User talk:Djkcel/2019

E.g. at bétula, boul, I have a couple of questions, some out of my own inexperience with Vulgar Latin/Romance languages in general (besides Classical latin) and some out of concern for how you came to these etymologies:

1. How do the gender changes betulla (feminine) > *betūle (?) / *betūlus (masculine) > bétula (feminine) work? What gender, case, number and declension is *betūle? Can you be more specific with which VL. form which descendant is derived from?
2. What about the gemination in betulla? Why is it only present in the reconstruction *betullum and if boul for example (one of the few entries which lists *betullum besides the other two reconstructions) derives from that specifically, why are the others listed? How about bedoll, or more interestingly (considering the w:La Spezia-Rimini Line) Italian betulla which you derive from a non-geminated source?

There's a lot more I'm wondering about these edits, but generally speaking I guess I'm wondering where you're getting this from & if you could be more specific.

Hey, @Mnemosientje:. For the Vulgar Latin forms, I believe some of those feminine forms were already there from a previous editor - like when I made the edit to abedul, so I didn't take them out. The Diccionario de la lengua española seems to agree with the shift as well on their entry for abedul. It could be that they were just listing possible VL variants of the original Gaulish term. All of these Romance birch pages were a little scattered on the variants they listed and they still don't agree - for instance the Galician entries bídalo and bidueiro still need some work. Djkcel (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then there's a second point, unrelated: your edits to kadamitas seem OK, but wouldn't the Proto-Italic term end in -os for the nominative singular, not -o? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

(Do however note that kadamitas has a suffix -tas while *kalamo(s) obviously doesn't, thus, the former is not inherited from the latter but simply derived for the purposes of our categorization and templates.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

For my edit to Latin kadamitas I consulted de Vaan, who constructs Proto-Italic *kalamo/i- (“damaged”) and Proto-Italic *n-kalami- (“safe”) for the classical Latin calamitas. He actually leaves out the Old Latin intermediate kadamitas, so I'm not entirely sure how he would reconcile the difference. He could have just left out the -s. You're right about the inheriting due to the suffix - it's so easy to get used to the obvious fact that Latin inherits from Proto-Italic and forget about suffixes which can be added later on. I appreciate you going through my edits and making suggestions, as well as being more constructive (or at the very least levelheaded) than some others here. Djkcel (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Djkcel Am glad that this lexeme is now far more protected from further vandalism; although, without intending to be too sarcastic, if the etymology you presented were sourced from my etymologies, I should suggest that users were also protected from viewing any such of mine. A little etymological logic, which your source document seems to lack, would tell anyone with your intellect that the child's game name is clearly a derivative from the term for "pebble". I tried to make that clear on its talk page. Sorry to be so blunt and I do not wish to cause any offence; but some etymologies are quite exasperating! Kind regards: Andrew Andrew H. Gray 18:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Werdna Yrneh Yarg: Feel free to expound on that entry; two good sources, for Spanish words “china”, in Diccionario de la lengua española (in Spanish), online version 23.8, Royal Spanish Academy , 2024 December 10 and Roberts, Edward A. (2014) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language with Families of Words based on Indo-European Roots, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN, both agree with the "chin" children speak derivation. It very well may be from an older word for "pebble" but they don't mention it. Thanks Djkcel (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bothering to reply; I did not think that you pioneered the content of its etymology. Kind regards: Andrew Andrew H. Gray 20:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

{{ping @ Djkcel}}: That is a sensible conclusion, considering that most readers are unlikely to want the old English forms or imaginary roots. Andrew H. Gray 12:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)AndrewReply

Is this currently how you're operating again, adding spurious etymologies with no sources? --{{victar|talk}} 14:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Exhibit D

Exhibit E

"spurious"

Djkcel (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then add sources, Djkcel! I don't know why this is so difficult for you. Also, add them inline; how do we know you're sourcing the etymology when you just throw it at the bottom of the page? Any source that isn't inline should really be under Further Reading, not References, because you're not citing anything. --{{victar|talk}} 19:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

These edits (diff, diff) were seriously at odd with what etymological reference works state about these etymologies, and these aren't the only problematic edits on Dutch etymologies I've seen from you. Perhaps you should refrain from editing Dutch etymologies without consulting standard works. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

*editing all etymologies. Most of your edits these days, again, lack any and all sources and your spurious etymologies brings down the quality of this project. --{{victar|talk}} 20:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: diff. Where did you find PGmc "*bullas"? Thematic Germanic nouns and adjectives never end in -s in the nominative singular , and bulr/bolr is an i-stem anyway so it isn t likely to derive from an a-stem Germanic form. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Harper's entry for English bole gave the Proto-Germanic form and PIE root, citing Watkins' entry here, while Roberts, Edward A. (2014) A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Spanish Language with Families of Words based on Indo-European Roots, Xlibris Corporation, →ISBN (p. 740) lists Proto-Indo-European *bʰel- only for bulr. Sadly Kroonen doesn't cover this term. DJ K-Çel (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The PIE root seems plausible, but the Germanic form given ("bulas") in that link is not really usable — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply