User talk:Hftf

Greetings Hftf,

Any idea what "photomoding" means? mysteryroom (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am somewhat confident it means essentially "the use of photomode" (as well as perhaps being an -ing form of the verb "to photomode"). Actually it was the term I heard and looked up first, that led me to create the entry photomode, which is at least more attested from a brief search. This book contains some description and commentary of the practice, though doesn't use the exact term. Thanks for the message! Hftf (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly for your prompt response. I will create the term now. mysteryroom (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I'm trying to make rtl text work with an inherently ltr thing like a template, I set up the template framework first with all the pipes and ltr text in place: {{af|||lit=from the face of}}, then I add the rtl text inside the appropriate spaces, like pouring something into a mold. Any time you switch between ltr and rtl while typing it's too easy to get turned around, so you don't know where you're really putting the characters. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Understood. One thing to note is that the placeholders may still shift around between the first mold-pour and the second mold-pour, depending on the directionality of what's pasted inside, so it's not quite foolproof! I've been taking notice as best I can, using arrow keys and uniview. Thanks for fixing my other typos. Hftf (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Because this is the original variant, I merged over the info from ℝ. If this works for you, we should do the same for the other blackboard bold symbols. 𝐑 and ℝ aren't synonyms, just allographs. kwami (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I'm happy enough with the current situation at ℝ 𝐑; the senses are what are synonymous, which can be represented by indented {{syn}} below a sense. Allography is of other relevance to defining words/symbols (objects of our dictionary), and it exists on a spectrum: for some senses the two symbols are pure allographs; for others not quite (if one is more preferred it's not a pure allograph). We can use {{defdate|from the 1960s}} on the blackboard form senses. On the question of where to keep the canonical form, I already wrote about it at rfwhatever but don't care that much. Oops re: the hasty "original" typo. Thanks for the message. Hftf (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, added that template.

I didn't want to merge all of them in case there were objections. I don't see where you gave your opinion, so I'm going off my mathematician contact. If no-one objects by tomorrow or so, I'd like to merge the others so we're consistent. kwami (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've seen in some sites where the middle root character can be shown as י or ו and it confuses me.

זייף is only one example, but indeed it appears that it is י predominantly for certain conjugations despite the root also being defined as זוף. The hebrew language academy's page has the shoresh listed as זוף/זיף. And in the case of רוצה, it is even stranger. https://www.pealim.com/dict/?num-radicals=3&r1=%D7%A8&r2=%D7%A6&rf=%D7%99 https://hebrew-academy.org.il/keyword/%D7%A8%D6%B8%D7%A6%D6%B8%D7%94_%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9C .

In the most recent edit I made, I was on mobile and unfortunately the editor and preview capabilities are not rich/advanced like they are in regular desktop mode. I did realize the mistake shortly after the edit but unexpectedly ran out of time to have a moment to undo the edit, unfortunately. Will keep that more in mind going forward.

But all that aside, I'm definitely curious about the somewhat unexpected behavior of the root characters. To your comment, the characters of the root differ from the root on the page and on the surface level, that already seems like a contradiction, even though it is probably just some irregularity of the language. Snoopy2424 (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I'll distinguish between two things: 1 is the root, an abstract construct that humans classify a related (sometimes even unrelated) set of words under, and which correlates strongly to etymology; and 2 is the string parameter used as the input for generating conjugation tables. While we will want both to be correct (to some degree/when known) and consistent (when called for), for conjugation tables specifically, we need to make sure that the input is not just a copy of the rootbox but the means to the end of making the dumb code in Module:he-verb produce the expected conjugation results. Most of the time 1 and 2 will be the exact same, but otherwise I understand that mergers and sound changes in the development of Hebrew have confused things: for example, ל״ה is the "traditional" or "schoolbook" way to consider the root post-merger whereas ל״י is the "scholarly" representation, but both ultimately refer to the same thing. I'm not really the best one to answer the deep-down "why", though; many Hebrew verb paradigm resources exist out there, even in English. My best advice is even with or without the "why" understanding to always use preview edit and make sure the lemma is actually found in the conjugation table. Hftf (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, at edit ינשוף you wrote note that we avoid saying "From " in etys. Why is that really? Sure, your phrasing seems more precise, but I'm sure that on many other cases, pointing to a particular verb is no more helpful than pointing to the bare root. Actually I posted a similar question earlier at Wiktionary:Information desk/2025/March#Hebrew headword-line templates, no roots? Danny lost (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Danny lost, thanks for the question! What I probably said too briefly in the edit message is specifically about the wording of "from the root " being problematic that we would like to avoid, because words do not derive from roots, they derive from words. Roots are just convenient abstract concepts we ascribe to semantically similar words in a post-hoc analysis. It would be like saying a Chinese character derives "from" a radical and "from" a phonophore. This is not my own opinion or my own standard (although many instances of "from root" still remain due to the lack of active editors) – I picked it up in the course of lurking and editing, maybe from others' edit messages. I do know that it's mentioned briefly in the deprecation box at {{he-root}} and About Arabic talk but I can't remember any other on-wiki places right now; our documentation is sometimes poor (Discord was easier to search in: "Roots in Semitic languages are not etymologies but a framework", also ). Bear in mind there are still occasions when a root can be mentioned during an etymology, but it would usually be without saying "from".

Now – more to the linked question – there are ways that Hebrew entry or root infrastructure could hypothetically be more streamlined, aesthetic, etc., but that's a separate issue from how we represent a word's etymology in prose. For one perspective on why two things that are usually the same might be kept conceptually or technically distinct, see my last response just above your message. Hftf (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's an interesting opinion. It doesn't seem self-evident though: native speakers, even at prehistoric times, are not immune from making their own abstract analyses, just as they have been able to "contaminate" one word with another. But I will pick it up and follow up a bit. Danny lost (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't look like a suffix to me. necro- + noun post etc. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, surely it's not even from necro- (= "death or dead tissue") either, then? What is an identifiable difference between terms like schizopost that until now were not categorized, and glowpost etc.? The fact that -post became identified as a productive element over the course of that time? Anyway all I wanted was to make the automatic category doodad at -post show more of the very closely related terms. By the way, it would be swell if you used an account. Thanks for the message. Hftf (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

For one thing "post" is the grammatical head (the main noun or verb), and you attach "necro-" to that. If some words were formed as "X- post" and others as "X -post" you mustn't mix up the real etymologies simply to use your preferred categorisation! That's simply inaccurate and misleading. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:2CDE:4536:2194:2A09 11:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a preferred categorization. If there's a problem with etymologies or categories or the existence of -post, you're invited to make a difference. I see that these words have a shared productive element, etymology, suffix, or whatever you want to call the element that attaches or gets attached to; if this is -ussy POSposting 2.0 it goes over my and most people's heads; if not an "affix" just call it something else then. As a reader, there ought to be a box somewhere that includes all the stuff in the blue box at -post, i.e. words made of something attaching to the element "post" and meaning (making) a certain type of post, and other missing words like ragepost baitpost flexpost thirstpost griefpost badpost selfpost, ideally at an entry that readers are likely to look it up under, such as namely -post. By the way, it would be nice if you got an account. Hftf (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello Hftf, are you happy with the citations I've added to dingir, or would you still like to start an RfV discussion? —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very satisfied, thanks sincerely for your research and talk message. Hftf (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I wonder why you removed {{also}} from ]. That kind of link certainly used to be completely appropriate and, judging by the template documentation, still is.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and re your {{attn}} tag, I think phrases like "לכוף את יצרו" imply the existence of the root. No?​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for dropping by with the question! I was gradually removing {{also}}s consisting of Hebrew prefix + word (or Hebrew root) after seeing another user doing so (don't remember the diff at this point), asking a question about it in the English Wiktionary Discord, and receiving the response of "you can delete them without consensus imo" from a trusted contributor. I will link the conversation but can copy it out here too if that makes it easier and/or more public.

In short, I am skeptical that readers have a plausible need for them. Prefix letters are one of the very first things to know about Hebrew and while a reader may be naturally confused about how to break an ambiguous Hebrew word into its parts, I'm not sure we're doing a real service by including seealsos when they may expand combinatorially (כשרות, כ־ שרות, כ־ ש־ רות). An analogy can be made to print dictionaries, which don't have cross-references for anything similar, and I also don't remember seeing similar seealsos being commonly used by other languages (it would be like insight having not just in sight but in sight). It's especially weird having them next to more necessary seealsos, and some like וטו: ו־ ט״ו seem completely implausible.

Can you point at where the template documentation supports it being appropriate? Anyway, I am not fully against including such seealsos, but given that they are completely systematic, it seems better to either systematically include (via a less-overzealous bot job that doesn't just add matches after removing all non-letters from page titles) or systematically exclude them.

As for the other part, I was confused because I could not find the present tense כָּפָה existing in any Hebrew verb resources I checked, though it may be an archaic form, nor כף or כפה listed in any resource with a root of כ־ו־ף. p. 83 (Scribd: p, 39) That said, I do find those forms e.g. "כפה את יצרו", though there is also "כפף את יצרו", "לכפות את יצרו" I am happy to be proven wrong though. Hftf (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Greetings Hftf,

The link under the "related terms" which you added, edot, currently has no English entry. mysteryroom (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)Reply