User talk:Einstein2

Actually, both appear to be correct. OH contains the double l version in parentheses, the MTA site accepted both as correct. --Panda10 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 sorry, I was wrong. I undid my edit in parallelogramma. Einstein2 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the corrections. --Panda10 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Lehet, hogy már ismered ezt, de ha nem, érdemes megnézni: Nyelvészeti e-Book könyvtár a Tankönyvtáron - 46 Tinta könyvet lehet letölteni PDF formátumban. Többek között etimológiai szótárakat is. --Panda10 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 köszönöm a linket, nem tudtam, hogy ezek a szótárak megtalálhatók letölthető formában. Az etimológiai szótár egészen igényes munkának tűnik. Az ott megtalálható első előfordulások dátumait ugye itt is fel lehet tüntetni a {{defdate}} sablonnal? Einstein2 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Igen, lehet a {{defdate}} sablont használni. De azt hiszem, a forrást is meg kellene adni a referencia sablonokkal (Category:Hungarian reference templates). --Panda10 (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that in your recent edit you removed the {hu-case} template from ad. It is used to indicate what case would follow the verb, plus it puts the verb in a particular category. In the example, the case suffix is supposed to be in bold characters to draw attention to it. Let me know your reasoning. --Panda10 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 I deleted the {{hu-case|t}} suffix because I added a transitive label which indicates that it takes an accusative suffix so the case template has become unnecessary. The deleting of the {{hu-case|nak}} was unintentional but I've restored it. In the example sentence, I unbolded the suffixes because I thought that only the defined term can be boldfaced so it can be easily distinguished from the rest of the sentence. Einstein2 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Leaving the -t out with the transitive label sounds good. I am not aware of any style guide instructions about boldfacing the suffix, only the defined term, so if this is what you want to follow, that's ok, too. This is a constantly evolving project, so when better ideas appear, we just rework the entries. By the way, your contributions are really great, thank you for your help and the high quality of your work. --Panda10 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 I found this: "Example sentences should: be italicized, with the defined term boldfaced." but if you want to boldface the suffixes then it's also OK for me. By the way, thanks for the appreciation. I'm grateful for your help and corrections. I'm glad I've become active here since this is a really well-structured and interesting project. :) Einstein2 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, glad you decided to work here, as well. I know you've done a lot of things on the other projects. I will probably continue to bold the suffixes. Just a comment about your Babel box: Although the numbers are subjective, it appears to me that your level of written English is more advanced than 1. --Panda10 (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected it. Einstein2 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the plural of proper names ending in -y or -i, such as Munkácsy, Kölcsey, Petőfi, Jókai. What is the role of the linking vowel? In the "A MAGYAR HELYESÍRÁS SZABÁLYAI", the examples are az Árpádok, a Kisfaludyak; a Kossuthok, Petőfik, Táncsicsok. But I feel a difference between Munkácsyk and Munkácsyak. The first may refer to the paintings of Munkácsy (Megérkeztek a várva várt Munkácsyk.) or people who show similarities to the person mentioned (irodalmunkban hosszú idők óta jelen voltak a Kölcseyk és Kazinczyk, a Petőfik s Madáchok...). The form Munkácsyak may refer to people in the Munkácsy family. Do you have more information on this? --Panda10 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10: Osiris contains the same examples. There might be some difference in usage between the two plural variants but I could not find a description about it in orthographic and stylistic books. Anyway, I asked it on e-nyelv. Einstein2 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That was a good idea. I did search the site earlier and there are similar questions but all of them are about geographical proper nouns ending in -i or -y and not person names. We'll see what they say. Thanks for submitting it. --Panda10 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 Here is the answer: y és i végű családnevek többes száma. Einstein2 (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. They don't mention the meaning where Munkácsyk is used as a short form instead of the paintings of Munkácsy. But it's ok. So how should we implement this here? Options: 1. Add only the plural with the linking vowel. 2. Same as 1 with additional usage notes about the plural variation and its usage. 3. Add both plurals. 4. Add both plurals with usage notes. The usage notes can be a template and could be added to other person names where applicable. Thanks again for submitting the question. The site is extremely helpful. --Panda10 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 I support the fourth option. Einstein2 (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I updated the entry. If it looks ok to you, I will create a template. --Panda10 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 It looks fine to me. Einstein2 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. I can see Google hits for Twin Peaksier and Twin Peaksiest. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto Thanks. Do Google hits make these two forms includible? Einstein2 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see multiple usage of the superlative but only two hits for the comparative (we need three, but if the superlative is OK then surely the comparative must be OK). SemperBlotto (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto Ok, I'm going to add them. I just thought they have to be used in permanently archived texts. Einstein2 (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Szia! Kicsit értetlenül állok a kérdés előtt, miért törölted ki a toportyánféreg szócikk alól az aranysakál és nádi farkas formákat illetve az angol megfelelőiket, úgy mint Golden jackal, common jackal, Asiatic jackal, gold-wolf? A szócikk jelenleg medvét és farkast említ, ami szerintem egyszerűen helytelen. A toportyán magában is sakált jelent, a toportyánféreg pedig aranysakált vagy más néven nádi farkast. Bár nem vagyok biológus, ezt csak az internetről tudom, de a medvénél és a farkasnál úgy vélem mindenképp közelebb járt az igazsághoz. Grapestain (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Értem és köszönöm a részletes választ. Még talán annyit tennék hozzá a témához, hogy a toportyánféregben a féreg nem nyüvet jelent, hanem farkast, ld. 'Üvölt mint a fába szorult féreg.' A "magott" mint a toportyán angol fordítása ebben az esetben helytelen. Talán ez is megér egy korrekciót. Viszont nem vagyok tisztában az alapelvekkel, például hogy mik a fordítási szempontok. Mit gondolsz? Grapestain (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct spelling of this Greek letter? I've found both variants. OH: pszi, hu wikipedia: pszí, e-nyelv: pszi, Google books: both, Google search: both. --Panda10 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Panda10 I think we should follow the spelling dictionaries (OH and AkH.) when deciding which spelling to make the primary form—making pszi the lemma entry in this case. pszí could be entered as an alternative form or misspelling. Einstein2 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have only OH and normally that's what I use as a guide, but the hu wikipedia article confused me. Thanks for your suggestions. I will create pszi. --Panda10 (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Einstein2. Thanks for adding a declension table to Abteilung. Would the obsolete Abtheilung be declined identically, or are there obsolete declined forms as well? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym Hi, unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with German to be able to add a declension table to the obsolete form. Einstein2 (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks very much! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Panda10#Jewish Hungarian. Would you be interested in helping me with this project instead? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: It sounds like an interesting initiative. I'll try to help with adding the entries. Einstein2 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Great! Here's what my additions will look like: siksze. Would you prefer me to add them like that and then clean them up, or for me to give you the etymologies and for you to add them yourself? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's OK for me if you create the entries and then I expand them. Einstein2 (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I just added a bunch more, and I might add more, but probably not. If I do, it won't be for at least a few days. Here are the ones that need attention so far:

• szajré
• betámt
• Tóra
• stikában
• majré
• böhöm
• mesüge
• macesz
• rabbi
• pészah
• jarmulke
• samesz
• córesz
• Sábát
• kasrut
• alijázik/aliázik
• Soá
• barhesz/barchesz
• Rós Hásáná/Ros Hasana
• lejnol
• lejnolás
• snóder
• snóderol
• snóderolás
• tfilint
• tréfli (I think there's also a slang word tré derived from this, but I didn't add it because I'm not sure what it means)
• majrézik
• dafke
• sólet
• bóvli
• behemót
• elpaterol
• happol
• bencsol
• bencsolás
• ajvé
• cadik
• póker (not Jewish, I just wanted to add it)
• barkochba
• barkochbázik
• lébecol
• mispóche

Thanks so much! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check if all the words are worth an entry but most of them seem easily attestable for the first sight. Einstein2 (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention — I checked that they all met WT:ATTEST through Google Books. Thank you again! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for your work on these. Just a reminder that there are still a few left that need to be looked at. Also, it would be really great if you could add a quote for szajré (I would like to nominate it for Foreign Word of the Day). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow with revision of the entries, I'm going to look over the remaining ones too. I'll try and add quotes for szajré. Einstein2 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Another reminder that there are still some that need checking. By the way, an anon just added tisztújítás, which needs a definition (and inflection, etc). Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: I think all of the above entries are fixed now. Einstein2 (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

All looks great! Thank you so much for your help! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: No problem, it was fun to learn some new words. :) --Einstein2 (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Found another one: sóher, which is apparently from Yiddish שפֿל (shofl), maybe through German schofel (perhaps a Hungarian etymological source can shed light on that). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge I created the entry. However, Hungarian etymological dictionaries suggest different origins from the above one. {{R:TotfalusiEty 2005}} says it comes through the German argot word schocher, from Yiddish schocher ("poor, impoverished, wealthless", originally "black"). {{R:Zaicz 2006}} describes two possible theories:

  • From Yiddish schacherer, socher, ssaucher ("huckster, peddler; itinerant seller"), from sachern, sacheren ("to trade; to do business"). The meaning might have changed according to the following process: "poor huckster" > "poor, wealthless" > "stingy".
  • From Yiddish schocher, schochor ("black"), from Arabic šāḥōr ("black "). Compare the German argot word schocher (“black”). Compare German schwarz (“black; (argot) poor, wealthless”) as an analogy for the change of meaning.

  You might want to improve the etymology according to the above sources. – Einstein2 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  Shokher must be it, that fits far better than shofl! The stuff from Zaicz makes little or no sense; I can't tell whether that source is bad at etymologies or just very, very ignorant about Yiddish. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  The problem with Zaicz (2006) seems unusual as it's a well-known dictionary, usually considered a reliable source for word origins. Thanks for expanding the etymology section! – Einstein2 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  Mentioning Arabic when Hebrew is meant is an unforgivably basic mistake. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, it seemed strange to me too. Meanwhile, I found a series of studies (“Kóser vagy tréfli? Jiddis szócikkek az Etimológiai Szótárban”) which analyse the articles in Zaicz (2006) of words derived from Yiddish. The one which contains sóher (Balázsi, 2015) says that the "Arabic" word mentioned in the dictionary actually refers to the Aramaic שׁחרתא ("blackness") and Syrian Aramaic שׁוּחְרָא ("coal"). Balázsi also writes that neither of the given explanations is completely acceptable: in the case of the first theory, the /s/ ~ /ʃ/ sound shift is unclear, while the second one doesn't offer a satisfactory solution for the semantic shift. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hey Einstein! I found another Hungarian entry that needs creating: gój (“goy”). Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  Hey Einstein. I've got another request along the same lines as before: gólem. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Metaknowledge Hey, I created the entry. Can you fill out the etymology section? – Einstein2 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

For what's worth, I think Brexiter is more common than Brexiteer, although it's too recent for Google Books Ngrams to plot! Any ideas on how to test this? It's hardly of importance but I prefer the less common one to point to the more common, and not the other way around. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd done a quick Google and Google News search for the terms, both of which indicated that Brexiteer is about four times more common than Brexiter so I changed the entries. For me, it would be fine if it was the other way round, though. Einstein2 (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I've recently been trying to contribute where I can on Wiktionary, though I don't speak a lot of languages, but I thought I'd help out by adding inflected forms, as they are already listed in inflection tables for the lemma (I think I'm using that word correctly) and do not seem to require an extended definition other than what inflections they are. I've noticed that you've been adding etymology to my entries, and I appreciate that. Is it generally safe to assume that for inflected forms the etymology is simply the lemma plus the affix, or should I always do a quick search? I would love to be able to add more to make entries more filled out. Beyond that, are there any good resources for figuring out how to hyphenate Hungarian words, or should I leave that to the natives? Finally, I would love some input as to how Wiktionary editors generally view the idea of creating simple pages for languages you don't speak but know some of the basic grammar rules. I would love to contribute to other languages, but I'm wary of creating problems for someone because they have to check all my work. Sorry for the lengthy paragraph (I can be quite wordy), and thanks ahead of time for your response! --AtalinaDove (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@AtalinaDove: Since you asked me on my talk page to respond here:

• Etymology is the lemma + affix, but sometimes it requires more thought to figure it out.
• For hyphenation, read Appendix:Hungarian hyphenation.
• I don't know the answer to "how Wiktionary editors generally view the idea of creating simple pages for languages you don't speak but know some of the basic grammar rules". You can post this question to the community on Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/July.
• Your Hungarian contributions will always be double checked by Hungarian editors, currently that would be either Einstein2 or me.

--Panda10 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Should I have just copy-pasted this to your page, or was what I did fine? Still getting used to norms here --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. This was fine. --Panda10 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@AtalinaDove Some help with the hyphenation: only rules 1–3, 8 and 10–12 are important to know when adding hyphenation to inflected forms, the rest is quite rarely applied. --Einstein2 (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, was feeling a bit overwhelmed at first --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to drop by and thank you for all of your very hard work in improving our coverage of Hungarian, especially for adding IPA and etymology to every entry that you create or modify, and for helping me out with mine. The Wiktionary project is definitely being bettered by your work in this language. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm glad to be part of the project. --Einstein2 (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The adverbial participle is szíva, with one v. See . The conjugation table produces two v's. I think that's why it wasn't added. --Panda10 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 Oops, I've missed to check that. Thanks for the notice. --Einstein2 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 I see you created a separate template for hív ({{hu-conj-hív}}), which is conjugated similarly. Perhaps a more general template could be created for these few irregular verbs (hív, óv, szív and vív)? --Einstein2 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

To make it more general, I will have to remove the characters "hí" and leave the rest. There is already an unnamed parameter for verbal prefixes, we can attach the hí, ó, szí, ví to that. I will try this now. --Panda10 (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I made the change, it looks like this will work. Thanks for the tip. --Panda10 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

From pizza nigger. en->hu. This will go on the Hungarian Wiktionary.

"(offensive, slang) a person of Italian descent" Philmonte101 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Einstein2 (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the translation of the Spanish example in pois não#Portuguese. What is the translation of Hungarian "hogyne"?

I also added the question marks in "¿cómo no?". Does "hogyne" ned a question mark? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Carrero I added the translation of the Hungarian term. It doesn't need a question mark. –Einstein2 (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you know the correct English translation of "jelentéselkülönüléssel keletkezett" and "szóhasadás"? I can't seem to find a reliable Hungarian-English linguistics dictionary. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 I don't think there are any established terms in English for these expressions. I found books in which szóhasadás is translated as "word-splitting" and "word-cutting": , . However, I didn't find any translation of jelentéselkülönülés. Országh–Futász–Kövecses only contains jelentéselválasztás, giving "breakdown of senses" as translation. – Einstein2 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for looking into it. I have another question. Would you take a look at {{hu-possessive}} and let me know if it makes sense to you? It seems to be a better solution than the current situation where we add a separate inflection table to each possessive form, a time-consuming task. Also, if we could display the forms in one table, searching for an inflected form even if it does not exist yet, would return the lemma. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 It looks great. Will we have to switch to the new template in all entries manually? Einstein2 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, since additional parameters will have to be provided. But first I would have to write the template. The one you saw is really just a shell, to illustrate the user experience. An even better direction would be to update {{hu-infl-nom}} with this solution and remove the current {{hu-pos}} templates completely, but that would require Lua knowledge, which I don't have and to learn it would require considerable time. --Panda10 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 Ok, let me know when I can help you with its implementation in entries. – Einstein2 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently, it looks like the change will be internal, and we can go on using the same possessive templates. But there is an issue with the appearance of the new template. It does not completely match the regular declension template. You can see it here: {{hu-infl-pos-table-comparison}}. --Panda10 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you guys do need to do it manually, I can probably help with that xD --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Atalina, we are not ready for that yet. There are other tasks that you could help with, if you are still willing after you finish your current project. --Panda10 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 I'm pretty much always willing. I was thinking about orphaning the old declension templates next (the ones that aren't still needed for exceptions), but if there's something else you need more then I'll be happy to do that. --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. We will have to keep all those templates around to handle exceptions not included in {{hu-infl-nom}}. Another task could be to go through the nouns in {{hu-inflection of}} and replace it with {{inflection of}}. We will keep {{hu-inflection of}} for possessive forms. They also need an update with moving the pos parameter to the last position, which you have already been doing in some of the entries. Thanks! --Panda10 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe you don't have the rights to edit MediaWiki:Common.js, to make the actual page title appear appear as ">_<" instead of "Greater than low line less than".

When you create more unsupported pages for emoticons and stuff, let me know and I'll edit the page titles. Thanks for creating them! --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I'll inform you. Thanks! – Einstein2 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to know what you think about the two ways variant plurals can be presented. One is using two {{hu-infl-nom}} as in alakítható, the other is using one of the old templates such as {{hu-decl-k-back}} as in átlátszó, with the variant plurals in the same column. Both have pros and cons. Do you have a preference? I wish we could use the new template for everything, but it does not have all the functionality we need such as for words ending in y (Munkácsy, tory) or o (Chicago, Leonardo, tao), or having variant accusative cases (becsületeset/becsületest). So we have to keep the old templates around for these cases. Let me know your thoughts. --Panda10 (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Panda10 As long as the unified template cannot handle the issue you mentioned, I prefer using the old templates as they make it easier to see through the inflected forms, which is not the case with the new template. – Einstein2 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. We'll use the old templates for these. --Panda10 (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Currently the Székely words are in Category:Hungarian dialectal terms. It would be better in Category:Regional Hungarian, or perhaps in Category:Transylvanian Hungarian. Or I could create a new category but how should that be named? Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Panda10 Hello and sorry for the belated reply. Honestly, I can't think of a perfect solution as the situation seems pretty complex. I think we should first decide on whether lemmas should be categorized by region or by dialect (or maybe both). There are several problems which may create ambiguity when labelling and categorizing entries. First, there are a lot of dialectal words which are used throughout Transylvania, while others are used exclusively in Székely Land. I own a copy of Székely szótár (2004) by Attila Sánta (which I cannot find at the moment) and the book, if I remember correctly, is divided into two main parts: general Transylvanian words and specifically Székely words. Moreover, there are dozens of words of Romanian origin that are commonly used in Transylvania (druzsba, buletin etc.) which I wouldn't consider as belonging to the Székely dialect. Einstein2 (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is really good information. I realize that the situation is more complex than I thought and since I don't have any expertise in this area, I'm not sure which direction to take. There are only a few words in any of the above mentioned categories, so it's fine to wait with the decision. Thank you for responding. --Panda10 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Panda10 Yes, I think we could wait with establishing a categorization system until there are more entries in the categories above. --Einstein2 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind about the PoS of these expressions. Most of them are idiomatic. First I used "phrase", then "verb". I've just started using "phrase" again since this is what comes naturally. It would be very helpful if you'd share your thoughts on this. --Panda10 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Panda10 Well, IMO trying to classify these multi-word expressions into parts of speech doesn't make much sense. However, since these phrases have a verb as their head (igei alaptagú alárendelő szószerkezetek), I would use the "verb" PoS, mainly because similarly constructed terms in English also have a Verb heading (turn a blind eye, stick to one's guns etc.). --Einstein2 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I will change the ones I've recently added to verb. The old ones are already verbs. Thanks for your input. --Panda10 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey. Wanna be an admin? --Harmonicaplayer (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey. I haven't really thought about that. It's certainly not a priority of mine at the moment. – Einstein2 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey. How about being a sysop now? --Gorgehater (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think being a sysop is the best way I can contribute efficiently to this project. Maybe in the future :) Thanks for think of me though! Einstein2 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Maybe someone will ask again in 2022. --Gorgehater (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been doing good work. I don't think there are any irksome responsibilities that come with being an admin. It does give you some powers that might be occasionally helpful. DCDuring (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@DCDuring Thank you, I appreciate that. However I don't know if I am familiar enough with Wiktionary methods to do this kind of work. – Einstein2 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, but humility alone would get you pretty far. In any event, keep up the good work. DCDuring (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

What makes you say that neophilia is not a synonym for paleophobia? My thought process was that paleophilia is of course an antonym of paleophobia, and that neophilia is an antonym of paleophilia, so transitively neophilia becomes a synonym of paleophobia.

I'm asking because if it's not a valid synonym, then probably paleophobia should also be removed as a synonym from neophilia. Additionally we might need to remove neophobia as a synonym for paleophobia and vice versa. Perhaps also some changes to the various pages' antonyms. --Pinball larry (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pinball larry: I think neophilia and paleophobia refer to two different concepts: the love of new things is not inherently the same as the aversion to old things and they cannot be used interchangeably. Similarly, I would not call neophilia and paleophilia antonyms as they are not mutually exclusive. – Einstein2 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Uncountable is for things like "SOME rice", "SOME people", not e.g. "Boris bounce" because it would be "THE" or "A Boris bounce". Equinox ◑ 20:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You ready to be an admin now? GreyishWorm (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop replacing inh/bor by these. Many language communities don't want to use these templates. Thanks. Thadh (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Thadh, I never had the intention of replacing {{bor}} in every entry without consensus, let alone manually. I was merely going through search results for a certain kind of typo to correct them and I happened to change these occurrences to {{bor+}} because (as I see it) it's a newer and more elegant method of indicating the etymology of borrowed terms (and it also helps to avoid similar typos). The pages where you reverted my edit now contain the same error once again. I'll leave it up to you to correct them again if you want. Einstein2 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I see, I'll take a look. Looking back at my original message it seems I was a little harsh, sorry about that. For future reference, the new {{bor+}} and {{inh+}} are usually replaced by bot once a language editing community decides to use it. Thadh (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I must've lost track of which article I was editing.

Does ⟨‶⟩ really have no use, though, apart from being an alt form of ⟨″⟩? kwami (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I see, thanks. I'm not really familiar with the symbol's distinct meanings, although reversed prime symbols do have certain technical uses (see also the quotes in the backprime entry, which I've just created). Einstein2 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good start. The coding example uses ASCII, so that's going to be what Unicode labeled "grave accent". The geometric example on the other hand looks like a true prime. I'm reasonably confident of that, though it would clinch the case if it could be doubled or tripled the way the regular prime can be in calculus. kwami (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This ref (App. A.8) identifies the ASCII grave as 'backprime' among other things. kwami (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Found a double backprime, though in a different field. Clearly not typeset as two ASCII backticks. kwami (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

hi do you have plan to creat Hungarian forms with bot if you have please creat thanks 31.7.117.4 17:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Although I think the bot-assisted creation of Hungarian forms is desirable in the long run, I lack the technical ability to implement it. Such a project would certainly require a discussion between editors of Hungarian entries and the help of a bot operator. Einstein2 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You're definitely ready to be an admin now. Im gonna make a vote tomorrow for you, unless you specifically ask me not to. In any case, in 2024 someone will ask you again. P. Sovjunk (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, thanks. Cheers, Einstein2 (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that the quote template is missing everything after "{{quote-". Binarystep (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)