User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 10

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please see the discussion section on that page. Thank you.

--Foreverknowledge (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was cleaning up this entry after CONDORCONDOR broke the conjugation template, and checked it out in HJP and RSHKJ. I found some things I am curious about. There seem to be different verbal noun formations; žègānje is listed in HJP, and žèžēnje in RSHKJ, but not vice versa. The past verbal adverb žegavši that CONDORCONDOR added was listed as žègāv(ši) in RSHKJ; does that mean two different adverbs, žègāv and žègāvši? Then there is the fact that it has both aorist and imperfect forms. HJP lists only the imperfect, but RSHKJ lists both. What would the usage differences be? My last question is about the differently accented infinitives, žȅći / žèći (and the corresponding derivatives pòžeći / požèći, etc.); am I right in assuming that it would originally have been žȅći, with an accent changing paradigm, and then changed to žèći (in some areas) to match the present forms? – Krun (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

žeći is a type 1 class 4 verb (1. vrste 4. razreda) which indicates that the verbal noun should be formed with present stem plus the suffix -enje, yielding žeženje. žeganje would require an infinitive form of žegati accompanied by an entirely different paradigm. HJP's inflections were generated by a computer and at rare occasions do have some (systematic and thus predictable and fixable) errors.

SC Past verbal adverb reflects Common Slavic past active participle, which just as in OCS, had a pair of suffixes (onto the infinitive stem): *-(v)ъ for the masculine and neuter, *-vъši for the feminine. Standard Serbo-Croatian acknowledges only the reflex of the second form, i.e. žegavši. Forms on -v/-av are unused except in poetry (to get rid of an extra syllable) or when the writer wants to make a stylistic impression. They are considered old-fashioned if not downright "wrong" by some purists.

In general, aorist forms only have perfective and rarely imperfective verbs, and imperfect forms only imperfective verbs. Whether the imperfective verb has aorist forms depends solely on its meanings - in case of žeći the notion of "to burn, enkindle" etc. lends itself nicely to both tenses. Simple corpus/google search for aorist forms of žeći indicates that these are indeed very rare, and attested only in the older literature: E.g. 16th century Tripče de Utolče:

Po Lovrijenca koga žegoše, neću te u kuću!

The original accent is in fact žèći. In Western Neoštokavian speeches infinitive-final -i was quite often dropped in the vernacular, which caused the accent to shift from rising to falling (since monosyllabics can only have a falling accent). Modern standard Croatian favors Western Neoštokavian, and for that reason HJP lists the newer (artificially reconstructed) form of žȅći. The original accentuation is manifest from the polysyllabic forms of the inflection. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Do present forms always (originally) have the same accent as the infinitive, then? What about the other forms with falling accent (active participle; 2nd/3rd person aorist)? Why are they not stressed the same? Anyway, I generally favor giving precedence to the more original form, as long as it is still standard somewhere (e.g. in Serbia or Bosnia). The trouble is that there aren’t any good, comprehensive dictionaries. RSHKJ, for example, although it has a fairly broad scope, does not give any information about the distribution of variant forms beyond Ekavian vs. Ijekavian, and very limited information about their currency. – Krun (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, the infinitive can have different accent than the present tense paradigm. The exact history of Slavic verbal paradigms, particularly mobile paradigms which žeći belongs to, is a very complex and still more or less unsolved problem. We have the accentual patterns as they are attested, we can classify them in razredi and vrste, reconstruct Proto-(Balto-)Slavic accents, and that's about it.

Regarding the accent of pariticples confer Barić et al. §674.4 and §676.5. There are general rules (applicable to the 95% of cases), as well as many exceptions, dual forms and other complexities. The best course of action is to simply look it up every time, or leave the unaccented forms and wait for the divine intervention of ŠtambukBut to fill in the blanks in some distant future.

The distribution of variant forms is something that only a dialectologist would be concerned about, or somebody writing a dictionary covering several standards. Your complaint is valid for just about any other polycentric language, whose dictionaries are usually written only with respect to a specific standard and not all of them at once (the only exception would be English because it's world's lingua franca). Hopefully one day these issues will be detailed in an appropriate appendix. Until then all we can do is manually expand the entries as we see fit by comparing various sources that we have at hand. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you also add a declension table to the entry? If this is etymologically what I think it is, then it has an extra -t- in most of the forms, is that right? —CodeCat 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be the PSl t-stem reflexes. I'll need to research a bit more however because I'm not sure that all of the meanings undergo that particular inflection (perhaps split by etymology would be necessary). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to add the etymology, that's why I asked. I'll add it now and you can decide how to split it. —CodeCat 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are some problems with these entries. They are missing the Cyrillic spelling, and treba also has two SC sections. Could you have a look? —CodeCat 12:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know he's not the most trustworthy editor, but those verb forms were perfectly valid. Ultimateria (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

He's cluttering patrol log by running the bot without permission. By deleting the bot's contributions we can discourage such behavior. He has already run it several times, and only when he sees that the net effect of such behavior is zero, will he stop. Inflected forms of a few Asturian verbs were lost...who cares anyway. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

While that's all true, I don't think that removing good content from Wiktionary should be done to teach someone a lesson. And after seeing him blocked at least a hundred times, I think nothing could keep him away from here. However, he actually can be reasoned with. He just wants someone to run a simple bot for him. I guess I could offer the next time I see him... Try sending him my way instead of undoing his edits next time. He might even stop with the verb forms if he knows someone is willing to work with him. Ultimateria (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

He has repeatedly betrayed the trust of several wiki communities and cannot be trusted. We cannot let the inmates run the asylum again. Reasoning is just a facade so that he can do something silly eventually. Bots can silently do a lot of damage. If he wanted someone to run his bots for him, he would've already asked somebody to do so. Instead, he's running it improperly, generating a lot of clutter in the patrol log, hoping that eventually the community will give in and grant him the bot flag. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just chiming in that he DID ask me to run his bot, to which I declined because the user is not trustworthy. For all I know, the software he would've given me would've been infected with a virus or something to get my password XD Razorflame 23:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

WF is not a black hat madman. He's also asked SB, other users, and the community at large in the BP to run his bot for him and made the code publicly available (SB deleted it, but any admin can retrieve it). Moreover, not only Ultimateria but Ungoliant as well have confirmed that all his Asturian bot edits are accurate, not surprisingly since he does actually speak Asturian. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

If people care so much about WF, why doesn't someone run the bot for him? It's almost as if nobody wants to do it, letting WF run his boot loose without a flag on several occasion, in order to play mind games on other editors. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ultimateria did offer to run it, per above. I personally would rather learn how to operate the damned thing myself, and I'm not especially interested in Asturian. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hullo. Erm, do you really need to block Slavić for an indefinite amount of time? I know that he has made a lot of questionable decisions, but I think that he just needs more time to mature. Maybe you could revert your block to a month? --Æ&Œ (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

He was blocked for 1 month, but I extended it to infinite after this comment on my talk page, which is entirely a very vulgar ad-hominem piece. He demonstrated very uncivilized behavior already, has some very distorted opinions on what constitutes a "Croatian language" (some kind of obscure mixture of non-standard dialects, written in an obsolete 19th-century orthography), and has left many fake word/spellings on Serbo-Croatian entries that I'm still cleaning up. He should've been blocked a long time ago.

The main problem with him (as well as his Serbian "counterpart" Zabadu (talk • contribs) which was also recently indefblocked for incivility) is that they come from a culture where they think that the one who yells and threatens the most, is the one who is going to "win" the argument. Slavić thinks that his way of spelling Serbo-Croatian/English words is the proper one (even if it cannot be attested anywhere), and that everyone else is illiterate. He has been contributing here for months, which was quite enough to mature.

He can always register a new username and start contributing normal entries as a decent person. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you answer, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Another notification: do take a look at Special:Contributions/Oiseauić. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

S obzirom da postoje i drugi projekti koji se bave promicanjem kulture srpskohrvatskog jezika, ne bi bilo zgoreg da se metne šablon {{wikipedia|lang=sh}} i umrěži trud. Živěo. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hehe. Zapravo bolje je koristiti {{pedialite}} predložak unutar ===External links=== odsječka koji je dosta "lakši" po pitanju potrošnje resursa od {{wikipedia}} predloška, kao i uredniji po pitanju strukture (nema nekakvih čudnih kutijica koje lete lijevo-desno..). Budem podesio da se automatski dodaje ako postoji članak na sh-pediji, no bit će potrebno stvoriti puno preusmjeravanja tamo (ijekavica/ekavica, latinica/ćirilica, razlike u transkripciji stranih imena itd.) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, hvala da znam kako ubuduće. Imam u planu sve te navedene stare i moderne iranske izraze ubaciti u sh:wiktionary. Trenutna situacija je koma jer ima samo oko 1000 unosa. Razlog je želja za umreživanjem s ostalim projektima, Ripper i ja nanizali smo skoro 2000 članaka samo iz sfere iranistike, a za bar pola se može napraviti i unos na wiktionaryju. Ako ti treba šta od lingvističke literature u elektroničkom formatu, trenutno raspolažem s ovim i bilo što mogu poslati preko emaila:

Nažalost, Dehodin rěčnik (kapitalno dělo za perzijski u 16 volumena) nemam, ali mogu ga nabaviti kroz měsec dana, čim opet odem do Teherana. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mogao bi (kad uhvatiš vremena) napraviti desetak oglednih primjera po kojima bi ja naštancao na stotine unosa. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Vidio, hvala! :) --Orijentolog (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oprosti kaj te smetam, nu nisi mi odgovoril na moje pitanje - nema veze, valjda je tak lažji. Ovak, ne bum te već gnjavil ni gnjevil, daj molim te mi odblockiraj Slavić račun, stvarno te liepo prosim za to, obećavam ti da već ne bum taknul Serbo-Croatian - ionak ne ima smisla, vse ali promjeniš, zbrišeš ali me zblockiraš, jer hoćem još tuj i tamo doprinositi na anglešćini i na francušćini, latišćini i jinim jezicima, gda jur, eto vidiš ne mrem na svojem. Škoda je kaj ne ćeš priznati gdaj si u krivu (vsaku besjedu ku vodimo završi blockom), ali ne ima veze, ja ti opraštam, isto tak se ufam da buš ti smogal snage i oprostil meni, ar u žaru, s uljudbenog jezika se već kot pričesto vugarni lupsus pobjegne. Ja i dalje ne vidim svrhu "Serbo-Croatian", gdaj bi mnogo bolje i lažje bilo, da vsaki ima svoj jezik, pa koliko on bil sličan ali ne sličan, jerbo ako Norweški, Svedski i Danski moreju biti odvojeni, Russki, Belorusski i Ukrainski, Češki i Slovenski (Slovakian), onda stvarno ne vidim zač Hrvatski i Srbianski ne bi mogli biti, jer su ovi ako se pogleda kak se gleda na Hrvatski i Srbianski su u istom košu š njimi (vse isti emballage). Buj mi pozdravljeni, ne ćem se više svaditi, ve s iskrenom ljubeznostju Slavić (talk)

p.s (svjet je savjet i na to sam mislil dok sam odpral svjet, ne znam zakaj si to zbrisal, pa vsi Dubrovčani pišeju svjet, svjetovanje za savjet, Zrinski i Frankopan pišeju svet, svetovanje njegda i svit, svitovanje)

Nope. You crossed the line so many times with the username Slavić and I'm not Jesus to release you sins after a single apology. Feel free to register another username though, but if you start adding fake words again in whatever language, you'll get blocked. Regarding svjet - I'm sure that Old Dubrovnikan writers as well as Zrinski and Frankopan used many obscure spellings, but that was centuries ago and nobody today really gives a shit about it. We can always mark their spellings as obsolete, but I don't have the time to check everything you add whether it's was a genuinely obsolete spelling, or a product of your imagination, so it's much more convenient for me to simply delete on sight. The next time add three citations (see WT:CITE). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mogal sam i misliti, povlačim vsaku rieč isprike - Balkanac, Balkanac nema šta! (svjet nije spelling nego forma, i izgovara se /svjet/, slovenski nasvet, nu ti s tim tvojim oskudnim znanjem hrvatskoga jezika to nisi ni mogal znati, u hrvatskom ne ima "sasakanja", jesi ignorant, a ti si zadužen za rieči - sramota!) Bakanismus par excellence!

p.s buš mi javil dok Vuci utihnu, kaj ne? Adieu.

You don't get to decide what constitutes proper "Croatian" - it's solely up to the speakers to decide. svijet is colloquially pronounced as /svje:t/, and misspelled as svjet by the under-literate folks, as well as in older literature when rules of spelling were not set in stone as they are today. Regarding svjet as a variant of savjet (without vocalized strong jer) - now that particular form has been out of use for centuries. In fact, I had to look it up in the etymological dictionary to verify that it indeed existed. As I told you before, all that crap will get instantly deleted because I don't have the time to verify what is purely a product of your imagination, and what indeed an obsolete spelling/variant. Next time try adding three citations and a reference. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I know this has been talked about in the past, but what I don't understand is why you want to remove both Serbian and Croatian from entries when they are both legitimate languages to have entries for on this Wiktionary? So who cares if they are identical to the already included Serbo-Croatian entry? There is a reason why they both have their own Wikipedias and Wiktionaries, and that is that the vast majority of Wikimedians believe that they are their own languages. Therefore, I believe that they should have every right to have their own entries in addition to the Serbo-Croatian entries. Razorflame 20:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is no such thing as "right to one's own language". We describe reality as it is, making concessions where it makes sense. Having additional four language sections that would be more or less identical has already been tried, and it becomes next to impossible to maintain. However, generating B/C/S/M sections from SC should be possible, but the platform doesn't support it yet (Lua cannot accept a bunch of wiki code to pre-process and then redirect to the MediaWiki template processor). The reason why there are separate wiki projects is because nationalist editors hated each other too much to collaborate on Serbo-Croatian wikiproject, which was the first one created. At any case, their existence or nonexistence is immaterial to Wiktionary's treatment of languages - we set our own criteria, which gets treated as one or more languages, which gets redirected to what and all. I don't know who are the "vast majority of Wikimedians" that you speak of - perhaps some of your chat buddies? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't talk with anyone from Serbia or Croatia. I am merely stating the fact that it takes a lot of editors to get projects accepted on Meta. I still disagree with the redirect of Serbian and Croatian to Serbo-Croatian, but whatever. I can obviously tell that I won't win this confrontation, so I'm going to back off, yet again. Razorflame 20:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

In the early days the criteria of acceptance were much more loose. For example, we have wikiprojects in extinct languages such as Old Church Slavnic, Old English, Sanskrit etc., some of which have very limited vocabulary and it is impossible to write articles about any modern concept whatsoever. In a few years we'll probably also have Montenegrin wikiprojects, which will be a crown evidence that the criteria are not linguistic, but political. One bad side affect of letting this individual B/C/S projects loose is that they've become a magnet for hard-core nationalists which promote a bit perverted purist language and the accompanying ideological framework. I think that it will be possible in the future to fully automate "translation" among B/C/S varieties, so that they could be displayed in different tabs on a single page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Razorflame: it's policy because of a community WT:VOTE. If you want to change that, you need to hold another vote. Please don't; it's more work for everybody and I'm sure it'll fail. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did I even say that I was going to? I've already said that I'm not going to win this argument and that I'm going to leave this alone, so why even make that comment Meta? Razorflame 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think that rollback is in error.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

What rollback? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

This one.--HerbSewell (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see. I revert any suspicious IP activity because it's not really worth the risk of having mistakes in entries (if it were up to me, the whole project would be locked for registered users only). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the basic word ovaj lacks inflections, accents, and maybe more. Could you expand it? --JorisvS (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Will do. These pronouns/pronominal adjectives/determiners (whatever you call them) are on my TODO list for a long time now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --JorisvS (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed a Serbo-Croatian word in the Translation Table for this entry. Could you verify that it is correct and add the Cyrillic translation as well? Thanks, Razorflame 05:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo Ivane,

Kako se kaže "prawn" i "shrimp" na srpskohrvatskom? Našao sam "škamp", "račić" ali se može reći "kozica" kao na slovenačkom? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Da, može i kozica, iako mislim da je taj naziv primjenjiv samo za manje vrste rakova, dakle više shrimp a manje prawn. HJP daje naziv nekoliko vrsta za koje se koristi. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

A, razumijem, hvala. Dodao sam prijevod na "shrimp". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have been reading articles on this subject and things are kind of clear. There seems to be a consensus, more or less, on the following things, at least:

• Final-stressed neuter nom/acc -om was replaced with -od, which then lost its d to become -o, later -a (and then Slavic -o again). The non-final stressed neuters merged into the masculines.
• PIE -om was raised to -um before o and a merged.

So from this evidence it seems that the Balto-Slavic neuter nouns ended in -a. But this puzzles me a bit. Old Prussian has neuter nouns in -an (and some in -on, which is said to reflect -um), and those reflect final-stressed words for the most part. That means that they ended in -a at some earlier stage. So where did they get the -an/-on ending from? There were no neuters ending from earlier -um by that point, if they indeed all became masculine. So what is the source of the Prussian ending? So far I haven't been able to find much about this yet. —CodeCat 01:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pronominal -od was only replaced in Slavic and East Baltic (there are some relics of old neuter), Old Prussian -an continues PIE -om via Proto-Balto-Slavic -an. There is no consensus that -om > -um in Balto-Slavic - that is Kortlandt's theory. I can't find anything on where Old Prussian -on came from - is might as well be variant form of -an given the problems with OP orthography and the ones who recorded it (not native speakers). Illič-Svityč's law is Common Slavic, not BSl. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is relevant to my interests ... and this paper is relevant to the problem discussed here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The paper can be used to improve (among others) Template:ine-bsl-decl-noun-o-m, of course. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do we want Sanskrit entries formatted like this? --Vahag (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Roots cannot pass CFI, so probably no. They are supposed to be added to Appendix:Dhatupatha, which would for every root also list lemma form (the ones on -ti or -te, i.e. third-person singular present). OTOH most (all?) Sankrit dictionaries lemmatize verbs by roots, and there are special dictionaries of roots only, e.g. for √sthā) or . Sanskrit grammarians later coined many artifical roots to self-describe the entire language (i.e. for nouns that were borrowed or inherited but of opaque morphology), which were later used to build new words as well as used in Indic languages (both Indo-Aryan and Dravidian) to build words in a similar manner that Greek and Latin words were used in the European languages to build technical/scientific/cultural words. It does make sense to have e.g. स्थान (sthāna) listed as derived from √sthā rather than the reduplicated present तिष्ठति (tiṣṭhati). However, I see that स्था (sthā) was originally made in the Appendix namespace, then moved to the main namespace, and then a Monier-Williams dictionary entry was copied which was already present at तिष्ठति (tiṣṭhati), and which is wrong since most of these meanings pertain only to the verb not the root (which has basic meaning "to stand" and perhaps some other closely-connected ones). Now that we have more than one Sanskrit contributor, perhaps is time to discuss such things! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've asked Rajasekhar to talk to you before he creates more entries. On a related note, I am looking for the correct Devanagari spelling of Sanskrit aṣṭhīvánt, which is usually translated as “knees” but really means “shin, shank”, as shown by Lubotsky (see the refence in ճիւ (čiw)). I have found the spelling अष्ठीवत् in Monier-Williams, but it is transliterated as aṣṭhīvat there, without -n-. --Vahag (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Consonant stems in Sanskrit have some weird traditional lemma forms. Underlying form was -vant, nominative singular was in -vān, and MW lemmatizes these with -vat. See s:Sanskrit_Grammar/Chapter_V#Nouns_and_Adjectives (scroll down to page 168, WS geniuses broke linking to specific pages). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not a Sanskrit pundit. I have found some Sanskrit roots already here; thereby thinking they are allowed, I have created a few Sanskrit roots in similar lines. You can delete them. I am interested in tracing the origin of Telugu language words; many of them have originated from Sanskrit. Thanking you in bringing it to my notice. I would create any Sanskrit roots further. Thanks.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the clarification.Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that lovaš has a different tone from lova that it derives from. And it makes me wonder how speakers understand the tone system synchronically. Are there any kinds of rules that govern changes in tone with certain derivations? It's mostly for personal curiosity, but this might be something that should be noted in entries and/or grammars as well. —CodeCat 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the change is "inherent" in the suffix. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you. I suppose the suffix is -š? We don't have an entry for it yet. —CodeCat 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

No it's -aš, and that's why a is long (-āš). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. Does the long vowel have anything to do with the tone, in the way it tends to do in Slavic languages? Also I added the suffix to lovaš. —CodeCat 18:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Hungarian suffix was long, and Proto-Slavic *-ašь regularly generated oxytones, and apparently (according to Kapović) in o- and i-stems in all Croatian dialects and in Slovene the ultimate syllable is lengthened in words belonging to accent paradigm c, which would after Neoštokavian retraction yield posttonic length i.e. long -āš. In later derivations (this suffix is very productive in SC) this length is then taken as inherent, together with the mobile paradigm. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have never heard or read of Russian language as having tones, but there are what seem like tones when Russian is spoken correctly. The Russian intonation is not described and not taught, and students are left to assimilate the correct intonation simply by listening, as part of learning to speak with a proper Russian accent. However, when I listen to Serbian, I really do not hear the tones ... Serbian sounds rather flat and atonal to me. It seems like the Serbian intonation is not nearly as pronounced as Russian intonation. This makes me wonder whether Russian actually does have tones similar to those of Serbo-Croatian, or if the Russian intonation that I am familiar with is something different, and not related to the Serbo-Croatian tone feature. For example, in the word свидания (as in до свидания), the stress falls on -да-, but the preceding syllable сви- has what I would describe as a high tone. What is your opinion? Is the intonation that is so prominent in Russian analogous to the Serbo-Croatian tones, or is it unrelated? —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Serbo-Croatian has word tones but standard Russian only has sentence intonation and no tones at all. One only needs to know the stress. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't really know that much about Russian to comment on that. From what I understard, Russian accent is more stress-based, rather then pitch/height. I assume that there is lots of variation in dialects and actually spoken idioms. But regarding Serbo-Croatian - there is lots of difference between the standard form, and the actually spoken form. Colloquial speech in most of urban centers doesn't distinguish lengths, and the accent is usually stress-based. That's primarily because the dialect that standard Serbo-Croatian is based on (Eastern Herzegovinian) doesn't actually natively cover many major cities, not even capitals such as Zagreb and Belgrade, where it was "imported" and due to large immigration koineized speech emerged with simplified tonal system. For properly pronounced Serbo-Croatian you need to listen either the native speakers of the dialect, or trained speakers (e.g. actors). Some random examples: (tones are OK but lengths not so), , , (quality is bad but this is "pure" speech) Tone is much more prominent in non-standard (and non-urban) dialects such as Čakavian - You can hear some examples here (also randomly googled): , or Kajkavian . I hope various "tonal" oppositions are much more evident there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. I have known a Serbian fellow for several years who lives in Belgrade. I always try to hear something of tones when he speaks, but I don’t hear them at all. When I listened to some of the examples you posted, they sounded very different from the Serbian that I hear in Belgrade. I don’t believe Russians are consciously aware of the distinctive intonation of Russian when they speak it, but Russian intonation is very pronounced and is directly affected by the position of the stressed syllable. Anatoli feels that Russian has no tone system at all, but the intonation is so distinctive that I suspect that there may be some connection with the SH tones. As far as I know, it has never been discussed before, or even mentioned, so there could be other explanations for it. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is, there is no tone associated with individual words, there's only stress. The sentence intonation (and tones) exist and a sentence, of course, may consist of a single word. Like I can ask "Правда?" (Really?) with a different tone as when I make a statement. Intonation can be individual and regional. There are some basic rules about how to pronounce statements, exclamations and interrogative sentences, where to make pauses and how to highlight words and some indicative rules about narrations. Russian speech is not flat intonation-wise (but flatter than British English or German) but there's hardly any rules about how to pronounce phrases. Since the word order is very flexible, the effect of highlighting certain words can be achieved by reordering words in a sentence. Alternatively, changing the intonation of a sentence can highlight certain parts without changing the word order or adding words. Statements are often converted into questions by simply changing intonation. This page has a little bit about sentence intonation: Урок 16: Интонация. Again, the intonation exists in phrases, not words, there are no tones in East or West Slavic languages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is sentence tone that can be applied to some word in a sentence to draw the focus to it, but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about tones that are inherent to a word. I should try to find some time to investigate it a little. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

In Russian, "tones that are inherent to a word" don't exist, AFAIK but I'm open to new discoveries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why this was written with an i-letter rather than a kamora mark? Or is this just inconsistent and was there no rule for using one or the other? —CodeCat 15:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

No idea. -Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it would be feasible/useful to combine the two scripts like that? —CodeCat 20:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've left a comment on Talk:elephant; is that what you wanted? I don't think it's very helpful, though; the word's ultimate origin is just obscure. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I tried to codify what might be sensible spelling practices, I hope you agree with them as well. I'm a bit stumped by язъ (jazŭ), it should probably be moved but to what? —CodeCat 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is currently defined as an adjective, but I've noticed that it's also used as a noun, like in поганинъ (poganinŭ). It seems that it has a kind of "individualising" meaning to it. Is this a distinct sense/usage or is it just a nominalised adjective? —CodeCat 12:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you have your Cyrillic keyboard on when you made this entry? Every letter except the 'l' is Cyrillic rather than Roman. —Angr 00:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It was taken from badly digitized Vasmer headword on цапля. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for moving it. It seems to be an extremely rare word in dsb; certainly not the usual word for 'heron'. —Angr 08:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's why I marked it as dialectal per ESSJa. Unfortunately many inherited words of Common Slavic stock that have survived centuries will eventually grow extinct due to comparatively recent standardization efforts. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've deleted a lot of translations of the word beard, I think by error? --Echtio (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was an error. I was mass-lowercasing Old Church Slavonic Glagolitic spellings and must have accidentally selected a chunk of other languages as well. It's strange that nobody has noticed that earlier.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you attest detao and irha, Serbo-Croatian entries? Both presently sit at WT:RFV from January 2013 and, following a strict process, would be deleted unless it is demonstrated they are attested. In any case, your comment in RFV as to whether you think they are attested would be appreciated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Of course they are attested; I will restore and cite them shortly. They were originally tagged by Zabadu (talk • contribs), now blocked Serbian nationalist who doesn't accept as "real" any words that he personally hasn't heard of (despite the fact that Wiktionary's inclusion policy has abundantly been repeatedly explained to him in vain by me and User:Biblbroks), listed by User:-sche and deemed "failed" and deleted by User:Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. None of them actually bothered to inform the entry creator (myself). Watching Wiktionary policies playing out reminds of the movie "Dumb and dumber". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I reminded Voskanyan and he wrote back. There is Talysh sıpə / cыпә, meaning “dog” in general. He says the word also survives in Tati dialects of Iranian Azerbaijan. --Vahag (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

An editor recently RFV-failed Serbo-Croatian už. You would be able to attest this, wouldn't you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me. I'll see what I can do. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Linking templates will strip the diacritics from SC words, so you don't need to specify the entry name separately anymore. —CodeCat 21:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's all generated by a program, I don't type it. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Can you attest uvet/увет? They sit in RFV since March 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me again. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dodji malo na IRC dugo te nema. Pozdrav! --User:Kolega2357 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know the origin of the -ti part is reasonably clear, but what about the different parts that go before it? Do you know anything about this, or know sources that discuss it? I've often wondered why some consonant stem verbs have -ti while others have -ati, or where the -aj/ati and -ěj/ěti classes came from as distinct from other verbs in -a-ti and -ě-ti. Also, can anything be said regarding the ablaut grade of the root in the infinitive? I've noticed that if there are ablaut differences between the infinitive and the present, the infinitive usually has zero grade while the present has full grade. —CodeCat 19:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only two sources that I know that provide coverage on that are Stang's Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen (for Baltic, but has many comparisons to Slavic in cognate forms) and Matasović's Poredbenopovijesna gramatika hrvatskog jezika which is much more recent (referencing recent research, sources such as LIV etc.) but it's not in English and uses Holzer's reconstruction of Proto-Slavic (which is trivially convertible to the standard notation, but nevertheless). You can both find on the Internet (LG, UZ etc.). I was planning to more actively create etymologies for various affixes and suffixes in the future, but it takes much more time to properly research them which is discouraging. For normal words you look up etymological dictionaries, for affixes you need comparative grammars and papers (cf. the monster that *-ъ has become). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Da li možeš da dodaš interwiki ili da popraviš postojeći ka ovom projektu? Pozdrav i svako dobro. --Kolega2357 (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ako misliš na glavnu stranicu, ne prikazuju se svi interwikiji nego samo od onih projekata koji imaju puno članaka (ako sam dobro shvatio). Link ka shwikt se nalazi na samoj glavnoj stranici u kategoriji "1000+" i radi dobro. Doduše, vodi na preusmjeravanje, ali mislim da je to do podešavanja nekih MediaWiki postavki za defaultnu glavnu stranicu na shwikt, a to bi ti trebao riješiti tamo.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused by the etymology here. It says that it was replaced in Serbia because its inflections conflict with uvo. But looking at that entry, I don't see any conflict at all. Is the inflection wrong? —CodeCat 21:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some forms were missing, I've added them now. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove this page from Category:sh:Nationalities? Ultimateria (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Because it's an adjective. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think you're confusing it with Category:sh:Demonyms. —CodeCat 00:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The category name is misleading, belgijski is not a nationality, and Belgijanac is not a demonym (you can have nationality without coming from a particular place). Either the naming scheme or the description of the category is wrong - probably because it originated from English entries where there is no clear morphological distinction between nouns and adjectives, so Belgian could be both noun and adjective. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If may be an adjective, but belgijski still describes someone's country of origin. Isn't that what a nationality is? You could answer the question "What is his nationality?" with "He is Belgian" (as opposed to "He is a Belgian"). Ultimateria (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It appears that all topical categories contain words related to their name. So it's not only nouns, but all of the derivations - relative and possessive adjectives, verbs and so on. They're even more useless then I thought.

At any case, "nationality" is a different thing from "country of origin". It has legal/ethnic/cultural connotation, not merely locational. belgijski can refer to Belgian nationality, but such usage is restricted only to phrases such as belgijsko državljanstvo or belgijska putovnica/pasoš. You're connecting two distinct meanings, and a/the has nothing to do with it, "He is Belgian" in SCr. and other languages cannot be translated with an adjective, and requires a noun. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason to use this and not categorize them as nouns, verbs, etc. and put 'abbreviation' on the definition line like we do with other languages? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

From what I've seen, most abbreviations in all languages are not categorized as nouns, verbs etc., and use an equivalent of {{sh-abbreviation}} in the headword line. I was in fact looking for some guidelines but couldn't find them. Could you give a model entries to follow? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's being phased out. I think I might be the only editor actively doing it, but it has been discussed on the Beer Parlour three times this year; most recently Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2013/October#Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms in languages other than English where there's only one comment, but as you can see nobody's opposing it. Regarding format, there's {{abbreviation of}} and there's a context label abbreviation in Module:labels/data. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see. I've only created a few hundred abbreviations at best (Polish, English). I've used {{abbreviation of}} in the definition line (once I've discovered it!). I'll use the proper part of speech in the future. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

About Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia in which you voted, let me point out that your support vote for option 1 does not automatically translate to a support vote for options 2 and 3. So if you prefer options 2 and option 3 to no option at all (which I don't know), the options need your explicit support. As written in the vote, "If more than one action gains consensus, the one with the greatest impact gets executed." --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

=boutpolitixaniwayugoturpointaniwei,80%ofurgoal,y.valdafracas?ys,iv apragmatiksaid2;)[givn dadiskr.of'flemish,idonowotit=2felstronli~langwidgtho svenverelst70atgmail.com[ido8fash.nsuchxtremz,tru

I'm afraid I don't comprehend your shorthand. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Some people have a better time of translating Sven; I can only make out that I believe he is jumping on the Serbo-Croatian troll bandwagon. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I got most of it. "It is about politics anyway, but language. You got your point, anyway; 80% of your goal. Why? Valda-fracas? Yes, I've apragmatically said that, too. Given Da Diskr of Flemish, I do know, O Tit, it equals 2 felstron-li. Language, though." - -sche (discuss) 18:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I still reckon Sven is just a pure troll. He isn't using a 'shorthand' he just type random characters where others use spaces, and his spelling is terrible. I totally don't buy it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am looking for a Serbo-Croatian verb ошѝјати (“to turn around”). It gets only one Google hit, so I'm suspicious about the spelling. Is it correct? --Vahag (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's listed in some 19th century dictionaries and used in folk proverbs, with no modern attestation. It's a derivative of šȉja / ши̏ја. However, another derivative, zaošìjati / заошѝјати is much more attested. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Vahag (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

While I'm on your page, what font do you use for Cyrl to correctly view the Serbo-Croatian accents? The accent in ши̏ја falls between и and ј for me. I'm using Arial. --Vahag (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

It also shows bad accent position for me. It used to show it properly bud somebody screwed it up, and I haven't investigated where. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivan. What is your source for all the Proto-Semitic entries and templates you've added? I've been trying to find a good book on the reconstruction of Proto-Semitic, but Amazon is not turning up anything that seems thorough enough. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Militarev & Kogan's Semitic Etymological Dictionary available as a database on the Tower of Babel project. Don't have access to the paper edition though, but most of the reconstructions that I've added are uncontroversial and obvious. For the template (I assume you mean {{sem-decl-noun}}, which is left unfinished but perhaps you could do it :) try Luis Gray's Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics, which is largely available as a preview on BGC, plus you can find a low-res BGC rip on pirate websites. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll take a look at them. Although it seems that Louis Gray's Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics is a bit outdated at this point (originally published in 1934), so I don't think we should get our inflection tables from it. I will do some more research and find a better source for them. The Tower of Babel Project seems really useful though. --WikiTiki89 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Poslao sam ti email u vezi onog Wayback Machine - konzultirao sam se s dva informatičara i kažu da je čisto smeće. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I meni se čini. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan,

you deleted Citations:again, but forgot to tell me why they wouldn't be citation (in the sense of "the act of citing a passage from another person, in his own words"). --80.114.178.7 09:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

See WT:CITE on how to add and format citations. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

The formatting shouldn't be the problem, see Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#thereagain, where DCDuring kindly offered to "take a look at the three and alter them to fit our formatting if necessary." --80.114.178.7 03:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well if they want to clean up after you, it's fine with me. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

WT:CITE isn't really usefull (even the link to Citations:mauve just tells that some unexplained attributes of that page make it a good citations page), I'm quite willing to start the page with a {{citation}} template, once you restore it. --80.114.178.7 20:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Restored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --80.114.178.7 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ivan. It seems there appear to exist two different independent derivations for the above-named Slavic title. One theory derives it directly from prehistoric Turkic (R. Matasović, Petar Skok, Starostin), the other one derives it from an unknown Iranian dialect via Sogdian borrowing into Old Turkic (S. Nişanyan). The latter is widely accepted. How to proceed at Appendix:Proto-Slavic/banъ now? Greetings, -- Hirabutor (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly does Nişanyan state that the Slavic word is derived directly from Iranian, and not Turkic? And where exactly did you hear that that theory is widely accepted? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't have sources regarding a direct derivation of the Slavic word from Iranian, only indirectly. Nişanyan states that many Turkic royal titles are Iranian in origin, as Turkish bey is supposed to be, according to him. That the Iranian theory is widely accepted, you can read in the Iranica article for Turkish "BEG":

• "The origin of beg is still disputed, though it is mostly agreed that it is a loan-word."

More info here: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wusun#Language

• "Findley notes that the term böri is probably derived from one of the Indo-European Iranian languages of Central Asia, while the title beg is certainly derived from the Sogdian baga ("lord"), a cognate of Middle Persian baγ (as used by the rulers of the Sassanid Empire), as well as Sanskrit bhaga and Russian bog."

Wikipedia on Bey:

• P. Golden derives the word via Sogdian bġy and E. Pulleyblank also suggests Chinese pö, pök, pak as a possible derivation for Turkic bey.

-- Hirabutor (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is the problem then? Slavic word is a borrowing from Turkic, which is in turn probably a borrowing from Iranian. This is what the etymology of *banъ currently says :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have mentioned it before, namely that there appear to exist two different independent derivations for the Slavic title Ban, but the etymology of *banъ currently says its all one theory :) How can Proto-Turkic *bāj- (with an pan-Altaic analogy) derive from an Iranian source, when it is actually rather the Old Turkic form which is mostly supposed to be derived from Middle-Iranian :)) This would be a very paradoxical circumstance with a large chronological divergence.

• 1st theory: slav. *banъ < directly from Old Turkic (Avar) bajan < from Proto-Turkic *bāj- (with an pan-Altaic analogy) --> see ToB: Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 2 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "tut-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF. *bēǯu ("numerous, great").
• 2nd theory: slav. *banъ < directly from Old Turkic bajan < via Sogdian bğ < from a Middle-Iranian form of Old Iranian baga < from an ancient pan-Indo-European source, without a Proto-Turkic reconstruction and without an pan-Altaic analogy --> see Nişanyan: Old Turkic bég = Sogdian bğ = Avestan bağa = Sanskrit bhága = Proto-Indo-European *bhag- ("beneficence, to endow, to deign, to feed"). Iranica also includes Indo-Iranian *bhaga- ("allotment, distribution") before PIE *bhag- ("to spare, divide, distribute"). (see: PIE *bhag- at ToB).

Do you understand my point? -- Hirabutor (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah - see . --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perfect. Case closed :)) --Hirabutor (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Zašto si obrisao moje pitanje, kada je bilo na mjestu, pa i često ovdje navođen izvor isto sadrži oblik uboo sam, uboo je, uboo je. Ponašaš se kao kakav diktator ovdje na Wiktionaryju, što ti se sviđa stavljaš, a što ne odmah brišeš. Mislim što je ovo. Ovakvo tvoje ponašanje je za prijavu, jer ne odlučuješ ti što je ispravo, a što nije. S tobom nema ni razgovora i rasprave ili je tako kako ti kažeš ili uopće nije, desi se brisanje, vrijeđanje ili blokada. Ako se ova tvoja diktatura nastavi više nitko neće htjeti surađivati na Wiktionaryju, a i sada je većina suradnika već otišla. Ovo tvoje ponašanje je stvarno zabrinjavajuće sramotno. 89.201.128.204 15:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ti flektirani oblici su algoritamski generirani - i pogrešni. Pogledaj samu natuknicu što piše na vrhu stranice - prid. rad. ùbō. Nema problema da raspravimo bilo kakve probleme, ali ovo što ti pričaš nije problem već tvoja, hm, nepismenost. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hm, dobro nepismenost (bez obzira što mnogo ljudi i izgovara /uboo/ a nerijetko i /ubol/). A što je s alternativnim oblikom od treskati, tiskati koji si isto tako obrisao prije nekoji dan kad postoje dva prezenta tiskam, tiskaš, tiska... i tišćem, tišćeš, tišće... imperativ tikaj i tišći, a glagolski prilog sadašnji tuskajući i tišćući, ista stvar s treskati, bljeskati, pljeskati, iskati... to si obrisao onako iz zabave zar ne. 89.201.128.204 15:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Pa i izgovara se kao dug samoglasnik, ali se duljina ne piše. Ovaj macron iznad slova <o> u ùbō i jest oznaka zanaglasne duljine u izgovoru. ubol je isto nestandardni (dijalektalni, i prijašnji iz dijakronijske perspektive) oblik od ubo bez l-vokalizacije. Te alternativne oblike si također izmislio - poopćio iz izvedenih prefiksiranih (pri-tiskati - pri-tišćem) oblika a sami se nikad ne pojavljuju. Čisto sumnjam da se može cijela takva paradigma posvjedočiti. Izmišljaš riječi, a ovo je deskriptivan rječnik koji isključivo dodaje posvjedočene oblike. Rijetko korištene alternativne inačice treba dodati ako su odgovarajuće posvjedočene, ali i označiti da se radi o dijalekatskom otpadu i slično. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Upravo ono što sam prije rekao, diktatorsko ponašanje, i izmišljanje nekoga posebnog jezika koji samo ti očigledno poznaješ. Vokalizacija na l, nije potpuna u hrvatskome jeziku (kao u srpskome), jer u hrvatskome još postoje oblici bijel, cijel, pepel, debel, anđel, ubol, sokol, čelni, gledalac, stol, sol... a da i ne govorim o izgovaranju u glagolu bil, čekal, kupil... koji je itekako živ, ali se ne koristi u standardu. Ti si izgleda puno veći jezikoslovac od Katičića, Babića, Škarića, Lászla i drigih... i očito poznaješ hrvatski bolje od hrvatskih jezikoslovaca samih, oni su sve glupani, nacionalisti i debili za tebe, čudno da nisam čitao ni jednu knjigu napisanu tvojom rukom. Ovaj tvoj "deskriptivan rječnik" je zbog tebe obično ruglo i upravo smrt za svakoga koji iz njega pokušava učiti hrvatski ili srpski jezik. S tobom (kao ni s drugim fašistima) nema rasparave upravo si sada to i potvrdio. Uživaj u svome "srpsko-hrvatskome" jeziku. 89.201.128.204 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

U glagolskim pridjevima radnim je potpuna. To što ti navodiš su gotovo sve ili supstandardni oblici, ili l uopće nije u završetku sloga. Ne možemo kontaminirati standardni jezik tim smećem. Kada netko otvori konjugacijski predložak treba mu samo i isključivo biti prezentiran standardni jezik. Jedine "fašiste" koje ovdje vidim su ljudi poput tebe - zadrti mali nacionalisti koji su razočarani što njihova nacionalistička propaganda nema previše odjeka u virtualnoj sferi. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

With what in modern notation should Pokorny's ring-like thing be replaced? It is used e.g. in volume III, page 949, *(s)k_or-dh-. In another notation in one of my sources it is written *(s)kьr-dh-. --Vahag (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

With Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "Latnx" is not valid. See WT:LOS.. ьr is used for the reflex of PIE syllabic sonorants in Proto-Slavic (sometimes also spelled as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "Latnx" is not valid. See WT:LOS.). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Vahag (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind cleaning up this entry? I would do it myself, but I'm not familiar with M-W formatting and I can't figure out many of the abbreviations. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Albanian 'dhampir' is a compound of dhamb 'tooth' (Gheg form of standart 'dhëmb') and 'pir' or 'pirë', participle form of 'pi' to drink, with the labial 'b' assimilated to proximal 'p'. So the term literally means 'that who drinks through his teeth'. It doesn't get more straightforward than that! Moreover this explanation reflects the old believes according to which vampires sucked out the blood through holes they had in their teeth. I'm not excluding categorically the Slavic origin, I'm just saying that, taken into account the historical Albanian-Romanian proximity and language common features, the possibility that this word finds his origin in the Albanian language is a real possibility. Unless it has a more satisfactory meaning in Slavic! Etimo (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Could you add that etymology, and its source, to dhampir ? Sources such as DEX claim that Romanian vampir is not borrowed from Albanian, But from French and German... --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

nadam se da ćeš ovo pročitati. Prijatelj

Dalo bi se zagovarati tezu da je sam koncept pravopisa ipso facto fašizam. Jezik kao emergentno svojstvo ljudskog metaorganizma nije nešto što se može regulirati od strane zakonskih i pseudozakonskih autoriteta. Nitko nema pravo reći da nečiji materinji govor ili pisanje nije "ispravno" ili "pismeno". Radi se o jednoj makroskopskoj metastazi totalitarnih težnji pojedinaca, obično dobro uhljebljenih na grbači poreznih obveznika, koji si umišljaju za pravo da kroje slobodan tok informacija. Prestani sluganski slijediti kojekakve "autoritete" i mućni malo tih kilogram i pol umrtvljenih neurona. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Znam, no ti isto tako slijediš "autoritete", pa zaboga pišeš lijepo umjesto ljepo kako i govoriš eventualno l'jepo, a nije ništa fašistički ili ustaški pisati liepo. Pa gledajući sve pravopise svaki tada bi trebao pisati po svojem osjećaju, onako kako govori ali i kako osjeća, bez političkih ili nacionalističkih naboja. Prijatelj

Ja sam izvorni govornik novoštokavštine, normalno kažem i i (i sa lj= i kao dva glasa), ovisno koliko brzo pričam. No ovo potonje bi se moglo uzeti kao sekundarni registar; nema ništa loše u tome da se jedna varijanta uzdigne s obzirom na prestiž. Slažem se, sve bi trebalo biti dozvoljeno. No nažalost balkanci su stoka te bi segregirali s obzirom na odabir, pa bi se "odabir spelovanja" sveo na svrstavanje u kampove lijevo/desno i još više služio za podstrekivanje razlika među ljudima, pa je najbolje stoci preskribirati što i kako i da govore i pišu. Pogle samo današnji referendum, to ti je "pravo glasa" u državi gdje većina birača ne zaslužuje demokraciju. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Naravno, ja se u potpunosti slažem s tobom, ja sam inače štokaviziran Zagrebčec najčešće govorim upravo /ʎepo/, no nekako pisanje ljepo mi neodgovara u oku, najradije bih pisao liepo, samo je problem kaj me uvijek gledaju nekako ispod oka ono kao da sam neki ustaša ili zadrti nacionalist, kad dapače sam upravo suprotno. Prijatelj

Hi,

I've created Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Uralic for putting together guidelines on the topic. I'm CC'ing a bunch of users I know to have done work related to Uralic etymology. Feel free to pass this message further along too. --Tropylium (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know enough about Uralic to comment on that. I'm fine with whatever you decide. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it would be also good to include Serbo-Croatian dual. What do you say ? 5.43.168.182 17:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why? Dual is an essential part of standard language: Dva čovjeka kopaju. , Dva cvijeta rastu. , Dva muža su kopala. and similar examples.

Uhm, no it's not. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

We have the articles Стари Завет, Stari Zavjet, Stari Zavet, Нови Завет, Novi Zavjet, Novi Zavet. I am wondering if they are incorrectly capitalized. I checked the Wikipedia articles and only the Bosnian article on the Old Testament capitalizes "Zavjet":

• w:bs:Stari Zavjet

The rest, including the Bosnian article on the New Testament, only capitalize the first word:

• w:bs:Novi zavjet
• w:hr:Stari zavjet
• w:hr:Novi zavjet
• w:sh:Stari zavjet
• w:sh:Novi zavjet
• w:sr:Стари завет
• w:sr:Нови завет

So am I right to say that the articles should be moved to Стари завет, Stari zavjet, Stari zavet, Нови завет, Novi zavjet, Novi zavet? --WikiTiki89 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes it should be Stari zav(j)et and Novi zav(j)et. Bosnian wiki has it wrong. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. I fixed it. --WikiTiki89 06:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I intend to create {{hy-pron}} on the model of {{uk-pron}}, but I do not understand Lua. How did you learn it? Is there a short manual tailored specifically to wiki-context? --Vahag (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm a programmer so learning it was a matter of adapting to Lua syntax. Try Lua reference manual for start and make sure you turn off the built-in editor that doesn't function properly when you use diacritics and obscure characters common in IPA (the button in the upper left corner). If you prefer, write a table of transformations (substitutions of characters by IPA sounds, assimilations, exceptions and so on...I don't know how phonetic Armenian alphabet is) and I'll convert it to Lua for you if someone doesn't beat me to it. Test cases would also be nice - for every exception, transformation (or a group thereof) and similar. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Armenian alphabet is quite phonetic. I have described the transformation rules in comments in Module:hy-pronunciation and made Module:hy-pronunciation/testcases. There are more rules, but I will probably be able to implement them myself by analogy if you can convert these rules to Lua. --Vahag (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It works almost perfectly, thank you! The stress has problems. It should be CVCVCˈCVC, CVCCˈCVC, etc. not CVCVˈCCVC, CVˈCCCVC. By the way, the module can also be used for hyphenation. --Vahag (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure, just list the syllabification rules. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, tomorrow, with a fresh head :) --Vahag (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I recommend to both of you to use an external editor for editing large amounts of code (and copy and paste back and forth). Notepad++ and Sublime Text are good ones (note Sublime is not technically free, but the free trial is full-featured and never expires). --WikiTiki89 19:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm using UltraEdit. Just tried opening 30MB XML file in Notepad++ - it choked to death. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are some problems with the module and some new features I can't implement. Let's see if you can help.

• Preferably, no stress should be added for monosyllabic words. See line 57 for details.
• I changed the rule for marking the non-standard stress position. See lines 60–62 and failed testcases № 7 and 13.
• The IPA stress symbol should precede the whole consonant. See failed testcases №№ 3 and 4.
• I don't know if this is feasible, but preferably the module should return two results — the standard pronunciation and the colloquial pronunciation. The standard pronunciation will omit the rules in lines 49–55. The rest is the same. The two results will be shown separately, as in անկախություն (ankaxutʻyun). I have changed {{hy-pron}} to allow this. Ideally, if after the transformation the standard pronunciation and colloquial pronunciation coincide, the latter should be hidden.

If you feel like making a hyphenation module, the rules for hyphenation in Armenian are:

• One consonant between two vowels: the consonant joins the following vowel, so V-CV-CVCC, CV-CVC, CV-CV-CV-CVC, CV-CV-CVC, CV-CV-VC, CV-CV, etc.
• Two or more consonants between two vowels: the last consonant joins the following vowel, the rest join the preceding vowel, so VC-CVC, CVC-CV-V-CVC, CVC-CV, VCC-CVC, CVCC-CVC, CVCC-CV-CVC, VCC-CV-CV, V-CVCCC-CVC, etc.

  =V

  =C

• Before hyphenating, the sequence եւ should be transformed into եվ. So արեւ (arew), but in hyphenation ա·րեվ (a·rev).
• This rule is optional, so omit it, if the implementation is complicated. If in a combination CCV the second C = յ (y), then there are two legitimate hyphenations, C–CV (the usual one) and –CCV, e.g. սեն-յակ (sen-yak) // սե-նյակ (se-nyak), անկ-յուն (ank-yun) // ան-կյուն (an-kyun). Two hyphenations can be shown by using the parameter nocaption=1, as in անկախություն (ankaxutʻyun).
• The module should take as its input {{{1|PAGENAME}}}. I mean, there should be an ability to override the PAGENAME value.

I imagine a general module can be written, applicable to many other languages. --Vahag (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is the hyphenation the same as the syllable division? If it is, then hyphenation and stress placement can be both solved in one go. First split the spelling into syllables for hyphenation. Then, if you want to convert to IPA, convert each syllable on its own. Finally, place the stress mark before the stressed syllable, or leave it out if there are only one, and then put them back together again. This would also ensure that the stress mark is placed where it should. —CodeCat 22:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hyphenation does coincide with syllabification most of the time but not always. For example, it's Հո·լան·դի·ա (Ho·lan·di·a), four segments, but , three syllables. There are many other cases. --Vahag (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ivan Štambuk. Could you add font support for Code2001 to the script template {{Linb}} please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

, Zdravo Ivane da li možeš ove MediaWiki poruke da prevedš? --Kolega2357 (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between indefinite and definite in Serbo-Croatian adjectives? 95.178.129.228 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Available here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zamolio bih za izvore za etimologije reči "leš" i "ljuska" ako je moguće. Link, ako je u pitanju sajt, impresum ako je u pitanju knjiga ili zbornik radova. Hvala unapred. — This unsigned comment was added by 109.245.158.176 (talk) at 15:58, May 28, 2014‎.

Imaš primjerice u Gluhakovom etimološkom rječniku. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivane!
Could you check the spelling of kṛṇoti in the quotation in उषस्#Noun? The transcription is kṛṇoti, but the current Devanāgarī spelling is कर्णोति (karṇoti) (krṇoti). The fancy to change the Devanāgarī spelling to कृणोति (kṛṇoti) passed through my mind, but in case you have had other considerations back then I opted to refer the matter to you. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

It must be kṛṇoti due to internal sandhi rules, so the Devanāgarī spelling is incorrect. Also, often the Devanāgarī spellings are ruined by bolding the relevant word with wiki markup, which I don't think can be fixed at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Devanāgarī spelling has been rectified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I never knew adjectives could have aspect. But seriously, this looks like a verb, and probably is a verb, and I think you know better how to fix it. — Keφr 03:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo Ivane. Could you please check this user's contribs? He's marking pretty much all Turkisms/Orientalisms as regional. I don't know how to proceed, whether to mark them as "Regional Croatia" or "Bosnia and Serbia" or "Bosnia/Serbia/Regional Croatia' or "Regional Serbo-Croatian" period. It seems sort of ridiculous that we would have to mark everything regional, despite the fact that most of the citations you've provided for some of those words are from Croatian literature. --Dijan (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Most of these are not "preferred standard Croatian" and 2/3 of those are in active usage among Croats in both Croatia and BiH. I would mark them as regional Croatian or colloquial Croatian. However, whenever a word is marked as Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian and is not exclusively Bosnian or Croatian or Serbian, it should have its status declared in other SC varieties as well. So yes, Bosnian, regional Croatian, Serbian (in alphabetic order) seems to be the preferred form. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Plain regional qualifier is meaningless. It should always be specified with respect to which SC variety the term is regional, otherwise it means it's not an accepted word anywhere. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the future just block morons like this one. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my attempts to correct the spelling of OF words? OF generally did not have words ending in -cer, -ger, -gner, -cher; they were actually spelled -cier, -gier-, -gnier, -chier. Similarly, I'm imagine the verb described as rainer (an alternative of claimed "regner" or "reigner") should actually be rainier, alternative of regnier or reignier, and I'm dubious of the spelling regnier as well since normally in OF the palatal nasal was spelled -ign- (hence occasional archaisms in Modern French like oignon pronounced as if written ognon, and Michel de Montaigne, where Montaigne is simply the old spelling of montagne.

Keep in mind, Ivan, that whoever originally created the Old French -er and -ier declensions in Wiktionary made a total mess of them; he simply had no idea of what he was doing and seems to have analogized a lot based on Modern French. I've put in a good deal of work correcting them but there's a lot more that needs done. It would help a lot to have some automated tools here; if you can recommend some tools to e.g. make it easy to put all verbs in -chier into the {{fro-conj-ier-e}} template, I'd be very grateful. So it's not too surprising to me that incorrect forms like reigner should creep in, too.

Even if a form like recumancer existed in some dialect (Anglo-Norman?), the proper spelling with -ier certainly existed as well and should be preferred.

BTW if you could put a note on my talk page when you respond, I'd appreciate it since I may otherwise forget to look here. Thanks!

Benwing (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This entry uses the Latin letter ć in the Cyrillic spelling. I would have just fixed it to use the Cyrillic с followed by a combining acute accent, but I noticed that the Cyrillic toolbar under the edit window includes the Latin ć as a Cyrillic letter. Is this supposed to be the case? Is this letter used in Cyrillic Serbo-Croatian texts? --WikiTiki89 18:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Official Montengrin orthography uses Latin ć instead of Cyrilic s + combining acute and that's what we're following here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

May be relevant (freshly archived): Wiktionary:Information_desk/Archive_2014/January-June#Ossetian æ again. Also, what do you mean by "Official Montenegrin orthography"? — Keφr 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That would be the book called Pravopis crnogorskoga jezika which invented Montenegrin "language" in 2009. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, they don't mention which Unicode codepoint should be used. But the fact that they themselves use the Latin ć codepoint, is enough to satisfy me (I can't speak for Kephir). --WikiTiki89 19:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

After a short while, I decided not to care that much. I asked mostly of curiosity. (It does have the potential to confuse scripts and such, though. Also, they do use U+0437 + U+0301 for "з́" ~ "ź". Maybe they did not pay too much attention to consistent use of Unicode, so we should not consider it normative.) — Keφr 20:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Da, u srpskohrvatskom ona ne postoji. :) :) Also keep in mind that this SC must accommodate all languages/dialects from former Yougoslavia dwelling space. If you don't know the word; please have a look in dictionary! (I would recommend Bėlosztėnëcz, Micaglia, Della Bella, Šulek, Mažuranić...) If you don't like the word, or if you have some other agenda, then there is little I can do for you (or anyone on that matter). Also please, there is no need for hostile tone, or POV ad hominem attacks, especially if there are fruit of your imagination. Thank you in advance. Une nymphe (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

, , , Možda si primetio ovog korisnika ali mi deluje kao lutak za jednokratnu upotrebu i za provokacije. Pozdrav! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ma to je neki poremećeni starkelja kojeg niko ne uzima za ozbiljno u stvarnom životu pa dolazi tu gubiti moje dragocjeno vrijeme. Na hrwiki je imao par čarapara (Slavić..) koje su mu blokirane jer je nametao svoj izmišljeni pravopis u člancima. Teški pacijent. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hocemo li bildati sh wikirecnik? --Kolega2357 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

On this page you provided a descendant in Old Serbo-Croatian. Is this a mistake, and should it really be OCS? —CodeCat 19:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not attested in OCS. OCS word for "interpreter" is тлъкъ (tlŭkŭ). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

But what distinguishes it from OCS in this case? —CodeCat 00:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's not attested in OCS = it's not OCS. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Then let me rephrase. How does one distinguish an OCS text from an Old SC one? What makes them different languages? —CodeCat 00:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

OCS is a language of a limited number of monuments declared to be OCS canon. Any word attested outside the OCS canon is not OCS. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Kreni sa generiranjem Crom daba (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

You also need to check if the language is specified and English (polycycle)) DTLHS (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your edits. If you want to discuss the notation used for Balto-Slavic entries, please discuss this on Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Balto-Slavic before making further changes. Also pinging User:Florian Blaschke. —CodeCat 11:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're the one who should discuss it - it was you who unilaterally changed names of the pages reflecting your original research, going against the very sources you cited. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thanks for all the help with the BCS entries. It's great stuff you're doing. The declensions and etymologies are awesome.

I noticed you took out the "confuse" def. of postidjeti because "not all dictionaries have it." All dictionaries don't need to have it; in fact, none need to have it. However, some online ones do, e.g., EUDict at http://www.eudict.com/?lang=croeng&word=postidjeti. Obviously, I'm not a native speaker, but, sometimes, as a native speaker of English, I know how things translate better into English. One of the nice things about Wiktionary is that we don't have to conform to all those paper dictionaries. I think we should keep "to confuse" in there, probably as a third def.

@V-ball: Apparently one of the meanings of confuse is "to make uneasy and ashamed". At any case, that meaning is not primary and shouldn't be a part of the defining vocabulary. If it confused (pun intended) me (and you!), I'm sure it would've confused 99% of others, in the absence of an explicit meaning gloss. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

These have been in a deprecation limbo for some time; a few months ago I nominated them for deletion and started orphaning them with apparently no opposition. You seem to be the only one who keeps introducing new uses of these templates: my suggested replacement for your case is {{sh-verb|a=...}} (|a=impf-pf for dual-aspect verbs). For {{l}}, it is {{l|g=...}} Please either adjust your tools or state your reasons for opposing this. — Keφr 08:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, for the Hungarian etymology of tákol the dictionary I am using mentions a Serbo-Croatian origin, a word that sounds like ták and has a meaning the heel of a shoe that in the end originated from the Italian (my guess tacco). Does this really exist in Serbo-Croatian? Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It does, though only regionally (in dialects). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply