User talk:Bolt Escargot

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the warming welcome. I appreciate it. Bolt Escargot (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, what was the reason for moving this entry? If the only reason was that the term is usually capitalised, that's not enough: Aromanian isn't standardised as far as I know, and if the lower-case spelling is verifiable (see WT:ATTEST), the entry should stay, at least as a soft redirect. If you think the word doesn't exist in this spelling, you should send it to WT:RFVN. Thadh (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Aromanian isn't standardised as far as I know

1) Aromanian is standardised since 1997 in North Macedonia. Tiberius Cunia has created a dictionary of this standardised form and is uploaded online. http://dixionline.net/index.php

if the lower-case spelling is verifiable (see WT:ATTEST), the entry should stay, at least as a soft redirect

2) Yes, the other form exists as well. So, should it be kept as an alternative form?

Bolt Escargot (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, any attestable form should be kept as an alternative form, you can use {{alternative form of}} for that. As for standardisation, if you are planning on working more on Aromanian (which would be awesome!), you should create WT:About Aromanian and explain what orthography is prioritised and why (I guess Cunia's would be in that case). You can compare other similar pages for inspiration (WT:APL, WT:AIZH, WT:ARO...). Hope this helps and keep up the good work! Thadh (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

As for standardisation, if you are planning on working more on Aromanian (which would be awesome!)

Oh thank you good sir ! I am honoured by your kind words. Please, revert any harmful damage made by me. I will keep the rest as alternatives. Again, Thank you !

2) explain what orthography is prioritised and why (I guess Cunia's would be in that case)

Yes, Cunia's alphabet and orthography is the main one. Used very often. It is not the only one though, because Aromanian has many variants and alternative alphabets. Again, thank you ! Bolt Escargot (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just created Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(Aromanian) - hope that was OK :-) There's a Greek word for 'pencil' borrowed by Bulgarian, Albanian and apparently Aromanian, but there wasn't a place for me to put it.

Cheers,

Chernorizets (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Thank you so much! Very kind of you. Bolt Escargot (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello friend! I hope you're still there, I wanted to ask your opinion on something, given your personal experience with the language, and chat about an issue that has been bothering me for a while.

I agree with the choice to standardise at Cunia's standard, which seems has been accepted and used by the speakers of the language to a considerable degree. Following your example I have also been lemmatising words which end in /i/ at the spelling -i. However the more time passes the more I start I convince myself we should go with -e. It avoids the ambiguousness with the final non-syllabic palatising -i, and in many dialects it is still realised as . It the choice of lemmatisation for most pre-Cunia dictionaries (e.g. T. Papahagi) and Cunia himself gives the -e spelling variant for each -i word after a slash.

I was hesitant of starting to lemmatise at -e because I was worried about that not being the most common choice by Aromanian speakers, but as I am now learning about many individual dialects it seems only natural for a pan-dialectal unambiguous orthographic scheme to use -e in this context. I've been meaning to write up WT:Aromanian entry guidelines to contain the following text:

The orthography scheme of choice for lemmatisation and normalisations on Wiktionary is the standard drafted by Tiberius Cunia and employed in his dictionary Cunia (2010) among other works. It is preferred however for final syllabic /i/ (still in some dialects) to be spelt as -e to avoid confusion with non-syllabic -i and for better representation of all dialects.

What is your opinion, would it be too bold? Catonif (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)Reply