User talk:Bytekast

Hello. Why do you think the original meaning is "feces"? I find it hard to believe the sense development from it. Also, we do not reconstruct "Proto-Armenian". Vahagn (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vahagn Greetings! I simply expanded upon the etymology that had already been present there, which derived the headword ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰed- (“to defecate”). I knew of the PIE suffix *-os, the origin of Latin -us and Greek -ος (-os), and thence I deduced the PIE word *ǵʰedos. In the PIE suffix entry, you can see that *-os "creates result nouns from verbs", therefore the result (*-os) of to defecate (*ghed) being feces.

Then I checked one of the sources used in the headword, Martirosyan's Etymological Dictionary, in which it is said (pdf) on page 432 (PDF's 446) that ձետ is indeed often derived from *ǵʰedos (a noun, just like ձետ).

Well, the sense development makes sense to me: feces come from the rump (ձետ's Proto-Armenian meaning); the tail is on the rump too, but outside, and both are behind the animal; therefore, thought Ancient Armenians, rump = tail. Can you see it there? I think it would be nonsensical and unbelievable if it had been, say, feces > neck > ball. The historical attested and unattested meanings do have obvious connections to each other, notwithstanding their location — the rear of the animal.

We do not reconstruct Proto-Armenian? Why? Is there not enough linguistic research on it? Or not many Armenians here to contribute? I say you are wrong at that: we do have quite a few reconstructions (see ըմպեմ from *en-(h)ipe-, անուն from *anuwn, and others at Category:Old_Armenian_terms_inherited_from_Proto-Armenian). We may not have yet a Reconstruction-namespace page dedicated to it like other Proto-languages have, but that doesn't mean we cannot show unattested P.A. words in the etymology sections; we should, including for ձետ.

Thank you for your comment and for reading my reply.

ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For why we don't reconstruct "Proto-Armenian", see User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan/Archive_8#Proto-Armenian_case_endings. Vahag (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. So it's rather like "Proto-Norse", which is also a blurry intermediate stage between proto- and old-language forms (Germanic and Norse in this case), and has likewise no 'Reconstruction:' page (Old Norse entries suffice). Alright! Anyhow, I hope someone finds the P.A. term for rump one day and puts it in ձետ's Etymology. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wes hal! Thank you for your work on Wiktionary. I have reversed a few edits on Old English pages that you have made, mostly because the translations you added were very archaic. Archaic English is beautiful, but as a standard we only use idiomatic Modern English translations for quotes here. At the end of the day, the top priority with the translations has to be the understanding of the average person, who is unfamiliar with archaisms like "allwhither" or "kithe". Have a nice day! Byrhtnoð (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll add that if you'd like to discuss this with other regular Old English Wiktionary editors, feel free to join us on Discord at https://discord.gg/englisc-discord-283438110006706178 Byrhtnoð (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hallo! I understand, though I lament the state Modern English is in (it'd be so nice if whither, thither, hither, hence, whom etc. were in common usage like their cognates are in, say, German... it'd be nice if English were like German at all).

I will refrain from using obsolete words/reflexes in my translations, but (common) archaic ones? Like thou and ye, hither and forms like knowest thou (at least it's not canst thou!)? Which are used in famed works like the Bible, and still in poetry at times? I find it not as necessary to cease it in that case. Old English is ancient, so I think the translative language should reflect that, to the most understandable extent, not overdoing it of course. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you really think the average person would ever look an Englisċ word up? Maybe, but surely most don't. I'd say the majority of the viewers of those pages are college students in an Old English course, or language/literature nerds of some kind. I would even say that an average person would use major dicts like Merriam-Webster and OED, maybe Dictionary.com too, but not Wiktionary, for it does not yet have the glory and fame over its own kind that Wikipedia has, much less its renown among the populace. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I understand that this is how you feel, and I relate to your desires, but we need to do things here *una* and as it is the standard is idiomatic Modern English translations. Educational/reference tools like Wiktionary need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. We shouldn't unnecessarily add to the amount of cogitation going on in a learner's head.

Even if this weren't the case, at the end of the day we need to avoid archaisms in Wiktionary for the same reason that doctors avoid using archaisms in medical papers and lawyers avoid using archaisms in legal documents. It's just unprofessional. Byrhtnoð (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Unity! Consistency! I already pay attention to those elsewhere (like when organizing a Pronunciation section), so it follows that I should do so also in my translations. I shall focus on more relevant aspects when editing OE entries.

Now, doctors and lawyers... yes, and also their job is not to increase and ensure comprehension of the language, like ours is. Using archaisms would just bulken up their writing and make their argot even more arcane to the lay. So I must agree with you and add that it would be even worse than unprofessional in our case. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Archaism, and especially use of obsolete terms, regardless of whether you link to pages defining them, actively inhibits general understanding, rather than promoting it as you have claimed. Old English may be ancient now, but it was not when it was written, and using deliberately archaic grammar and lexicon does not actually reflect how Old English would have felt to contemporaries.

@Theknightwho, you have reverted some of this users edits to Old English quote translations, would you care to comment on this? Yeldred Gengo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed as well. The target audience of the English Wiktionary is speakers of present-day English, not 16th-century Early Modern English speakers. Wiktionary and its sister projects are also designed for widespread appeal, so I don't think we should be making assumptions about who is more likely to view any given entries on here, beyond the fact that they understand modern-day English to some degree. I don't know if you're involved or interested in something like the Anglish movement, but if you are, keep in mind that Wiktionary is not a soapbox for promoting things like that.

Using mild archaisms like "thee", "thou", and "thy" isn't the end of the world, since those are still well understood in modern-day pop culture, but I don't see a valid reason to use it over 21st century vocabulary unless there's really no other option. TheSaltyBrushtail (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not really involved in Anglish, since I do not produce written content for it, but I am definitely interested in it, its purpose and the possibilities it presents.

English is a Germanic language (or Theodish tongue) that had been much disrespected and massacred in the yearhundreds following 1066, its spelling, staffcraft and wordstock (grammar & vocab) damaged beyond recognition; no language or culture should ever go through that, and it's so saddening, plus it wasn't natural at all — it was caused by hateful invaders, not by the folk itself.

Anyway, let us not moot that: there is naught we can do about it; it is a lost battle, as was the one at Hastings, and so has it been for centuries. I can only behold and bethink it. Don't worry about it. Honestly, some of my first edits did bear that bias, but I soon gave up and have gone back to normal since then, due to the aforesaid reasons.

---

As I said, I used those archaisms, and sometimes even obsolete terms (not the same thing!), for effect; it was never because of that bias. When I translate some Galician-Portuguese (medieval) poem, though, or an early-20^th c. song that already has an Archaic Portuguese flair to it, I usually try to reflect that in my translation by using (common or "mild") archaisms. Of course, in other contexts, I'll use the appropriate modern parlance as required. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Byrhtnoð, @TheSaltyBrushtail: On a somewhat similar topic (with respect to the archaic), what about those quotations in some entries (e.g., collusion and ignoramous) that present Middle English spelling as-is, not modernized, in such a way that it may be difficult to understand if one is not acquainted with the long s, the many Ys and the u-for-v (euer, uerylly, euadyng)? Shouldn't that be changed too? Or maybe they can be understood roughly because of the surrounding letters (i.e., "typoglycemia")? Dyslexic users, for one, will have a hard(er) time should they come across such oddities. Now, I do have seen modernized-spelling quotes out there (such as this one by Bacon), but I am under the impression that most of such kind aren't. ʙ ʏ ᴛ ᴇ ᴋ ᴀ ꜱ ᴛ (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply