User talk:IYI681

Hello everyone --IYI681 (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

мама per Vasmer. None of the sources says it has a Proto-Slavic ancestor, it's a newer word.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clarifying it. Greetings, Christian. IYI681 (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@IYI681 Sorry for writing this almost a year later, I just didn't notice it.

Proto-Slavic *mama existed for sure as it's a nursery word present in most Slavic languages. Not only that but it's a PIE nursery word - *méh₂-méh₂, reduplication of *méh₂- (“mother”) - the root of *méh₂tēr; related to German Muhme (“aunt”), Latin mamma (“mother, nurse”), Irish mam (“mother”), Lithuanian mama, moma (“mother”), etc. etc. Entries for other PSl nursery words are present here in Wiktionary on top of that - Proto-Slavic *baba and even a PBSl entry exists - *bā́ˀbāˀ. Not to mention the plethora of other similar words created by reduplication as *tata (< PIE *tatás), *lelja, *lola, *nana, *nena, *teta etc.

Here is the PSl family terms table that is put by default in the corresponding entries. Half of them are nursery words made by reduplication:

ПП Написах го на английски, за да го прочетат и други потребители. Anatoli, надявам се, се е шегувал, пишейки ти съобщението, защото иначе е непонятно как може да напише такава нелепост. Поздрвави! :) Ентусиастъ (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your in depth clarification! Поздрав! IYI681 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126 (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

С име IYI681 е странно от твоя страна да признаваш постоенето на фиромския "язик" :D Ентусиастъ (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Нали тук трябва да сме политкоректни, инак не съм го заявил експлицитно, че го признавам :Д. Много бих искал да видя реконструкция на праславянския глагол "resiti"- реша IYI681 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Мерси за пълната софра на Requested entries :) Гледам че вкарваш приоритетно праславянски думи - би ли ти било интересно да добавиш и някои от българските? Не за друго, ами просто сме малко активните потребители от България, и всяко включване е добре дошло.

Поздрави,

Chernorizets (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Да, разбира се, ще добавя, но както ти сам подчерта, почитател съм на праславянския, защото съм лингвистичен пурист, и предпочитам да заменям иностранните заемки с наши, славянски слова.

Поздрави, IYI681 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@IYI681 OK :) Праславянският си е интересен. Между другото, Wiktionary си има сървър във Discord, и каналът за балто-славянски езици е един от най-активните, да не кажа най-активния. Ако ти е любопитно: Wiktionary:Discord server. Chernorizets (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Uralic languages ​​generally do not use inh+/bor+ Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my bad. Thanks. Greetings IYI681 (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain why are you removing these dialectal forms from PS pages? Sławobóg (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are they verified, plus I have consulted with Vininn and he approved. Furthermore the user who has added them is blocked for multiple offenses IYI681 (talk) 09:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I generally agree these are not handled the best way at all and the current mark up is not desirable. This content should be handled on their respective children pages somehow (on Old Czech or Czech, etc.) Vininn126 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

WDYM? We have etymcode for Chakavian for that. Most of these forms are attested in ESSJa/SP too. Sławobóg (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Etymcodes are for etymology sections, not descendant sections. Thadh (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These forms were specified BY VILLAGE, that's what I meant, they are not given under the general denomination "Chakavian" IYI681 (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we don't need tons of individual village forms. As for Chakavian having a code, fine by me. Vininn126 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These were under Chakavian denomination, with village being additional information about region. What are you talking about? Sławobóg (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg We don't need literally every village's representation of a reflex. That information is better suited for Alternative forms on the lemma itself - on the descendants section is just clutter. Vininn126 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are just "dialectal" forms and we always add these in PS pages. Sławobóg (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Huh? Tons of PS pages don't have this and just because some do does mean that it's the best approach. Like I said, it's incredibly noisy and cluttery, to neither of which you have replied. Vininn126 (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, and how are these forms verified? IYI681 (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Old and bad entries don't have that, new and shiny do. And removing these doesnt make entry less cluttery, these are in separate lines because of etymcodes, which makes it better than non-etymcodes dialectal form using |q= thing. Sławobóg (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg So entries you've made? I've seen other new entries without dozens of villages. One person does not constitute consensus. And being on separate lines helps but it's still incredibly cluttery, I strongly disagree that it's anything but that. Vininn126 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do you decide on which are bad and which are not?? IYI681 (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

So someone can remove my content because he doesn't like it how it looks? And as I said before, we always add dialectal forms, and these form being massively removed is just evidence for that. Sławobóg (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I remember, you haven't added any village forms IYI681 (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg It's not your content, it's public content that everyone can edit, and because there is a better way to handle that then yes we should do that. And no, it's not evidence, there's tons of inconsistency, and also something "being that way" doesn't mean it can't change. Vininn126 (talk) 10:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And If we are going to compare eachother's added content, look at how many pages I've created and haven't bragged about it. Well said, Vininn IYI681 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

So because it's public I can just revert that because I think it was ok. Chakavian has its etymcode and place in the tree, so it should be part of a PS page. If you don't like that, start BP discussion instead of removing these just because you don't like it. Yours liking is not better than mine. Sławobóg (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I now remember why Bezimenen called you an amateur IYI681 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please keep the ad hominem to a minimum. Vininn126 (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

He is just grating on my nerves, xd IYI681 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg You have multiple people disagreeing with this practice, so no, it's not okay. Being public means relying on consensus. As far as I know you and Gnosandes are the only ones adding tons of villages, whereas we have tons of other editors dealing with Proto-Slavic not adding them and more people outright saying it shouldn't be part of the page. I shouldn't have to explain what editing a Wiki means and what consensus means. Vininn126 (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I said nothing about villages, I asked about removing whole dialectal forms (Kajk/Chak/Shtok/Boehem/Morav). These are often different from standard phonetically or accentually, like here. Can you stop mixing my words? Sławobóg (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg This is a Moravian edit. I already stated my stance on Moravian (which applies to Bohemian) - there should be a better way to handle that. I would say the same thing about any other lect of that nature (e.g. Goral). Find an edit with the the Kajk/Chak/Shtok change and we'll talk. Vininn126 (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Basically most (if not all) SH edits remove different phonetic/accentological forms, examples just from today: 1, 2, 3. Sławobóg (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A village form IYI681 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These all point to specific villages and their formatting is less than idea. I don' t see why those specific forms can't be on the SC page instead. Vininn126 (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly IYI681 (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are Chakavian forms... Jesus Christ, open ESSJa or SP, these forms all literally labeled as dialectal/Chakavian forms of SH, not "village forms". At this point both of you discuss with someone else. Sławobóg (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

almost all removed forms were village. Why didn't I act the same here https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/agodi%C5%A1%C4%8De IYI681 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You don't even care to open sources, am I right? You see village name and you just remove it? What if village information is wrong but the word is normal Chakavian? Ever thought about that? Sławobóg (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I work with sources, you are contradicting yourself here. Not all the time, Essja lists Chakavian or any other dialectal Serbo-Croatian forms IYI681 (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not contradicting myself, these forms are real, usually sourced. We also add informations that are not found in ESSJa or SP, like Old Novgorodian. Chakavian has it's etymcode for a reason and is often mentioned separately for a reason. Instead of removing whole word you should have just removed label and use etymcode. Even if we don't want these as something separate, why didn't you move these to standard language with a qualifier? You remove good content and expect what? Sławobóg (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Show me a source for those village forms, classified under Chakavian, I haven't removed genuine Chakavian forms, like the link I said. ONLY VILLAGE, can't you read between the lines?? IYI681 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I said it before, these are not village forms, these are just Chakavian forms. That information is often mentioned in our PS sources. Which part is hard to get? Remove village label, add ckm code and it's good. Sławobóg (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to know they're not village forms when they're marked as belonging to a village. Can you stop and try to be understanding, or are you going to continue to be unnecessarily rude and dismissive? Vininn126 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the issue is 1) there were literally dozens of village-specific forms on PS pages. I think we can all agree these should be removed. I also don't think we need forms specific to random villages in general.

As to having Chakavian/Shtokavian etc., there is probably more value in having this. There is probably a solution we can agree would work. As for removing forms - if there's a form listed as belonging to a village, it's hard not to assume that it's the same kind of clutter content that I was trying to remove. So be a little sympathetic to that please. Vininn126 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

So shall I continue to remove them or let the other remaining stay. These removals, which are done in a benevolent faith, seem to have sparked an enormous amount of controversy IYI681 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think if we see a huge list it should probably be or we just remove everything but the "main" forms. Single forms marked as having a village might need converted, I suppose. Vininn126 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg 1) Not literally everything in ESSJa has to be here. 2) the way it's formatted is prone to tons of errors that can be misleading. They should be handled very differently. 3) We don't add literally every dialect to reconstructions, despite what you think. Vininn126 (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And this can mean both a village and a province IYI681 (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that per-village forms shouldn't be added in descendant sections, it just adds clutter and usually doesn't give any additional information for the reconstruction. Thadh (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, can't we make a consensus on that? IYI681 (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

And you said these village forms were present in Essja? Plus, Vininn said the essence, by your logic Wiktionary should include every dialectal village form possible IYI681 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126

I'm assuming you got this from a PS reconstruction - did they leave any comments about from which source they got it? I can see it in {{R:pl:SJP1900}} but I'd rather it come from a more specific dictionary, also more specific than {{R:pl:SGP1900}} if possible. Vininn126 (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually did see it in the first source you mentioned, didn't know its existence in the page. IYI681 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not so convinced - I've given dialects generally a more lax treatment with Polish in terms of CFI, and this is possibly addable, I just prefer to err on the side of caution. I'd love if we could figure out where they got it from. Especially since it's hard to come by actual uses for this. Vininn126 (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Solid, I completely agree with you. IYI681 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay. If I find it in one of these dialectal dictionaries I'm going through I'll remember about the PS page! Vininn126 (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ! IYI681 (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply