Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Catonif. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Catonif, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Catonif in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Catonif you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Catonif will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Catonif, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
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.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am curious about your recent edit to the etymology of barbātus which removed the derivation from *farβātos. If the Proto-Italic form existed at all, it seems it must have been the ancestor of the Latin word, since we say it is "reconstructable back to a Proto-Indo-European **bʰardʰéh₂tos". Is there some issue with the Proto-Italic reconstruction? Thanks! Urszag (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag: Ack! You caught me red handed immediately! Oh well...
The thing is, here on Wiktionary Proto-Italic is currently a mess: not only our spellings are very inconsistent, and when they are consistent they are not very smart (why *β for example? it's *f! our WT:AITC should be updated), but the main problem of most of the Proto-Italic entries is the misconception of what the term even refers to.
Proto-Italic is “the reconstructable ancestor of the Italic languages”, that means that our entries should be reconstructions based on what we can deduce from the several attested forms in Latin and all the Italic inscriptions, a.k.a. from the bottom. What actually happens most of the time, is that PIt entries have Latin as their sole descendant, and can be reconstructed not with Italic terms, but with other Indo-European ones, a.k.a. from the top. That makes our PIt entries just pages with objectionable spelling and no valuable information, except for the link to the Latin entry, and that of the PIE one. Just useless in-betweens that offer nothing but clutter and confusion.
These reasons are why I'm planning to start a mega-RFD with all of the PIt entries of this kind (followed by a reasonable spelling reform), so that we can make sense and value of this. A mega-RFD takes time to put together (no, I'm just procrastinating), and I promised myself that until I start it I won't touch PIt entries, but here I fell into temptation: not only we have Latin as the sole descendant, but we're also reconstructing an initial *f- (which though it is most likely to have been pronounced that way by speakers of PIt) irregularly changed into *b- in Latin, thus making it impossible to reconstruct a PIt *f- just with Latin. So we have a reconstruction page that (1) has only one descendant, and (2) doesn't even reflect that.
Thank you for reaching out and not reverting me immediately. I'll try not to do anything more to PIt until I'll do the RFD and reach consensus. Catonif (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Ah, that makes sense. And in fact, you did not touch the reconstruction page yet. I did see that the PIt form had Latin as the sole descendant and wonder about that too. I think your plan of addressing all such Proto-Italic cases at a single time is a good idea. I see though that de Vaan refers to forms like "PIt. *farfā-", despite it apparently not being directly attested in any Italic branch aside from Latin.--Urszag (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Urszag: Thank you for understanding, and yes, de Vaan likes to do that, for some reason. Probably because he's more interested about the external proof, i.e. the relationship with PIE, rather than the internal Italic one. As I defined it before, he "reconstructs from the top". About *farfā in particular though, we actually have farfecchia so I think it should be kept. Catonif (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I have changes not-yet-pushed that convert uses of id2=deverbal into {{deverbal}}. I notice you made the opposite change in some cases. The problem with your change is that it removes the category CAT:Italian deverbals, which I think is more important than noting whether a given word is derived from the suffix -o, -a or -e (which should be self-evident from the ending of the word). Benwing2 (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Still not sure I see the point of this; the reason for distinguishing -are from -ire is that they have entire distinct conjugations below them, but there is nothing of the sort for -o vs. -a vs. -e deverbals, which don't seem to have semantic distinctions among them. But if you really want those categories, I would suggest we create a specialized etymology template something like {{it-deverbal|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o}}, which automatically converts to something like {{deverbal|it}}, from {{af|it|abbagliare<t:to dazzle>|-o<id:deverbal><pos:deverbal suffix>}}. The code you've been adding like From {{af|it|abbagliare|t1=to dazzle|-o|id2=deverbal|pos2=forms deverbals}}. is long and redundant and is likely to lead to all sorts of inconsistently formatted etymologies if we don't clean it up. Benwing2 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I see several pages where you disabled the rhyme in {{it-pr}}, e.g. trabalzone, zozzeria, zozzezza and several others. I'm removing these because I don't understand why we would want to disable the rhyme. I think it's reasonable to do so for proscribed pronunciations but not standard ones. Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Hi, those date back to when I planned to sort out the rhyme categories. You see, rhyming a word with another word with the same suffix is somewhat an impure rhyme, so if you wanted to rhyme mangiare you'd be looking for words like mare, chiare etc. but the category is currently bloated with all the other -are verbs. Same things goes for all highly productive suffixes, like -ezza, -one (augmentative), -eria, etc. I was thinking to remove such affixed terms from the category, and then placing the entire category (or in -are's case, CAT:Italian verbs ending in -are) in the appropriate rhyme category. But I've practically given up on that project so you can put them back in the rhyme categories. Catonif (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If a quote uses a certain form of a word, you can't just go and modify it even if the change you want to make is grammatically and morphologically correct. It's falsifying a quote and not permitted. Robbie SWE (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Your template {{Template:tr-def-suffix form}} is used inconsistently. The definition line for -lı does not have the number "1." before it like it should. I can't have the template emit "#" because on the -sız page the # is already there and I would get "1. # ...". Can you go through the uses and make them consistent with each other and with our entry layout guidelines?
I fixed another bug by changing a regular space to a non-breaking space. The regular space was eaten by template processing. " " is not special, it is the same as typing a space. You have to write " ". Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vox Sciurorum The template is supposed to only be used in definition lines (i.e. after #), misuses seem to have been introduced by Orexan. I will gladly fix them in my next slice of free time, though I'd like to make clear that I'm not responsible for this. Thanks for fixing the spaces thing, didn't realise. Catonif (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif I meant to fix the head templates from suffix to suffix form on a bunch of entries but I broke other things apparently. I try to make the morpheme forms look like -uk, -keç, -kün etc, not the template by itself without a # but kinda like a sub-head, and then the definition is below, numbered. This makes sense to me but I have a suspicion that the feeling isn't mutual. Orexan (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Orexan, and first of all thank you for your excellent contributions! Now, about this: it seems a wise choice to centralise most information, most importantly definitions, but also IMO etymology, only in the lemma form. This is comes in handy when, say, a user wants to edit a definition, and doesn't have to go through the hassle of copy-pasting his change on the other 3~7 entries: information that is duplicated on more entries is bound to get out of sync, and hence hard to maintain. The template's scope was exactly that of giving a practical way to provide soft redirects, as we call them. Therefore, the definitions, which would indeed appear as subsenses, are best omitted entirely from non-lemmas.
While we're on the subject, it should probably be also decided on where to lemmatise, if at the fronted ⟨e i⟩ or if at the back ⟨a ı⟩. Possibly worth a BP discussion. Catonif (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif Possibly. Though I don't see a lot of BP discussions coming to conclusion on Turkish, and the category for Turkish morphemes is a dumpster fire that every time I look at it it gives me a headache and a sense of despair that nothing good is ever gonna happen.
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi,
I see that you changed the Dacian translation at ] from the language code 'xdc' (meaning Dacian) to the language code 'grc' (meaning Ancient Greek), with the comment 'on purpose'. Can you help me understand what this is about?
The thing is, the word is Dacian but it's attested only in a Greek text, which doesn't make our work much easy. Saying {{t|grc|κινούβοιλα}} (= κινούβοιλα(kinoúboila)) was needed for the Ancient Greek CSS to kick in (that is, the right font and size), as {{t|xdc|κινούβοιλα}} looked like κινούβοιλα(kinoúboila). The technical problem with this is probably the term showing as a yellow link (which, it doesn't on my end, even though it should. Does it show as yellow to you?) for which the solution would be {{t|grc|{{ll|xdc|κινούβοιλα}}}} (= κινούβοιλα(kinoúboila)).
This was the technical side of it, but if you question was more "why are we lemmatising this term under Dacian then", the answer is, well, there's no established way of dealing with these things. See for example Talk:κινούβοιλα, with much hesitation even pre-dating my change, or Talk:𐤊𐤋𐤌, where Fay Freak even normalises these attestations into a native script (while noting that it couldn't be done with Dacian and Thracian). A Greek grammarian saying "the Dacians say κινούβοιλα" doesn't mean that the word was ever actually "borrowed into Greek", nor that it was ever a "Greek term", so saying ==Ancient Greek== ===Etymology=== {{bor+|grc|xdc... is IMO misleading.
Admittedly, κινούβοιλα and sinupyla were my first Paleo-Balkan contributions, which is why lemmatising them under the donor language seemed most appropriate, Note however that continuing editing for Paleo-Balkan, I eventually settled at keeping them under their attestation language, such as Δευάδαι(Deuádai), βάρυκα(báruka), etc. because this double-nature of the terms is hard to maintain. So yes, I would make κινούβοιλα ==Ancient Greek== if I were to do it now. :) Catonif (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explaining!
If there are Dacian words known only from mentions in Ancient Greek sources, and we want to use those spellings (which sounds reasonable to me), then I think we should configure to Dacian to be a language that we use multiple scripts for, rather than marking those words as "Ancient Greek" when we've no reason to think they were ever used in Ancient Greek.
@Ruakh Yes, that was my original thought as well and definitely the most straightforward solution for neat cases like κινούβοιλα~sinupyla, but the distinction between the Trümmersprache and Graeco-Latin isn't always so neatly defined. Should sabaia be made into ==Illyrian== ? haliurunna into ==Gothic== ? βρά is reportedly Elean Greek, but Latte reads Ἰλλυρίων instead of Ἠλείων (cod. Ιλειων). There are many different cases with different problems, some more appropriate to have the native L2, others best kept under Graeco-Latin. There's no established policy, and if there were it wouldn't be very practical, as the situation is full with edge-cases, one solution can benefit in one case and backfire in another. @Mnemosientje rightly calls this an "awkward tension", and may have some comments on this. I'd even support having a big box template (in appearence along the lines of {{reconstructed}}) to place under the Graeco-Latin L2 to warn "this is a gloss, not a loan". Catonif (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
While a satisfactory one-size-fits-all solution for words like these is difficult to find and there ought to be room for evaluation on a per-case basis, my preference is generally to add them as words in the language of the text in which they are mentioned. I agree that it is a good idea to place some sort of disclaimer, usage note, or other clear indication that explains the difficulty and that the word is not to be viewed as a loanword proper. But again this is probably not optimal in every case and there are many cases in which I am just completely unsure what to do (e.g. basically the entirety of Category:Vandalic lemmas).
An example of why I am reluctant to add them under the presumed "real" language header is that a big concern with words like these in my experience is that the language they are ascribed to by the author of the text in which they are mentioned may simply not be quite accurate, or their definitions may be different from ours. Greek and Roman authors, for example, are notoriously inclined to miscategorizing aspects of 'barbarian' culture and language. What one author calls Gothic or Dacian or Persian may in fact refer to a dialect or language that is quite different from the languages we associate with these words.
To use an example mentioned by Catonif: when Jordanes calls haliurunnas a Gothic word, does he refer to the same language as Ulfilan Gothic, or does he simply share a bunch of related East Germanic dialects and languages under one and the same umbrella term that differs significantly from our idea of Ulfilan Gothic? (Compare the case of Procopius, according to whom Goths, Visigoths , Gepids and Vandals all spoke the same language called "Gothic" - but we consider Vandalic at least to be a separate language on Wiktionary! And consider the tendency of Greeks and Romans to dismiss everyone on the Eurasian steppe as "Scythian", even up to Byzantine times - "Gothic" in some contexts may similarly have been a catch-all term imposed out of convenience or intellectual laziness/disinterest by outsiders on a heterogeneous group speaking heterogeneous languages and dialects, including but far from limited to what we consider to be "Gothic".)
I therefore usually prefer to err on the side of caution and, following the example of many modern Latin and Greek dictionaries, generally put them under a Latin or Ancient Greek language header, unless the case is clear-cut. But I am not sure if that is the right approach, and am open to a well-reasoned general solution if one can be found. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Mnemosientje I wholeheartedly agree. We could try to formalise some of our points into guidelines/suggestion in the WT: namespace (no strong policy of course, given the great wobble).
About the particular example of the Vandalic lemmas, aside from the eils / scapia matzia ia drincan and some reconstructions, they seem to be mostly given names, which I'm assuming appear as Latinised in otherwise fully Latin text, like Liburnian Vescleves- is (if on the other hand they appear isolated then ignore the following). These seem to me not only lemmatisable under ==Latin==, but even treatable as proper loans. My rationale is modern given names from actually attested languages work the same way, so Nguyen and Rossi have an ==English== as well. Hyperbolically speaking, I could even claim that someone possessing a name of Vandalic origin must not be assumed to even speak Vandalic.
As for eils / scapia matzia ia drincan on the other hand, I'd definitely be bummed if it appears as ==Latin==, as it's good proper Vandalic running text, not glosses. It's a shame the source just calls them Gothi... If the corpus however more or less amounts to this we could even make Vandalic (maybe together with other East Germanic lects) an etym-only language code of Gothic, and the words could be placed under ==Gothic== with a label (most likely Vandalic) vel sim., which would of course categorise accordingly so the Vandalic lemma category wouldn't be lost. Catonif (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Proto-Indo-European *leyd-
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Buongiorno. You recently created a page Proto-Indo-European*leyd-,
and I copied the information into Bunadas (my network database of cognate words, with the emphasis on Celtic). What this threw up, though, as seen in this tree generated by Bunadas,
is that the Old Irish words laíd/laídid are indicated by other Wiktionary pages (Latinlaus, Proto-Germanic*leuþą) as being from “From Proto-Indo-European *lēwt-, *lēwdʰ- (“song, sound”), from Proto-Indo-European *lēw- (“to sound, resound, sing out”)”. Any thoughts on this? I am not a historical linguistics expert myself, and so am unable to voice an opinion. --Caoimhin (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hòigh @Caoimhin! I as well don't have the knowledge to voice my own opinion on the etymology of the Irish word, but I can report what I can find on the sources I have access to. The connection with Gmc. *leuþą is favoured here, but it seems that all of the notable later sources, although with some uncertainty, connect the word with L. ludo rather than laus (for which I rewrote the etymology). Connection with laus is explicitely rejected here, and is left unmention in all of the following works I checked. In any case, those trees (I played around with the site a bit) are very interesting. Catonif (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Caoimhin, I cleaned up *leyd-, and I also agree, the Celtic doesn't look to belong there. I also don't think the Albanian is related either, which, if so, would make this a Balto-Slavic-only root. --{{victar|talk}}05:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Victar As far as I can see, the sources which you kept on the entry go against your edit. A separate root for "to play" seems to go back to Pokorny, and I imagine that Mallory, to which I don't have access, endorses it as well, but are you single-handedly dismissing the more recent Rix and all of the Leiden linguists? I'm ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing. Catonif (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Most recent ≠ most right. Also note that Rix marks all of his reconstructions on his entry as uncertain. It's a theory he published, not fact. --{{victar|talk}}17:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Victar It's comparative linguistics: everything is a theory, nothing is a fact. That said, there are four cites on the entry, none of which are minor or outdated sources, all explicitely agreeing on a single root "to let; to let go". You are free to doubt whatever you will, yet, in your words, "deleting sourced reconstructions is unprecedented and counterproductive to the project". Again, I am ready to reconsider the validity of the root, but with proper reasoning and sourcing, while by far all you've provided is "doesn't look like it belongs here", "I don't think", "doesn't make much sense" and "I really doubt". Whenever you'll feel like elaborating on your doubts, feel free to do so in WT:ES or on the entry's talk page. Catonif (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You, endorsing a Pokorny theory, removed a root which, although you keep claiming is only supported by Rix, is widely supported by modern sources. And now you accuse me of deleting sourced content. What was the content that you deleted unsourced?
I remerged the roots, again, per sources, while being careful at keeping all of the work you did on the entry I deemed appropriate. You, on the other hand, compulsively reverted my edits without even looking at them (besides other things, the most blatant example is you removing dial. Alb. le and the missing asterisks you reinstated). And you accuse me of wheelwarring.
I asked you to provide proper reasoning and sourcing, and you've yet to do it.
Why have you removed the genitive case in albanian?
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
The genitive case is still alive and well, along with the locative, vocative and several instrumental forms, even though these last 3 are not present on the standard language.So what is the explanation of removing the genitive despite being a noun case, both present in the standard language and used actively in all kinds of speech? Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hi, @Dinamo-Barça! I removed the genitive row from declension tables because it is identical with the dative one. I left a note behind "dative" that appears whenever it is hovered with the mouse (hence sadly not visible from mobile) that explains that the genitive forms can be formed with the dative forms preceded by the linking particle. I feel like there's no reason to make Albanian inflection look more complex than it really is, and the table looks much more straightforward when it is compact. Catonif (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nobody said to make the declension look more complex, but you should be realistic. As an albanian native speaker, l find it concerning that some of our cases and time tenses are not present anywhere in the declension tables. They can be compound and identical to other forms but they are tought regularly in schools and used actively in everyday speech. My request to you is to leave more notes about the cases and time tenses. If you want,I can help you. Dinamo-Barça (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Dinamo-Barça Thank you, I'm always open to native speakers' insight. I am aware that the 4-case system analysis for Albanian nominal inflection, which I think is more "linguistical", although definitely not mine as it is found in some recent works, doesn't conform well with the "traditional" 5-(or sometimes even 6)-case system analysis that is still found in most handbooks and taught in Albanian schools, and I see this can throw some people off, as it did to you. The point is, since I like merging table slots whenever they are always identical, and this is not just an aesthetic preference as I do find value in its straightforwardness and conciseness, there's little point to giving its own row, as it would simply make the dative row taller. One option is changing "dative" (the hovering text says "also used as genitive when with a linking clitic") to "dat./gen." (the hovering text says "dative, also used as genitive when with a linking clitic"). Having a separate footnote as the conditional tenses would be too cluttered in my opinion.
On the verbal compound tenses you mentioned, they're still visible by clicking the "show compound tenses" button. I thinking giving the option between the two possibilities, i.e. on one hand the compact and essential, and on the other hand all the completeness of the compound tenses, is the best compromise between the two things. The conditional present and perfect were reduced to a note already before me, although I think that's a very good idea. (I'm aware the active conjugation box and the medio-passive one aren't in the same style, that's something I was wishing to tackle.)
Lastly, a bit unrelatedly to the issue, it might be worth mentioning I'm rerwriting the infrascructure for Albanian nominal inflection (module, testcases) to make it more immediate and versatile, so if you have any general feedback it can be implemented. Catonif (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello Catonif
Excuse me but I couldn't help but notice that you changed the etymology of the word "garë".
Now you have cited the reason of the change is "he was unaware of the italian word". To me it sounds like an unprobable mistake a linguist can make. He states sources from an abundance of languages (both spoken and dead) when presenting the cognate words, yet apparently fails to mention a from one of the most spoken languages in Europe.
Of course, Orel has his fair share of mistakes too. Since I have read his etymology book, I can tell you there are lots of etymological mistakes like the one we are talking about, so I am not saying your argument is baseless.
But again, 95% all the etymology entries here on Wictionary are linked to his work. So shouldn't we start adding more proposed etymologies from other linguists as well? Because otherwise we will have a reader who comes here on Wictionary,as it is one of the easiest sites to access, search up the etymology, read what is written here and then understand it as a fact.But you can't do that if you study linguistics.We learn that all works have their own theories and mistakes. We dont have a sacred etymology book, to which we always refer everytime we study the etymologies, but here I see that you have, and that is Orel's work.And that is confusing for people who don't have experience nor education in linguistics.
Hi @Dinamo-Barça. I'll try to address the two points you've posited: first more generally the validity and etymological monopoly of Orel's work on Wiktionary and secondly the etymology of garë in particular.
About Orel, when you say that 95% all the etymology entries on Wiktionary are linked to his work and say that they are misphrased as if his theories are facts, you describe the unfortunate truth. The Orel-bias of Albanian etymologies has been long-standing issue many people have complained about, and is exactly one of the things that I and other Albanian editors are in the process of cleaning Wiktionary from. Whenever I can I always add more than one source and often propose different theories (although this of course needs to be done critically, by discarding the obsolete or highly improbable ones).
With that hopefully settled, now about garë. Given that the Albanian and the Italian word are pronounced exactly the same way and mean exactly the same thing, I don't think anyone would deny that they are indeed the same word, whatever may be the direction of the borrowing. Having agreed on this, if we follow Orel's etymology, the only possibility we're left with is Al. garë → It. gara, as indeed was the situation before I intervened. The theory at a frist glance may look attractive, but after critical thinking I have no doubt about it being wrong, for the following factors:
Attestation: the Albanian word is not attested in any of the Old Albanian works (i.e. Buzuku, Budi, Bardhi, etc.) nor in other later more comprehensive works (i.e. Jungg, Rossi, Meyer, etc.). The earliest attestation I know of is from the FGJSH of 1954, which seems bit late for a native word of this kind. I'm aware the Old Albanian corpus is not as comprehensive as we wish it was, so I'm sure there are some native words that indeed have stayed unattested such dates, but I assume those would be relatively obscure pastoral terms or something of the like. The Italian word on the other hand has been and still is an integral part of Italian lexicon and is widely and heavily attested starting as soon as 1310. The A. → I. theory would hence assume the Albanian word to be quite strong to be borrowed into Italian in a very early date, but at the same time stay under the hood until government-funded dictionaries, coincidentally right after Italian occupation of Albania.
Semantics: the fact that the semantics are indentical from a language to the other — economic sense included! — also suggests the borrowing is recent, as I'd expect at least some degree of semantical evolution if we are to assume more than 700 years have passed from when the word was borrowed.
Basic statistics: with the exception of a couple of animal names like zappo and manzo which are indeed usually believed to stem ultimately from some Paleo-Balkan language (I must note that these terms are attested in Old Albanian, as well as found in Romanian), there are no Albanian words into Italian I know of. On the other hand, there are hundreds of Italian words into Albanian.
Unsourcedness: no linguist endorses the A. → I. theory, not even Orel himself. As far as I can see, it's something that emerged only on Wiktionary. This is why I say that Orel was simply not aware of the Italian word, as he always mentions occurrences of Albanian words (or more exactly, Paleo-Balkan substrate words akin to the Albanian ones) being borrowed into other languages (usually Romanian), as can be seen in entries like dash, këpushë, etc. so if he did know about the Italian word, he certainly would have mentioned it. I'm surprised just as you are about him making a mistake like this, but that's what happened. Also note that usually his entries have tons of sources while this one doesn't have any (he cites Pokorny and Frisk, but only to back up the derivation of χαίρω(khaírō) to *ǵʰer-, not the nativeness of the Albanian word, as neither source mentions it).
Conclusion: the Albanian word is a recent borrowing from Italian. I'm not the first to reach this conclusion: "Some etymologies in Orel's dictionary are disputed or wrong. For instance, Albanesegarë comes from Italian gara, ”competition, race”. It is a recent loanword."
I appreciate your answer and l really want to thank you for taking my point into consideration.I did not mean to say that you were wrong in the word "garë". I honestly believe in your work and I hope you, and other albanian editors who I would like to meet in person, adress the aforementioned problems Dinamo-Barça (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Horizontal rule
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Am I going crazy, or are there once again horizontal lines separating language sections on pages as of late? I figured I might bring it to your attention, since you created the original vote to remove those lines.
Hi, @Chernorizets. If you are referring to the horizontal rules appearing on entries (but not in the wikicode) that's because for not having to type them but still making them appear we've incorporated them into the project's CSS (discussion and diff). If you are referring to horizontal lines actually in the wikicode, those should be removed. Catonif (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif huh, ok, I guess I'm going crazy. For a while I thought I wasn't seeing any (CSS-driven or not) horizontal rules between per-language entries on Wiktionary pages. I'll check my eyes. Thanks! Chernorizets (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Un po' di Topalli
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Ei! Ti lascio qui il link per accedere alle varie edizioni (se non l'hai già fatto) di "Studime filologjike". Topalli ha riportato spezzoni del suo dizionario a scopo di anteprima e ho pensato potesse interessarti. Ovviamente è in albanese. FierakuiVërtet (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sono solo un appassionato di linguistica, non conosco bene la legge di Bartholomae. Riporto dal testo E.CAMPANILE, B. COMRIE, C. WATKINS Introduzione alla lingua e alla cultura degli Indoeuropei, nella sezione dedicata §6.1.7.2, nel quale è spiegata in breve la legge e sono esposti alcuni esempi tipo quello che avevo inserito in बुद्ध. Nella sezione successiva invece §6.1.7.3 è descritto l'incontro di dentali ed è fatto l'esempio di infestus, il quale è referito alla suddetta legge.
Per quanto riguarda la provenienza di Infestus da n̥-gwhedh-to- io ho solo un dubbio su *dh >*t che non è indicato da Comrie nella sezione dedicata alle occlusive e ai loro riflessi nelle lingue derivate. Per il resto funziona:
n̥ è sonante e ha qui il valore sillabico in-; *gwh, labiovelare sonora aspirata diventa in latino f(u), sempre da Comrie; *edh-to- è appunto il nesso consonantico interessato dalla legge che quindi diventa -sto-. Themistokl (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ciao, @Themistokl! In primo luogo, benvenuto. Ho lasciato il template {{welcome}} sulla tua talk se può servire ad orientarti. La legge di Bartholomae's riguarda le lingue indo-iraniche, quindi col latino per quanto mi risulta c'entra poco. Qui la situazione è diversa, e riguarda il gruppo consonantico TT, vale a dire due occlusive dentali, t d dʰ, di seguito, che ha come risultato regolare *ss nel ramo delle lingue italiche, il quale a sua volta in latino spesso per scambio di lunghezza in una sillaba pesante (dalla consonante alla vocale) ritroviamo come s. Ne sono un esempio lampante i participi passati dei verbi in -dĕre, come vīsum < *wid-tó-m. Ho aggiornato l'etimologia della voce per riflettere queste considerazioni. Catonif (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ciao, grazie.
Hai ragione che riguarda principalemente le lingue indo-iraniche e i suoi effetti sono in esse più apparenti. In realtà però hο trovato sul libro che ho citato, altri esempi non indoiranici. In questo caso il gruppo dentale+dentale si trasforma seguendo la legge di B. D'altronde l'esempio in avestico di ajasta, mostra che non è una trasformazione ristretta al ramo italico. Nel senso che l'incontro tra dentali di solito porta *ss nel ramo italico, è molto chairo l'esempio di vīsum, ma in questo caso l'incontro segue la legge di B. La legge è comunque ipotizzata come trasformazione del proto-indoeuropeo in generale.
Ti ringrazio per aver aggiornato l'etimologia, direi che effettivamente ora sarebbe meglio eliminare l'ultima etimologia, e riaggiungerla solo dopo che avrò trovato altre evidenze nel libro di quello che sto dicendo. Themistokl (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I know you would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit but the last discussion on this showed no consensus to make . I would suggest you undo this, and seek consensus to make such a change or create a vote (cf. where you undid a change based on there being no "valid vote" in favor of it). Benwing2 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, @Benwing2. Building on your analogy, I'll try to show you the differences between what I did to Greek transliteration and what you did to Latin verbs.
First of all, no consensus? It didn't exactly pass in the most visible of ways, but I see 6 in favour of the ISO transliteration, or more generally a more orthographic transliteration (me, Saltmarsh, Sarri, Urszag, Mahagaja, Erutuon), 3 in favour of something home-made more phonetic (you, Atitarev, Soap) and -sche suggesting we have both somehow. Note how the less accustomed a user seemed to be with Greek the more drastic innovations they proposed. In any case, everyone agreed that initial ντ and δ should not be transliterated the same, and that the issue should be fixed in one way or another. This already looks like a pass for following the transliteration standard, yet despite that, I even took the oppositions into account and didn't go all the way into implementing the ISO transliteration scheme. As you said, I would prefer an entirely transliteration based approach to Greek translit, as I made clear in the BP discussion, yet notice how what I instated in the module is not what should be my preference, as it's still far from the standard I was looking forward to have here. I limited myself to solve what was the pressing issue at hand, the initial ντ~δ problem, hence keeping the transliteration scheme very close to what it has always been. With the exception of a couple of native terms like ντόπιος(ntópios), initial ντ is found almost exclusively in loans. It would be hard to even notice this change for someone that isn't a Greek editor here, an assiduous reader of the Greek entries we have or someone who just went checking the translit module's edit history. And would you look at that, the resulting translit scheme ended up matching perfectly the standardised ELOT 743 transcription. Now, if I were to endorse your preferred dh~gh transcription, or my preferred ELOT 743 transliteration, that would have been definitely drastic and visible. That I did not do. To summarise, what I did was changing the translit module to get rid of a bizarre merger that no other source even imagines having, which was introduced here by mistake, as Saltmarsh and Erutuon, who were the ones to bring it, tell.
About this incident with Latin, now that's drastic and visble. There's a difference between the character sequence nt in a restricted number of entries and the full 33 characters long first/third-singular present indicative in every single Latin verb ever, cluttering the ever more cluttered headword and assuming an unreal amount of ignorance from the reader. I indeed mentioned a vote, but really, even a plain discussion would have been a huge step forward. This was introduced by consulting none of the editing communities of the countless languages this affected, merely by mutual agreement with two users in a seemingly unimportant chat under an unrelated discussion. This immediately raised great disapproval from basically every other editor. After the change I only heard bad comments about it. Not to mention how this choice is unprecedented from any other dictionary, as opposed to the Greek situation, where the unprecedented situation is what I got rid of. For each of these two cases at hand, note (1) the visual and informative impact, (2) the community's opinion, (3) the bureacracy and discussion behind the change and (4) the tradition of other linguistic sources. In all these points the two cases are completely uncomparable, and the analogy you try to make is not valid.
To conclude, I'd rather not undo my change. No matter how you look at it, a revert would objectively be a degradation, from a standardised scheme that makes sense to a flawed scheme that does not make any sense. I see no reason to reintroduce what is a plain mistake. I hope you don't wish to worsen Greek transliterations out of spite for an unrelated matter.
That said, I'm sorry for the abrupt revert. I hope we can take a step back from that and discuss this data.gloss thing with more time and calm. Catonif (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yzeír|i
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hiǃ I was wondering if you happen to know anything about this Albanian name that have an obvious Turkish origin. Could you provide or find any information regarding it (etymology)? It's not very popular but still... I'm curios. Thanksː) FierakuiVërtet (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Salve, collega sia di Wikipedia che di nazionalità, sono Cicognac e sono utente autoverificato su Wiki.it, lavoro ultimamente nel Wikizionario. Sono stato bloccato per una questione banale da un admin ma, in mezzo a questo blocco (dovrebbe avermi sbloccato), mi ha segnalato te e un tale @Nicodene, collega italiano pure lui, per sbrogliare una questioncina in proto-italico (premetto che sono laureato in Lingue e ho un background mio in simili proto-lingue pur non essendo PhD o docente di linguistica storica).
Qui nel Wikizionario erano già presenti ricostruzioni in primo proto-italico, cioè quando *f < *θ fricativa interdentale sorda < PIE *dʰ e quando h < *x < *gʰ (sia con che senza labializzazione) se si postula tale cambiamento come avvenuto già in tardo proto-italico. Dal background che ho, avevo riconosciuto tali ricostruzioni (mi risultano). PUC mi ha detto che 'sono poco convincenti', eppure da *fakjo ho ricosciuto *θakjo quando l'ho visto la prima volta (basta vedere la radice in PIE). Stavo estendo tali cambiamenti compilando le 'early version' dei vocaboli in proto-italico contenenti tale mutazione meccanica ma PUC mi ha detto di parlarne con voi. Si tratta solo di applicare un paio di mutamenti fonetici meccanici.
Possiamo discutere qui sia di questo problema (a me non sembra tale, ma ne discuto lo stesso e volentieri), sia di come lavorare al proto-italico che mi interessa tantissimo e di come eventualmente gestire la trascrizione (e.g. 'f' oppure 'ɸ'? Io sto usando sempre e solo la prima ma è perlopiù una preferenza mia). Il mio sogno in futuro è di travasarci tutto il dizionario etimologico di De Vaan, di cui ho una copia virtuale, poi non so se c'è altro di simile per il proto-italico.
Intanto, ti saluto insieme a Nicodene. Se ci sono altri esperti di proto-italico, puoi chiamarli qui. Cicognac (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ti aggiorno immediatamente dicendoti che forse rimuovo le forme del primo proto-italico senza le fonti, pure se la forma non tarda distingue *θ e *x labializzato prima che convergessero in *f in una fase più tarda (siccome il cambiamento è meccanico, ho pensato di inserirlo manualmente ma in effetti tali forme non sono corredate da fonti); pure se la convergenza è confermata, per tagliare la testa al toro si può optare per accettare qui solo forme di primo PIt fontate da fare contrastare con il tardo PIt. Aspetto solo un assenso finale. Questo modus operandi può essere elevato a standard nella sezione di PIt qui sul Wikizionario, ne stavo parlando proprio con @Nicodene. Cicognac (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ciao, @Cicognac, carissimo compatriota. Mi dispiace per il blocco (ingiustificato, poiché non stavi andando contro a nessun avvertimento), ma mi fa piacere che si sia già giunti ad un compromesso. Il motivo per cui il genere di contributi quali i tuoi siano controversi in realtà si inserisce in un discorso che va avanti da tempo e che avevo abbandonato per lo stress che mi provocava, ma riconosco che avendo lasciato le cose al caso la situazione protoitalica ora è forse ancora più precaria e arrangiata di quanto non lo fosse prima. Perciò mi è ripresa la briga di aggiornare le linee guida del protoitalico. Continuo dunque in inglese sulla pagina di discussione della norma per il protoitalico. Ti informo comunque che Nicodene, sebbene possegga un'ottima comprensione dell'italiano, è un georgiano purosangue. :) E un'ultima curiosità, in che lingue ti sei laureato? Catonif (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Cinese moderno standard (quindi non dialetti come il cantonese) e inglese; in più, da autodidatta (e usando le teorie di Krashen per cui usi una didattica improntata all'acquisizione linguistica invece che all'apprendimento, cioè usi pochissimo i libri), soprattutto man mano che mi libero mi studio il portoghese brasiliano, ucraino, spagnolo e francese, ho poi gettato le basi di greco moderno, albanese, rumeno e latino (quest'ultimo mi serve più per esami universitari e come ponte per il proto-italico) più quelle del pidgin nigeriano. Per 'gettare le basi' intendo ricostruire un ordine di acquisizione plausibile in base a quello di lingue imparentate, degli studi che conosco e dell'esperienza mia, da lì ti costruisci il materiale andando in ordine. Sono un wanna-be iperpoliglotta, insomma.
Dimmi dove trovo la pagina di cui parli, così insieme a @Nicodene riesco a seguirti: è per caso Wiktionary:About Proto-Italic, sezione 'discussione'? In teoria, potrei mettere anche io da solo uno standard e da lì aggiustare/correggere le pagine per poi espandere la sezione di proto-italico con opere di De Vaan e Schrijver (sono i due studiosi più citati), ma non mi va di fissare degli standard da solo.
Se conosci altri studiosi di cui posso attingere dai loro lavori, dimmi pure. Posso pure chiedere alla mia tutor di latino, che aveva fatto una tesi su filologia (quindi penso che conosca il proto-italico e/o abbia un network di studiosi che lo conoscono). Cicognac (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}} and {{ant}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. (Same thing with the {{desc}} template.) Benwing2 (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Catonif ː) How you are you doing?
I have a technical question and I was hoping you could help me. Per farla breve, quando digito la combinazione di tasti che nella tastiera italiana restituisce la parentesi graffa, quello che ottengo è questo carattere ̪ . Perché? E non riguarda solo la parantesi graffa, ma tutta una serie di caratteri che richiedono una combinazione di tasti. Spero di non essere l'unico. ː( FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@FierakuiVërtet Ehilà! :) Scusa per il ritardo, hai ancora questo problema? Di certo è abbastanza bizzarro, hai attiva una qualche impostazione particolare per la tastiera? Catonif (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sì, ma ormai è da una vita. Ho pensato solo ora di chiedertelo e vedere se succedesse anche ad altri. A questo punto però, mi sa che è un problema solo mio. Ora controllo bene se ho cambiato qualche impostazione. Deve essere un problema dell'account, perché se non faccio il login non mi dà problemi... FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Vabbè, sono scemo io, ho appena fatto "Restore all default references (in all sections)" e il problema si è risolto. Scusa per averti scomodato per questa s*ronzata XD FierakuiVërtet (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, and thank you for your recognition. Tempting proposition. I'm not sure the community really wants nor needs any new admins (the last ones accepted were in 2022), but we can give this a shot, why not? Catonif (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Catonif: Done, please accept here: (and as a formality you might need to add your email to your account so email link works) Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2024-09/User:Catonif for admin. In practice, the autionary note is mostly ignored (and invalid in my opinion) since a lot of nominations come from Wonderfool and non-admins, and also pass - just taking a look at some votes. Svartava (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Cautionary note: It is often the case that those who are not nominated by currently active administrators do much less well."
By that measure, User:Vahagn Petrosyan may be the most senior admin in this discussion so far.
And yes, although it is unclear whether the community really wants nor needs any new admins, it may have been better if Catonif had been able to delete those Ottoman Turkish terms himself. Kutchkutch (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch Thank you so much for dealing with so many of the Ottoman Turkish CAT:D requests and I'm sorry you had to go through the hassle. I forgot there was a history merge feature, I hope I didn't edit in any way that hindered the feature from being used, if it has specific requisites in which it can be applied. Catonif (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello Cantonif and nice to meet you (since this is the first time I’m interacting with you).
Regarding your adminship,
Just to be clear, my comment above about the cautionary note and whether the community really wants nor needs any new admins has nothing to do with your suitability as an admin.
What I think about your suitability as an admin (at the time the vote was created) is what I said in the vote itself.
dealing with so many of the Ottoman Turkish CAT:D requests
is intriguing to me since there are parallels that can be made with South Asian languages written in the Perso-Arabic script.
When CAT:D gets flooded with all these requests at once, it can take a while for all of them to be addressed, especially when there are no active admins that are also editors in that area. In some deletion requests, you mentioned that you forgot to untick the suppress redirect box, which is understandable since even I forget to do that sometimes.
Just as a reminder (since you will hopefully become an admin soon), there are various steps that should be followed even for speedy deletion. For example,
Links to the page before and after the deletion should definitely be checked if they work as expected.
If the page is mentioned in an RfD or similar discussion, then that may need to be addressed.
However, the step that I have doing of using Special:MergeHistory to preserve the page history, is a step that I don’t see many admins doing.
Perhaps this is because it may be a bit difficult and error-prone. And, in some cases it is not possible to preserve the page history, especially if there multiple languages on a single page. So, in some cases, it might be easier not to use Special:MergeHistory. Please let me know if you notice that I haven’t done this correctly. Kutchkutch (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Kutchkutch You're right, nice to meet you too! Don't worry about the note and all, I understood what you meant. Thanks for summarising the deletion practices, I'll definitely keep them in mind. I'll now go through the WhatLinksHere of the entries I've tagged with {{d}}. Catonif (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Block
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Something about your last edit to this module resulted in module errors at 𐀏𐀙𐀒 and 𐀗𐀪𐀺𐀈: if I preview the entries from earlier revisions of the module, there are no errors. I don't know if it's something wrong with the module, or if there was something wrong with the entries that was exposed by the change to the module- but something needs to be fixed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz Thanks for notifying me, sorry for not having tested sufficiently. I got rid of the error, so that at least the quotes show, though there still is a bug regarding the hyphens I should be able to fix tomorrow afternoon when I'll be back on the computer. Catonif (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Linear B
Latest comment: 2 months ago16 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for your additions.
Do we know if 𐃒 LINEAR B MONOGRAM B247 DIPTE is actually pte plus an adjunct/complement di, or is that just a guess? kwami (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Kwamikagami! Yes, I made the entry 𐃒(di+pte), that's how it is interpreted by sources. Note this kind of ligature is usually referred to as "monogram" (= ligature of syllabograms) rather than "adjunct" (= ligature between an ideogram and syllabogram). Catonif (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that. It's well attested then, I wasn't sure. It wasn't mentioned in the minimal sources I had, and Unicode names aren't a reliable guide to anything.
That was the last red-link character in the Unicode block that Unicode calls a 'monogram'. 𐃓 looks like it might be. I assume most of the rest are logo/ideograms, some unidentified, and a few are obviously hapax. kwami (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would seem intuitive for the female livestock to be compounded with B102 WOMAN. Do you know of any sources that make that connection? kwami (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami Are you referring to the sex distinction present in livestock animals' ideograms? If so, that dates back to Linear A, note the sheep 𐘏 𐘐 𐘑(*21, *21f, *21m) → 𐀥 𐂆 𐂇(OVIS OVISf OVISm) and the goat 𐘒 𐘓 𐘔(*22, *22f, *22m) → 𐁒 𐂈 𐂉(CAP CAPf CAPm). Presumably the graphic pattern was subsequently regularised and generalised to other animals in Linear B, giving also male and female ideograms for the horse, cow and boar. How the ligatures came to be originally I don't think is well known, it may have been a ligature based on the Minoan phonetics for the relevant words, i.e. adjuncts with the syllables 𐘠(*37/ti/) and 𐘂(*03/pa/) vel sim. Also note the woman Linear B ideogram 𐂁(MUL) developped later into Linear B as a skirted and breasted variant of 𐂀(VIR), and no Linear A variation of the man ideogram 𐙇 resembles B102. So in short that connection is not possible. Catonif (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
Regarding the change of 'letter' to 'symbol' at 𐀀, 'symbol' seems overly broad as a subheading. In its nominal logographic use 𐀀 is also a symbol. Do we have a subheading that would indicate what it actually is? If ppl would object to 'letter' as implying an alphabetic script, maybe 'syllable' or 'phonogram'? kwami (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami I am indeed against "letter" as I see it to imply an alphabetic script. However "syllable" seems a more appropriate heading as is allowed by WT:ELE, so I changed "symbol" over to that. Catonif (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami Nice, thank you! On a separate note, I disagree with adding things like 𐂘(a+re+pa) to the derived terms of 𐀀(a), and other similar cases. They do graphically contain the syllabogram but they don't derive from it. It would be like claiming that USA is a derived term of S. Catonif (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that makes it any better. If we are to keep them, just like we have a distinction between ==Etymology== and ==Glyph origin==, distinguishing the actual word's origin and the origin of how it is written, there should be a distinction between ==Derived terms== and some sort of ==Derived glyphs==. We could start a discussion to allow this header under WT:EL. Note also that there are more derived glyphs than you may think, it's just Unicode that lacks them. Taking 𐀀(a) as our example, there are also 𐂐+𐀀(OLIV+a), 𐂕+𐀀(OLE+a) and 𐃨+𐀀(AMPH+a). Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Interesting - the Egyptian demonstratives are masculine p- and feminine t-. Looks like we don't have a Semitic reconstruction, but that would be too old to be relevant anyway. kwami (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami That's a very cool remark! Unfortunately it's based on my likely erroneous comparison of the adjunct element in the male animal with 𐘂(*03/pa/), while it more likely represents 𐘄(*05/to/), given that in 𐘔(*22m), in iscriptions, the horizontal line on top seems to be most often longer than the one below. Catonif (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
𐘂 (*03 /pa/) is what I've seen in published sources, and they didn't mention Egyptian as a motivating factor.
I haven't seen 𐘠 (*37 /ti/) suggested anywhere, and anyway that would be characteristic of afroasiatic as a whole.
That's cool, which sources are you referring to? I'm a bit at a loss with logograms in general because all the information I have I scraped from various sources as I never found any modern source with them as its focus. It seems today's scholars are much more interested in the syllabic element of the language rather than the logographic one. Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Are you familiar with how the drachma sign 𐅂 is used with the Greek acrophonic numerals? Presumably 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 is 4 drachmas, but ΗΗΗΗ𐅂 is presumably 400 d, not 401 d , and I can't make sense of sequences like 𐅄Δ𐅃𐅂ΙΙΙΙ where 𐅂 is used alongside the tally stroke Ι. These examples are from here -- kwami (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kwamikagami Hi! Sorry for the late reply, I wasn't home these past few days. To answer your question, in Attic numerals whenever counting drachmas the unit is expressed with 𐅂, while what is usually the unit Ι stands instead for an obol, i.e. 1⁄6 of a drachma. So 𐅂𐅂𐅂𐅂 is 4 drachmas, ΗΗΗΗ𐅂 is indeed 401 dr., ΗΗΗΗ𐅄Δ𐅂𐅂 is 462 dr., 𐅂𐅂𐅂ΙΙΙ is 3 drachmas and 3 obols (= 31⁄2 dr.) and 𐅄Δ𐅃𐅂ΙΙΙΙ is 66 drachmas and 4 obols (= 662⁄3 dr.). Catonif (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Kwamikagami! Again sorry for the late reply. Assigning ideograms to their corresponding syllabic spellings is something that can be done in various ways, like using Usage notes, Etymology, Alternative forms sections or perhaps in definitions, or synonyms. I'm still experimenting with the layout, so I'm not sure what exact answer to give you, though |ts= is misleading and hacky. I have amended the example you've given me to give an example (in that case, the interpretation as the vessel name is not 100% confirmed, so the I chose the wording to reflect that), although I don't have the time currently to go through them all. Catonif (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In case you weren't already aware, this is in CAT:E. It looks like the module can't handle borrowing from the submodule for a transliterated language to one for a non-transliterated language, probably due to something about the language data. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)Reply