User talk:Djkcel/2021

Also, please stop adding new lines before cognate lists in all etymologies. It's appropriate when the etymology is really long, but not everywhere carte blanche. --{{victar|talk}} 04:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that I think about it, how do you feel about using {{rel-top}} and {{rel-bottom}} as wrappers around cognates on English entries? The problem for me is simply how cluttered and unreadable English etymologies look on phones and smaller screens because they always seem to have 10+ cognates. It can be tough to see where the PIE root ends and where the cognates begin. But water is looking pretty good to me... DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 05:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

You're being rather heavy-handed with {{rel-top}} on cognate lists. --{{victar|talk}} 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

So, I thought you were going to stop adding new lines to cognates list everywhere carte blanche? And actually, in this case, the related terms in the etymology should have been moved to its own header, and that further out cognate info doesn't really belong there. --{{victar|talk}} 05:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, as I said before the "cognate globs" just look really messy on mobile and smaller screens (like this). It looks cleaner when the cognates are separated from the etymologies (like this). If you prefer for me to get rid of the cognates entirely I can do that as well, I just didn't want to upset any others who liked having all the cognates there. Or, how do you feel about using {{rel-top}} and {{rel-bottom}}? (see above) DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 05:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Long etymologies are quite common but all the same, we don't break every sentence into paragraphs just for mobile users. Cognates should only be added when they benefit the etymology, like when a common parent entry doesn't exist. Etymologies that go beyond the scope of entry's origin should also be cut down as to not overreach. {{rel-top}} is overkill. --{{victar|talk}} 22:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I expanded the etymology of *wunjō as an example of when cognates are helpful. --{{victar|talk}} 22:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, I may just start removing unneeded cognates in the future for entries where a PGmc. entry already exists. Thanks. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bro, why are you still putting cognates on new lines? --{{victar|talk}} 05:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry dude, think I meant to use {{rel-top}} or delete the line and it slipped. Trying to keep in mind to just delete cognates for blue links instead. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 15:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Much appreicated. --{{victar|talk}} 19:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, man... --{{victar|talk}} 05:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. To make a change, here's a nice message. The Spanish etymologies seem good to me. Keep it up. Also, as you claim to be a native Turkish speaker, please can you have a look at Category:Tbot entries (Turkish)? These are entries made by a robot over 10 years ago that haven't been fixed. If you could check some I'd be very grateful La más guay (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. Cool guy! No problem. I have no formal (written) Turkish education, as I just spoke it colloquially growing up, but I'd be happy to take a look at the terms created by that bot and see if they look right. Wow, some of these entries are super old! DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 01:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've mentioned several times now above, but please don't use the website OED for reconstruction entries. Instead, take the time to find academic sources. --{{victar|talk}} 20:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Figured you wouldn't like that edit. I really try not to. But can you recommend some sources for when Kroonen, Etymologiebank, and Kluge don't cover a reconstruction? Maybe Ringe? Orel? Thanks in advance.DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Proto-Germanic reference templates has a few you might be missing. {{R:ofs:OFED}}, {{R:no:NEO}}, and {{R:sv:SEO}} are also surprisingly fruitful sources.

In the case of *sīkaną (“to sigh”), the related terms section hints to its likely etymology, which is ultimately from PIE *seykʷ- (“to moisten, soak; to filter, sip”). Germanic has the parallel semantic shift of “to sip, drink” > “to sigh” in seufzen.

--{{victar|talk}} 22:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you again for this edit. You added a spurious reconstruction based on a book that claims that Sanskrit is the mother of all languages and tries to reinterpret Egyptian based on that claim. Anyone who knowingly added etymologies that insane would be blocked permanently to protect the dictionary. I know you're editing in good faith, but if you pick any old source to add etymologies in languages you know absolutely nothing about, this will keep happening. You are still failing to use even basic critical thinking in assessing your sources. This only ends in two ways: you either stick to sources you know can be trusted and make careful edits following them, or you will be subject to longer blocks. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please don't add derivations from "Kurdish". Kurdish is a family, not a language. We are in the process of converting it as such. Please use either code kmr (Northern Kurdish), ckb (Central Kurdish) or sdh (Southern Kurdish) as appropriate. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for letting me know! DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 04:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

juṣṭi is not phonologically possible in Prakrit. Even if it were then that form cannot go back to an earlier Sanskrit jūṭa.

This is the second time I'm having to ask you to refrain from dabbling in etymologies of languages you don't know about. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 13:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Chill. I was just citing OED's definition for that word which said..."mid 18th century: from Bengali jhūṭo ‘matted hair’, from Prakrit juṣṭi." They don't provide native scripts, but I wish they did. Also, the part about it being of non-Indo-European origin (Watkins) was valid so there was no need to throw out the whole edit. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 14:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Could you please stop adding bad etymologies to Sanskrit entries? The etymology you gave for कोण (koṇa) is not possible (wrong vowel, wrong nasal) and your edit at मन् (man) showed wrong formations (again). Moreover, you cite Pokorny at कोण (koṇa) but Pokorny never lists this term as a descendant of that PIE root nor does Mayrhofer. That leaves just one source making a dubious claim. You should leave things alone if you are unable to assess the validity of information pertaining to them by yourself. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 02:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, for the second word I had accidentally been looking at म्ना (mnā), not मन् (man) (hence the formation *mnā́). Seems that for कोण (koṇa), Gupta shoehorned it in with a bunch of other Sanskrit derivatives of *h₂enk-, but I'm now realizing that even with metathesis the vowel doesn't line up. Honest mistakes, those. Will be more careful in the future. (Btw, may add {{dercat}} to a few entries...) DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 03:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Djkcel: A few sources suppose that grove is derived from Anglo-Saxon grafan; but there is no warrant for this, even though the original meaning of grove has been assumed as 'a clearing in a wood'; but this is disputable. There is no connection etymologically between grǣfa in etymology 1 and that in etymology 3. Etymology 1 stands alone, as evidenced by its meaning. Care has to be taken with some of Webster's etymologies that start off accurately, but tend to wildly link other unrelated lexemes - for example in that of dye. Sources that do not apply etymological logic are not helpful. I left the wrong assumption in etymology 1 as to the P.G. form for 'hole' that is related to the root of a grave, since you qualified it by 'probably'. Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Andrew

Yo Andrew. Isn't sense 1 of greave basically just a corruption of grove? I'm not sure they're close enough to warrant calling them alternate forms, but our etymology for grove says to compare groove, which if related, could be connected to sense 3 if they're both from Proto-Germanic *grōbō (“to engrave”). But I agree that since the origin of the both senses 1 & 3 are far from clear, cautious wording in the etymologies is a good idea. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Djkcel: I am aware of the source that connects grove with groove; but that is a classic example of a source that has not used etymological logic, because of the manifest connection between greave 1 (that also refers to 'brushwood') and grove. Am trying to get Wiktionary etymologies to maximum accuracy and that is not an easy task when blocked by an extremely knowledgeable linguist who is not an etymologist! For example, the P.G. roots for adze and the latter syllable of 'annEAL' never existed. What are stated for wood are mere substrates from the Proto-Celtic, that is confirmed by the Irish Pictish 'uudu' for wood. There are also an number of hybrid etymologies between Proto-Germanic and Celtic. There are rules for editing etymologies on my user page, that, if adhered to, will cause little controversy and avoid having to be blocked. Kind Regards. Andrew H. Gray 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Andrew (talk)

Djkcel, please use {{senseid}} and |id= to direct people to the correct entry and not hashtags. --{{victar|talk}} 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Victar. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Merhaba, gördüğüm kadarıyla buraya hakim birisiniz. Türkçe de bildiğinize göre umarım yardımcı olabilirsiniz. alabilmek sayfasını oluşturdum ancak buradaki sistemi tam çözemedim için Türkçedeki "yeterlilik fiili"ni "ability" olarak çevirebildim. {{inflection of}} şablonu bunu beğenmemiş olacak ki bağlantı vermedi. Muhtemelen doğru girmediğim için ability'i tanımadı. Benzer bir sayfa da bulamadım örnek alayım. Ek konusunda yardımcı olursanız sevinirim. ToprakM (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Merhaba arkadaş. Bence aradığınız hâl durumu "ablative" olabilir. Belki böyle?

 {{inflection of|tr|almak||ablative|participle}} 

Aradığınız bu değilse, lütfen bana bildirin, belki biraz daha yardımcı olmaya çalışabilirim. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 14:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Teşekkür ederim ancak anladığım kadarıyla ablative, Türkçede "ismin -den hali" olarak kullanılıyor. "araba" - "arabadan" şeklinde. Yani çok yüksek ihtimalle bu durumda ablative kullanmak doğru olmaz. Wikipedia "Turkish grammar" sayfasında "-(e)bilmek (implies ability)" şeklinde yazmışlar ama burada nasıl yapılır hala emin değilim. ToprakM (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ohhh!! Yanlış anlaşılma için özür dilerim..görünüşe göre gerçekten "ability" demek istedin! Sanırım bahsettiğiniz hâl genellikle "abilitative mood" olarak adlandırılıyor. Ancak, {{inflection of}} buna sahip değildir, ancak hemen hemen aynı şey olan potential vardır. Yani belki:

 {{tr|almak||potansiyel|participle}} 

Bu uygun bir köprü oluşturacaktır. DJ K-Çel (contribs ~ talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply