User talk:Bogorm/archive3

Auguſt-November 2008
December 2008-February 2009

Hello Bogorm You changed the Old Norse etymology in hals from hals to háls, which makes sense since it is the same in Icelandic. On the other hand my etymology dictionary says hals, as does ODS. What sources are you relying on in this?. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 08:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The dictionary of Vigfússon-Cleasby (here and the Zoëga dictionary here). ODS supporting hals is no doubt worrying, since both it and Guðbrandur Vigfússon are authoritative sources. There is one peculiarity, though: Vigfússon lists many quotations under háls, all supporting the long vowel, but he also mentions háls, prop. hals (bold by me), although none of the quotations includes hals. Do you have any idea what this tag prop. stands for? DW does not list the Old Norse cognate unfortunately. How can we solve this? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to this prop. means "proper", "properly". I don't know how to interpret that, though. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 10:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bogorm. I have been applying what we discussed in the beer parlour. --Chapultepec 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have any objections, we can discuss it here, thanks. --Chapultepec 13:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concern which you expressed about the similarity of Ottoman Turkish and modern Turkish, but in the case of English there are cases, where the English word is derived is from Old High German and then the appropriate template is {{etyl|goh}}, if it was borrowed in the Middle Ages, and when it is recent, it is written {{etyl|de}} - good examples are shyster, which is from modern times and etyl|de is justified and etyl|goh for feud, which is from OHG and where claiming derivation from modern German Fehde instead of the OHG would be inane. Why do you not use the {{etyl|tr}} template for words borrowed during the 20th century? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The matter is not the similarity, I tried to explain it in the beer parlour. Let me try to explain once again. Ottoman Turkish was the written variety used by the Ottoman high class for literary and administrative purposes only, but it was not the mainstream Turkish language. The mainstream language was ordinary Turkish used by the vast majority of the Ottoman Turkish population. The matter is that there was an effective diglossia between the two in the Ottoman era. Here is a source for verification. --Chapultepec 14:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand that about diglossia, there are many similar cases in history, exempli gratia when Ge'ez was the official language in Ethiopia prior to vernacular Amharic before the 19 century, or when Avestan was the mainstream religious language in the Sasanid Empire, when Middle Persian was the vernacular. And yet, we do not write next to every Avestan derivation from Middle Persian or next to every Ge'ez derivation from Amharic. The words came into the Balkan languages through the administrative language of high-ranking officials, id est through ota. And even if here can be any doubts whether it was from the administration or from the ordinary folks (which could hardly be true due to the severe religious segregation) in the Balkan languages, in the distant ones such as English, Russian... there can be no doubt about that. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, but it is hard for me to share the idea that the words came into the Balkan languages through the administrative language of high-ranking officials, for me vice versa, word loanings generally happen between the ordinary folks. And therefore dictionaries generally prefer to use the term Turkish instead of Ottoman Turkish for the etymologies of the related words. Otherwise, we should bring proof for the etymologies. --Chapultepec 14:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And, let us not forget, Ottoman high officials also had to prefer ordinary Turkish among the populace, otherwise it would have been hard for them to be understood. --Chapultepec 14:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I did not notice at first but I feel the necessity to add, I am not in the opinion that religious segregation can be an obstacle for word loanings between the folks. --Chapultepec 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I continued the topic at User talk:Dijan, I am curious about his opinion as well and why does he connive at the {{etyl|tr}} templates. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, let's go on there. --Chapultepec 14:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

genau!I love these words, and also like the corresponding/the wiki codethat contains them,. Very elegant and saves typing/dictating-- thank you!--史凡 11:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS I also learned about the long /short ss from your user page the other day-- so much time spent in Germany doing research, and nobody ever explained it to me. thanks again! Smiley--史凡 11:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I shall be helpful wherever I can. If you like, you can address me in German, I converse in that language much freelier than in English. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for supporting the Greek side concering Macedonia. I really appreciate your position. I think that FYROM distorts historical facts for nationalistic purposes. With greatest respect, --HIZUMI 07:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this distortion cannot elude any educated person on the Balcan peninsula. I think it is not only yours, but also our side/position to combat the claiming of our historical personalities - they not only deny the Greek origin of Alexander the Great, but also declare the first Bulgarian Empire under Samuil for theirs, this is outrageous, it affects and encroaches on our both countries. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, unfortunately, the Great powers wish to see the Balkan people divided. It is really shame to see all those orthodox brothers fight together. History do not change, and it is very bad that FYROM tries so much to falsify history. I respect the Bulgarians for what they are, and because they know to respect their history. I think being what you are, and being proud for what you are is the best way to be respected. There is no need to take the name and history of others. But unfortunately, one lie brings the other. This is what happened with FYROM. Because if you want to use a name, you must also use this name's history. And if you use that history, you must have evidence to do that. But since FYROM has no evidence, just keeps stealing and changing history. I think it is very strange because a country of Bulgarians(the real nationality of people of FYROM, uses serbian script (made after WWII),has a Greek name (Macedonia) and tries to steal both Greek (Alexander) and Bulgarian(Samuil) history. Securing historical truth is our responsibility not only towards our nations, but towards all people and peace. By the way is there any plan for the Bulgarian government to stop recognize FYROM as "Macedonia"?--HIZUMI 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also noticed that your oppenent in the discussion is a Croat. Croatia (namely Tito) was favouring a "Macedonian" state, because it was afraid it's possible absorption by the Serbs. (Most of FYROM was called "North Serbia" before called Vardarska). Thus, I do believe that a Croatian might favor a pro-FYROM position. Again, thank you for supporting Greece and history. I think I could not have the patient to do all this conversation, just for an etymology, while it is obvious that the whole Macedonian culture is Greek. Since Makedonia is written only in Greek, it is the best to the think that is a Greek word. No need to search more than this, I think.--HIZUMI 18:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hazumi-san, maybe your knowledge of far-eastern languages has blurred your knowledge of Greek. But nevermind me, I'm just a history-stealer. Any who, North Serbia is Vojvodina (which is near Hungary, but still), and Vardarska is actually short for Vardarska Banovina (as is Texas, instead of the State of Texas), one of the nine banovini (divisions, see them here on Wikimedia) of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (no matter what Liakos tells you every night), each named after the biggest/longest/widest river on its territory. Macedonia had Vardar flowing through it, thence the name Vardarska (just as the wind blowing in Greece is called, Vardaris), Serbia had Morava flowing through its territory, thence Moravska Banovina (maybe you and Liakos will start claiming that Serbia is actually called Moravska now?). As far as the Croats go, they are just not brain-washed (I can't say that for the rest of other Balkan people). Ask the Turks (which you both probably hate) what their history books say about Macedonia, and you just might get the picture who's brainwashed. But hey, they're not orthodox, let's hate them (and be as Greek as they get)! And a friendly advice　はずみ, please review your babel-boxes, seriously. Guitardemon666 00:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Guitardemon, my talk page (and anyone else's) is not meant as a place for contumelies and affronts against other users such as HIZUMI, who has never lost his temper with you (at least not here)! Please, refrain from Argumenta ad hominem, lest I lose mine. He has simply written North, when he thought of South, no need to scoff at him for that, I can also be distracted now and again! I have never said next to which country is still FYROM, so if you once again imply this peril to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Serbia, I shall alert the administrators for this political deviations and even negationism. Spare me thereof, so that I also desist from mentioning what I think of Republika Srpska and where it still is and other similar entities! Given the role the Hungarian yoke played in the history of the Slavic - Croatian and especially Slovak, people, I find your pro-Hungarian stance appalling. Nevertheless, let's stop with political issues here, ok (before I start quoting Ján Slota's thoughts about Hungary)? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just felt welcome to join the discussion. It's not stated anywhere that I can't talk to you, is it? Just as you are welcome to (and often do) edit my talk pages, so am I, unless...? BTW, near Hungary means near Hungary, not in Hungary. So if you would like, you could look it up, and see what it means. I've never had any doubt about Serbia's integrity and its borders. As far as FYROM goes, check www.mfa.bg, or this page. Guitardemon666 13:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome to address me as long as you do not launch affronts against other editors such as they are just not brain-washed (I can't say that for the rest of other Balkan people) - have ever said on your talk page here or on mk wiki editor x is brainwashed or the population of this and this country is brainwashed as you just did?

Furthermore: Ask the Turks what their history books ... - if I am to ask Turkish history books, it would turn out that they have simply a invited the Armenians to a journey in 1915-17, which would be a blatant, impertinent and impudent negation of the atrocious, bloodthirsty slaughterings of 1 million Armenians, 500 000 Suryoyos, 300 000-1 000 000 Pontian Greeks in the years 1915-20 (not to speak about 100 000 slaughtered Bulgarians in 1876 or about the years 1688. 1686, 1598, when there were no Russian observers such as the venerable Grafs Ceretelli and Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatiev to depict a picture of the casualties). As Turkish history books are responsible for the massive brainwashing denial of three consternating genocides, these are the last history books I (and probably every Greek, Armenian or Suryoyo) would open. If you have forsooth run out of other arguments besides Turkish history books, this only illustrates how untenable your POV is. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well consulting Greek or Bulgarian books would be POV because you (two) are Greek and Bulgarian. What would be neutral here is Turkish, Chinese or Spanish books, the latter of which I am not so familiar of, unfortunately. Anyhow, Bulgarian history books state that Macedonians are of Bulgarian origin, and you still stick to what they say. Why should I do any different regarding my history books, or the Turkish books? Anyway you see it, I think I seriously need to stop talking to you, because trolling is just not my thing. Guitardemon666 16:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Turkish history books can't be neutral in any way soever about the history of the Balkan pæninsula! One history professor of ours recounted that while he was visiting Turkey, he proposed a common archive of Ottoman documents (which would facilitate the research into the Turkish yoke over the Orthodox people on the Balkan pæninsula) the Turk responded like you were by us and you are going to return - you see how impudent even Turkish "intellectuals" are? Germany had had its Denazification for one single genocide, but they committed three gonocides in only 5 years and overtly refuse to admit that, nothing which is reminiscent of Denazification. And you try to repræsent that as neutral? As neutral as Julius Streicher's periodical! The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Guitardemon666,first of all my name is HIZUMI and not Hazumi. Also, this is a private talk, so I do not wish you to interfere in my discussion here, especially with comments I found rude. If you want to talk with me, use my discussion page.Yes, I did make a mistake, it was South Serbia not North Serbia.--HIZUMI 20:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see this video in Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOLrDpZaqls It is a statement of former FYROM political, Gligorov, saying the truth. Namely, from second 0:16 to 0:29. (I am translating the Greek subtitles just tell me if there is an error) "We are Slavs. We do not have any relationship with Alexander the Great. We came in this area in 6th Century A.D. "--HIZUMI 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the translations is nearly flawless... Just one remark: Instead of We do not have any relationship with Alexander the Great. more appropriate would be: We do not have any relationship with Alexander's civilisation. Thank you for the nice video, it is always cheerful to see that there are also conscious people in the Republic of Skopie. Regards. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. Indeed I also heard the word "civilization" in Gligorov's speech.By the way even though Gligorov stated this, FYROM state continued to use the Vergina Star(Sun) flag at his time. As you can see, FYROM politicians usually use double standards, changing their policy when they are out of FYROM. For instance, even though FYROM officially claims no Greek territory, many FYROM citizens believe that Greek Macedonia (and also Bulgarian Macedonia) is part of their country, so I do believe that the FYROM state uses anti-Greek and anti-Bulgarian propaganda, but just refuses to say that internationally, in order to make other countries relax about this problem. There are so many many flags of the "Greater Macedonia" in FYROM, along with the Vergina Sun flag. FYROM should be not so greedy, because if it keeps claiming both Greek and Bulgarian history, it is obvious that their position will be very ridiculous. While they claim many Bulgarians heroes, they also claim Greek heroes. Even a kid can understand that it is impossible to claim "Macedonians" Bulgarians (slavic population) and also Alexander the Great, because at that time of Alexander there was no Slavic population in Macedonia. By the way they also claim Mother Teresa as Macedonian, even though she was Albanian. Who knows, perhaps in the future they may also claim that Genghis Khan was a "Macedonian".--HIZUMI 08:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

All you said is exactly so, friend. They even were reprimanded by the European Commission for using this language of hatred towards their neighbours. One Bulgarian MEP told that he was initially incapable of convincing some liberals in the European parliament to pass a resolution demanding more tolerant speech from their rabid politicians and one (pro-FYROM) liberal was going to vote against it, but when he gave an interview for a Skopian radio the liberal called the Bulgarian MEP and told him that after hearing the way the Macedonists address their Bulgarian and Greek neighbours, he immediately decided to change his mind and support the scathing resolution... They are really rabid, but hopefully this will change. Regards The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you don't think maneuver is a word, why not RFD it? Equinox ◑ 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, there was already the transition œ->e as in cœlestial->celestial, but the spelling evre for œuvre is not acceptable, is it? So, I am perplexed and I can not determine what exactly has happened to this word's spelling. But I shall adhere to manœuvre or manoeuvre, if you do not mind. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

By all means spell things how you'd like to. I just feel that it's rather disingenuous to tell a non-native speaker that a common alternative spelling is not "correct" just because it doesn't have a perfectly pure etymology. Despite your efforts to remain true to Latin roots, I'm sure you still use many, many English words that have become corrupted from their original forms. Equinox ◑ 20:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Equinox, I am really flabbergasted by your support for the US spelling. You have written on your user page that your mother tongue is British English (where the appropriate spelling is manoeuvre) and I was going to support you for admin in order that British English can be better repræsented on Wiktionary, but this reaction of yours has taken me aback (of course the spelling is inappropriate in the Commonwealth, otherwise on maneuver there would not stay Template:US, if you are completely sure that it is appropriate in the Commonwealth, remove this tag and let readers know that it is used in the whole English-speaking world and is not a regional spelling, as currently designated). I still intend to support native speakers of British English for this position who are willing to defend this spelling as it behoves them. Exempli gratia I am Bulgarian from Bulgaria and do not write with the spelling of the Bulgarians from FYROM, even though I am familiar with it and can read it. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I muſt ſay ðat I agree mightily wiþ Bogorm in ðiſ matter. When I caſt my lot in ſupport of your adminſhip, I was under ðe impreſſion ðat you would work towardſ upholding ðe etymological purity of true Engliſh. I underſtand ðat you are, in fact, a native ſpeaker of Britiſh Engliſh. As ſuch, I would have exspected better from you in ðe following regard (for ſurpriſingly, it ſeemſ even Bogorm, who iſ a native ſpeaker of Bulgarian and not Engliſh at all, haſ indeed a better command of our language ðan have you): I could reluctantly admit ðe dubiouſ ſubſtitution in ðat aforemæntioned word of e for œ, aſ it iſ atteſted in many modern <ſ>British</ſ> Engliſh wordſ (aſ Bogorm haſ already condeſcended to mention to you), but to allow, of all metaþeſeiſ, ſuch a ſorry ſpecimen aſ er for re would be too much indulgence. Verily, my dear chap, to ſee you repent of ðiſ grievouſ offenſe againſt our moðer tongue, in addition to tranſmogrifying my opinion of your competency in ðe office of ſyſtemſ operator, would make me moſt gay. Atelaeſ λάλει ἐμοί 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes, deriding my linguiſtic capabilities and propenſities could hardly prove to be of any avail ſoever. Let us bide Æquinoctis reſponſe, ok? Beſides, in this nice Wikipedia article it is explicated that ſ can by no means be placed at the end of the word. It is ſooth that I have an innermoſt prædilection for Britiſh/Commonwealth/Euraſian Engliſh, but I am alſo deeply intereſted in Engliſh literature and etymology, so methought that I am entitled to have a ſay. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, my native language is British English, but that doesn't mean I can't also edit and create entries for American English, and it certainly doesn't mean I can claim that American English isn't a valid variant of English. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

With all respect, and even though my written English is amateurish compared with what's above, I must say this discussion is childish. --Eivind (t) 12:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It might be best if you stick to languages you know. The last three times you've tried to assist in Latin, you've made a mess of things. (1) There are two verbs spelled vado in Latin, and the one that was requested did not have an entry. You therefore struck out a request that had not yet been met. (2) The lemma for Latin verbs is the first principal part, so verb form entries like vāde point to that form, and not to the present active infinitive form. (3) There is a word commodum in Latin (in fact there are two). You should not have altered another person's request simply because you were not familiar with the requested term. As it says at the top of the Request page "Don’t simply replace words with what you believe is the correct form. The form here may be rare or regional. Instead add the standard form and comment that the requested form seems to be an error in your experience."

Frankly, if you continue to make a mess in languages where you are less than skilled, it is easier to block than to continue to clean up after you. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have already answered on the Requæsts page, but I shall repeat myself here concerning vado, vadere and commodum.

1) the person demanding the verb has clearly written that he seeks a verb meaning I go and of the two (with both of which I am familiar) only vado, vadere means I go and I recommended he take a look at vadere, where the definition there was.

2) You claimed that I did not know that the lemma demands definitions to be at 1st person præsent. If you really had bothered to check mine edits before commenting on them, you would have remarked that I wrote: It would be good to move vadere to vado per Wiktionary:About Latin. This only lays bare how mendacious your accusation against me was.

3) commodus-commodum. Carolina wren who requæsted the entry has clearly stated that she wants a word identical to Catalan còmode which is an adjective and not an adverb and means comfortable. Take a look at còmode#Etymology (cf. cómodo#Etymology, where the etymology is ok and I have not edited any of these two entries) and if you still think that it is not necessary to fix it and that a Catalan adjective meaning comfortable can be derived from a Latin adverb meaning betimes then that would raise suspicions about your competence in Latin. (And don't tell me I am not familiar with the noun commodum or the 1st person neuter of commodus, claiming derivation of a Catalan adjective from any of them would be inane). After such scathing and unfounded reprehension of yours without scrutinising what the person who stated the requæst is looking for I am unwilling to fix cómodo. If you are willing to intimidate me from contributing to Latin entries, you really did not have to say it explicitly, as ~I have not foreseen expansion of the Latin entries in mine occupation here, although I am more than sufficiently familiar with the language.

4) Furthermore, when I pointed out here your error in claiming some imaginary Latin verb silio, you did not even deign to respond and now when you are accusing me of messing something up, when in fact I simply navigated the two editors to what they are looking for, as you can read, I do not shun from responding. Threatening me of blocking on top of this is... (well, I shall keep my adjective for myself, as I and the civility condemn argumenta ad hominem)

5) There is a word commodum in Latin in fact there are two - no, in fact there are three - neuter from commodus, an adverb meaning betimes and a noun meaning comfort. Nowhere did I quæstion the existence of commodum, this is simply not the word Carolina wren was looking for. Any of us can ask her, if you have any doubts. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

)1 If you had bothered to look at the Spanish lemma vadear, you would have seen that "go" is not the meaning of this Spanish verb. You would have also seen that the Spanish verb ended in -ar, which is more often an indication of a descent from a first-conjugation verb. You noticed only one of the errors in the request, and assumed you knew how to correct it, without doing any real checking into the request. Rather, you merely made an inccorrect assumption based on a little (incorrect) information presented there. --EncycloPetey 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

2) If you know the lemma is the first principal part, then use that knowledge. Instead, you lectured someone on that fact, and then proceded immediately to make precicely the same error you had lectured others on. It is evidence that you either aren't knowledgable in Latin, or really don't know what you're doing.

3) Read it again: "Don’t simply replace words with what you believe is the correct form. The form here may be rare or regional. Instead add the standard form and comment that the requested form seems to be an error in your experience." This statement is on the requests page. If you disagree with it, then start a WT:BP discussion to remove it. Don't simply ignore it asnd plow on as if you are justified in spite of this very plainly-worded instruction.

4) You've pointed out one error I made. Great. We got that fixed. The difference there is that I simply accepted the error, and did not argue that I had been in the right. In this instance, you've persisted in arguing in favor of the errors you've made.

5) Don't argue semantics. In my comment, I was referring to two lemmata commodum. I am aware of the adjective form. If you persist in arguing in support of your errors and ignoring policies and community consensus, then you have no place on Wiktionary. This isn't the first time you've caused problems. We don't have time to repeatedly point out your many errors to you, particularly if you refuse to learn or adapt and choose instead to hold fast to a position of error. --EncycloPetey 13:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

1) I bothered to see the Romance language æquivalent there where the requæsted meaning was not mentioned, as in Carolina's requæst(commodum) and where a clear-cut relation is at hand. Where Doremítzwr unambiguously stated that he is interested in the Latin verb meaning I go, this means that he does not bother about the Spanish verb meaning to wade, he simply mentions it without any explicit relation to the Latin verb which he requæsted (and which was not vado, vadare). If you had read one line below, he in the same way merely mentions in the same wise the existence of some Turkish word on vade and I sincerely hope that you would not claim that he is searching for some Latin vade, which would have anything in common with the Turkish vade, as you just implied about Spanish vadear which is unrelated to the requæst for vado, vadere which he made. Both the Spanish and the Turkish words are mentioned as a reason for that's why the link is blue instead of red, there is something. What this something is, can hardly be of any avail.

2) Se peritiorem linguae Latinae quam vos puto, illudque in mea pagina usoris exponam. Praeterea meam linguam natalem bene cognoscens lapsus veluti preciCely evitare queo.

3) as for replacing commodum with commodus, I simply navigated Carolina to what she was seeking. The source of her Catalan adjective còmode can be neither the adverb commodum, nor the noun. And you know better than me what the lemma for adjectives is and that in an etymology section it would be inadmissible to claim derivation from a non-lemma form as a rule.

4) the errors you've made - so what errors did I make? lead Carolina to the Latin adjective whence the Catalan one derived? Provided a link for Doremítzwr to the Latin verb meaning I go, as he clearly stated he was looking for? If you really want to state as a policy on top of the requæested entries don't assist users in their requæsts if you are not an administrator, you are free to initiate a discussion on WT:BP.

5) If you were referring to the two lemmata, then great, they are two, not three, and out of those two none can be the source for the Catalan còmode, which Carolina requæsted. Which only proves one more accusation to be unfounded. (the only thing whence còmode can be derived is commodus - the only remaining possibility). This isn't the first time you've caused problems. - so pointing out to the users what they are looking for is a problem? Any policy in support of such claim of yours? During mine activity here I have been assisted by administrators assuming good faith and have confidence in them and was impeded, hampered and scoffed at by others. I know very well the condescending stance which you and Atelaes have shown to me and your willingness to repel me from this project. Mine opinion is that exactly this kind of patronising comportment has repelled numerous editors from Wiktionary and I endured already enough. If you show me what problem I have caused and what error I have committed (in this case: if commodus should not be the lemma for the Latin adjective or whether vado, vadere does not mean to go in Latin), then I shall repent/apologise. Otherwise, if a clear-cut explication of the problem/error is not given, I shall consider the above obscurely stated accusations unfounded. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

3), 4), 5) To put it plainly: this was one your most serious deliberate error. You altered another person's request. The top of the requests page instructs users not to do this. Such an action is tantamout to altering another person's comments. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

EncycloPetey, I am well aware of the inadmissibility of altering others' comments, and if and only if changing the requæsted entry is tantamount to changing a comment (which would surprise me, since they are usually not signed), then I would admit my fault. Regardless of whether this is your stance or a written policy (altering requæst æquals altering comments), I shall henceforth not alter others' requæsts, but rather comment beneath the requæst, if I doubt that the requæst is exprest meetly. I hope you will not object to this, since requæsting vadeo soothly needed rectification and your admonition not to strike this non-existent entry still takes me aback. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huiscemodi conviciis (quibus me imperitum linguae Latinae existimatis) erga me videlicet me laedere appetitis, eaque quolibet et in unumquemque vulgare valde iniuriosum ostenditur. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

FWIW E.P., I did not mind any of Bogorm’s alterations of my requæsts; he interpreted correctly what I was looking for, and corrected my error. Nevertheless Bogorm, it is best to give corrections as comments underneath requæsts in future — others may mind. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bogorm,

I hope you don't mind, I removed your comment at Wiktionary:Tea room#dóttir in this edit, because I fixed the comment you were replying to, and the result made your comment look stupid (not your fault).

If you do mind, feel free to re-add it.

Thanks,
—Ruakh_TALK 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

O, surely, I read the comment of Pharamp from the non-edit mode and I did not notice that he had explicitly named the category, but omitted the column. Now, it seems ok. But dóttir still has no declension and I do not know how one could succour the user... (and the entry), especially when he has already waded through all these 145 templates unsuccessfully. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you state your sources for this splitting of etymology of hale? Firstly there is no Old Norse noun meaning health, the Old Norse noun means only omen. Then Vigfússon and “hale”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC. explain the Old Norse origin of both the English adj. and noun. If this northern English claim stems from OED, meseems that it would be good if we mention both versions, yours and Webster's. But before that would you clarify from which Old Norse word you claim the descendance of hale#Noun? (I am asking only about the noun and adjective, not the verb) The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• You're right, I was apparently getting confused; the source for the noun is Old English and not Old Norse. In fact the OED has citations for both going back to the 11th century. They are both northern forms though, so probably were influenced in some way by whatever forms of early Danish were being spoken nearby. However, they are definitely different words (though ultimately from the same proto-Germanic origin). Ƿidsiþ 19:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Widsith, you misunderstood me - I am contesting the Old English origin of the adjective. If you are sure that the noun is not derived from the adjective(contrary to “hale”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC.), then well, but let us focus on the adjective, ok? If you claim Old English origin for it, it would be advisable to provide sources, as I already have for the Old Norse origin. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Look, (deprecated template usage) hāl is a very common word in OE. From Genesis, ‘Iosep axode hwæðer hira fæder wære hal’; from Beowulf, ‘Higelace wæs sið Beowulfes snude gecyðed, þæt ðær on worðig wigendra hleo, lindgestealla, lifigende cwom, heaðolaces hal to hofe gongan.’ It developed in two ways in modern English. In the south, the vowel changed as expected and it became (deprecated template usage) whole. In the north – probably influenced by the Old Norse dialects spoken round about – it did not change quite so much, and became (deprecated template usage) hale. There is clear evidence in the citation history at the OED that it has been used continuously in English from the earliest times. The ON was probably an influence on the northern forms, but the word already existed. Ƿidsiþ 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  I understand your point. Probably it has something to do with the fact that MW admits a partial origin from OE. But as partial as from Old Norse. The other two sources do not mention OE and Vigfússon is an illustrious scholar in the realm of Germanic languages. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  It is also vital to mention that the word was spelt heil (“hale”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC.), which suggests the opposite version. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Aha, all right I think I see where the confusion is now. The word which was spelt heil is different. That is the word which we have at hail#Etymology 3, and it does indeed come from Old Norse. But it was never spelled hale. In northern Middle English, there were therefore two ‘doublet’ words of the same meaning. The first can be seen in quotes like ‘Al heil and sund’ (from a 13th-century bestiary), or ‘He es bath hail and fere’ (from the turn of the 14th century) – this was from ON, and was later spelt hail (now obsolete). It was pronounced with a diphthong. Alongside that was the word seen in quotes such as, ‘Godess follc all hal & sund Comm to lande’ (from c. 1200), or ‘It kepez þe lymmes of a man hale’ (from Mandeville) – this was from OE and is now spelt hale. It was pronounced with a long central vowel. Both words meant the same thing and only the second survived (and even that's no longer common).
• The situation is confused slightly by the fact that the second (OE) form was sometimes also spelt hail. The OED says the following: ‘In Scotch from 15th c., long Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "Latinx" is not valid. See WT:LOS. was spelt ay, ai; hence, the later Sc. forms hayl, hail, haill, for earlier hale, OE. hál, must be distinguished from original north Eng. HAIL, in same sense, derived from Norse heill.’ I think that gets to the root of the confusion we have been discussing.
• In conclusion. ON (deprecated template usage) heill > E (deprecated template usage) hail. OE (deprecated template usage) hal > E (deprecated template usage) whole, (deprecated template usage) hale.
• I don't know what to say about Webster's except that it seems they got it wrong; it's an old source. If you look in modern works (OED 1993, Shorter OED 2002, Ayto's Dictionary of Word Origins from 1990, Etymology Online), they all give OE as the root of (deprecated template usage) hale. Ƿidsiþ 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  What you quoted from OED (OE. hál, must be distinguished from original north Eng. HAIL, in same sense, derived from Norse heill) is a direct contradiction to what Guðbrandur Vigfússon explicitly and unambiguously explained in his Icelandic-English dictionary (hale#References) and has severely damaged the authority of this dictionary in mine eyes. You accuse Webster 1913 of suggesting amiss, but if you look again at MW online, it is clear that they præferred to assume a moderate position of partly from OE, partly from ON. Well, after you quoted OED, you may get rid of the Template:rfv-etymology, but I am convinced that both positions need to be repræsented and that OED is not Sacra Scriptura and personally embrace Guðbrandur Vigfússon's claim of Old Norse origin for both hale and heil. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Vigfússon's dictionary is well over a hundred years old – no matter how brilliant he was, our understanding of word histories has improved vastly since then. The fact is that it has been superceded. However, I'm very happy to include Webster's ideas on the matter (even though the evidence seems very much against them..). Ƿidsiþ 09:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  Well, I do not object against the format you went for, but why did you remove the three references? Some inquisitive users may wish to trace back the etymology and immerse themselves in those authoritative sources and you bereft them of this possibility. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Perhaps the Talk Page would be a better repository for that. We should probably copy this conversation there as well. Ƿidsiþ 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You added the last word to this definition. What is it supposed to mean?

• The situation of a person or persons, particularly their social and/or economic class, rank

Is it a synonym, i.e. did you mean to use a semicolon? Did you mean to say "class or rank"? Please clarify. DAVilla 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I intended it as a synonym based on condition in An American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828., 5th sense. It pretty well corresponded to Carlyle's quotation on Citations:condition. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just added romanization for the Kurdish translation of parliament. At the time when I first added the translation I was unaware of the romanization template. Cheers! Gbeebani 21:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is the correct indefinite plural "højttaler", as the inflection line says, or "højttalere", as the declension box says? — opiaterein — 20:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it is højttalere, because the indef. plural of taler is also talere and there is no reason for a deviation in any compound. But you could also ask Leolaursen to ascertain it, he is a native speaker. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Bogorm. We need an Appendix:Bulgarian transliteration. Now, I'm inclined toward Andreychin system from the systems of w:Romanization of Bulgarian. Or at least ISO 9. What do you think? --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Vahagn. Yes, I am a supporter of the Andrejčin system and I was convinced by a literate French Wikipedian living in Bulgaria - here he compared the UN(Andrejčin) and the simplified Anglicisation which is gaining momentum (in case you are interested and familiar with French). Akademician Ljubomir Andrejčin was one of the most outstanding Bulgarian linguists. I shall figure something out, after I finish expanding Appendix:List of Balkanisms. I added there a noun for rose coming from Persian - gul. Is there in Armenian a similar Persian loanword for rose? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I created the appendix. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Let's stick to that transliteration system henceforth. As concerns Persian gul, the Armenian has not borrowed it but kept Middle Iranian վարդ (vard), which is related to gul, as far as I know. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Здраво, Dijan. У српскохрватскоj граматици, коjу читам сада (В. П. Гудков, Москва, 1969, Грамматика сербохорватского языка), ова реч jе означена као диал., али ти ниси ставио Template:dialectal. Дали се jе променило нешто за 40 год. и реч jе ушла у (has entered) књижевни jезик? Да ли волиш да ти jа пишем на латиници или ћирилици убудућe? Whenever you behold some errors, I permit you to alter my comments in Serbo-Croatian(I am learning). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo. Riječ kasaba se koristi u srpskom književnom jeziku a i u govornom, a tako i u bosanskom. Ne bih rekao da je dijalektalna riječ jer se koristi i piše širom od Kosova do Bosne, ali nisam siguran da li ona i postoji u hrvatskom jeziku. Skokov rječnik navodi da se koristi u Vukovoj literaturi i u Bosni. Možeš da mi pišeš ili latinicom ili ćirilicom. Nije bitno :D --Dijan 19:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello,
The romanization used in Wiktionary is based on the Kurmanji Kurdish, which is also the proposed standard form in Iraqi Kurdistan where the main dialect is the Sorani dialect. The transliteration used in Wiktionary can be found on appendix: Kurdish transliteration, and to the best of my knowledge this is the same as the proposed standard romanization. Apparently, the source you provided uses a different transliteration, possibly an old standard. Or, there may exist some regional variations in the pronunciation of the word, hence the different spelling. I went ahead and changed it to gelú since I found this reference from Harvard University.
According to the Harvard reference, there are many words for throat in Kurdish. For instance, the bottom of the throat can be called Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "ku" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. But the throat itself can be called Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "ku" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. The alternative Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "ku" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is also used, but it is less common. Another common word is Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "ku" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., or sometimes spelled (qirik) by Kurmanji speaking Kurds.
Cheers! Gbeebani 05:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm pretty sure that the Italian word curtis must come from Latin, but the Latin adjective you added doesn't seem to have any bearing. You can see some uses of the word in w:it:Corte (storia) (and also the derivative curtense). Any ideas? SemperBlotto 12:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The corresponding French word is cour and in my Le Robert pour tous in the etymology section is written: bas latin curtis, de cohors (Low Latin curtis, from cohors. but they did not quote the meaning of that LL curtis) and I am pretty sure that the Italian word has the same origin (Low Latin). However, I do not know whether we have Low Latin entries (and if yes, how are they going to be attested? Who wrote in Low Latin?), but it seems that cohors is the ultimate root. It seems there is no Category:Low Latin language or, as it is also known, Category:Vulgar Latin language. Given that we do not know the meaning of this LL/VL curtis, I do not think it deserves its own entry. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thank you very much for your help =) Best wishes, Sinek 11:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

good morning

• I worked on this word and it seems to me that you can relate it to floccus ( same sense in latin) and flectus( curved)
• I noticed the folllowing variations :
• sectus ( cut) =>soccus( cut shoe, English sock)
• jectus( thrown)==>iocus( joke)joker
• flectus( curved) ==>floccus== >flake
• fictus( false, moulded)==>fake
• lectus( chosen, bed)==>?lake, locus( place)We should see if this word comes from french "lac" or an anglo-saxon origin.
• rectus( right) ==>rake( right tool to return the earth)
• coctus( cooked) ==>coquus( cooker) engliish cake
• tectus( protected, laid) ==>take
• vectus( transported) ==>wake
• sanctus( holy) ==>sake( in the expression for heaven's sake)
• and perhaps mactus( especially vocative macte)( honoured, sanctified) ==>make???

Does it suit you ? --Mark Mage 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Salut, Mark. Quoique je trouve certaines assertions de celles-là intéressantes (surtout l'originede virgo, virginis: de vir et gynos), quelqu'un a déjà dit qu'elles doivent être publiées quelque part pour être acceptées ici comme valables (ce qu'on appelle attestable en anglais). Votre espace d'utilisateur (c'est à dire toutes les pages dont le commancement est User:Mark Mage/...) peut les contenir mais vous mécontenteriez beaucoup de gens (et d'administrateurs) si vous les ajoutiez dans l'espace principal. Quand même, mes salutations pour votre recherche et pour vos réflexions si captivantes et fécondes. Et puis, n'oubliez pas Chateaubriand: les grandes passions sont solitaires... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Privet! I remember you, Ivan and others disputed about whether we should use Serbo-Croatian or Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian here, but I don't remember how it all ended. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in reflecting our current consensus at Wiktionary:Language names. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It ended with Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian. You may also be interested in the discussion there. It is simply dissipation of resources to deal with three languages instead of one, when more than 95% of the words are common. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for apprising me of that page, I rectified it. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was simply a clicking mistake. --B. Jankuloski 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply