukrainian and other Slavic dialectal data is already extensively described in the literature, namely the SLA and related publications where you can exactly pinpoint lexical and phonological isoglosses by tiny regions. Many of those are already available on the internet as maps, and I can look that up on my own. There is too much variations in dialects to make any kind of useful conclusion, so it's best to leave it up to authorities which form (perhaps an artificial one) is to be treated as a standardized Ukrainian.

  If Russian pronunciations phonemically transcribe subphonemic features, then they are wrong and should be corrected. All of the phonetic transcriptions in every language must be labeled, by e.g. region, time, or register (such as "standard Russian"). uk and ru WP articles are unfortunately too poorly sourced to be taken authoritively; I did manage to find Орфоепічний словник but unfortunately it's a bit dated publication (1984), so I was wondering if there is anything newer :/ --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  You need to take dialects into account in order to decide how best to present the standard pronunciation. The problem for Russian is that the unstressed allophones of vowels cause too many mergers. Whether these mergers can be considered phonemic is a matter of much debate. I'm sure you know all about this, so I won't go into detail more than to say that pairs such as мы́ло (mýlo, “soap”) and мы́ла (mýla, “of soap”) are pronounced 100% identically in Standard Russian. The lack of minimal pairs shows that there is no phonemic difference between unstressed /a/ and /o/, but the universal productivity of the alternation shows that they are still allophones. This poses a problem for IPA transcriptions and we have therefore been using a transcription scheme somewhere between phonemic and phonetic. For Ukrainian, luckily the problem is not as severe, as Ukrainian apparently does not have consonant devoicing and has fewer fully merging vowel reductions. Apparently the unstressed е-и merger is almost universal, while the unstressed о-у merger is less common unless it is conditioned by another following о or у, in which case it is widespread but not universal (and according to the link Anatoli posted above, it is "acceptable" in the "literary language"). From what I see, there are three questions that need to be decided:

  1. Should тебе́ (tebé) be transcribed as /tɛˈbɛ/ or as /tɪˈbɛ/?
  2. Should того́ (tohó) be transcribed as /toˈɦo/ or as /tʊˈɦo/?
  3. Should тобі́ (tobí) be transcribed as /toˈbʲi/ or as /tʊˈbʲi/?

  The answer to the third question is obviously the former, but to the first two, we should have some discussion first. Currently, I think the latter would be better for the first two. --WikiTiki89 17:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  I forgot to mention:

  • A 1984 source is probably not recent enough. Ukraine has gone through big changes since then.
  • One possibly unpredictable part of Ukrainian phonology is, if I'm not mistaken, the propagation of palatalization. I know that in Russian it is not easy to tell whether a consonant preceding a palatalized consonant will also be palatalized. I have a hunch that it is the same with Ukrainian, but I have not found any source to confirm this.

  --WikiTiki89 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  Sorry but transcriptions such as /ˈmɨlə/ on мыло are laughable. Regardless whether it is stressed or no it is still the same underlying phoneme. I've also seen Ukrainian transcriptions which use /o/ ad /ɔ/ simultaneously in the same word - also wrong. The conservativeness of orthography is completely irrelevant for segmental analysis. It's great to have detailed phonetic transcriptions, but abusing notation like that makes us look amateurish. Regarding your questions - I don't think it makes any difference because of the // transcription. мене́ = /meˈne/ and мине́ = /mɪˈne/ - that their phonetic realizations coincide is irrelevant. Regarding the propagation of palatalization - Орфоепічний словник has some tables on that which appear to cover most of the allowed consonant clusters (and the rest can be deduced from examples listed). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  I assume that by "transcriptions such as /ˈmɨlə/ on мыло are laughable", you are referring to the /ə/. I don't see how this is laughable considering we do the same for English: about is transcribed as /əˈbaʊt/, rather than /aˈbaʊt/, /æˈbaʊt/, or /ʌˈbaʊt/. A transcription such as /ˈmɨlo/ has both advantages and disadvantages. The disadvantages are that the word is that it masks the fact that it мыло rhymes with мыла. The advantages, are that if you happen to be unable to see the headword and its transliteration, you'd be able to tell the word ends in an "о". Let's not turn the pronunciation section into an exercise of rewriting the headword in as many ways as possible, but let's actually convey some useful information and show how the word is pronounced. I feel less strongly so about Ukrainian only because Ukrainian only has two mergers to potentially worry about. I'm afraid in this case the "conservativeness of orthography" is what supports /ˈmɨlo/, while segmental analysis supports /ˈmɨlə/. --WikiTiki89 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  The difference is that /ə/ is phoneme in English, but in Russian is just an allophone of /o/ or /a/. Transcription with // is not meant to precisely represent word's pronunciation, but close enough, with respect to agreed boundaries among phonemes. For rhymes there is the Rhymes: namespace, which for languages that don't have phonological/phonetic orthographies such as Russian and English is the way to go. (For those that do, which happens to be the majority of world's languages in fact, simple reverse of Special:PrefixIndex would suffice). Russian transliterations on Wiktionary are apparently a mixture of transliteration and pronunciation, while Russian phonemic transcriptions make use of phantom phonemes. This state of affairs should best be remedied by introducing approximate phonetic transcriptions in both IPA and pseudo-English for beginners in the ===Pronunciation=== section. But is a complicated topic which I do not really want to get into...

  Anyway, the reason why I ask all this is because I'm wondering whether it is possible to automatically generate those transcriptions for Ukrainian in Lua. It seams feasible apart from syllabification which is necessary to place stress. My guess is that syllabification alone is sufficiently complicated that it would be a waste of time. (As opposed to doing something more productive). There are 16k uk audio files on Commons of which majority are missing here, which is enough for now :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  I don't know how I feel about generating pronunciations in Lua. There will always be unexpected problems. About the schwa being a phoneme, you could easily say the same about Russian. Also, I'm not sure if Ukrainian has cases like this, but Russian has a few cases where the reduction goes in a different direction from what you would expect, which ends up being significant. For example, in но (no) (when unstressed) and пери́од (períod), the "о" reduces towards "у". And final "е" reduces to "и" only when it is etymologically a "ѣ" and otherwise reduces to "я", for example по́ле (póle) is pronounced /ˈpolʲə/ in the nominative and accusative, but /ˈpolʲɪ/ in the prepositional case (which used to be written по́лѣ (pólě)). Treating these as simply allophones of /o/ and /ʲe/ would make it difficult for us to convey such differences. But like I said, I am not sure whether this applies to Ukrainian. --WikiTiki89 21:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Listen to this beautiful song -Несе Галя воду. The pronunciation here is very standard (there are other good clips but with not quite standard accent),lyrics. One typo found: хорошая -> хороша. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The tune reminds me of some Bosnian sevdalinkas. I'm reading uk translation of Gita. I don't want to get too attached to pronunciation just now, because I don't want to hear the annoying "inner voice" which slows down reading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a nice song. The trouble is, as is often the case with music, that they are over-enunciating every syllable and so vowel reduction does not happen when it should. It would be nice to just find a speech sample. --WikiTiki89 23:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your link above recommended sports commentaries, so I found this one. --WikiTiki89 23:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Is підзе́мний pronounced as or , i.e. are дз and дж affricated at morpheme boundary or not? Official sources for standard Ukrainian always transcribe them as affricated, but some other sources explicitly state otherwise. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

  According to the source Anatoli gave above , it is . --WikiTiki89 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed. Prefixes are never merged with the stems, as far as I can tell. is definitely wrong. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I misread the source, it actually says it's , i.e. with syllable boundary preserved but with the first sound still affricated. Ukrainian scholarly transcription uses cursive Cyrillic with weird ligatures which got me confused. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think is wrong as well but it may be some regional or rare accent. I wouldn't use it, even if careless or fast pronunciation may produce it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think Ivan is right. I'm assuming his source is the one he linked to above and it looks like they know what they're talking about. --WikiTiki89 01:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think Ivan wasn't asserting but asking but you're right, the source looks convincing. Hey, Ivan, I should commend you on Ukrainian edits. You've grown a lot. Despite your interest, some of your old edits in Ukrainian looked amateurish (e.g. mixing translit) but now they are on a very professional level! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Good editors copy, great editors steal". I'll clean up the rest of the Ukrainian entries after I finish Ukrainian pronunciation generator. Yes my sources were the abovelinked book (which is shamelessly copied here), as well as the Українська літературна вимова і наголос (Київ, 1973). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's how programming works too (often). Using the resources available and make a new product, available to a wider group speaking English. No need to reinvent the wheel. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll add test cases later, feedback is welcome in the meantime. You can test it like this:

• зна́йте:
• два́дцять:
• безжа́лісний:
• сміє́шся:
• студе́нтський:

Ukrainian phonetic transcription in Cyrillic has several sounds between /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ which are not distinguished in unstressed position, but these do not map to IPA, so they are covered with . I'm not sure in which environments unstressed and should be preserved, because there are some examples where they are retained, such as the adjectival ending -ний which is always phonetically transcribed as . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's quite interesting, your module:)

IMO, Standard Ukrainian generally lacks reduction of vowels, so unstressed and are preserved but some speakers may show some reduction, especially in dialects. Audio recordings on Wikimedia may be helpful. Let's discuss if you find something that deviates from standard. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Audio recordings are not a good way to judge, as speakers tend to over-enunciate. You need to either listen to natural speech or read about it from linguists who've already done so. As I've said above, even the article that you yourself showed me says that unstressed /ɛ/ and /ɪ/ are merged by most speakers. --WikiTiki89 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I only expressed my opinion, thinking about a number of words in Ukrainian with unstressed "е". In my experience, it's pronounced the same way as the stressed one. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's accenteds a ру́си́н in Словник української мови . Which is a more compact way of writing "руси́н or ру́син" as the entry currently does. Is this a common practice for Ukrainian? Should we adopt it, or should there be separate inflections for differently accented words? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are different views on this. My preference is to display them separately руси́н or ру́син as I have done for Russian entries, including апостроф (ru and uk) but it's only my opinion. I think ру́си́н is ambiguous to users. You can ask opinion of others on this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Printed dictionaries do that for compactness. We don't need to be that compact and the explicit form is clearer. --WikiTiki89 02:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm OK for taking it out for a broader discussion. There are pros and cons. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/December#Rhymes categories again could benefit from your input. —CodeCat 18:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Are there some special cases? Can they have dual forms in singular for the masculine and feminine, or are they always the same for both sexes? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Surnames that look like adjectives: Павловський/Павловська, Russian surnames ending in -ов, -ин behave the same way in Ukrainian. They also have feminine forms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

So the typical Ukrainians ones ending in -ко and -чук don't change with gender? Are they also indeclinable? --WikiTiki89 19:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, they don't change with gender. They are indeclinable for women but declinable for men. (-ко surnames are indeclinable in Russian but declinable in Ukrainian.) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

So then they do behave differently depending on gender even though the nominative is the same. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'll need to double-check if feminine -ко surnames are indeclinable. The resources are limited. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed by Тимошенко articles. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's more of syntactic curiosity, that male patronymics are not inflected when modifying a female name. The same is valid in Serbo-Croatian (unless the surname derives from an adjective). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the gender from the words that are exactly the same but with a different gender? Now readers would think that they are two different words, not a gender variant. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I missed your question, since I had other questions on my page. Hi, it is a bad style to clutter a lot of info in related but additional terms. Gender, IPA, etymology, even meanings are better suited for dedicated entries. I encourage you to create more entries, it will take the same amount of typing. Besides, how can you put neutral gender of Arabic words, like ميرسى, which only have masculine and feminine? French too, has only two genders. Also, we agreed to use dotted yāʾ in the main entries, remember? So, it should be مرسي Or you prefer dotless on the Egyptian Arabic entries? We can copy this to "Arabic" above. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I've just edited Module:ja-headword and User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js to enable accelerated entry creation for romanizations. It should be used from the kana page, so for most entries, the kana entry needs to be created first. I think the kana pages could be accelerated a little bit, but of course the editor has to make at least a few additions before saving, such as the abbreviated definition(es) at the very least. Haplogy (話) 05:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's now working for me too, thanks:) I don't know how to enable it for other languages, though. I could use it for Mandarin Pinyin or Russian inflected forms. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to work on accelerating Mandarin Pinyin or Russian inflected forms although I might need help because I don't know very much about Mandarin or Russian. I just glanced at a Mandarin entry and the cmn-noun template and I think I could do the same thing for pinyin fairly easily. I think I could accelerate Russian inflected forms too. It requires two steps: first change the code that makes up the link to the desired form or romanization, and second add some code to User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js. I would enjoy working on it, assuming that the Mandarin and Russian editors would happy with that. Haplogy (話) 08:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Mandarin pinyin should be easier. Note that a pinyin term could link to multiple hanzi but additional links could be added manually later. Still, one line could link to one or two terms - one if both traditional and simplified forms are the same and two when they are different, traditional comes first. The first parameter can be t, s or ts - traditional, simplified or both. For t and s the pinyin should link terms from both tra= and sim=, for ts the entry itself, which is both simplified and traditional. biāozhǔn is an example of links to nouns with t and s (two links), biǎomíng is an example of a link to a verb with ts (one link). Does it make any sense? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining that. I think I understand the t, s, and ts parameter system. I'm thinking about how to make accelerated creation work with that, but AFAICT it would require misusing the available parameters, e.g. passing a simplified form in a parameter intended to hold a transliteration. The accelerated entry code can't pass very much information from the link to the Javascript that creates the entry. I'll think about this problem, but in the meantime I've added a limited pinyin entry acceleration code for verbs. It's only aware of the page it was called from, so the editor has to add the other form manually if it exists. I think it works e.g. at 作文. Haplogy (話) 00:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I see you created a pinyin entry for 作文 and I hope it worked correctly. I think I can make it support both simplified and traditional forms and I'm working on that now. Haplogy (話) 01:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Yes, I have tested on zuòwén and also tried using a verb in traditional but haven't saved. Good luck, I'm not sure I can help right now :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, I'm glad to help wherever possible. I think it works now for all three cases. Sending the other form (simplified when the entry is traditional and vice versa) as a "transliteration" seemed to work even though it's actually a hack. If there are no problems then the next step would be to enable it for other parts of speech, which should be easy. Haplogy (話) 01:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again. Please check proper nouns. 阿博特 generates something incorrect with "undefined" as the first parameter: ...{{pinyin reading of|undefined|阿博特}}. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uh oh. I think the problem is that the Javascript expects a traditional form when the first parameter in the entry is "s". I could edit the code so it can handle cases where there are none if that's a legitimate case. That is to say, 阿博特 is an "s" entry but there is no trad value provided--is that formatting correct? Are there entries in simplified script that do not have versions in traditional script or vice versa? Haplogy (話) 03:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oops, thank you. It was incorrect, should be "ts" :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'd be happy to start working on Russian inflected forms whenever it would be a good time. Two things need to be done for accelerated entry creation:

1. Add some code to the link to the page to be accelerated. It looks like that would be done at Module:ru-headword. It's actually very simple: it's just wrapping the link in a <span> tag which has a few values. In the case of Japanese, it was just replacing this line:

   table.insert(inflections, {"romaji", manual_rom or auto_rom})

   with this line:

   table.insert(inflections, {"romaji", "<span class=\"form-of romanized-form-of lang-ja\">]</span>"})

2. Add a section in User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js.

Haplogy (話) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you but I don't feel very confident yet. I'll study your suggestions and edits, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

They are feminine 99% of the time. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Анатолий. Можешь найти пример употребления в футболе "штрафного удара" в значении "одиннадцатиметровый удар"? Если нет, этот перевод нужно удалить, он вводит в заблуждение. --Vahag (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Вааг. Я с детства был знаком со словом, хотя не особенно интересовался футболом. Мой покойный отец всегда говорил "сейчас будут бить штрафной" или "штрафной удар" и я приходил смотреть. "Одинадцатиметровка", "одиннадцатиметровый удар" - конечно более точные термины. Пока у меня есть ссылка: штрафной удар. На Гугле посмотри картинки с "штрафной удар". В книгах еще не проверял. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я вижу, ты и сам нашел подтверждение. Спасибо :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Я уже не уверен настолько. direct free kick и penalty kick это разные вещи? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Да, разные. Direct free kick = штрафной удар бьют за пределами штрафной площади, между бьющим и вратарём стоят игроки. Обычно это опасно но не летально. Penalty kick = одиннадциметровый удар бьют с 11 метров, между вратарём и бьющим никого нет. Обычно это 99% гол.

Ты прав, что в регби penalty kick = штрафной удар. Но в футболе это не так, я тебя уверяю как знаток этого спорта :) См. также Lingvo. --Vahag (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Хорошо, убедил, измени, как считаешь нужным. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply