User talk:GabeMoore

Note that if you are copying entries from some other site (some of the entries seem to be only present in Palaeolexicon), it might constitute a copyright violation. The site does not seem to have any information on the copyright and licensing, so I would be wary. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 17:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm getting them from http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/natlang/ie/tochB.html. This is my first time entering things on Wiktionary, so I'm not very familiar with the copyrighting. How would I go about citing the source in-line with wiktionary protocols? GabeMoore (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It would seem that the page gets its content from one book. In that case, it should be fine if referenced. For this, you can use Template:R:txb:Adams 1999. See īke (particularly the References section) for an example. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 18:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me that the "Further reading" heading is the right one for this instead. "References" is for inline references that give reference to a particular bit of information on the page, like on for example *aiskōną. "Further reading" is for providing more information on the word in general, without referencing a particular fact. —Rua (mew) 18:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oof. So I would have to go through all my entries, most of which have 'references', and change them to 'further reading'? Is there a bot I can use for this?

By the way, I hopped over to your page and absolutely love your Proto-Germanic work. I bookmarked both the Beowulf and neo-germanic pages in my browser. GabeMoore (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's not a big deal. The meaning/use of the headings was changed somewhat recently by a vote, but the process to fix up existing entries is still ongoing. You don't have to fix them all immediately, just try to fix a few here and there as you notice them and it's fine. —Rua (mew) 13:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Make sure to replace the target language when using der/bor/inh, as I did for you in this edit. The first language code represents the destination language (txb in case of Tocharian B). Also, as the summary pointed out, der from the same language should only be used when a word is reborrowed (borrowed into another language and then back), otherwise you can just use {{m}} for the word something was derived from. — surjection ⟨?⟩ 17:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! GabeMoore (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Small note: don't forget to add headword-line templates to any new entries you create. I fixed it for you now:

• Special:Diff/51430498/51449864
• Special:Diff/51430062/51449848
• Special:Diff/51439364/51449888

Cheers, — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, e.g. Special:Diff/51719253/51731071. If you don't know the appropriate template, compare other entries. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

(Woops, the entry was deleted already, so the diff is not visible anymore. It was at Proto-Indo-European *bʰerH-os-, which lacked a headword template.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this supposed to be Sanskrit? Tocharian B doesn't use this script right..? User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 16:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Wow, yes, you're right. I'm working on a project right now with a bunch of Tocharian B words that are loaned from Sanskrit, so I mix up the two codes sometimes when making new entries. Thank you for telling me this; that was embarassing. GabeMoore (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding Sl. *bruněti, I'm not sure whether we should reconstruct it at all. It is mentioned by V. Orel as a possible indirect cognate of Proto-Germanic *brūnaz, however, except for this mentioning, it's not listed anywhere else. Personally, I have encountered this verb only as the onomatopoeic Bulg. бруня (to spout, to burst). In principle, it could be a ne-extension of *brujiti, however, in my opinion it's better just to switch *bruněti with *brujiti as a descendant of *bʰrewh₁-. Bezimenen (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

That seems to work fine. I only suggested moving the term to *bʰrewh₁- from bʰruHnós, where you originally wrote it, because it appears to be derived directly as a form of *bʰrewh₁- + *-(e)yeti. GabeMoore (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I meant in *bʰrewh₁-. Actually, I think I found the origin of the alleged *bruněti (“to shine”). Some Russian and Slovenian dialects have the verb брунеть (brunetʹ, “to darken”) which ESSJa /Vol 3, p.41/ derives from *broněti. I think that is what Orel's source refer to as *bruněti. Bezimenen (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• The PIE roots for brown and boil are totally separate. I'm reverting all your edits to that effect. --{{victar|talk}} 21:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Every single PIE root for 'brown' linked in a page for one of its reflexes redirects to the page for the word for 'to boil', Victar. This is why I thought they were the same word with different meanings, as the reconstructions are identical. An example for the definition of the root of 'brown' being the same as the root for 'to boil' can be found at the page for beaver, which is untouched by my "garbage edits". GabeMoore (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  We have many roots that have the same reconstruction, but what you did in error was assume some etymological connection where there is none. See *ǵʰer-, for example. --{{victar|talk}} 00:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  So how would I go about making separate entries for identical reconstructions? Would I just make another entry on the *bʰrew- page with the definition of 'brown', and put all of its derived terms under it, like with *ǵʰer-? GabeMoore (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

  @GabeMoore, Bezimenen, I've added the possible "brown" forms here: *bʰerH-. It's a few to many "perhaps" for my liking, but there it is. --{{victar|talk}} 10:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gabe, if you're going to work in proto languages, you need to cite sources. --{{victar|talk}} 20:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The pages I'm getting everything from, (beaver and bear) don't have sources as to those etymologies. If I was getting them from somewhere else I would of course cite sources (as I have done in my Tocharian B work), but all I'm trying to do here is fill in "gaps" where one page says something and another doesn't, where they don't conflict of course. If the entry for 'beaver' says that it's from the PIE term for 'brown', and that that term is from the term for 'to boil, brew', while the entry for the root for 'to boil, brew' doesn't list the PIE term for 'brown' under its derived terms, I would make the assumption that it's simply not listed rather than that the etymology for the entry for English 'beaver' is wrong. GabeMoore (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gabe, that's a really bad way to go about things, and is why we're having so much trouble right now. It's one thing for an entry to offhandedly mention some spurious or otherwise incorrect etymology, but it's another level entirely to create an whole entry based on it. Going forward, please don't created entries unless you have actual sources for them. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 15:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Borrowings in descendants lists been to be marked with an arrow (→), either manually or preferably by use of {{desc|bor=1}}. --{{victar|talk}} 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll make sure to do that, thanks for the clarification. GabeMoore (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Hey Gabe, please don't null out reconstructible languages in descendants lists, ex. {{desc|ine-toc-pro|-}}. --{{victar|talk}} 05:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Gabe, why are you entering entries like this? Please take the time to properly format your work. --{{victar|talk}} 01:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Wow, thanks for checking me. I don’t know how that slipped past.

Additionally, you said to use {{desc}} when listing descendants. However, I see lots of pages using <language name> {{l}}. (For example, {{desc|la|puella}} vs Latin: {{l|la|puella}}). Is there any preference as to which of these to use? They seem to display the same thing. GabeMoore (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

No worries. {{desc}} is a newer template, which is why many older entries still use {{l}}. That said, usage of {{desc}} is not mandatory, just prefered. --{{victar|talk}} 02:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gabe, please only entries for attested forms in Tocharian A and B. So if the form is in plural, the entry should be in plural. --{{victar|talk}} 06:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The attestation is in the singular, at least with the reference I gave. @Rua also reverted your edit back to mine, so by the looks of it I was just fine. GabeMoore (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't help but notice that I too am an American high school senior who probably shouldn't have used my real name as a username... Thanks for your Tocharian entries, they are much appreciated. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Gabe, please don't add Khotanese entries until the Khotanese unicode is ready. Also, add Khotanese to descendent trees as such, {{desc|kho|tr=ustama}}. --{{victar|talk}} 06:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. What would the harm be in that, though? It seems like it would be easier to have Khotanese entries already written in Latin script and go through and provide native Khotanese transcriptions once they’re ready than to have to recreate each page. GabeMoore (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The unicode is being actively worked on and I'm creating a font for it. --{{victar|talk}} 16:36, 20 August 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

Hi, where did you find आर्यमर्ग् (āryamarg) and आर्यवंश (āryavaṃśa)? Monier-Williams' dictionary does not have them. I've heard the second term used in Hindi but it's usually two separate words (आर्य and वंश). Often Sanskrit compounds are coined into the borrowing languages without the compound actually having existed in Sanskrit, so maybe that's what was done with the loanwords in Tocharian? -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 10:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I found them in Adams' Dictionary of Tocharian B, if you check the references I put in the Tocharian descendants Adams states they were borrowed from the Sanskrit words I listed. I don't have much experience with Sanskrit (my Tocharian B work is about the extent of it) so I'm just working off of what I've been given. GabeMoore (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Heads up. You should refrain from creating entries in languages you are not much familiar with. Creating Sanskrit entries for terms from a dictionary of any other languages is really not a good approach. In the entry उपाध्याया (upādhyāyā), you gave the gender as masculine which is just silly and contradictory, given it is an ā-stem noun; if anything, it is the feminine equivalent of उपाध्याय (upādhyāya). Again, if one isn't familiar enough with any language, mistakes are bound to happen; hence, please avoid creating such entries. Thanks for your understanding. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  I see, that was simply a mistake, because I normally wouldn't have marked that as male; obviously it's feminine. I've made many Sanskrit entries so far, and I believe most of them have been generally correct. I'm just filling in the Sanskrit words that my Tocharian B entries are borrowed from that aren't in Wiktionary. What would be the issue with getting entries from a dictionary? It seems to me that the information therein would be correct. GabeMoore (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Etymologies tend to be less careful about terms in other languages, and often are problematic about details. Since they're trying to show the relationships between languages rather than teach about the languages themselves, they not infrequently use an extremely rare synonym of the normal term with unclear semantics merely because it fits the expected pattern. I believe there are even cases where the actual term given is unattested, but it's inferred from related ones. My experience is mostly with European languages mentioned in etymologies, but similar problems with Sanskrit wouldn't surprise me in the least.

  Add to that the fact that the history of Sanskrit and the prakrits is extremely complex and that many sources use spellings in various romanization systems rather than in an original script, and you end up with far less than the ironclad reliability that you're assuming. For that matter, it wouldn't surprise me at all if some of these Tocharian B terms were actually from an unknown prakrit term, with unattested Sanskrit being given to avoid lengthy and equivocal explanations about the guesswork involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

  (Most) every Sanskrit entry I create has been taken from learnsanskrit.cc, an online dictionary that I believe gets its entries from the Monier-Williams dictionary. If a Sanskrit word that my dictionary cites doesn't appear in that dictionary, I usually don't create it, certainly not recently now that I know a lot of the words cited by Adams 2013 are imprecise. GabeMoore (talk) 09:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• I want to reiterate, please refrain from adding Sanskrit words on the basis of learnsanskrit.cc (formerly spokensanskrit.de). That website has a known track record of coining unattested words. Also your Tocharian dictionary seems to be giving Sanskritic compounds as actual Sanskrit words. This is in reference to कल्काञ्जन. Stick to the languages you are comfortable in. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 15:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  To let you know, I've sent the term to RFV: Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English#कल्काञ्जन. If you can't find reliable sources other than an etymology dictionary of another language, it will be deleted. —Svārtava (t/u) • 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Got it, I should have checked that word in my Sanskrit dictionary. I'll be sure to do that going forward. GabeMoore (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. What part of speech is Reconstruction:Proto-Tocharian/āke? You mis-labelled it. --Pious Eterino (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply