User talk:Gdbf137

Hello, I've reverted your addition to the (deprecated template usage) 古 page. The ===Derived characters=== section is reserved for characters actually derived from the headword character. The modern form of (deprecated template usage) 舌 might seem to contain the same graphical elements of the modern (deprecated template usage) 古 character, but as clearly described in the 舌#Etymology section, the (deprecated template usage) 舌 character is not actually derived from (deprecated template usage) 古 at all.

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

What??

Gdbf137 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Read the 舌#Etymology section. It says quite clearly that the character (deprecated template usage) 舌 is derived from a pictogram of a forked tongue emerging from a mouth. I.e., this character is not derived as a variation of or composition using the (deprecated template usage) 古 character. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• As an addendum, I'd like to explain that derived in Wiktionary headings is generally reserved for etymologically derived -- i.e., one word or character slowly turning into another, or being composed using another, or being borrowed into or from another. While (deprecated template usage) 舌 is visually just (deprecated template usage) 古 plus an extra stroke, the histories of the two characters are distinct and unrelated. Meanwhile, both characters are derived from (deprecated template usage) 口, as (deprecated template usage) 口 is historically and semantically part of how these two other characters were composed. Cheers, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your addition to the (deprecated template usage) 封 page. This character does not mean "feudal complaint" by any resource I've looked at. Incorrect additions are indistinguishable from vandalism. So far, every edit you've made that I've looked at has been incorrect. Please check with reputable sources before adding or changing entries in Wiktionary. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

My edit to definition 2, Feudal --> Feudal comment/assessment/complaint, is based on the implicit significance of the 木 in the Canjie input, and the definition in the Unihan Database at Unicode.org, which defines it as "letter, envelope, feudal".

Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you for the additional explanation. I don't believe that Cangjie input has any bearing on meanings, as the input method is derived solely based on glyph shapes. As noted in the WP article, the input method “is in fact a simple geometric decomposition.” Moreover, 木 has a basic meaning of tree, and I fail to see any way in which that might lead to meanings of complaint, assessment, or comment, even if the Cangjie input method implied meaning.

I also note that the Unihan database can be misleading in its terseness. The Unihan entry itself lists the definition as “letter, envelope; feudal” -- note especially the semicolon, as this is used to split unrelated meanings. So one set of meanings for this character is "letter, envelope", and the other, separate, meaning is "feudal". This separation means that 封 does not signify "a feudal letter".

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ditto the above comment, only this time for the (deprecated template usage) 必 page. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The definition on this page is incorrect -- it is not etymologically related to magnus, which does have semantics of size.

Gdbf137 (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Have you a source stating as much? google:"magis" "etymology" -wiki -wiktionary -wikipedia throws up a number of sites, such as this one, that state quite clearly that magis is derived from magnus. There are also dead-tree references like this one that clearly state that magis is an adverb meaning more. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note that the ===Related terms=== section is reserved for words that are related etymologically. Words that happen to have similar meanings do not go in this section. If the meaning is similar enough, they might go in a ===Synonyms=== section. Dolus is decidedly unrelated to magus, and thus should not go in the ===Related terms=== section. I have reverted your edit. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

λέγω (légo) etymology 2 Proto-Indo-European *leǵ- concurs with legō (English appearances of it), but there is some discrepancy as to whether the Ancient Greek definition is to say or to rest.

Gdbf137 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gdbf137, I've placed a temporary block on this account out of concern that it might have been hacked. You should still be able to post here on your Talk page. Please reply and confirm: these edits seem a bit suspicious. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

I changed my bio, and language proficiencies. Gdbf137 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply