User talk:Dijan/101-200

Hey. I was just wondering, how familiar are you with Hindi rules about writting the nasalized characters? As far as I know,

• regular "n" न् is used if nasalization occurs before त, थ, द, ध, and न.
• regular "m" म् is used if nasalization occurs before प, फ, ब, भ, and म.
• anusvaara (bindu) is used for the rest of the consonants, with the following exception:

  for consonants that have a mātra that does not extend above the line, chandrabindu is used.

Can you tell me if this is correct and if this should be uniform throughout Wiktionary? I'm asking because I'm running into tons of nasalized words and most of them use the anusvaara without any regards for the following consonants or for the mātras. Thanks. --Dijan 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your system sounds best. I am familiar with the one you mentioned and it is quite simple so we should stick to that. Of course, the bindu and nasal ligatures in Sanskrit are much more complicated! However, it is simplified in Hindi. Also, we should still add redirects with ण्, ङ and ञ. DaGizza 03:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks. --Dijan 03:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year! When you have a moment, could you please check the B/C/S and add the Hindi translations to the entry for hinder (both verb and adjective)? This is to be another model page. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You fixed my mistake before I even saw it. --Thecurran 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you semi-protect those, because I really doubt that that dude is giving up any time soon (he's been operating under IP different addresses for months) ^_^. BTW, thanks for purifying entries from Category:Articles which need Devanagari script ^_^. --Ivan Štambuk 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, you already did that for the first two, my bad, sorry ^_^. --Ivan Štambuk 16:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dijan, please check burgija. Thanks. —Stephen 21:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I thought you might want to know about this conversation, just in case you had anything to contribute to it. Atelaes 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Sorry to bother you with this. As a beginning student of Persian, I'm not very well familiar with colloquial forms as I am with formal Irani Persian and I thought you might help me. I came across a song "dastamo begir" (by Mansour), and I was confused for a second as to how "dastamo" meant "my hand". I'm familiar with "dast-e man" and "dastam", but I was not sure why the "o" was there. I then read Wikipedia's article on Persian and where it mentions the use of "rā" in colloquial as "o" after consonants. I was just wondering if that was correct and if "dastamo begir" would in formal be said as dastam rā begir"? --Dijan 00:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi! sorry for the late reply, I have been away for a bit and I hardly had internet access at all. Yes, "ra" becomes "ro" and "-o" (after a consonant) in colloquial Persian. Pistachio 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to find what the etymology of this word was, and I couldn't decide. Lambton in his "Persian Vocabulary" indicates that it came from French (also spelled as موسقی "museqi"). Steingass says Greek, μουσική (mousikí). And then there's Arabic موسيقى (mūsīqā). What do you think? --Dijan 10:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

see http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.5:1:594.hayyim what do you think? Pistachio 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

btw, Lambton is a woman :-D Pistachio 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh! Sorry, I assumed it was a man. Oops. Anyway, I still cannot decide. I think it says Ancient Greek here, but then again, for the feminine counterpart it uses Arabic موسیقیه (musiqiyyeh). So, it's safe to assume that the origin is Greek, but did it come to Persian via Arabic, or directly from Greek? --Dijan 03:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

it's sefid in Tehrani pronunciation which is followed in all other entries. please restore "colour" somewhere on the page. Pistachio 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I included the template for colour instead, but it seems to be redirecting to color template. Either way, I've restored the original manual colour. In spoken Persian, it is "sefid", but in "ketābi" it is correct to say either "safid" or "sefid". Safid is an older pronunciation that is still considered as standard by some scholars. There's also an alternative ("unarabicized") "sapid" or "sepid" that I've included on the page. If you can when you're including plurals, can you also include ones that end in "-ān"? I've included the one for "pesar-hā". --Dijan 00:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

why and how did you "delete" my page, and what is all this shit about talk user and special? what is this?

Hello, I was wondering if you'd be willing to give this entry a little love. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't all these really ought to be Ottoman Turkish derivations, written in Ottoman Turkish variety of Arabic alphabet? According to w:Turkish language, Latin alphabet wasn't used up until 1928, and all of these borrowing heavily predate 20th century, and correspond historically to Ottoman Turkish conquests.. --Ivan Štambuk 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

regarding this - I've been removing lately all the mentionings of OCS as an "ancestor" language of any of the Slavic languages, because strictu senso it's really isn't (not even of Macedonian). It is just a literary language, language of a particular set of manuscripts that are conveniently labeled as "the canon". Originally one Macedonian dialect was chosen, at a time when all Slavic dialects were mutually intelligible, but even at that time it exhibited features that are peculiar only to the Macedonian dialects (of Thessaloniki speech - back then Thessaloniki was mostly Slavicized). Regardless of coincidence with reconstructed Late Proto-Slavic forms (which are mostly reconstructed/verified on the basis of OCS), it would technically be wrong to say that any modern Slavic language "descended" from OCS. Some OCS manuscripts, such as Kiev Folia, are written in transitory Panonian dialect between Croatian and Czech which became instinct after the Magyar invasion.
There are lots lexemes that were taken from OCS/CS into vernacular, usually as an elements of "higher style" (so called "Church Slavicisms"), but none of these basic terms are such. I plan creating "Appendix:Proto Slavic *etymon" pages for all of those words, so there'll be a central place to look up cognates in other Slavic languages - so far the ====Descendants==== section of OCS entries is just a temporary placeholder which is being removed as Appendix pages are created. Technically, xx:Old Church Slavonic derivations category should contain only these kind of "borrowings", but these are often very difficult to trace and separate from normally inherted words. In the Appendix: pages I've been putting OCS as the uppermost in the hierarchy not because it's an ancestor to all the other Slavic languages, but because it's the oldest attested one and kind of independent. Which is kind of misleading too, so in the last few created entries, (such as *noktь, *zima), I've been putting it in the same column. --Ivan Štambuk 17:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you think you could take a look at zaladjen and zalađen and see what's going on? Those two need some love (or possibly deletion). :-) Dmcdevit·t 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I have revert your edit to Category:el:Arabic derivations where you replaced the {{topic cat}} line with the {{dercatboiler}} line. The templates {{dercatboiler}}, {{dercatnav}} and {{etymcatboiler}} are being gradually replaced by the use of {{topic cat}}, however various sub pages to {{topic cat}} have to be populated for the Etymology categories and this will take some time. The category already mentioned is now handled by {{topic cat}} but others are yet to be, so for now the use of {{dercatboiler}} is fine until I get round to replace them all. Regards, --Williamsayers79 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I moved the table into Roxana, because the translations I could check referred to the wife of Alexander. It is not used a given name in Scandinavia. Also, Roxana is just as acceptable in English as Roxanne. Could you check the rest of the translations, if you know where they belong? The list looks quite impressive. I don't know where you got it from? It's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between translations and transliterations. Notice there is a list of descendants in Ῥωξάνη .

I appreciate your entries on Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian given names, and keep wishing you would make some more. So few people here are interested in given names.--Makaokalani 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

See 202.182.138.206 and Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Turkish loanwords from Serbian. --EncycloPetey 03:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan, you created this Hungarian word a while ago, but I and User:Baron de Saint-Rémy are not sure if it exists in this form. Please see his talk page User talk:Baron de Saint-Rémy#Etymology for the discussion. What was the reference you used or how did you find this word? Thanks. --Panda10 22:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I looked it up on Google Books, only one book was returned, and the word is mentioned in the index, but I can't locate it inside the book. Well, I just leave it for now. Thanks. --Panda10 19:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just blocked Dušan's IP address: 202.182.138.171 (talk) upon seeing that he still continues to add 0-google-hits protologisms and dialectalisms to the translation tables. The damage that he's doing by that is immense, because lots (most) of FL wiktionaries just copy-past translation tables of entries of English Wiktionary, and then bot-generate thousands of entries, and no one is gonna clean them up there. I suggest that the entries that he's created (like светлоказ/svetlokaz) be marked with {{neologism}} or deleted on sight. If you feel masochistic, feel free to inspect his contributions ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 17:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can see the template in action on the page for novem, in addition to the several examples on the template talk page. Thoughts? --EncycloPetey 02:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dijan, I've just set up {{sr-proper noun}}. It's equipped to take g= for gender (but doesn't require it), and to take either cyr= for a Cyrillic spelling or rom= for a Roman spelling. It should require less typing than using {{infl}} for Serbian proper noun entries. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please have a look here? Cheers, H. (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan,

The Instrumental-Singular form at јануар was wrong (in Romanian spelling and not in Cyrllic). Now, somebody has changed it, and I am wondering if it is good now. Could you please check if it's correct. It would help me a lot!

Kind regards, Tvdm 14:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I had a bit of free time, and I came up with this and was wondering if it would be useful to you. It's in place at دوستی. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey!

Thanks for taking the time to create it! :) --Dijan 09:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'd be happy to create a Hindi version as well, if you think they'd be useful. However, I would like some feedback, what you think doesn't work well about it, what it's missing, etc. You're in a far better position to judge the needs of these languages than I. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I like it very much. I've really had no time to do it myself, nor am I skilled in template creation ;) The only thing I have a problem with is that the transliteration takes on the formating (font) of the "ur-Arab" template. If that could be fixed, it would be perfect. Yes, please, if you have time, go ahead and create a Hindi one as well. Thanks! :) --Dijan 20:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Transliteration set back to default font. {{hi-noun}} all set to go (in use at दोस्ती). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on this matter (and I wonder if I'm not the only one). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

--EncycloPetey 02:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan. Turkish word "ayna" (mirror) has an Arabic or Persian origin, I'm not sure. It's from "ayneh". Do you know in which language it's called "ayneh"? And do you know how to write it? Thank you very much in advance. --Sinek 21:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Selam. The word is of Persian origin. Persian spelling is آئینه. --Dijan 22:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll add it to the article, thank you very much (Çok teşekkür ederim!) (: --Sinek 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're very welcome! I've already added the etymology section. Do not hesitate to ask again! :) --Dijan 22:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hah! I was just working with Sinek to set up {{tr-adj}}. Turkish adjectives seem to be regular in their comparative-ness. --EncycloPetey 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a pretty huge wave of vandalism going on right now, I'm not an admin so it's hard to handle. The reverts are all over recentchanges. Teh Rote 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The edits of anon user 202.9.232.91; another etymology changer. --EncycloPetey 10:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan - is this what you would call a Serbian salad? --Borganised 09:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan! When I was in Montenegro last year, I picked up this little placard with a quote on it. Since it seems to be from someone called "Vladika Nikolai", I am assuming it's in Montenegrin/Serbian (whatever you choose to call it..). I can pick out odd words like God and house, but I'd love it if you could let me know what it says in full.

• Боже благослови онога који улази у овај дом, заштити и сачувај онога који излази из њега и дај мир ономе ко у њему остаје. —Владика Николај.

Thanks for any help you can provide! Ƿidsiþ 10:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! Vladika Nikolaj was a bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It roughly translates as:

• God, bless the one that enters this home, protect and save the one that leaves it and give eternal peace to the one that remains in it.

Anytime! --Dijan 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cheers dude! Now I just need to crack on with Gorski Vijenac. . . . Ƿidsiþ 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You created svetlost. That just so happened to be our one millionth entry (barring bots, symbols, and abbreviations), just check the WT:BP for details. Congratulations! Teh Rote 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you help with the Middle Persian source of this one? I don't really know the Pahlavi scripts very well. Ƿidsiþ 08:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! Although.. Why do you think it came into English from Urdu/Hindi? The OED says Persian, and the earliest citations are from Persian travellers which seems to support the idea. The OED etymology has a long-a (mārķwār), which is why I used alif, but since I don't know any Persian myself I guess that could be wrong. Ƿidsiþ 09:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm sorry...I was up very late last night researching this word and came up quite disappointed. I'm basing the fact that it comes via Hindustani (Urdu and Hindi) due to the pronunciation of the word in English, which follows Hindustani pronunciation and resembles it very closely (especially on the "khor" part) and on the quotation given, which definitely gives it away. Ultimately, yes, it comes from Persian. As far as I know the word for to eat is خوردن (khordan) (without the alif) and even if it did have the alif, in such cases, where a present participle is the second part of a word, it would be dropped. --Dijan 04:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

User:Nemzag is adding some requests in Wiktionary:Requested entries:Persian‎. Be careful of his Arabic letters...he doesn’t know the differences in Arabic and Persian alphabets. I have fixed some. —Stephen 02:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have created this template for comparison and ease of linking between Dari, Iranian Persian and Tajiki Persian. What do you think? Also what would you think about Unipers for the standard transliteration in Wiktionary？ Kaixinguo 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit: here are a couple of examples of it in use: کر and سگ. Kaixinguo 20:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that this needs a usage note about how 'Khoda hafiz' has fallen from favour and the shift towards 'Allah hafiz'. Although I don't know Urdu, there are a lot of Pakistanis and Indians and people of Pakistani descent where I live and from what I have heard many Pakistani Muslims are strong proponents of 'Allah hafiz' and are militantly against 'Khoda hafiz'. Kaixinguo 01:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is the first time I'm hearing about the disuse of خدا حافظ. All of my Pakistani friends and their relatives use خدا حافظ exclusively. I have yet to hear them say اللہ حافظ. After looking on the net for the examples of the disuse, I wouldn't necessarily say that it should be mentioned in the Wiktionary just yet. It seems to be a fairly new, even political, phenomenon. However, I wouldn't classify it as a linguistic one just yet. --Dijan 07:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. That's London for you. Kaixinguo 13:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You hear 'allah hafiz' here all the time btw. Kaixinguo 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Really? Wow! That is very interesting. اللہ حافظ is an entry now. --Dijan 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Dijan. The discussion about the template is becoming increasingly voluminous after I accorded with you, especially since even the War in South Ossetia and Иво Андрић had been involved. If you would like to express your opinion in the discussion, I would be delighted to make myself familiar with it. Best regards. Bogorm 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. Why do you think that the Latin script in Serbian is as justified as Cyrillic? In the Constitution of Serbia the only admissible script is Cyrillic and as far as I know the Latin is used only in Internet argot. Have you ever encountered any book in Serbian (not printed in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina) in Latin script? This chap is making profusely use of the Latin spellings and I wanted to discourage him thereof, but the layout in Wiktionary:About Serbian prevented me therefrom. Would you repugn any change sanctioning solely the Cyrillic script, which I would like to introduce? Bogorm 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Serbian is not only the language of Serbia, but also of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo. The language is written in both scripts in all countries. --Dijan 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

BTW, the word snjegović is in the list of wanted entries. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Do you think that the Persian word که is from the French/Spanish word "que"? It roughly means the same, and I believe it's kinda pronounced the same as well. Arvin 19:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

که descends from Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *kʷis, so it’s related not only to que, che, but also to English what/where/why and to Russian чей (čej). —Stephen 19:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you check on biзin and faзola? Why is only the 'z' in Cyrillic, with all the other letters in Latinica? —Stephen 19:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

З is considered to be part of the Montenegrin "Latinica" alphabet. As far as I know, it is used to represent the sound /dz/, which is not found in other dialects of Serbian. I have not been to post-independence Montenegro, so I don't know what the language status there is. I have no idea how it would be represented in Cyrillic, if any speakers of "Montenegrin" would use Cyrillic. --Dijan 08:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to thank you for your intervention against the Montenegrin POV-pushing. This chap is creating quite an amount of ==Montenegrin== entries and if this developments were to be tolerated we would have ended up taking up with трасянка, суржик, Flamish and who knows what more "languages"... Bogorm 15:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, what do you think of the Macedonian? Bogorm 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jа сам придодао акценат во излог. Jа сад учим српскохрватски jезик и jа желим видети акценат, ако je можно. Ви ћете одобрити, кога jа придодам акценат? Bogorm 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you may add the accentuation if you'd like. I, on the other hand, do not necessarily have access nor the patience with the computers that I use to access Wiktionary to add them. Pay attention to Ivan and his edits of Croatian entries. He is quite good with the addition of accents. By the way, I am quite impressed at your SH (even if it is very Bulgarian :P)!

A little bit of help: "во" in SH is "на", "можно" in SH is "могуће" and "кога" in SH is "када". --Dijan 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I shall bear that in mind. I took можно from Russian (it was the first thing which crossed my mind and I was too indolent to check it...), it is not a Bulgarian word. Bogorm 20:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dijan! Would you please take a look at the talk page of ibrik? Thank you. --Chapultepec 12:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Зашто мислиш да зрак значи form, shape на бyг. jаз.? Ja сам сагласaн са другима значењама, али не сам га сретао као form, shape. Имаш ли изворе? Желим избрисати ово значење и сачувати само други два. Bogorm 14:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

How are you with Gujarati? The word (deprecated template usage) banyan is slated to be WOTD later this month. Stephen has helped with what he can, but says his additions include guesswork and suggested I ask you for additional help. Is this an etymology you could flesh out? --EncycloPetey 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --EncycloPetey 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan. I would have a question, do you have any objections for the Turkish listings, that is, appending the Turkish templates where applicable in the etymological sections of the related words? We can correspond here, thanks. --Chapultepec 10:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't had any objections to the additions you have made to some entries. The only thing that I ask of you is to be consistent with all entries. --Dijan 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we all should take care of consistency all the time. Now, I just wanna get into detail giving halva example. The following is an etymology instance in halva entry:

From Ottoman Turkish حلوا (halva, helva) (Turkish helva) < Arabic حلوى (ḥalwā).

So, in the future if we all can continue like this, we can evade editing the same article a couple of times.

Additionally, if the Ott. Turkish transcription and the Turkish entry is the same, which is generally the same most of the times, we can omit the Ott. Turkish transcription to keep the sentence shorter (of course if there are no Wiktionary regulations against it). For instance we can write:

From Ottoman Turkish خبر (Turkish haber) < Arabic خبر (xábar).

Instead of:

From Ottoman Turkish خبر (haber) (Turkish haber) < Arabic خبر (xábar).

You can write here, I will be watching your talk page for the ongoing debate. --Chapultepec 01:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think we're ok, if so, I will continue in such a way I suggested above, thanks. --Chapultepec 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The only problem with the example of خبر (haber) is that it is not consistent with words that are not spelled the same way. A user of Wiktionary will not know if that word is actually transcribed the same way. What about words that do have a different pronunciation as well? They will not follow the same format. For example, in Ottoman Turkish: خراب (harâb) vs. harap. Although, I am sure that there are plenty of sources that will cite either as Ottoman Turkish.

I have no objections to placing the modern Turkish etymology template on a page where a word might also have an Ottoman Turkish etymology template. It's fine by me, because as you have mentioned before that most sources cite only Turkish and not necessarily Ottoman Turkish as the origin of a certain word. --Dijan 04:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for agreeing with me for my first suggestion. Yes, as we can all see, dictionaries generally prefer to use the term Turkish. :) In fact, the matter is that there was an effective diglossia between the two in Ottoman era. Ottoman Turkish was the written variety used by the Ottoman elite 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.

As for my second suggestion, it's ok, that's not a problem. All I wanted was to keep the sentence shorter, but one word shorter or longer, it doesn't make so much difference. But I want to add a comment just for your information about the example you have given. When we use the word harap by alone, we pronounce it the same, harap. But when we use the verbs harap etmek and harap olmak, we pronounce them just like in Ottoman Turkish, harâb etmek and harâb olmak. --Chapultepec 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

And I have strong objections against imposing the template {{etyl|tr}} when there is already {{etyl|ota}}, otherwise we shall start placing from Amharic next to every Ge'ez derivation, Middle Persian next to every Avestan derivation, from Yagnobi next to every Sogdian derivation and finally, to admit that English feud comes directly from Fehde, skipping the fact that both originate in Old High German. How could you justify that? I favour the adoption of {{etyl|tr}} only where the word was borrowed in modern times, which is the case of US slang shyster from German, where {{etyl|de}} is justified (modern borrowing). Otherwise, ota. My supposition about the casual evasion of Ottoman Turkish is that online dictionaries try to avoid Arabic script. If you shewed me one digitalised book, where the author has this possibility (id est, he writes Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit borrowings in proper script), but favours from Turkish in lieu of from Ot. T., then this would be much more persuasive. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, since we continue discussion here in Dijan's talk page, I will re-write my thoughts here: --Chapultepec 14:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

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.

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. Additionally, I am not in the opinion that religious segregation can be an obstacle for word loanings between the folks.

I also do not think that online dictionaries evade Ottoman Turkish just to avoid Arabic script, they could easily write "Ottoman Turkish" and the transcription beside it. And they already use transcriptions for the languages like Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit etc, just like in sultan and shawl. --Chapultepec 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this case, we should determine whether the words were loaned into the related languages through ordinary Turkish or Ottoman Turkish proper, i.e. from the mainstream language or the written variety of the Ottoman elite. --Chapultepec 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also feel the necessity to add, I am not in the opinion of imposing anything, we have been discussing the topic for a couple of weeks, what I try to provide is a common compromise. By the way, for me the example of feud-Fehde is not so comparable to our case. --Chapultepec 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I completely understand. The way that Turkisms are classified in Balkan languages is based on different word categories. Most words come from categories like "war", "religion", "administration". Therefore it can be difficult to be specific as to whether a word come directly from the administrative language (which is most likely the case) or from common Turkish; the second being less likely because the number of "common" Turks coming and actually settling in the Balkans (in this case Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia) was quite low and is why the language of today only contains maybe less than 2000 words of Turkish origin, mostly related to administration, war, religion, and literature. But, in Macedonian, and somewhat Bulgarian, the number of Turkish words is much higher and that has to do with that fact that Turks did actually settle in these regions. --Dijan 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I cannot be sure for Serbia, but so far as I know there were Ottoman Turkish settlers in Bosnia, just like in Bulgaria and Macedonia, and let us not forget, Ottoman Turkish proper was a written variety for official purposes, even the Ottoman administrators had to prefer common Turkish among the populace for them to be understood. So, it is really hard to believe that all those 2,000 words came through that administrative written variety. For this reason, I suggested to add both templates in the etymologies, since we cannot be sure that these words were loaned through Ottoman proper. --Chapultepec 06:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let me give an example from the modern times, German has acquired some new Turkish words like Döner, Dolmusch etc within the last 30-40 years. Were these words loaned into German through the administrative officials or through the ordinary folks? Naturally these loanings happened through the ordinary folks, although they are religiously separated. --Chapultepec 06:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a fine example, but when speaking of Bosnian and Serbian, Turkisms didn't come in the last 30 years, but rather in the last 500 years. That's many years of changes in pronunciation, and therefore Modern Turkish cannot necessarily be used as a good example. --Dijan 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course it lasted for 500 years, no objections for that. I gave the modern era example since we precisely know that these words entered German through the ordinary folks. As for the pronunciation changes, through the Bosnian and Serbian words I checked in Wiktionary, I can say that most of the words are still the same, or almost the same. --Chapultepec 06:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

somewhat Bulgarian, the number of Turkish words is much higher - not at all, there was a process of de-Turkisation during the whole 20th century especially after the Liberation of Bulgaria in 1878, which led to the reduction of Turcisms in Bulgarian. Even when I read somewhere in Skok's dictionary Balkan turcism... in Bg., I meet there the word for the first time, ought to look it up in specialised dictionaries on obsolete or dialectal Bulgarian and only then I realise its meaning. Ivan Vazov, one of our greatest writers, used profusely Turcisms and in modern Bg. editions there is always a glossary for those words, otherwise the reader would stumble over them. Look at Appendix:List of Balkanisms - all words marked as obsolete or dialectal are completely incomprehensible to modern Bulgarians. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is why I insist on listing the obsolete/dialectal Bulgarian cognate in the etymology section of Serbo-Croatian (in order to provide their meaning) - because 1) sometimes there are differences in meaning, which I would rather not add in the table, least it be encumbered thereby, 2) all they are obs./d., which means that ordinary Bulgarian users do not know them, would not add them and only if some Bulgarian filologist specialised in archaic or dialectal Bulgarian becomes a Wiktionarian (which is not likely due to their number), the words would stand a chance of acquiring their own entries here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dijan, could you please take a look at my talk page, thanks. --Chapultepec 05:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a note for you in case you miss the BP notice ^_^

I really grew fond of those collapsible inflection templates that Opiaterein originally spread (and that by now lots of languages use), so I've made {{sh-decl-noun}} and {{sh-conj}} collapsible. Does that pose a problem to you?

And also the order of cases: perhaps it would be the best to ignore "Western" and "Eastern" traditions completely, and use some neutral one, like those in the The Slavonic languages monography, chapter on SC written by Wayles Browne, who uses the order: NOM, VOC, ACC, GEN, DAT, INST, LOC ? I personally have no problems with either solution, it's just that some might find a particular solution (the last 2 cases: LOC, INST in Croatian tradtion or INST, LOC in Serbian) a PoV..

Also, I plan to write programs that would automate the "transition", as well as conversion to Cyrillic (esp. from accentuated Latin-script entries to Cyrillic with those hard-to-type combining diacritics). In some easy-to-use copy/paste Web interface. I need to learn this horrible Javascript language first tho. I'll notify you when I make some progress :D --Ivan Štambuk 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I love what you've done with the examples! As far as the order of the cases goes, I do not have a preference to that. I am fine with the current examples. We can make a compromise as to keeping the Croatian order, but keeping the Serbo-Croatian name, rather than Croato-Serbian! I'm sorry, my mind is fried from studying at the moment, however what you have done so far looks very good to me. The only thing that bothers me just a little is use of diacritics in the translation sections. I think we should keep the diacritics on the actual entry pages, but not in translation tables. --Dijan 04:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan. Me and User:Bogorm are interested in the etymology of Turkish kireç and Serbo-Croatian креч/kreč. Do you know, by any chance, if the information here is correct, which will effectively make these words cognate to Armenian կիր (kir)? --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Redhouse Ottoman Turkish dictionary claims Ottoman Turkish كیرج (kirec, “lime”) is of Turkic origin. The closest word in Persian that I have found is گچ (gač, “lime”). I have not found girac in Persian. --Dijan 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have also found Persian کرس (kers, “quick-lime”), and that is a variation of Persian کلس (kels, “quick-lime”) of Persian origin. --Dijan 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, this means Armenian կիր (kir) and kireç most probably are not connected after all. I'll remove it from the list of Balkanisms. Thanks for your efforts. --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan. In the Persian entry موت, you have added اموات as the plural form of موت. Are you sure this is correct? As far as I know, اموات is the plural form of میت, which is not quite the same. I thought I would check up with you to see if you agree :) Arvin 17:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your note, I don't like being incorrect :) I replied on my talk page. — opiaterein — 00:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there any special way to know when a Devanagari consonants inherent 'a' is...not there? Other than the little "no vowel here" diacritic? — opiaterein — 13:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

(on another note) Do you think we should put variant Urdu/Hindi spellings under an L4 "Alternative spellings" section to clean up the inflection line a little bit? — opiaterein — 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan. I only have one month experience in India but a few interesting topics are obviously coming to light regarding Hindi spelling variants. It must be time for some Hindi discussion and policy pages.

There was a Wiktionary:About Hindi page but it redirected to Wiktionary:About Sanskrit! I delted this redirect so we can make a real page. You seem to be the most knowledgeable so I wonder if you might like first go at creating an About Hindi page.

Here are some points I think we need to cover:

• Candra vowels such as ऍ, ऑ, ठॅ, ठॉ, ॲ.
• Nukta usage.
• Transliteration. There's IAST, ITRANS, and others.
  • Transliteration v pronunciation.
  • None of the transliteration schemes seem to allow for the candra vowels.
  • Markup such as underscores in transliterations.
  • Whether to use Hindi-specific, Devanagari-specific, or pan-Indian transliteration scheme.
• How to handle official spellings vs the Wiktionary 3-citation rule.

Maybe we should move this topic to Wiktionary talk:About Hindi. Perhaps you know the other major Hindi contributors/experts on Wiktionary to invite.

Thanks. — hippietrail 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've started {{hi-decl-noun}}, but I don't want to get too far with it. If wikipedia's stuff is right, I think I might be able to make some more specific templates, but since you're better at Hindi than I am, I figured I'd show you first :) — opiaterein — 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

brand-spankin-new {{hi-noun-ā-e}} seems to work, at least for लड़का. — opiaterein — 18:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Здраво, Dijan. У српскохрватскоj граматики, 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 jазик? Дали волиш да jа ти 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

Could you have a look at दौड़ना to see if the template ({{hi-conj}} which in turn calls {{hi-conj-head}}, which does most of the work) is set up correctly? Right now it's lookin kinda messy, and I think what I want to do is move the transliterations to tool tips (with a note, of course, that says something like "hover over verb form to see transliteration) — opiaterein — 22:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Tooltips are now in place, so the template at least looks cleaner :D — opiaterein — 01:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does this need to (still) be protected sysop? Bot can't add/modify iwiki links. Robert Ullmann 10:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan. I've been sudying Serbian and some Bosnian but I couldn't be successful enough. I wonder if you can help me about this, as you are a native speaker. Waiting for your answer! Best wishes! Sinek 17:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's great to hear this! Well, I've been studying from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Serbian_grammar) but there are some parts I'm in trouble with. First of all, noun declensions. I suppose that there's a difference between the proper nouns' declensions and the others. Is it true? And secondly, In the chart there are class I, class II, class III, feminine I, masculine II etc... Is there a rule about that? Or do I have to memorize the nouns which are Class III-Feminine II, or Class II-Feminine I ... ? And another part is verbs. What's the difference between "јесам" and "сам"? Lastly, there is a chart which shows the conjugation of the verb "радити". But the aorist part is missing. And under perfect and pluperfect, it's written "сам радиo/лa", "радиo/лa сам радиo/лa". Is it "сам радиo" or "сам радиoлa" ? What's the difference? And is it "радиoлa сам радиoлa"? The pluperfect part made no sence to me, actually... I hope I didn't make you bored, but I have one more question, what's the difference between Future I and Future II? Thanks a lot in advance. Best wishes! Sinek 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thank you very much. That really helped me. It's more clear now, thanks to you. By the way, Which one is more common to use; the Cyrillic alphabet or the Latin Alphabet? I guess both of them are used but the Latin is getting more popular, right? Anyway, I'm going to read more =) Thank you very much again, and, would you mind if I wanted your help again? It's really very good to study with a native speaker. Anyway, take care! Cheers! Sinek 19:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In some parts of Turkey, a little kind of bread which is called "kulaç" is made by lots of people. (It can be like this --> http://deco-00.slide.com/r/1/57/dl/FouFJO4m3T86X5AsfwGWjj5fNwunD0KO/watermark , but different forms are made as well) Sometimes it's called as "kulaç böreği" (kulaç burek). But Ottoman Turkish, hmm I'm not sure exactly, but I guess it's something like "qulaç" or "kulaç", similiar to Turkish word. Ayy, I have to go to the school now, I'll keep searching when I come back. Take care! Sinek 10:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I came accidentally across this section and I was reminded of the Bulgarian archaic word колак for round-shaped bread, usually home-made. Dijan, do you think it may be a Turcism and do you have a similar word (kolak ?) for round-shaped bread in Serbo-Croatian? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

See Russian калач. It’s Proto-Slavic. Well, according to Russian sources, at least. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great, then there can be no doubt about the Slavic origin and the Turkish language is likely to have loaned the word from some Slavic language, which is interesting, since the South Slavic languages were profusely loaning from Turkish in the past (во время ига), so it is interesting to observe the reverse process too. Thanks for the link, Vahagn. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to a Serbian source, it is a native Serbian term. It lists the Persian word as a cognate. --Dijan 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Turkish Language Association's official dictionary says that the word "kulaç" has a Turkish origin, and it's used only some parts of Turkey. Sinek 10:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I've finally got this one set up...somewhat correctly. Wanna have a look at जलाना to be sure? I haven't had a chance to test it on anything else yet, screaming baby issues :p thanks — opiaterein — 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure about زار being the right spelling for zar (dice) in Persian. I've been told it's زر but I can find neither in my dictionaries. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm interested in contributing to Tajik. I was wondering which transliteration scheme do you use, if any? Personally I don't like any of these. You think we should create our own standard for Wiktionary? Particularly one that would transliterate: қ as q, ғ as ġ, х as x, ҳ as h, ҷ as j. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I don't like any of those either. Your suggestion is what I've been using all along, with the exception of х as x, which I transliterate as kh (because I'm used to it from studying Persian for two years), but I am in favor of x for our Wiktionary standard. --Dijan 04:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nice to hear. Then I'll draft a standard soon and show you. --Vahagn Petrosyan 04:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I made Wiktionary:Tajik transliteration. Please see if you agree with it. Particularly, I am not sure about:

1) ғ as ġ, ğ or ǧ

2) х as x or kh

3) ъ as ʾ

You know better what's used for Persian and other Iranian languages, so please tweak as you find necessary. --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, do you mind adding also Persian translations after creating entries like درباره or گنگ, whenever you feel particularly masochistic? :D I need Persian words very often but I can't read/write Arabic, so the only way of reaching those entries is through translations in English sections. This is true for most of us, I guess. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will try. You should learn the script when you have some free time. It's not too difficult :D --Dijan 06:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What distinction are you making between a feast and a banquet. the terms are synonymous in English, so if there are two sense for the Hindi word, it requires additional clarification. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the terms feast and banquet are 100% synonymous. In my understanding, a banquet is more formal, or as the entry says, celebratory. — opiaterein — 12:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this BP discussion and perhaps put in your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. – Krun 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan, I was finally able to go to a research library and look at quite a large number of Hindi grammar books. None of them gave a rule for whether -iye or -ie should be used in certain circumstances and they continued to show the mix of usage of the two forms. Some specifically said both were acceptable with -ie being a convenience short form. I'd say based on that large of a sampling of the sources, that it would be best to say that both forms are acceptable and list both in the template or table. - Taxman 15:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does the word čalaġaǰ (pron. ) mean anything to you in one of the Eastern languages? It should mean something like the best part of the pig (barbecue-wise). --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dijan, you indicate that this Azeri word means tree, but I think it should be language instead. Does it also mean tree? —Stephen 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it's the accusative singular of dil (“language”). --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

tree = ağac (comparable to turkish ağaç) — opiaterein — 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, my mistake. I was only providing the Cyrillic spelling to the already existing dili entry by Úlfur-R. It should have been suspicious to me. I guess I wasn't really paying attention at the time. Oops. --Dijan 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you add the sense of “playing” to باز (baz), please? It could be some kind of participle or a suffix, I don’t know. What I know is that it forms compound words in Turkish borrowings such as oyunbaz or cambaz. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the answer. I found this. By the way, do you know a word in Persian or Turkish like “kandrbaz” that means a "tightrope walker"? Also, you didn’t say anything about my previous question on “čalaġaj” :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found Azeri kəndirbaz, so this one is solved! --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since yesterday two of our nationalist friends starting contributing :P

One of them is Elephantus (talk • contribs). He claims to speak "only Croatian", and his addition of ==Croatian== entries are entirely copy/pastes of my former entries, that were merged to ==Serbo-Croatian==. He also makes a few mistakes here and there, forgets to change sh to hr and similar.

The other one is our beloved Pepsi Lite (talk • contribs) ^_^ He appears to be a native speaker (at least judging from his sr WP contributions), but apparently not 100% literate: his first contribution of the entry nosilac had completely faulty inflection. He adds the ==Serbian== sections. He adds only new sections, apparently.

At any case, its imperative that the balance be maintained, as before. For every newly-cloned ==Croatian== entry we must add the appropriate ==Bosnian== and ==Serbian==, and for every newly-created ==Serbian== section we must add ==Bosnian==, ==Croatian==, and ==Serbo-Croatian==. It's pointless to insist on "Croatdom" or "Serbdom" of words that are otherwise identically spoken by millions of people of other ethnicities, being centuries than the "nations" that were all invented in the late 18th century.

Hopefully the users will realize how the entries such as govor or sinonimija look utterly ridiculous, how their individual enterprise on focusing on only one "language" is pointless, and will join the unification effort. (or perhaps not, but we don't care, by cloning they're ipso facto confirming that they're all the same language :P)

BTW, I'm currently compiling a list of Turkish LW in Serbo-Croatian (some ~800 entries so far). I've decided to learn all of them ^_^. I'll let you know when I produce sth useful. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 11:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

- what do you think of the idea of adding a few Serbo-Croatian words spelled in arebica? I've noticed a few SC Arabic-script entries on German and Korean Wiktionaries, IIRC. --Ivan Štambuk 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If I may express my humble opinion - this way of writing the Serbo-Croatian language is but an example of the usual animosity shown in religious politics by the former Bosnian kingdom of Tvrtko towards the two main branches of the Christian religion - the Orthodox and the Catholic. Tvrtko's kingdom had adopted a heretical Bogomil religion which has inflicted severe damage on Orthodox Bulgaria in the 10th and 13th centuries and on Catholic France in the 12th century (Albigenses/Albigeois and Cathars which deeply upset Sanctam Sedem). After the macabre Ottoman yoke shed its shadow on our pæninsula they (the non-Orthodox and non-Catholic Slavic population) adopted a policy of collaboration with the oppressors, converted to their religion and, as Ivan's link shows, even adopted their script in defiance to their fellows which continued to be treated and oppressed as raya. What I am trying to prove, is that this script is a rudiment of that atrocious time and prior to Ivan's message I could not believe that this script could have been imposed on a Slavic language. Whilst I have nothing against the Arabic script in general, I am simply reluctant to assent to its application for writing any Europæan language because of the cultural heritage of our continent and because of the sombre reminiscence which it evokes in the Balkanic people (when applied to their language - with the possible exception of Albanians, since they were not appurtenant to the Rayah either) which for centuries had been ruthlessly treated as Rayah. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bogorm, your historical asides always make me smile :) Well, the script was used in hundreds of preserved monuments, it was in use for several centuries - all the way to the middle 20th century, and it bears witness of important cultural developments in the region. It's an Arabic-script alphabet!!

I personally am in no way attached/detached to the words/scripts on the basis of historical evidence whether they were brought by the "oppressors" or "enlighteners" (Ottomans were IMHO much better culture-wise than Austrians, Hungarians, or Franks - all of which were intent on complete ethno-cultural subjugation of Balkanic Slavs - I mean, official language in Croatia was Latin all the was to 1848, simply in order to repel extensive Germanization and Magyarization), and I sincerely doubt that Dijan has any kind of prejudice either :) Also, I can assure you that the folks from Croatian Wikipedia would be absolutely horrified if I added ==Croatian== words in Cyrillic script, on the basis of argumentation that it was actually used for centuries in many an important monument (including the "uber-Croatian" Vatican Croatian Prayer Book which is one of the earliest monuments of vernacular Štokavian speech!). I would do that even now, if I had a copy of some works written in bosančica, so that I can provide actual citations :) We shouldn't have any kind of value judgments on words/scripts, but should merely act as some kind of "linguo-archeologists", providing them if they pass CFI without any emotions attached. Seeing Croatian words cited in Arabic and Cyrillic script could/would moreover act as a cultural bridge to some proud Islamophobic/Serbophobic Croats, who think that the polarization of words/scripts as "ethnically marked" that occurred in the 1990s was always so - it wasn't, and this "dirty" part of their history they've not been taught of. Our CFI allow it, and there's really no reason why we shouldn't do it.. --Ivan Štambuk 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, I would like just to express my indignation about Ottomans were IMHO much better culture-wise than Austrians, Hungarians, or Franks - if you claim that before any repræsentative of the nations who were forced to give away every fifth male offspring, whose predecessors mutilated their own children in order to prævent their abduction by this blood tax; people whose prædecessors were assailed in their houses by wild Ottomans and demanded victuals and after the oppressors devoured the food have demanded the so called tooth tax for using their teeth, any repræsentative of such a nation (bg, sr, el) wiould be utterly appalled. I do not want to belittle the assimilative politics of Austrians or Hungarians, but Austria and Germany are two of the culturally foremost countries in Europe and although Austria has a population less than that of the Balkanic part of Turkey, their cultural achievements are incomparable. After all, many Bulgarians (see Карпош or Chiprovtsi Uprising) and Serbs fought in the Austrian armies during the Austrian-Turkish wars of the 16-18th centuries; the Austrian army liberated a major Bulgarian city, Vidin, in 1689 and even if it did not last long, Bulgarians must not be oblivious of the progressive politics of Austria in the Eastern part of the Balkan pæninsula (I am aware that in the Western one it was assimilative and can not welcome it) before it turned Turkophile in the 19th century. Once I lost my rants at German Wikipedia here with an assimilative Panturkist who tried to convince me that I am not Slav, but his brother - I digged up the diff in case you are in the mood to read German (I could translate part of it, but it is more difficult for me to express mine ardency in English than in German). I assure you that it was an ineffable affront - the revisionist thinking is obviously ever more prævalent, after one court failed to outlaw the Islamist AKP party which has been raving for decades and the situation could hardly improve while they arrest every dissident, including one Nobel prize winner. Sorry for my prolixity in this quæstion, but I am eager to counter any effort to downplay the Ottoman atrocities - see the articles w:Devşirme or w:Batak massacre, although the articles are probably written much more leniently than most of Bulgarian history books. And I am also eager to know Dijan's opinion about the Ottoman time and the idea of writing a Slavic language in the Arabic script but I assure you that it was a grisly time - the Ottomans were nowhere near as attractive as this flourishing Arabic culture with foremost writers which the enlightened and illustrious Emperor Friedrich II von Hohenstaufen admired for the Pope's dismay (he was excommunicated for his peaceful approach to the Arabs, although this approach brought him the reconquest of Jerusalem) - it was a theocratic militarist regime. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

For centuries Serbs have been taught to hate the Turks, Arabs, Muslims in general and to erase the Ottomans from our minds as well as lands, and undoubtedly this is the case with Bulgaria as well. This is what I learned in my history classes in Bosnia. What Ivan is suggesting has nothing to do with Dervsirme nor the massacres, therefore I will not comment much on that subject. There were plenty of massacres commited by the Slavs throughout history as well. As a Slav, and most importantly as a contributor to this project, I do my best to keep my bias on this out of here. I have plenty of opinions about the Slavs, the Ottomans, the Arabs, the Turks, but this is no place for that. I'm here to contribute what I know, and that is language (in whatever script it may be written). As far as "arebica" goes, it is a great approach to show a period of our history, because it is a part of our history. --Dijan 17:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree, let's just leave politics aside for now. --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

For centuries Serbs have been taught to hate the Arabs, Muslims in general and undoubtedly this is the case with Bulgaria as well - No, actually Bulgarian history cares little about Arabs, because they appeared on our pæninsula only during the sieges of Constantinople (7-8th centuries AD) and therefore we Bulgarians do not have any præjudices towards the Arab people. They have little to do with the 5 centures long Ottoman yoke. I would be surprised if in Serbia there is another attitude... perhaps because of recent events? Were Arabs involved in the enmities against Serbs during the Bosnian war? I have heard of Arabic fighters in Čečnja (and of Turkish shipments-military ships, to Georgia during the Georgian-Ossetic war), which I condemn of course, but there is no reason to accuse Arabs of inimical stance towards the Slavic people. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I meant that in my Serbian history books and classes, Turks/Arabs/Muslims/Bosniaks (as that is how all Muslims are often termed by the Serbs) are one and the same, that is Muslims or sympathizers with the Muslims. I didn't mean to say "Arabs, the pure, ethnic Arab". And yes, "the Arabs" in recent times, due to the events of the 1990s, where Arab "mudžahidini" were sent into the Balkans. Plenty of predominantly Arab nations sent fighters into Bosnia (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc). When I went back to Bosnia last year, I was shocked to find girls, around the age of 12, wearing the nikab in Sarajevo (a sight that was not to be seen anywhere in Bosnia before the war). I have heard plenty of times that Wahhabis have become quite influential in Bosnia during and after the war (religiously and politically), but to actually see elaborate Wahhabi mosques dotting the city was another thing. To understand the reasons behind this, you must understand that they were the ones that provided the most help to Bosnian Muslims, in terms of money, education and food during the war. A parallel might be seen with Hamas and Hizbullah in Palestine. They might be called terrorists by the West, but they are the only source of humanitarian aid for the Palestinian people. But, just like the Bosnians got help from the Arabs, the Serbs received help from the other Slavic nations, including Bulgaria, and from Greece as well. Here are a few links you might be interested in about the role of foreign fighters in Bosnia: NYTimes article and Role of fighters... (from Wikipedia).--Dijan 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also like the Persian-style box idea! Also, perhaps we could also add Glagolitic spellings as well? :) Glagolitic was abundantly used in some parts of Croatia and Bosnia also to write vernacular speech (not just Church Slavonic), and there are thousands of preserved documents. Cf. e.g. here and here. This is gonna be so awesome. --Ivan Štambuk 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it seems that I am in minority, so I shan't object further, it is up to you both to decide as native speakers. But my dissent is not going to abate. Anyway, in distinction to the Arabic alphabet I am much more receptive to Glagolitic script, which is æqually hardly used in modern times, but was created by the Brethren Saint Kyril and Methodius. Theoretically it should be possible to add Glagoltic for (Old) Bulgarian too, but almost immediately after the 4 disciples of Kyril and Methodius arrived in Bulgaria in 886, Kliment Ohridski created the Cyrillic script and the Glagolitic alphabet was soon supplanted. Arabic abjad for Bulgarian is of course inconceivable. How long had the Glagolitic alphabet been used in Croatia, before the Latin alphabet gained the upper hand? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vajsov misal was the last one published in 1927. Croatian Glagolites tradition was kept alive for almost a millennium, only to grow extinct when the advancement of technology should've made it flourish the most. 90% of MSS. are not even philologically processed. 99.9% of people nowadays cannot read it, and the only place they can encounter it once they leave high school are the election campaign placards of the right-wing parties such as HČSP, together with pleter and similar nationalist iconography which measures the scale of your "Croatdom" (hrvatstvo :). --Ivan Štambuk 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, let me know how you plan on doing this. As far as the alphabet goes, there are a few letters you might have trouble with: "ć", "đ" and "nj". However, according to the Arabic wikipedia they can be replaced by ڇ for "ć" and "đ" and with ني for "nj". Also, I haven't found any rules for how to write in arebica. I've seen a few examples where ه "h" used for "e" in arebica is only used in final form (that is, it doesn't connect to the following letter). That can be solved if we are using the standard Arabic ه (h) followed by the ZWNJ character as it is used in Persian for the same purpose or we could use the Kurdish 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., which is used to represent "e" in Kurdish and does not connect to the following letter (however it does not connect properly, at least not from my view, to the previous letter). Another thing I've noticed is that the Arab ي is only used for "j", while the dottless one is used for "i". The problem is that I've seen a few texts where the medial form for "i" is also dottless, but I've seen a few that do carry the dot. Which would we opt for? There is no problem if we opt for the dots in the middle and initial forms, we could use the Persian "ye" ی for "i", as it will be dottless in the final form (just as Wikipedia is using it). If we opt for the dottless "ye" in the middle, the only other character that we can use, that I know of, to not carry the dots in the medial and initial forms is the Uyghur "ye" ى, however the problem with it is that it does not connect appropriately at all. --Dijan 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I tried training my OCR sw to recognize Glagolitic letters but that scan of Acta Croatica is really too bad to produce something useful. This post-OCS Glagolitic has the same kind of problems as arebica - the only rules for it are those of scribe's taste and tradition, which can vary quite significantly regionally and diachronically. The only feasible solution that it seems to me is to actually add the spellings as they are attested. We can decide for one of them to become "canonical", link to it in the template box, and to other ones by means of {{alternative spelling of}} + ==Alternative spellings==. My knowledge of Arabic script is veery basic, and as far as the issues with arebica are concerned, I have full trust in whatever you choose to decide. For Glagolitic the main problem are the hundred of obscure ligatures not encoded in Unicode, but we can easily solve this by "unrolling" them to full spelling. --Ivan Štambuk 15:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Sorry for omitting ћуфта - I picked up the descendants from Етимологичен речник на българския език where I could not encounter it and I was too lazy to check Skok's dictionary. If there is a SC word similar to месал meaning towel or tablecloth, then it ought to be added as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan. There are some difficulties with interpreting the votes, because the way the vote has been set up it becomes less obvious whether those who voted for more restrictive option 1 are also supportive of less restrictive option 2, unless they haven't explicitly said so (by also voting for option 2). Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider voting also for option 2, if you are supportive of it (note that you cannot vote against it). We need 75% of supportive votes for it to pass. --Ivan Štambuk 13:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why can't he vote against it? --Rising Sun 13:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why can't you vote for it? — opiaterein — 15:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I already voted for it --Rising Sun 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, I don't see the problem :p — opiaterein — 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's no problem. I shouldn't try to convince him to vote against. I voted for, and obviously would like this vote to succeed (now why did I bother to try to correct Ivan - he was on my side!!) --Rising Sun 18:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Dijan, I want to create some articles in SC and Sr Wikipedias for cities and villages of the Gorno-Badakhshanskaja Oblast, but I would like to consult you for the translation: Область (Russian) = Вилояти (Tajik) and the SC term is Oblast, right? Район (Russian) = Ноҳияи (Tajik) = Rajon in SC? But when I reached Ҷамоати, I had no idea of either the Russian or the SC æquivalent. Perhaps I should make one single article dealing with both the Ҷамоати and its main village? Are more than one village to be found in one Ҷамоати? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, just to make you aware, the "и" on the end of most Tajiki nouns (followed by another word) is actually the ezâfe, or the genitive marker. So, "ҷамоати ...." is in the genitive construction, loosely translating to "ҷамоат of....". I am not yet sure if more than one village can be located in a "ҷамоат". I'm going to have to look into that. Yes, "Область" would be "Oblast"/"Област", "Район" would translate as "Rejon"/"Рејон". --Dijan 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to the Wikipedia article on Tajikistan, a "ҷамоат" is further divided into several "қишлоқ". --Dijan 18:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could have a look at this one? This is the spelling the dictionary of classical Hindi and Urdu gives, but I can't find anything similar to it or with slight spelling variations anywhere online... — opiaterein — 18:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is found in Platts' dictionary اداهرن and also on shabdkosh.com --Dijan 18:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

However, you have to remember that the Urdu "he" is different from Arabic "he". Thus the correct spelling should be اداہرن. --Dijan 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan. What online dictionary of Ottoman Turkish would you recommend? It should be in Arabic script. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are a few online sources that have Ottoman dictionaries, but they're all in Roman script. The problem with them is that there is no indication of how the original word was spelled in Arabic script. The only thing I would recommend is to look on Google Books dictionaries by Sir William Redhouse. It is also the only one used by universities that teach Ottoman Turkish today. --Dijan 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Another question then. Which characters of Arabic alphabet present in our edittools-Arabic do not correspond to Ottoman Turkish ones? If I understand correctly, instead of Arabic ى Persian ی should be used, no? Also, could you please keep an eye on Category:Ottoman Turkish words needing attention? I intend to switch all Armenian derivations from Turkish to Ottoman Turkish and to create entries for those words. Thanks in advance. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that this one is a Persian derivation; In AriaDic.com, غرور is listed as a translation for 'pride', which is why I had the alternate spelling listed. But I'm not really ever sure when it comes to Urdu :s — opiaterein — 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

غرور is a derivation of Arabic. The reason I removed it is because it is not an alternate spelling of the same word. It is a different word that happens to be synonymous. I meant to add it as a synonym, but got carried away. --Dijan 20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

So it's essentially just a coincidence that the Urdu spelling of the Hindi word is close to the Urdu spelling of the Arabic word? That's much less surprising than I would have thought a year ago :D — opiaterein — 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have to remember that Urdu and Hindi are one language :) Urdu would never spell native words (tadbhav, tatsam, and deshaj) with foreign sounds. --Dijan 00:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I knoooow but their vocabulary choices seem in some cases to be so vastly different, and on top of that, there are so many ways to say what we in English have only one or two terms for. Every language I've studied has such unique and frustrating challenges... — opiaterein — 01:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haha! That's true. That is the most fascinating part about foreign languages. There are so many words that are considered different and used differently in different contexts that in English represent only one thing! That is the beauty of a rich language such as Hindustani. The vocabulary is the same for both in terms of daily life. It is the governmental, technical, and scientific terms that are different. That is the "preferred" vocabulary that is prescribed, but not necessarily spoken, that is different. Most printed Urdu dictionaries you find floating around today will only list Arabic terms, rarely native or even Persian terms. These terms are scholarly and considered highly formal and are not in frequent usage in spoken Urdu or even in written materials such as the media or novels. In Hindi, Sanskrit is being treated the way Arabic is in Urdu. It's quite ridiculous to claim that Arabic terms are not used in Hindi at all or that sounds like "z" are not common (as some Hindi grammar books teach). As I was taught, the Arabic and Persian sounds are as common in urban Hindi as in Urdu. Most Hindi dictionaries throw away Persian or Arabic terms that are heard quite frequently in daily conversations and are used in literature as well and replace them with rural, Sanskrit terms that very few urban people have ever heard. --Dijan 02:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It would be nice if there were a print dictionary of Hindustani that would list the source language and synonyms from other sources. I guess Wiktionary may just be the first such dictionary. We've got our work cut out for us :D — opiaterein — 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the Pashto spelling is پاكستان as in this dictionary and this dictionary, because the Pashto letter for /k/ is ك as in Arabic, unlike Persian or Urdu which have ک instead. Could you restore the correct entry, please? Avestan Pashtun 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The reason why I used ک is because Pashto Wikipedia is using it and it is listed in the alphabet section of Pashto article on the English Wikipedia. Raverty's dictionary also uses ک. This document پښتو ليکلاﺭ ښود, by Prof Zyar says to use ك and ګ, however, if you scroll through the text you will find extensive use of ک and گ respectively. Voice of America in Pashto also uses ک and گ instead of ك and ګ. BBC's Pashto service uses only ک for /k/, but also uses both گ and ګ for /g/ replace g with ɡ, invalid IPA characters (g). Khpala Pashto also uses ک. Khyber.org also uses ک. I can't seem to find anything authoritative on this online. Let me know if you do find something beside qamosona. --Dijan 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for always cleanin' up after me :) I don't usually like to add stuff I'm not 100% sure of, but the internet liessssss. — opiaterein — 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

کچھ نہیں، یار :D --Dijan 00:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you think languages like Gilaki and Mazandarani that use the Perso-Arabic script should use {{fa-Arab}}, or do they warrant having their own templates, like {{glk-Arab}}? — opiaterein — 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe it would be "safer" to say they warrant having their own templates, so that no one gets quite offended. But, as temporary means, I do not mind using {{fa-Arab}} for Gilaki, Mazandarani, Luri, Hazaragi, and Azeri because I've also been using {{ur-Arab}} for Baluchi (and for Panjabi before {{pa-Arab}} came to be). --Dijan 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the reason I asked is that if we go with the lang-Script method, then conceivably, every language could one day have their own script template. I suppose there could be advantages to this, but certainly there could also be disadvantages. Anyway, thanks for your input :) — opiaterein — 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I finished {{hi-conj-simp}} today, it does more of the non-periphrastic stuff. — opiaterein — 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Dijan. I noticed that you added чекич as an arguable Bulgarian word, obsolete or dialectal. The words which I usually mark as such are those I can find in materials dedicated to Bulgarian turcisms. With this word this was not the case. On the contrary, there is a current word for hammer, which is чук and which according to this source descends from the Turkish source chekich (unfortunately one can hardly find academic sources for the etymology, because the Bulgarian etymological dictionary has reached the letter С). Therefore I suggest replacing чекич with чук, since their common non-Slavic origin is evident. Would you settle therefor? If not, I shall remove the obsolete tag based on this entry proving its dialectal usage. If you have doubts that чук and чекич share the same origin, please state them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure if чук and чекич share the same origin or not. I will remove the obsolete tag. Skok also lists чекич as Bulgarian. I simply copied the tags from another entry in the appendix. I was in a hurry; I no longer have a stable Internet connection at home :( --Dijan 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't think they are related. The Serbo-Croatian verb чукати/čukati means to hit or strike and is related to Bulgarian чук. According to Skok, it looks like it is onomatopoeic. --Dijan 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just dialectal seems alright. Yes, it is related. Well then, I am soothed then... Tako je već dobro, jer imamo u svakom jeziku bar jednu slovensku reč - naše чук i vaša lepa reč kladivo. Dodao sam kladivo - čekić#Synonyms. Pozdrav. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You also listed Persian چکش (čakoš) as cognate. Do you know in which direction the borrowing happened, Persian -> Turkish or vice versa? --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

They are definitely related, but I'm not 100% sure of the direction of borrowing. I'm leaning towards Turkic origins. Redhouse's Ottoman dictionary lists Turkish as origin, while Turkish Wiktionary (if I'm not mistaken) list Persian and Turkish as the origin. I'm a little confused by that. Persian dictionaries I have, list no origins (usually meaning native origin). Dehkhoda's dictionary (most comprehensive Persian dictionary) has a note that says it was borrowed into Turkish, if my Persian translation is correct (I will check with a native speaker about this today and let you know as soon as I get a reply). --Dijan 05:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dunno about Persian word, but Turkish çekiç is from native Turkic root çak- + -iç which had apparently lot of variant forms in derivations. --Ivan Štambuk 13:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was adding translations for this, but since I don't know any Persian at all I wanted to ask you before I added من نفهمیدم or نفهمیدم... — opiaterein — 16:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I was wondering if you could find out if the Azeri and Turkish words rəng and renk are related to the Hindustani रंग (raṅg)/رنگ and Persian رنگ? I noticed that Ottoman Turkish borrowed it from Persian, so I'm not sure if it just evolved to renk or what... Thanks :) — opiaterein — 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they are. It is a borrowing from Persian. In Turkish "g" is devoiced to "k" word-finally. --Dijan 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) I think the Turkish word-final consonant gets more complicated than that, but I don't really remember the rules... the k is preserved in the plural 'renkler', but the accusative becomes 'rengi'... — opiaterein — 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dijan,

I notice that you moved the anatomical sense of बुल्ला (bullā) from the ==Hindi== section to the ==Marathi== section. Does that mean that you can vouch for this sense? I'm always loath to RFV-fail non-English words, because I usually suspect that the lack of citations is due to a lack of knowledgeable editors in the language. (There are only about five editors who ever cite words for RFV, and between us we cover less than a dozen foreign languages.) If you have good reason to believe this sense is real, I'd be happy to keep it without actually "RFV-passing" it.

Thanks in advance for any information or insight.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I based it on the fact that it was added as Marathi in the translation table for "penis" and not for Hindi. Also, it is nowhere to be found in Hindi dictionaries with that definition or anything close to that. --Dijan 12:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh. So, what should I do? Should I RFV-fail it?
Thanks again,
—Ruakh_TALK 05:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no way of verifying this term. RFV-fail seems appropriate. --Dijan 06:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

O.K., thank you. —Ruakh_TALK 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. To facilitate steward granting of bot access, I suggest implementing the standard bot policy on this bs.wiktionary.org. In particular, this policy allows stewards to automatically flag known interlanguage linking bots (if this page says that is acceptable), which form the vast majority of such requests. The policy also enables global bots on this wiki (if this page says that is acceptable), which are trusted bots that will be given bot access on every wiki that allows global bots.

This policy makes bot access requesting much easier for local users, operators, and stewards. To implement it we only need to create a redirect to your talk on bs.wiktionary.org from bs:Project:Bot policy, and add a line at the top noting that it is used there. Please read the text at m:Bot policy before commenting. If you object, please say so; I hope to implement in two weeks if there is no objection, since it is particularly written to streamline bot requests on wikis with little or no community interested in bot access requests. Carsrac 12:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

User Goldenrowley and I are trying to clean up transwikied lists of Urdu given names, as explained in User talk:Makaokalani#Urdo names. Could you possibly have time to have a look at those transwiki lists and give some suggestions? Are some letters missing? Even a less complete name list might be useful, but visitors to this dictionary should be warned about them.--Makaokalani 16:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent help to clean up the new Appendix:Urdu_Muslim_given_names. Goldenrowley 00:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What are your thoughts on creating a template similar to Template:fa-regional for the Kurdish language, which uses three scripts - the Cyrillic, the Arabic and the Latin? To my dismay, in Category:Kurdish nouns I see the Latin script prevailing and Cyrillic script virtually non-existent, but it would be good to have the Latin forms linked to the Cyrillic and Arabic ones in the way one currently proceeds with Tajik/Persian, would it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would definitely support it. I was thinking of asking Ivan about creating something similar for Serbo-Croatian as well. --Dijan 12:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

{{sh-variant}} - ? ^_^ I can make it collapsible if it looks too big (it doesn't to me..). I'll also add that only the rows for which the parameters are actually passed are displayed, and not all of them. --Ivan Štambuk 13:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I love it! :) --Dijan 06:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, I thought Kurdish is the language with most scripts, but if you count the Glagolitic script and this Arabic... for SC too, then it would lead. Are you really intent on adding SC in Arabic script? Which dictionary uses it, so that it could be checked? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I personally only plan to add Glagolitic spellings, starting from January when I hope to finally finish the SC business on Wiktionary altogether (adding top 10 000 words with full inflection and pronunciation), together with fixing OCS entries (almost all of which are in Cyrillic and need Glagolitic forms added, plus general cleanup..). As for the language written in most scripts, I think it's doubtless Sanskrit, which is written in basically all Indian scripts (most of which are phonologically isomorphic, some of which even have special signs like for retroflex consonants only to write Sanskrit) --Ivan Štambuk 15:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok then. I was eager to add Kurdish бьру/برـوﻭ (not sure whether this is the right spelling in Arabic script though... is it?)/birû as a cognate of ابرو, but should indeed all those three be in the etymology ection...? How should Kurdish be formatted in Iranian etymologies according to you? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kurdish was also written in Armenian alphabet. Not saying we should include those spellings too; just an interesting fact. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

How can they be attested? Any dictionaries of the Kurdish language in Armenian script? In reformed Armenian alphabet, not in the traditional, right? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Bogorm, I know nothing about this. All I know is that Kurds in USSR used Armenian alphabet from 1921-27, Latin in 1928-1946 and Cyrillic since then. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just discovered this online dictionary:

Lots of these words are quite tricky to define though. --Ivan Štambuk 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. As much as I love our rich language, some of these terms are quite difficult to describe in English. Hopefully, we will do our best :) --Dijan 08:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Dijan. Are the entries in Azeri that you make 100% correct? If they are, do you need/want any help with creating the inflected forms of the entries that you make? Let me know, Razorflame 07:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would not create entries that I'm not sure of :) Normally, I do not create inflected forms, but if you need something to do, help yourself :) --Dijan 08:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, Razorflame 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, in effect, you are saying that all of the inflected forms for the Azeri entries that you've made are completely correct and that you, being the main Azeri contributor here, are giving me permission to add the form-of entries for the Azeri entries that you add now and in the future? I need to make sure because I don't want to make them if they are incorrect. Cheers, Razorflame 01:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will ban you if I catch you doing it. I don't know if Sinek is done with the Azeri noun templates. There is plenty of other stuff you could be doing. — opiaterein — 04:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You will not because you should not be having anything to do with me. Furthermore, according to the promise on my userpage, if I gain the approval of one or more users who contribute in a language that has form-of entries, and they give me permission to make them, because they know that the form-of entries are all correct, then I am not going against my promise on my userpage, and I am not making any errors because they already know that all of them are 100% correct. Therefore, you have no grounds on which to block me. Razorflame 04:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't take this the wrong way, but rather than arguing with the rest of the community, couldn't you just find something else to do? I don't mind you creating the inflected forms, I just don't want to be a part of any quarrels on this project. --Dijan 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problems. You said no, so I won't add them. Please feel free to let me know if and when you want me to make them in the future. Cheers, Razorflame 04:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here's mine, and here's the one hacked out by User:Prince Kassad (reportedly working on more systems; my font appears to be working only on my computer :p) --Ivan Štambuk 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for posting both. Yours does not seem to display properly on my system either. --Dijan 02:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have edited the basic conjugation templates but have not done so with the others (the alef ('aa-d/tan') and vav ('oo-d/tan') templates). If this is because they are unclear, then I could clarify how I meant them to work. Also, I would happily modify them consistently with your modifications if you wish. Thank-you. --Goldenbrook 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am very familiar with the conjugated forms you have created in these templates. A lot of these forms are no longer used in Modern Persian. Most of those forms are related to Classical Persian literature (Early New Persian). The problem is that I'm still not sure how to organize the current forms without having to create simpler templates. Unfortunately, I have very little time right now for this. If you would, go ahead and modify the rest of the templates and hopefully one day soon I (or someone else) will have the time to sit down and clean them up. Honestly, I think you've done a great job and I'm really thankful that someone actually decided to finally create templates for Persian verbs! --Dijan 09:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll go to it, then, and see what I can do. --Goldenbrook 16:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Dijan!

I would respect your last edit, despite inconsistencies in trasnliterations (just take a look at the Persian languages for برج). But, please, could we stop undoing what's been made before, even if I do not understand why you deleted the Arabic script in the Tojiki part of the table (on the right side) and added the Arabic plural буруҷ without the necessary explanations about its use (I saw it in place names, but I do not remember if I ever heard it). Just one word to say that I speak Farsi fluently enough as well as Tajiki and Dari, which makes me qualified enough to write about it.

It would be better to collaborate on these mis- or underrepresented languages here* — e.g. can you tell where the stress falls in the plural forms: I can't be assertive about this.

Cordially,

৵ Kąġi Oȟąko ^Ƭ 13:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

* We are both native speakers of languages (Bosniac and and controversies about it; Ukrainian and above all Crimean Tatar): we should do better together, don't you think so? BTW, I would like to ask you for some explanations about the South Slavic languages, as I learned this “Serbo-Croatian language” long ago…

First of all, so that you don't misunderstand me, Bosniak is somewhat an offensive term to me as I have never used the term to describe my language nor my people. I do not identify as "Bosniak" (nor as Serb, nor as Croat, in case you were wondering). I am Bosnian and I speak the language known as Serbo-Croatian, which I occasionally mention as Bosnian, but never as Bosniak.

Secondly, there were no inconsistencies in transliteration until you made your edits. Please, take a look at our policies regarding transliteration and make use of the transliteration guides (Tajik transliteration and Persian transliteration). And if you knew enough about Tajik to make edits for its entries, you would know that stress, obviously as in Iranian Persian, falls on the last syllable. As for the Arabic script, I understand that Tajik was written in Arabic script prior to 1920s. Very little material is published, if any at all, in Arabic script in regards to Tajik, unless it is of Afghani or Iranian variety. That being said, the Arabic script is provided on all Tajik entries, but under regional variants (that is Dari and Iranian Persian). As for you encountering or not encountering the Arabic plural form in the spoken language, you might try the written records. A word might not be used in common speech every day, but that does not mean that it is not used in the literary variety.

Thirdly, Tajik words of Arabic origin do not come through Persian, as Tajik is Persian. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Persian language.

Fourthly, I am sorry if I offended you in any way. I have been stressed out lately and coming to Wiktionary usually calms me down a bit and takes me away from school and work. I mean no disrespect to you, but please do not add unnecessary clutter to the entries. Also, do add the Babel template to your user page, so that we do know which language you speak or how familiar you are with them. --Dijan 15:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are three South-Slavic languages, Kąġi Oȟąko: Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian. Have they been taught to you that way? Bulgarian and Serbo-Criatian have some dialects and this made them prone to politically-motivated fragmentation (into several “ languages” ), which they underwent. I do not know much about dialects in Slovenian, but apparently it was spared this laceration. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lately, as you know, I spaced the durative prefix می from the verb stems in the durative pluperfect subjunctive of the conjugation templates. This is why: Oddly enough, it seems that the prefix will attach to the stem, only in that tense, yielding both inconsistency of form (as seen in the conjugation tables of such verbs as گرفتن and بردن) and outright spelling error (as seen in those of آمدن and آراستن). If you know of another way to deal with this problem, then please tell me. This issue is somewhat urgent, as all of the conjugation templates currently have this error or inconsistency. Thank-you. --Goldenbrook 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have fixed the problem you were talking about. --Dijan 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you read the reason behind the undo, but the prefix is separated by a zero-width non-joiner character. It is an invisible spacing character used in Persian for such cases. --Dijan 18:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

My browser still displays a connection between the prefix and the stem in that tense, in some instances. For example, I have copied this incorrect spelling directly from آراستن's conjugation table: میآراسته بوﺩه باشم. Also, for instance, in the conjugation table of کردن, one finds the following: میکرده بوﺩه باشند. Do these errors not show up when you view those verbs' conjugations? --Goldenbrook 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Try clearing your cache and if that does not work, restart and let me know if it is the same then. --Dijan 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will check each template one more time, just to make sure. --Dijan 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

All right, the display seems to be fine now when I reopen the browser. Thanks! --Goldenbrook 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Let me know if you have any other questions or problems. --Dijan 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What's that then? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what's not clear to you. --Dijan 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dijan! Could you tell me if "مطبخ" is the true Arabic spelling of Azeri mətbəx? Thanks in advance! Sinek 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is the correct spelling. Usually, Arabic spellings are preserved in the literary language. --Dijan 21:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oops sorry for my belated answer, but I've just seen your response. Thank you so much. Ayy one more request :) Could you tell me the Arabic spelling of zəfər as well? Sinek 10:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem! It's ظفر. --Dijan 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you sooo much! You are the best! :D Sinek 11:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do you have any source confirming that the English word has been loaned from Serbo-Croatian (claimed by you) and not from Bulgarian? (I do not claim it derives from Bulgarian, I just conjectured it and am eager to know which of the two is more plausible) In Bulgarian the name of the beverage does not differ from the Serbo-Croatian name - ракия (rakija). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

OED states it entered English via Italian rakia in 1778, which in turn is from SC rakija, and Bulgarian word is mentioned as a comparison this Turkish word's spread in the Balkans. --Ivan Štambuk 16:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would bâd-e xoršidi be the correct way to render باد خورشیدی ? Izafa kinda confuses me. Does it apply to the first word in both noun-adjective and adjective- noun constructions? — opiaterein — 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be correct :) It applies to noun-noun, noun-adjective, adjective-adjective, and preposition-noun constructions. It is applied to all the words in the izafa construction except to the last. --Dijan 17:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alright... I think I can remember that. Thanks :D — opiaterein — 18:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, I was looking at the Wikipedia article fa:w:شغال (trying to find the hyponyms) and I noticed that they write the plural شغال‌ها. It struck me as odd, so I did a google search and they all came out شغالها. Do google results just not show the 0-width divider, or is wikipedia wonky, or...are there some rules? What's goin on :D — opiaterein — 15:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)‌Reply

Google doesn't show the ZWNJ. And even if you do a search even with a space, you will notice that Google also shows results without the space. --Dijan 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I found the Persian plurals category on here and that answered my question... sorry for bothering with this :D — opiaterein — 01:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply