User talk:Djkcel/2018

Can we write on our own talk pages? Of course we can. Cool. I will use this area to think aloud.

For one: it seems that the editors on wiktionary don't trust the editors on wikipedia. Many entries on here borrowing from wikipedia's sources seem to get reverted. Maybe wikipedia has less quality control.

Which is funny, because when such entries get reverted over here, I head over to wikipedia to correct the false information, then it pisses off the editors over there when I remove it. Djkcel (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm definitely not looking to Wikipedia for etymological information anymore. One of their hydronyms got me blocked here (Tagus). Let me guess: "you should still use critical thinking skills to assess whether their information is garbage before putting it on Wiktionary!" Might as well just assume that it all is. DJ K-Çel (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

* Don't be a jerk ~ this really should be dick, but you know.

* Civility ~ to be honest those two seem to be the same article.

* Assume good faith

* Why Wikipedia is not so great

Hi. Do you remember where exactly in Johnson's dictionary you found the information you added to the etymology (diff)? It would be very helpful. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh man. That was so long ago that I don't have that book anymore. Though, I think rather than it being a Proto-Semitic inheritance it was rather borrowed directly from Akkadian 𒊭𒀊𒉺𒊒. Several sources seem to agree with this. Do you want me to go ahead and update it? Djkcel (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I mean that's a separate question. I was just trying to locate the Arabic word that you added, which was clearly misspelled, but I couldn't find it under any possible correct spelling in any dictionary. --WikiTiki89 18:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Knowing old me I probably borrowed it from Harper and didn't spell the transliteration correctly. Djkcel (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Then the reference to that dictionary was probably just a mistake? --WikiTiki89 18:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could be, but that's his only source on Semitic words. Djkcel (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Djkcel: Sorry; but there is no relationship between mote and mud. The source of that etymology has presented just a 'cool' one, which would mislead the public; but the rest of the etymology is fine". Andrew H. Gray 07:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)AndrewReply

Djkcel, thank you for sourcing, but obscure etymological theories from 1819 are not reputable sources. Please try and use more modern works. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've also reverted your etymology for Paris. It's based on a single piece a work from 1899, based on an incorrect etymology from a Celtic dictionary from 1754. Please follow through more with sources, and again, using modern sources. --Victar (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, been a while! Thanks, yes, modern sources better, but help me define a cutoff date for modern. e.g. Lua error in Module:R:Perseus at line 296: {{R:Middle Liddell}} needs manual input: pagename is not Greek.Liddell & Scott (1889) An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon, New York: Harper & Brothers is from 1889 but I see it cited quite often as a reliable source here, same for Brechet's AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE FRENCH LANGUAGE (1882). Exceptions rather than the means? Djkcel (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Older sources on languages are often quite good. Older sources on etymology get progressively worse the further back you go. It also depends on which languages/families, since the progress made in those areas varies quite a bit: for instance, there were pretty decent early works on Indo-European from the 1830's, but there were still people advancing other theories for a few decades after that (stay away from w:Richard Valpy and w:John Bellenden Ker Gawler, for instance). I wouldn't trust anything before mid-nineteenth century for etymologies. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Chuck. Yep, everything before Rask and Grimm is mostly misguided junk not worth sifting through. The key is to a) know your sources and their credibility -- are they often cited on the project?, and b) follow the sources, who do they cite, and so on. In the 1754 source mentioned for Paris, where they're trying to erroneously create a PCelt root on the basis of Ancient Greek βάρις (báris, “small boat”), which is not IE in origin, but Semitic. --Victar (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please stop inventing etymologies with no references and please do not delete etymologies simply because you disagree with them. --Victar (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

??????

In your first example, I didn't "invent" any etymology, I simply copied what was already stated for *pikkōną on pick. So, if that's wrong, it needs to be removed from pick as well.

In your second example, I didn't "delete" any etymology and I certainly see no "disagreement" in my edit. I simply took the origin a step further. I can only find one source on Gothic *ganan, which is page 744 of Roberts, Edward A. (2014) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language with Families of Words based on Indo-European Roots, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN, who derives it from Proto-Germanic *waiþanjaną. Did you not delete my edit because you disagree with this, or what?

Anyway thanks keep 'em coming. @Victar: Djkcel (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your ping didn't work because you didn't initially sign your reply.

You need to stop relying on simply copying etymologies from other entries without checking them. That isn't a carte blanche excuse for perpetuating bad etymologies, particularly when you do not source them.

*wadanio and gano and two separate words with separate etymologies. You can't get Gothic *𐌲𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌽 (*ganan) from Proto-Germanic *waiþanjaną and adding such an etymology shows a lack of thoroughness and understanding, and that is my biggest concern with your etymologies, that you are working in languages simply you do not understand. --Victar (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also, I read {{R:ine:Roberts|751}}, and it agrees with the previous etymology, that the word is influenced by *waiþanjaną, not derived form. --Victar (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think it may have just been the way he worded it. "ganar: to gain, to win " When he said "both from," I thought "both" meant the Gothic word and the Romance words. He doesn't usually trace influences like that.

I didn't sign my reply on the talk page for pick, either, so maybe that's why you guys didn't respond. I was asking what the status on the discussion was. Sure, I shouldn't copy wrong information from other pages, but that doesn't change the fact that the bad information shouldn't be there in the first place. It leads to inconsistency across entries. By the way, the PIE I copied from pick wasn't sourced on that page, either, so make sure Leasnam knows. Hell, revert his edit with the same zeal you with which do to mine if you don't agree with it. See, I'm helping! @Victar: Djkcel (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Djkcel for your many and nice etymologies! I do not know much, but I think there is a typo at στάχυς: στόνυε and οτόχος. They didn't sound familiar, I believe they could be στόνυξ (stónux, “sharp point”) and στόχος (stókhos, “target”). I checked at perseus and at Hofmann, but I do not have your books. sarri.greek (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Sarri.greek! you were right about both typos and I have fixed them. cheers Djkcel (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your etymology for Proto-Celtic *wastos is incomplete, outdated and very poorly formatted, to the point that the {{rfe}} tag should not have been removed. You've been asked this before, but please refrain from fulfilling {{rfe}} requests in languages you are not familiar, especially proto languages, simply for the sake of clearing the request. --{{victar|talk}} 04:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I actually haven't been asked that before, but glad to see the entry more fleshed out. Djkcel (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You've been warned many times about your erroneous etymologies. The fact that the notion of not working in areas unfamiliar to you is a foreign concept is troubling in and of itself. I also had to go back and rework this other Proto-Celtic entry from 2 days ago, in which you a) gave a completely nonsense PIE etymology, and b) took a widely unsupported etymology used for the Proto-Brythonic form and applied it to the PCelt form, which shows a complete lack of knowledge of both the subject and the sources. --{{victar|talk}} 07:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Soooooo....it wasn't good? 😄

The second etymology is from The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin and I didn't corrupt any of the information found on page 36. Go tell Schrijver that he's wrong. (We're told to source here, but 98% of sources are unreliable, apparently) Djkcel (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The dubious *ɸēskos etymology -- which is from Pijnenburg, if you took the time to follow the sources, another thing I've had to bring up with you -- is the least of my complaints. It's your complete nonsense fabrications and ill-informed, reckless mistakes that I take the most umbrage with, all of which were exhibited is spades in this entry. --{{victar|talk}} 18:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply