User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 5

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Now for something less related: what is your motion towards Moldavian language? I've heard from other people you eventually want to merge that as well. -- Prince Kassad 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Where exactly did you here that? I don't remember expressing an opinion on it. Opiaterein would be the right person to ask, as he's our primary Romanian-language contributor. My take: the Romanian and Moldovan are linguistically one language, but since their standards are written in 2 different scripts, we might as well treat them under different headers that link to one another in the inflection line (and they're currently treated that way AFAIK - similar to Hindi/Urdu, and Persian varieties). No overlap, no space/time waste. --Ivan Štambuk 22:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I heard that on the IRC channel, but I don't remember who said that. Oh well. -- Prince Kassad 22:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Actually the analogy with SC is quite good. The thing is, in all of these cases you don't have the overlap, since they're written in different scripts (if Croats used Glagolitic, Bosniaks Arabic, Serbs Cyrillic and Motenegrin Latin - we'd have no issue at all), and here you have all the 4 standards using the same script (Latin) in the same "variety" (ijekavian), so you'll get 4 identical sections in >90% of words (in the other 10% cases you'll get "only" triplication or duplication). Which is ridiculous. --Ivan Štambuk 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moldavian is really not a separate language, and the only place that the Cyrillic alphabet is still used for it is Transnistria - which is a very very very marginally recognized country.

From another point of view, Moldavian can be considered a dialect of Romanian. The pronunciation I think is exactly the same, but they have a slightly different word choice, as with all dialects of Romanian. A blackbird might be called something different in Bucharest and Timisoara. — opiaterein — 23:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. While I was looking for the etymology of vippe (English whip), in ODS I found listed some Sanskrit vēpatē (he shakes), but in Sanskrit there is no long e. Have you an idea what this ē may repræsent? The etymology of whip listed the Sanskrit root vep (वेप्), which produces वेपयति in 1st person sg. præsent. What can be in your opinion the connection between this alleged vepate (with usual e, as there is no long e) and वेप् and वेपयति? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sanskrit /e/ is historically "long", reflecting earlier dipthong /ai/, parallel in origin to also "long" /o/ < /au/ (In Vedic times they were prob. still pronounced as dipthongs, but later Prātiśākhya commentaries define them as long monophthongal sounds). This <ē> is merely a different notation of what is otherwise usually transcribed as <e>. The root of the verb is √vip (or also variant form √vep, according to the MW dictionary), and vepayati is 3rd-person singular, active present of the causative stem (note the causative interfix -ay-), thus meaning "to cause to shake, tremble etc." The usual lemma form for Sanskrit that we use is the 3rd-person singular present active (or middle, if it's ātmane-pada-only root) present of the "normal" stem, which would be vepati in this case (it's class-1 root). --Ivan Štambuk 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. So ODS probably uses only ē. I shall fix the link to वेपति. Is वेपते (vepate) part of the conjugation, does it exist or it is a misspelling of vepati? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

vepate is also the 3PS present, but middle-voice (ātmane-pada). Cf. the inflection here. --Ivan Štambuk 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. As you requæsted on the talk page, feel free to close præmaturely the vote, since 50 is the number which is likely to be conducive to attract wider support. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Da budem jasan ja jesam jugonostalgičar, ali tvoja ideja ima jedan veliki, veliki problem.

Kako bi izgledali povjesni tekstovi na toj bosansko/crnogorsko/hrvatsko/srpskoj wiki ??

To bi bila najgora noćna mora. Radili bi se takozvani kompromisi, ali ..........

Napisao sam na hrvatskoj wiki tekst Rat u Bosni i Hercegovini. Pišući gledao sam i druge wiki, a mrak mi je pao na oči na bosanskoj koja bi trebali biti najbliža onoj novoj koju ti predlažeš. Poanta:

Navodno 90 % zločina su počinili Srbi (CIA podatak), ali na bosanskoj pola teksta govori o hrvatskim zločinima.

Zamisli tekstove o NDH, Jasenovcu, a čak i neke iz "normalnije" povijesti. Jednostavno to bi bila noćna mora.--Rjecina2 10:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ček, o kakvoj bosansko/crnogorsko/hrvatsko/srpskoj viki pričaš? :-) Mi smo ovdje glasali samo za ovaj projekt, i to hoćemo li (il' nećemo) zajednički tretirati BHSM, jedan i jedini jezik, pod jednim i jedinstvenim zaglavljem. Ko hoće već sad ima ima sh viki i nek tamo drnda.. --Ivan Štambuk 11:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Onda to biti ti moglo i proći uz nužne sitnice (kada novohrvatski i novosrpski imaju različite riječi (primjer)), ali u današnjoj situaciji nema šanse. 80 % suradnika s hrvatske i srpske wiki će glasovati protiv, pa ti je jedina šansa da to prošvercaš. Sve u svemu ako gledaš prosječne balkanske wiki suradnike ja imam čudna razmišljanja. Konkretno meni smeta izmišljanje novih jezika, a za razliku od drugih imam jednu knjigu iz 1890 godine pa znam bolje od mnogih kakav je tada jezik bio :) Pozz--Rjecina2 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Njihovo mišljenje je nebitno. Opstruirali su prethodno glasanje (odnosno, barem su pokušali opstruirati - meni će šovenski-nastrojen stupidarij izložen u popratnim komentarima ovdje i u "Kafiću" jaaako dobro doći da obrlatim ovdašnje uobičajnike prilikom reiteracije glasanja :)), no jednom kad postavimo pravila o glasanju na noge svi ti nacionalistički hejteri se mogu slikat.

Što se tiće novohrvatštine - 95% tih riječca isforsiranih tijekom tuđmanizacije 90-ih su porabili srpski pisci unazad 150 godina. Pogle primjerice ovdje za pregled o čemu točno pričamo :)) (I kad to pročitaš otiđi na Kuburinu suradničku na hr WP i pogledaj onaj "babelbox" na samom dnu, i grohotom se nasmij ^_^) Također preporučam razgledanje Rožićevih "Barbarizama u hrvatskom jeziku" otprije 101 godinu - po njemu je djelokrug "rđava kovanica" koju valja zamijeniti sa područje, kolodvor je "nakazna kovanica" koju valja zamijeniti sa glavna stanica, glavna postoja, lisnica "nema u nas smisla" već je bolje novčanik, obaveza je bolje od obveza, opozicija je bolje od oporba, a primjerice primjerice "je nepotreban oblik namjesto: na primjer" :)). Dakle točno obrnuto od onoga što nam današnji poremećeni arvacki lingvofašisti, kojekakvi babići i brozovići, proturaju kao "ispravno", kao nešto što bismo tobože, jelte, "koristili" da nije bilo "opresivne protuhrvatske komunističke šape". Pazi, prije 101 godinu, čak i prije Kraljevine Jugoslavije! :)))

E da, čitanje knjiga iz kasnog 19-og i početka 20-og vijeka je jako otrežnjujuće po mozgoopranu hrvatsku tikvu. Svi ti silni "srbizmi" uzduž i poprijeko... No, kako već reče lingvocidno Flopy: knjige najvećih velikana naše književnosti se isključivo čitaju iz umjetničke vrijednosti, a ne kako bismo se učili uzornom jezičnom izričaju (za što pak postoje smjernice fiktivnih tijela etabliranih 90-ih koji propisuju "pravila" o fiktivnim jezicima..). BTW, ne znam znaš li za sajt naše uvažene jezikoslovke Snježane Kordić, koja jako dobro pere sve naše vrle "kroatiste". Britki i neviđeno urnebesni cinizam - mnogo preporučam :)) --Ivan Štambuk 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Također, pada mi na pamet da dobar dio ovih nacionalista ovaj potez (pored uobičajene samorazumljive negacije svoje etnično-nacionalno-jezične "samobitnosti") gleda kao na nešto što bi potencijalno moglo anulirati nezavisne bs/hr/sr vikiprojekte, i s vremenom ih utrpati pod neki BHSM kišobran. No kad bolje razmisliš, to bi se čak i moglo napraviti - primjerice otvoriti na sh wikipediji 3 dodatna taba koja bi identičan članak prezentirala u sva 3 (4) jezična standarda, našeg dragoga nam jezika. Ionako već sad bs/hr/sr vikice uzajamno kopiraju barem 50% svih članaka koji nekog vraga valjaju, ovako bismo samo optimizirali taj proces. Piši na standardnoj inačici koju preferiraš, a neko drugi će uz trivijalne izmjene to dotjerati na ostale dvije. (U svakom slučaju mnooogo manje truda nego da se članak prevodi sa en WP od nule, ili piše od nule). No takvo nešto - hipotetski čak i ostvarivo (i to dosta lako, kad bolje razmislim), ne bi nikad zaživjelo u praksi, uz ovako prokleto otuđene i zatucane narode koje ne vide dalje od vlastitog nosa i misle da se cijeli univerzum vrti oko njih. U svakom slučaju taj problem (da nas ne zanimaju vikice, već samo i isključivo ovaj projekt) bi valjalo adresirati u revidiranom prijedlogu, i to budem i učinio. --Ivan Štambuk 14:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree on the Serbo-Croatian issue. Now, I don't expect you to restore all the Croatian entries you've removed (I'll try to do that myself, it might take me some time), but could you please refrain from deleting any more of them? Just add the Serbo-Croatian entry into its proper place, if you feel it should be there - that would make my job somewhat easier (a lot, in fact). And also, could you not delete translations of English words into Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, because I'd expect a significant number of users to look them up in the alphabetical order and come away disappointed because they're not there, being "merged" into Serbo-Croatian (putting those looking for Bosnian and Croatian translations into disadvantage because Serbian is right next to Serbo-Croatian in the alphabetical order), thanks. :-) --Elephantus 13:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You still do not understand what we are doing. You have edited very little. Please ignore the other languages and concentrate on the task at hand. Besides entering Croatian words and definitions, you need to make verb tables for each verb that shows all of the forms; and declension tables for each noun and each adjective that show all of the forms. In addition, you must create separate pages for each and every verb form, explaining what the form is and linking to the infinitive; and also separate pages for each noun and adjective form, explaining the form and linking to the lemma. After you do a few thousand of those, you may begin to understand what we are doing here. —Stephen 14:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the declension table for Bosnian and Serbian, but the meanings given don't seem right to me, as the English word speech in both its main meanings (faculty of speech and a session of speaking) captures the main meanings of 'govor' almost perfectly. The meanings 'talk' and 'saying' are actually covered by other words (razgovor, predavanje, poslovica, izreka...). Now, as a Croatian speaker I don't feel too qualified for tampering with other languages, so I'll stick to Croatian for now. While the declension tables for nouns and adjectives, and verb tables for verbs make sense, the creation of separate page for each and every noun, adjective and verb form seems like a secondary task (no such pages for the forms of 'govor' right now). As for my editing experience in Wiktionary, it truly is small, but I've edited for a while on the Croatian and English wikipedia, so it's not a very new thing to me. --Elephantus 14:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pardon my distinct impoliteness, but pay attention to what the fuck your doing or you might look like a hypocrite — opiaterein — 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Editing may not be new for you, but the kind of editing that we do here is a little different. Look for example at hablar, then click on some of the forms to see how they are done. You will need something like that for every noun, adjective, and verb form. It does not matter that the meanings 'talk' and 'saying' are covered by other words, each synonym and sense needs to show all of its forms. Also all slang words, dialect, obsolete and archaic words, technical words, vulgar words, etc. ALL the forms of all the words. —Stephen 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've stumbled across the heading 'Alternative forms' on mlijeko, giving Ikavian mliko. Now, it sounds to me as if the words 'alternative forms' somehow imply coequality with mlijeko (the way you've used it in Serbo-Croatian makes it sound so), while 'mliko' is actually a dialectal, non-standard form. Is there another, more appropriate heading for this thing? Thanks. --Elephantus 15:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is coequal - it's the same word with the same meaning, same inflection (except in some Čakavian speeches), most of the same derived terms etc...but only with different reflex of jat. They should be mutually linked, and the ==Alternative forms== section is by far the best way to do it. Dialectal and "non-standard" words, archaic, obsolete or otherwise unused meanings or spellings, are also all allowed granted they pass our CFI. They are usually listed at the top of entry in the section ==Alternative forms==, ==Alternative spellings== or similar. --Ivan Štambuk 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, i'm not implying they should be disallowed, just that they should be marked as dialectal and non-standard. I'm not a prescriptionist, but saying mlijeko in Croatian conveys a slightly differerent set of cues to the listener/reader than mliko. Maybe put it in parentheses, together with the name of the dialect in question ('Dialectal Čakavian/Ikavian'). --Elephantus 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

All the non-standard entries (meanings, spellings, words..) themselves are already clearly marked as such on their respective pages. But, if you really feel that it's necessary, you can add the "dialectal" tag to the main wikilink too. Our primary focus is the standard language, and not those subliterary idioms which are rapidly dying out anyway. --Ivan Štambuk 15:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would be much obliged if you could make an entry for Proto-Slavic *govorъ. I suspect that Czech hovor (“phone call”) is from that same source. It might moreover be an idea to make govor an exemplary Serbo-Croatian entry, with pronunciation in IPA and soundfile, etc., also with a linked etymology. Also, the more there is in there, exactly the same in Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Serbo-Croatian, the more compelling it is for the cause of single-header treatment. – Krun 14:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. --Ivan Štambuk 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

On sačma, I noticed that the locative and instrumental are the wrong way round. I hope this problem doesn't affect many pages. – Krun 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

On сачма too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see now that on these pages Ivan accidentally used the sr-decl-noun template instead of sh-decl-noun, which has a different order of cases. Why the differing order, anyway? It's a bit confusing. – Krun 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

bs and sr declension template has the inverse ordering of locative and instrumental. The forms are correct, however. Serbo-Croatian entries use {sh-decl-noun} with the same ordering as Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your writing shows your ignorance in field. Have you asked in restaurants in Serbia for mrkva lately? I have, and they had no clue what I want, and what is mrkva. QED SpeedyGonsales 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here is some sušena mrkva for you: Sušena mrkva se dodaje u supe i čorbe direktno, razne salate, variva i umake prema ukusu prema ukusu. That must be pure literary Croatain, whoops. --Ivan Štambuk 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Time (and linguistic studies) will tell. Culture and language crosses borders easier than human beings, Matoš spent lot of time in Belgrade, but one occurrence in some literary work isn't significant. I don't care for mrkva, but I know real situation. SpeedyGonsales 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Funny thing.. I was in Belgrade in last year and no one had trouble understanding me. I went to a little restaurant in Novi Beograd, ordered "grah" and asked if it had any "mrkva" in it (as I do not like it cooked). As I remember it, they clearly understood what I was asking. --Dijan 03:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you click on the link above? The real situation is that there are is a food additive called sušena mrkva ('dried carrot') produced and sold in Serbia :P You might however imagine, given the recent polarization of Serbo-Croatian into national variants, that there is something more "Croatian" in the word mrkva, and that somehow 15 million of Serbo-Croatian speakers which are not Croats don't use that word, or have not preserved it from Proto-Slavic down to the modern times, but the evidence proves otherwise. It's used, has attestations, we cannot "ignore" it. --Ivan Štambuk 21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Formulation of my above sentence Your writing shows your ignorance in field can be misinterpreted as disrespect, and as I had nothing such in mind, I apologize for clumsy formulation. Intention was to show that lot of people in Serbia doesn't know for mrkva, and reason for that eludes me. Part of your argumentation above has grounds, and I'm sure that in time we will find common ground. 'Till then, I will put my efforts to area/words which Vuk never heard of ;-). SpeedyGonsales 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very well then. I've noticed that you've been adding lots of Šulekisms and neo-Croatian coinages. Some of them also have marginal usage in Bosnia & Serbia (enough to pass CFI), but I've refrained from adding those to bs/sr. --Ivan Štambuk 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

At first moment I was surprised that some serbian factory would produce sušena mrkva, but when I saw that factory is in Bačko Gradište, village in Vojvodina, now I understand. SpeedyGonsales 23:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great :P --Ivan Štambuk 23:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, let me know when you're done with it! :D --Dijan 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that the anonymous editor User:90.61.117.40, which you blocked for copyright violation, has created an account under User:Flibjib8 as well. Caladon 17:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I noticed that in this edit you deleted my comments because of what you perceived as their poorly chosen positioning within your text. Now, I'd think that's a pretty severe remedy for such a problem. I'd imagine a more proportionate response would be to reposition the comment whose place you dislike at the end of your text. I'll try to avoid intruding on your comments in the future, but I think it might be appropriate in some instances (like name calling, insulting etc.), so in the future if you disagree with my positioning, please relocate, don't delete. I'll appreciate it. Thanks. --Elephantus 18:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do, I hate when my comments get cut. --Ivan Štambuk 18:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the tips. One problem, though - the example you gave with the template ({{t|hr|pojaviti|pojaviti se}}) doesn't display the reflexive particle when I preview. Any idea why? --Luka Krstulović 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks once again. Cheers! Luka Krstulović 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may feel you have a legitimate reason for this edit, but since you gave no explanation it is impossible to say. When you revert changes (other than obvious vandalism), please remember to give a reason. Please bear in mind that nothing is more offputting and disheartening to contributors than to see their edits reverted without the reverter even bothering to explain why. — This unsigned comment was added by 86.152.241.173 (talk) at 01:15, 20 August 2009.

You may feel that you know something special, but watch your diction when you're talking to administrators. — opiaterein — 02:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, if it makes you feel any better, the information given in your edit belongs under the l4 "Usage notes" header. It also looks ridiculous. This information may be valid if you are talking to a person who makes clocks or watches or other "time-pieces", but I don't believe any other native speaker of English would know this, nor would it be reflected in their speech. (also) If you want to add more similar information, add your sources. — opiaterein — 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Nice to meet you here as well, and thanks for all that information! I'm not sure whether I will do a lot here, there is so much I'm planning to do on Wikipedia – and besides, I have a life. It's tempting, anyway, seeing the poor covering of PIE at the moment. Good luck with your work, and perhaps I'll do a bit as time allows.

By the way: Is there consensus about the transcription of PIE "diphthongs"? (*ei vs. *ey etc.)? I created *ḱlei- without paying much attention to the spelling, but perhaps it should be moved?

Cheers --Anypodetos 07:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivan. Stavio sam neke citate, čitajući (while reading ?) ovi roman Crnjanskog, ali znam da je god dela obavezan u citatima, a na srpskoj, engleskoj, nemačkoj Vikipedijama nema godine sastavljanja romana, znaš li nešto o njemu? Bi li odobrio kurziv u Citations:мокраћа i Citations:спрат, ima li potreba za njega? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kod Hiperborejaca was first published in 1966. Please no cursive Cyrillic, I myself can barely read it and I'm sure I'm not the only done. Cyrillic script itself implies non-English citation (and that's why {{term}} doesn't italicizes it). --Ivan Štambuk 14:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alright. But if my Serbo-Croatian is maladroit, you may freely apprise me thereof. Or did I exacerbate you with the Italic script? I shall remove the Italic instantly. Very useful site, I shall add it to the article on sr wiki. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am especially fond of Cyrillic script in Italic, because д resembles the symbol for partial derivative in mathematics. But I shall struggle to restrict it in mine activity here to the Existenzminimum. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No you didn't execerbated me with the italic script ^_^ I was simply making an observation - reading italicised Cyrillic can be quite difficult for non-natives. Actually, before I came to Wiktionary, I've never encountered cursive Cyrillic at all (and I've read several SC works in it, including my 1949 copy of На дрини ћуприја!).

As for your Serbo-Croatian, here are my corrections:

Zdravo, Ivan>Ivane . Stavio sam neke citate, čitajući oviovaj (nominative singular masculine, ovi is nominative plural) roman Crnjanskog, ali znam da je godgodina (god is usually an abbreviation, followed by a dot) d(j)ela obavezanobavezna (godina is feminine, hence obavezna not masculine indefinite obavezan) u citatima, a na srpskoj, engleskoj, i n(j)emačkoj VikipedijamaVikipediji (preposition na binds locative, not genitive) nema godine sastavljanjapisanja (sastaviti is more like "to assemble". It can be used to refer to some literary work, e.g. a letter or an essay, but for a novel, pisati is much more common) romana, znaš li nešto o njemu? Bi li odobrio kurziv u Citations:мокраћа i Citations:спрат, ima li potrebapotrebe (genitive case) za njega? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the rectification, I suppose I shall abide in sh-2 for the foreseeable future, although I take pleasure in learning the two fellow South Slavic languages plus Russian and Slovak :) Hopefully it will improve. Here a little bon mot: did you know that Latin is an Italian language (used as a justification for the hosting of Latin litterature under Italian Wikisource) ^_^? This reminded me of one similar revelation claimed by some pupil, which was once recounted by my former chemistry teacher: lead (plumbum) is an iron ^_^ Why are such people's votes admissible at all? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to democracy. For every smart, educated, intellectually free mind there are 10 stupid, bigoted hopelessly indoctrinated nationalists who cannot see beyond their own nose. But you live on the Balkans as I do, so I don't have to remind of you of that.. --Ivan Štambuk 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The section below was copied from User_talk:AuthorityTam#Redirects:
We are not Wikipedia, and strongly discourage their usage, except in certain predefined cases (e.g. different forms of a phrase, which you cannot treat as "inflection"). See our tentative guidelines at WT:REDIR. For misspellings see {{misspelling of}}. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivan Štambuk apparently refers to my Wiktionary entries for disfellowshiped and disfellowshiping.
Since he deleted both of those entries, it would seem that he believed those forms to be merely misspellings; they are not.
Furthermore, they are not merely regional or historical differences, such as are mentioned at WT:REDIR.
Regarding my choice to use a simple REDIRECT for each (rather than a brief entry)...
An editor may be interested in this, from WT:SPELL:

"Use a simple REDIRECT entry if, in your opinion, as the creator of the variant entry, the spelling you are entering is simply a valid variant of an already existing entry, and you can see no difference in meaning, usage, etymology etc."

Editors should not assume that other editors are poorly informed.
I plan to re-create each entry in a form which should immunize them against repeated deletion, but then I'll edit that entry to the form I believe best-serves the Wiktionary community (that is, simple REDIRECT to the more common spelling). --AuthorityTam 14:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That policy is obsolete. Again, if they're full-blown variant spellings themseleves, make them full-blown entries, e.g.

==English==

===Noun===
{{en-noun}}

# {{alternative spelling of|]}}

Redirects must be kept at minimum. --Ivan Štambuk 14:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, I assume that you've mised "NOTE: This has been repeatedly rejected by the Wiktionary community. read on..." note at the beginning of the section you quote. --Ivan Štambuk 14:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems obvious the supposedly-though-not-actually-"mised 'NOTE'" merely rejected blindly applying the verbatim instruction of the section title (that is, "use a simple REDIRECT if there is no good reason to have multiple entries").
WT:SPELL#Generally,_use_a_simple_REDIRECT_if_there_is_no_good_reason_to_have_multiple_entries
It's obvious that opinions will differ regarding whether a particular "reason" is "good", and it's obvious that subjectivity is not an ideal part of a policy. By contrast, that section's body seems quite logical and objective (rather than subjective), and I've not seen any contradictory policy.
I'm comfortable adhering to a published policy (such as that at WT:SPELL).
I'm uncomfortable adhering to an uncited and arguably illogical policy.
It might be better for an editor to link to (and quote) an actual policy rather than to advocate some personal interpretation of some uncited policy. --AuthorityTam 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is merely a draft, not a voted policy you must strictly abide by. 99% of common practice policies here are not voted on at all, you simply get used to them as you edit. Variant spellings must have full-blown separate entries, with their own citations, PoS templates (generating inflected forms) etc. REDIRECTS ARE EVIL. --Ivan Štambuk 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to rephrase...
It might be better for an editor to link to (and quote) an actual draft policy rather than to advocate some personal interpretation of some uncited draft policy. Unless a particular editor's ideas are purely personal, he can surely find his ideas reflected in such a draft policy (perhaps presented more persuasively than he could present them himself).
--AuthorityTam 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

that draft policy has an explicit notice "NOTE: This has been repeatedly rejected by the Wiktionary community. " in the very section you cite. As I said, it's not my "personal opinion", but a common practice so far enforced on thousands of entries. --Ivan Štambuk 18:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems that an associate of User:Ivan Štambuk has recently edited the policy section in question
(see diff). What a coincidence!
--AuthorityTam 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are many very good reasons for having different pages for alternative spellings. Here are three major reasons.

• A first reason is that, if a redirect is created, the information it brings will be lost when a full entry will be created (section for another language). As an example, imagine there is a redirect for an Albanian word, and somebody wants to create an Occitan word with the same spelling. The redirect would be lost. It's not only theoretical, it already happened a number of times.
• Now, suppose that, before the Occitan word is created, somebody looks for its meaning: will he be happy to be redirected to a page describing an Albanian word with a different spelling?
• A third reason is the Anagrams section... Lmaltier 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there not a separate Wiktionary for each language? --AuthorityTam 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've now turned the redirects to full entries , and added them as alt. spellings at the inflection of the main verb . --Ivan Štambuk 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now I really feel stalked. Allow me to suggest repurposing some of the time currently used for condescending haughtitude toward formalizing some useful policy documentation. Then, editors will have something non-contradictory to which they can refer!
And, is there no way to indicate which variant spelling is preferred (or not preferred)?
Incidentally, see this diff and that diff. --AuthorityTam 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

(conflicted...oh well...)

OK, since I have better things to do on and off Wiktionary at the moment let me just put it like this; in a friendly way (and also note that for the aforementioned reason I have not followed any links given, except for one of the entries you said Ivan deleted). get your feet wet is an acceptable redirect as far as I know. Your entries are not acceptable redirects because from giving a quick glance on Google books and google searching for "disfellowshiped" it is either a common misspelling (and should be included as such) or an alternative form (we also include those, e.g. terrorise). Oh and perhaps you should not be so presumptuous; Ivan *may* not have thought they were misspellings, maybe he just deleted because they were bad redirects. Oh and if the policy you and Ivan were discussing really is obsolete then I'd say it might as well have been made up as a joke , i.e. it's no longer accepted or adhered to. 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It seems odd to metaphorically pat oneself on the back as being "friendly" while name-calling another as "so presumptuous". Was it really "presumptuous" to infer Ivan thought they were misspellings? I think not, since his message (see diff) explicitly said, "For misspellings see {{misspelling of}}". And, incidentally, there is a template for joke sections and articles. --AuthorityTam 19:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok two things:

1. It seems odd to metaphorically pat oneself on the back as being "friendly" while name-calling

I meant I was giving you a friendly explanation about redirects in general (my "name-calling" as you have so labeled it was in my comment about this specific case.

1. Was it really "presumptuous" to infer Ivan thought they were misspellings? I think not, since his message

>_> I was going to question if you suffered from a mild form of TLDRism as you don't seem to noticed my comment saying the only given link I followed was one of the redirects I created  ;) but I've just seen the relevant text at the top of this section so whatever. To put things in context for you I'm 16 and when I was typing my first comment my dinner was nearly ready so I wasn't exactly as observant as I perhaps should have been. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your edits:
02:22, 20 August 2009 "These regulars from Croatian Wikipedia are mostly right-wing extremists...".
Ivan Štambuk, if you're a grown person, you are supposed to know the meaning of the phrase "right-wing extremists".
It's not "who spilled the milk".
You've explicitly etiquetted and defamated regular users from Wikipedia in Croatian.
Or you don't know what does it mean?
Do you see any swastikas on our pages? Do you see any Arian Brotherhood materials?
Do you know that people get promptly imprisoned for such ideology?
Who do you think you are, that you can throw mud on other persons and to get away unpunished?
Don't try to "win" the discussion by accusing the opponents as "right-wing extremists", "nationalist bigots", "nationalists".
BTW, read the entry for defamation: Act of injuring another's reputation by any slanderous communication, written or oral; the wrong of maliciously injuring the good name of another; slander; detraction; calumny; aspersion".
slander: " false, malicious statement (spoken or published), especially one which is injurious to a person's reputation; the making of such a statement ".
libel: "A written (notably as handbill) or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation." 2) (uncountable) The act or crime of displaying such a statement publicly".
Do you know that your behaviour is forbidden? Do you see now what you've done?
Are you conscious about the consequences of your actions?
Are you able to comprehend what have you done?
Then, I've seen that you haven't blocked the user that wrote sentences that are heavy insult on national basis, user:Pepsi Lite . See his message from 01:32, 20 August 2009: ""newly minted Croatian crap". You were directly involved in that discussion, so you have no excuse for doing nothing.
Further, you are not allowed provoke and insult deep national feelings of users. You're not allowed to call it as "surge of nationalist activity", like you did here (Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian, section "Balkan Wars", your message from 16:44, 19 August 2009 ). People react when they feel insulted. People have feelings, and you are not allowed to play with these feelings. These users are actual, living persons, not some virtual persons from virtual world, whome you can kill as if it is some kind of first-person shooter computer game.
Further, you've been warned about your behaviour by some other users here Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian:
section "Translation", message by user Dtom, from 08:12, 12 August 2009 and later.
User Dan Polansky has also warned you (11:36, 12 August 2009 and later).
There's more. Kubura 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kuburo, may I interfere : there is no verb defamate in English, there is just defame. May I ask why you and Ivan do not confabulate in your native tongue, which is the same? I just would be surprised, if I spotted two Bulgarians conversing in a foreign tongue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kubura, you have been editing here since the fifth of August. You are in no place to hand out warnings to our regular users, especially those who have been given administratorial status by the community. Presidents of one country may say that the president of another is doing a poor job, but how often do they do that in the country of the president they're berating? You have no standing in our community, so either find something more constructive to do here, go back to your other projects, or be blocked. — opiaterein — 16:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kuburo, I have no desire either "proving" that all of your Croatian Wikipedia clique are extreme right-wing nationalists (you yourself are adding words coined by Ustashi as we speak), nor waste time "discussing" with you. Sorry if the truth hurts your feelings: Serbo-Croatian is one language and billions of neologisms cannot change that, as long as 99% of grammar is identical. I only warned Pepsi Lite because he's been making lots of good edits recently. If he makes further contentious political claims, he'll be blocked. I hardly consider "newly minted Croatian crap" an insult - 99% of common people in Croatia think that words such as zrakomlat and munjosprem are ROTFL.

BTW nice word kubura in your username, borrowing from Ottoman Turkish. --Ivan Štambuk 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if I'm not responding in the right place, as I'm a bit new to communicating to wikipedia.. but no... but judging by his contributions and discussion page, I can see why you would mistake me for him.Yaybbq 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, Sorry.. --Ivan Štambuk 04:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I cannot determine on myself whether the genitive plural is Југословенка or Југословенака, I suppose it is Југословенака... Would you check the declension? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no "fleeting a" variant for nouns ending in -nka in genitive plural, i.e. only Jugoslòvēnkā and Jugoslòvēnkī forms are allowed (note the post-tonic length on the ending!). In Croatian variety, the noun Sloven "Slav" is Slaven, hence Jugosloven : Jugoslaven, 'Jugoslovenka : Jugoslavenka. --Ivan Štambuk 19:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been meaning to do this for a while. I just never had time. Yes, this is a great! How are we going to list these spellings? Alternative spellings header or a box on the right, like the one in use for Persian varieties (i prefer the box as it does not interfere with the headings, but that's just me)? --Dijan 16:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If we end up using a box to the right, I'd be quite thrilled to take part in its creation :) — opiaterein — 19:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, what is the infinitive from 3rd person sg. on/ono/ona zebe - here is is applied to korak, dlan, srce..., , in Код Хипербореjаца - to сиромашан свет, so I assumed that it is something like tremble, shake. here you gave me a link to ARj, but it seems that on archive.org it is available up to the letter o. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

zepsti - "to suffer coldness/cold, freeze", often used figuratively in the language of literature (usually applied to heart, soul etc.). You could've simply searched it on Wiktionary, it comes out as the first search result :) (and that's one more reason why I prefer providing full manual inflection, instead of using templates - you can use the search box to search for inflected forms). --Ivan Štambuk 21:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I was looking for zeb-. I will keep this consonant shift in mind henceforth. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan. Check out my toy at User talk:Zocky/verb, and tell me if you think it would be more intuitive (and easier to fill in) than the current inflection templates? Zocky 00:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since you're checking requests also don't forget Category:Serbo-Croatian words needing attention and Category:Translation requests (Serbo-Croatian). Cheers. – Krun 17:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, when adding the Gothic cognate 𐌳𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌾𐌰𐌽 (daddjan, “suckle”) to धयति, I noticed that in Köbler's Gotisches Wörterbuch it is tagged as daddjan*, which means that the infinitive was not attested. Whilst for infinitive forms there are not many possibilities, 𐌳𐌰𐌻𐍃 (dals*) in dæl#Etymology_2 may be 𐌳𐌰𐌻 and not 𐌳𐌰𐌻𐍃 - cf. “dal” in Ordbog over det danske Sprog. How are we supposed to treat unattested forms in Gothic and has this quæstion arisen before? We should somehow inform the readers: it is perhaps 𐌳𐌰𐌻𐍃, but due to lack of attestation for the nominative form it may have been 𐌳𐌰𐌻 as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

If the unattested lemma form can unambiguously be derived from one of the inflected forms - we use it. We can optionally mark it with an asterisk to show that it was not attested.

In case where there could be several lemma forms derived from one of the inflected forms - we lemmatize on one of the inflected forms. In the inflection table (declination, conjugation) then we provide all the paradigms that the attestation could fit.

This all is valid for languages which are reasonably well-attested (e.g. Gothic, OCS, Old Irish..), and where more or less entire grammar is known. For ancient languages which are scarcely attested (e.g. Old Persian, Hittite, and all those written in cuneiform) we only lemmatize on actually attested forms, because in almost all of these, there is not a single lexeme attested in all of the inflected forms, and many details of their grammar still remain (and prob. forever will be) a mystery. --Ivan Štambuk 11:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Understood. Accordingly, I marked with an asterisk the form reconstructed from the attested 𐌼𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌽𐌰𐌹𐌸 and 𐌼𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌽𐌰𐌽𐌳𐍃 - 𐌼𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌽𐌰𐌽* in morne#Etymology. I can not determine whether it is unambiguously derived (as I have not yet immersed myself that profoundly in the study of Gothic), but Köbler's dictionary has accepted it with said asterisk. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Widsith seems to make use of the reconstructed infinitive as well, albeit without asterisk. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Infinitive form is OK. Asterisk should be omitted (and when it's used is used as prefix, not as a postfix, to the reconstructed lexeme). --Ivan Štambuk 18:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

But in Köbler's dictionary the prаfixed asterisk means that no forms were extant at all and it is reconstructed purely on the basis of other Germanic cognates. Suffixed asterisk means that the lemma is reconstructed from extant declined (conjugated) forms. Do you oppose such use of the asterisk? Do you think we should not add forms reconstructed on the basis on Germanic cognates and use the præfixed asterisk in the sense in which Köbler uses the suffixed one? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lexemes which were not attested and are purely result of a reconstruction based on the comparative method should not be added at all. (These are usually proto-terms in the appendix namespace). Only those that were attested merit inclusion (either in lemma or in non-lemma form). If the lemma is unattested, we can mark it with an asterisk, esp. if it's doubtful in form (i.e. the inflectional paradigm cannot be determined with certainty). I advise that we use asterisk only as a prefix. I've never seen asterisk used as a postfix that way (not that I'm any kind of expert or sth, but I think it would introduce unnecessary notational confusion). --Ivan Štambuk 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you should have blocked User:Pepsi Lite. Especially because you and him are continually at loggerheads. An outisder, if anyone, should do the blocking. --Rising Sun 14:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The fact that I was in dispute with him on some other issues does not invalidate the necessity of the block. He has a history of disruptive behavior, and was recently only warned for something that is pure Šešeljevian Greater Serbian propaganda (the part on "ye Croats stole Serbs Štokavian language"), and for which he should've been bloked immediately (but wasn't, because he was doing other productive work). His further engagement on the discussion verges with mild trolling: he continuously generalizes the dispute on "you Croats" vs. "we Serbs" (as if the nationality of the involved has anything to do with all this), and now this recent message where he deliberately twisted the meaning of the article which he quoted as some kind of an argument on "separate languages" (and which was exactly the opposite), calling me "visiting communist cafes", was simply the straw that broke the camel's back (in SC we'd say kap koja je prelila čašu, not sure whether this would be the right translation to English). His behavior is esp. annoying because most of the Serbs (the common people) are even more receptive to the Serbo-Croatian linguistic unity than Croats ("Serbo-Croatian" was official language of the remaining Yugoslavia all the way till 1997!), and he pretends to be speaking in the name of all of Serbs, which is silly (even more because he doesn't seem to be completely literate in the SC). --Ivan Štambuk 15:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

However, you should let somebody other to perform this unpleasant job. It is a matter of social tact. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Christ, now I'm the one who's blocked him. Can we do something productive now? — opiaterein — 15:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk 15:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This time it's the declension of stroj, which I'm hoping (=assuming) is the same as that of cilj. — opiaterein — 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quite correct. You learn Slovene = you've learned half of SC xD --Ivan Štambuk 21:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm starting to notice ^_^ I did notice that "stroj" in Slovene doesn't use "strojevi" like I would've expected... — opiaterein — 22:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=janjičar&action=rollback&from=82.197.228.16&token=23c6ff91b79e52fe551a7169a77d0972%2B%5C <- I rolled back, but then realized it might not be vandalism. Want to look at that? - Amgine/^talk 17:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that IP would be much satisfied with the new version ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 18:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know a normal way of linking to this page from Wiktionary? --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mean like this ? To get text_recno= parameter for the URL you need to check the Sanskrit field, do an empty search, and browse the alphabetically sorted results to the entry you're interested in. --Ivan Štambuk 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Still, it shouldn’t be so tricky. I notice how linguistic sites are stuck in early 90s. Take http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de for example. Yikes. --Vahagn Petrosyan 18:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would be interested to know whether this has any use in Croatian or Serbian context. – Krun 22:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you should ask a Croatian or Serbian Muslim. — opiaterein — 22:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

^_^ namaz is of-course used by Croats and Serbs, specifically referring to the formal Islamic prayer salat. English word salat is an Arabicism, and the same concept, according to Wikipedia, is denoted by Persian word namāz in Indo-Iranian, South-Slavic and Turkic languages. Interesting word - etymologically it's related to the traditional Hindu greeting namaste, itself deriving from Sanskrit námas of which Persian namāz is a direct cognate of.

molitva is the general-purpose word for "prayer" in Serbo-Croatian, and namaz can probably also be used in that sense by extension (though obviously with Islamic marking). So you can say that namaz is a type of molitva. --Ivan Štambuk 22:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you could take a look at this. – Krun 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have I done something amiss in the SC section? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a possible Proto-Balto-Slavic root for this, that Gothic just happened to inherit? There's LT stiklas and LV stikls, and the st-kl pattern seems pretty omnipresent between the Baltic and Slavic languages — opiaterein — 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, Gothic stikls is of native Germanic origin (with regular cognates in many old Germanic languages), and was borrowed directly to Slavic and Baltic. All of the prehistoric Germanic loanwords in Baltic before the 7th century were moreover mediated by Slavic (except maybe Lith. gãtvė < Gothic gatwo), so said more precisely, these Baltic etymologies should be < Proto-Slavic < Gothic, but anywayz ˘_˘. --Ivan Štambuk 01:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hm, what an odd chain of derivations ^_^ — opiaterein — 01:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. After adding the Slovene cognate to базга, I found out that one IP has provided the article with quite a circumstantial etymology, but unfortunately the editor's contributing lasted but one day. Do you think the information is reliable and should be copied thence to базга#Etymology/bazga#Etymology and боз#Etymology? Especially the information about the kinship with German Ast, as it would turn out to be one of innumerable manifestations of the Germanic-Slavic Urverwandtschaft. Is this Slovenski etimološki slovar referenced there to be found online? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here's what Matasović says(a bit more up-to-date scholarship than either Snoj, Skok or Vasmer/Trubačev):

Stariji oblik bez sufiksa imamo u baz (15. st. ali i npr. kod Vrančića) i báza. Taj je oblik izvodiv iz prasl. *bъzъ "bazga, Sambucus" (slovenski dijalektalno bèz, rus. боз (boz), polj. bez). Odatle je izveden pridjev *bъzovъ "bazgin", odakle poimeničenjem imamo zova. Sufiks -gъ, -ga imamo i u slovenskom bezèg "bazga", a vjerojatno je dodan analogijom prema fitonimu drézga. Nema općeprihvaćene etimologije; možda je od istog korijena od kojega i ie. *bʰeh₂ǵos "bukva" (lat. fagus, grč. Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "polytonic" is not valid. See WT:LOS.), no nije jasan odraz samoglasnika (pie. *eh₂ bi dalo prasl. a, a u prijevojnoj praznini bi ie. *h2 dalo o ili bi ispalo). Trubačevljeva etimologija po kojoj je u ishodištu onomatopejski korijen kao u glagolu *bъziti, *bъzati (usp. sh. dijalektalno bázati (“lutati”)) nije ničim utemeljena.

Derksen unfortunately doesn't discuss the etymon at all. Connection with Germanic word for "branch" is totally obscure IMHO and shouldn't be added without a decent recent reference. Connection with PIE *bʰeh₂ǵos seems the most strongest to me, despite the problem with the root vowel. --Ivan Štambuk 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I found the original discussion about the etymology - it is here (in English) and Marko Snoj's dictionary is brand new, it was issued in 2002 (according to the last link). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't looked at the 2002 edition, but the original edition I browsed at the library was from the 1970s...At any case, the connection of the second part of the alleged original form *bъ-zdъ (of which there is really no evidence, *bъzъ must be the original form and all the other ones are later derivations in historical period) with PIE *h₃esdos (which yielded Germanic *astaz, Armenian ոստ and Greek ὄζος) is really far-fetched. --Ivan Štambuk 17:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This new edition of Slovenski etimološki slovar looks awesome. I didn't even knew it existed. Man, I wish somebody scanned it to PDF! --Ivan Štambuk 17:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

So do I, although I have never seen it... It is so deplorable that out of the three South-Slavic languages only Bulgarian has no complete comprehensive etymological dictionary - there is one (being issued for more than three decades) which has reached the letter с and is incomplete, but its 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th volumes are available online, in case you are interested. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Link? :) --Ivan Štambuk 18:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

, , , , they cover the etries from from И to МИ and from ПА to СЛ. After СЛ continuation is expected. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This link is perchance better, at the superior one I had troube while trying to open one of the pdf-files. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ivan. Could you check the declension of супруга/supruga (esp. the locative form)? I changed the dative form based on this correction from sr wiki. Are there feminine Serbo-Croatian nouns who do not change г->з as супруга and књига do? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It should both be supruzi (D and L sg are always the same, only sometimes differing in accentuation in some classes of nouns). Some exception rules for sibilarizacija you can find here, there are total of some dozen of them for a-stems which I'll list tomorrow here more thorougly (now I'm too tired and drunk). --Ivan Štambuk 01:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this section I am going to badger you with Cuneiform-related stuff for Armenian. Don’t worry, there aren’t many Hittite/Akkadian/Hurrian/Old Persian borrowings in Armenian :)
For starters, can you please add script to թիւ (tʻiw)? My source was this. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hurrian was written in both Ugaritic and Akkadian syllabary, so all the words need to be investigated where exactly were they were attested and in which forms, which is particularly difficult for this extremely obscure language. I can genuinely assist you only with OP and Hittite/Akkadian/Sumerian cuneiform, and as for Hurrian/Urartian - not much. That Diakonoff's paper is über-awesome. --Ivan Štambuk 01:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. Will nag you only about those languages. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the past two votes you've created, you've been exceedingly incivil to people who have opposed your vote. I have seen and been watching this, as well as listening to and attempting to pacify reports of incivility on your part, but you need to actually change your style of replying to people who oppose votes. In specific, your response http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-08/Voting_eligibility_2&diff=prev&oldid=7335778 here gets into the realm of ad hominem attack, where you say cannot understand and that's your problem.

I'm now asking that you please take a whole 24 hours off from editing Wiktionary, ad think about how you've been incivil to other editors. I'm also perfectly willing to continue this discussion here on your talk page during that duration. Thank you, --Neskaya kanetsv? 20:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Addendum, hostility. I'm looking through the various links that I keep as far as your incivility goes, and you've also been hostile towards the editors that you are attacking for opposing something that you personally support. You also use hostility in edit summaries several times, and you seem to be incapable of assuming good faith on the part of the users that your comments are aimed at.--Neskaya kanetsv? 20:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

C’mon buddy. Tell me you haven’t left Wiktionary because of the prank the clown above pulled. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:Neskaya has deleted this part of his/her userpage, including the history. Luckily I was able to recover the lost text. I will place it here for safekeeping.

Well, User:Neskaya, it would appear that you have finally succeeded in running off one of our best editors, one of the best we've ever had, not only for Serbo-Croatian, but for many of the Indo-European languages and even the Semitic languages, who had been frustratingly tied up by a large gang of extreme-rightwing Yugoslavian meatpuppets that RU had drug in in order to get his way with a language that he knows nothing about. Maybe now you can get the one or two meatpuppets who may linger here to do a hundredth of Ivan's work (but now that Ivan is gone, the meatpuppets are sure to go away, thankfully). Nice day's work! --Stephen 14:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S.--You may not have noticed that Ivan did not block his tormentors. He stood toe to toe with them alone since RU brought them here a few months ago to do his dirty deed. User:Neskaya certainly was quick to use his/her block on Ivan, however. Thoroughly shameful conduct! --Stephen 08:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stephen and Vahagn, Ivan was blocked, whether you agree with it or not, for incivility. I think we all know that things got nasty. If you are going to disagree with this block or give Ivan your support, you can still do it respectfully. The way you are going about it now is just adding fuel to the fire. Instead of accusing Neskaya of trying to run Ivan off the project, you could have started a polite discussion about why you disagree with his actions. Can't we stop trying to make this into a battleground and actually talk to each other? Dominic*t 22:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

While I consider Neskaya to be a friendly acquaintance of mine, I think Ivan's contributions to the project speak for themselves. Regardless of his personal civility, in a manner similar to that Connel McKenzie, who was in his own right a bit of an asshole but still a great contributor, his contributions to the project in my opinion outweigh any personal attacks he may have made. If Ivan doesn't come back soon, I'm going to miss him like I miss my dead cat that my mom accidentally killed. I keep finding myself wanting to ask Ivan about things, but wait! I can't. Because his day-long block seems to have resulted in his frustration reaching its limits with all the bullshit. Sad days. -- opiaterein -- 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

;) I'll be back around 1.10. My Internet time is very little until then, and what I have of it I'd prefer to focus on some other stuff. There'll be plenty of time to deal with people like Neskaya and RU, but there are some other priorities ATM (e.g. Croatian Wikipedia which is currently undergoing a revolution ...fun fun ^_^) Thanks for the support guys, I appreciate it very much. --Ivan Štambuk 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Woo-hoo! I'm glad to hear you're not gone for good. I look forward to having you back here, contributing. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually quite glad that you'll be back, Ivan. Please don't take the block the wrong way, and if you would like to email me before then you can reach me at [email protected]. I really didn't mean it as harshly as some people seem to have made it come across, I was just frustrated perhaps as everyone else was at the time. Anyway, I'm sorry if stuff all piled on too much at once. --Neskaya kanetsv? 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’d take Neskaya’s apology at face-value. Whereas your (Ivan Štambuk’s) opponents numbered many, you were largely alone in counterarguing; consequently, though they collectively had earned a block for one, you had noöne with whom you could share blame, so you (prima facie) looked more culpable than any one of your opponents. Hence Neskaya’s judgment, I assume. In any case, it didn’t look like a malicious personal attack, but rather more as a frustrated administrator’s attempt to quell discussion. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've started a draft guideline for how Old Irish should be treated at Wiktionary. Comments, suggestions, and additions to Wiktionary:About Old Irish are most welcome! Angr 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I added kume as Serbo-Croatian, but the page kum doesn't have a SC heading, only Bosnian, Croatian etc. I'm not sure about the current standard practice, regarding SC (when I looked last time, it was quite political discussions happening). Please can you check this entry. --Volants 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The entry is OK (Slavic vocative case ending -e is inherited from Proto-Indo-European, like in Latin popul-e..). The current "common practice" as regards SC and B/C/S/M is that editors who are pro unification treat it unifiedly (and merge the entries they edited), and those who are against are allowed to both clone existing merged SC to separate B/C/S/M (usually it's just one of them), as well as create new ones (which then will not be merged). Inflected forms of SC nouns from declensional tables will be generated by a bot once I hit the the limit of some 10k basic (the most frequent) nouns (which will hopefully be by the end of this year). --Ivan Štambuk 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Grazie molte! Thank you very much! --Mpitt 17:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivane, I accept that you have mistakenly edited something outside of entries which were created by me, Dijan, Bogorm, but as I haven't found necessary to comment your error, your naming of my work as nationalism disease], especially if somebody is correcting your error is really unnecessary, completely out of line and impolite. Ivane, I kindly ask you that you stop with derogatory comments on my work when I am doing nothing but describing Croatian language, its vocabulary and norms. --Roberta F. 11:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ivane, I apologize for deletion of following valuable content * IPA: /ʋřptsa/ * Hyphenation: vr‧pca.

But as you wrote to me that You could've simply copy/pasted the expanded ==Serbo-Croatian== section to ==Croatian==, that is also valid for you, You could've simply copy/pasted ==Serbo-Croatian== section to ==Croatian==, not just overwrite Croatian section.

Your explanation of differences between Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin... languages is void, as both words vrpca and traka are of old Slavic origin, but one (vrpca) is predominantly used in Croatia, other (traka) in Serbia, so once again you should have added ==Serbo-Croatian== section if you wanted to, not changed Croatian to Serbo-Croatian.

And finally, you are admin, and as such you should be last to break rule assume good faith. I work almost every day on some wikimedia project, and to search links between my work and some Beer Parlour talk is as long winded as it can be, but thank you for your notice, now I will check BP and help there if I can. --Roberta F. 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Will you kindly get over this? Your people using vrpca in Croatia and traka in Serbia is perfectly parallel to my people saying flashlight in America and torch in England. Grow up and stop being a national supremacist. — opiaterein — 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Further, before anyone has a chance to bring up slight grammatical differences, I'll point out that while "Were you wanting to see that?" would be perfectly natural sounding in at least some parts of Britain, it would sound quite odd in the states. — opiaterein — 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

People use both words vrpca and traka in both Croatia and Serbia (and also B&H and Montenegro). Googling for vrpca and its inflected forms or .rs domain yields plenty hits of the word's usage on Serbian daily newspapers (which should reflect the standard language, being edited and orthographically checked, you know). This is what I find especially disgusting in Croatian language "codifiers": they find such pairs of synonymous words, both of which are used everywhere by everyone, figure out that the word x is predominantly used by Croatian writers (i.e. of "Western provenience") and that the word y is predominantly used by Serbian writers (i.e. of "Eastern provenience"), and all of sudden they claim that the word x is "Croatian" and the word y is "Serbian", and that "proper Croats" should only be using the word x lest they'd be publicly ostracized and denounced as "četniks", "jugnostalgičari"... I suggest reading Snježana Kordić's take on this monstrous Balkanic linguicide. And I assume that you've already read this cynical reflection by our beloved Karmen ^_^

As I've told you already, I thought I was the one who created the entry in the first place. I take care to only merge&expand entries that were created by me and the other SC supporters/regulars - those entries I have on my watchlist and I'm not sure how vrpca ended on it. And as I've also explained to you, the merger didn't lose any content at all, as opposed to your "undo". My edit was done in good faith, taking Wiktionary users, the learners of Serbo-Croatian, in mind, and your "undo" out of petty nationalist hysteria.

And the explanation of your "undo" coming completely accidentally in sync with Robert Ullmann's BP posting, after a month of your inactivity here - all I can say is LOL. --Ivan Štambuk 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a particular reason you don't give yourself en-4? :D — opiaterein — 13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

For all the practical purposes here, it doesn't matter that much at all whether it's en-3 or en-4. Plus, I don't particularly appreciate my language skills generally. On Wikipedia I've even had en-2 babelbox for some time until one dude insisted I have it lifted to at least en-3 :P --Ivan Štambuk 19:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

This dude thinks you're at least EN-4, FWIW. DCDuring TALK 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Neskaya is the name of a place in a book that was written by Marion Zimmer Bradley. That's where I took my user handle from. No actual linguistic anything about it.  :) --Neskaya ^{contribs – talk?} 17:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

...you can't talk sense to retards. You just have to wait for them to do whatever stupid things they do and fight them. You can't reason with them, it's scientifically proven :D — opiaterein — 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right. Contributing here really becomes a PITA lately. And why is it that idiots always have the courage to incessantly emit their low-thoughted piles of verbal excrement to the general public, and smart, reasonable men regularly hold their tongue in obedient silence? Methinks it's high time for ŠtambukBot to emit a few tens of thousands inflected SC nominal forms. --Ivan Štambuk 23:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yay form-ofs!!! :D — opiaterein — 23:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

As the creator of the page, could you explain me this strange ȅ symbol for stȅpa - why not include the page at stȅpa? PS, I'm a hr-0! --Volants 13:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a Slavist notation for accents, the double grave denoting "short falling tone". Cf. w:Pitch_accent#Serbo-Croatian. It's not written in the usual orthography (thus the entry is on ]), but lexicographical works use them as they're important for proper pronunciation (orthoepy), which is otherwise unpredictable from the normal spelling (because of free accent). We have the same issue with Slovenian, Lithuanian and Latvian, and some Slavic languages with free stress denoted with acute accent (Russian, Bulgarian..) --Ivan Štambuk 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please delete κρᾶσις, then move κράσις to κρᾶσις? Thank you in advance. --flyax 08:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo. Do you think that cura deserves its place as a translation of girl as one IP tried to add it (albeit with the ignorant ts distortion of the initial letter)? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

d(j)evojka is the proper literary term, and cura is more of a colloquial term (but then, so is English girl). cura in singular today colloquially primarily means "girlfriend" (usually used with a possessive), and "girl, maid" is chiefly the meaning when it's used in plural, or the constructions without a subject. --Ivan Štambuk 20:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the delayed response, been away for a while :) The way I formatted the entries like you describe came to me rather suddenly, since everyone's favorite pathetic loon Ullmann wanted to bitch about =Pronunciation x= headers. Forms of žvaigždė have this problem, so I formatted them as at žvaigždės. However...that pronunciation looks messy, so let me find something clearer... siūlės is a bit better. It's not the way I'd prefer to format, but it was the only relatively simple way to avoid Ullmann's whining. — opiaterein — 13:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivane. Ovde se nalazi činjenica Ja ulazim i sjedam na klupu / da ispušim cigaretu / u prančioku, ali nisam mogao naći ovu riječ prančiok(a) u rječnicima... Da li je to greška skaniranja ili veoma zastarila riječ? Gugl-pretraga za druge izvore ne pomaže... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's a dialectalism meaning "lee" (normally zav(j)etrina in SC) or "solitary sun-faced place". It's not found in normal dictionaries, not even in Skok's (which otherwise contains immense amount of dialectal material), put it is listed in Vinja's Jadranske etimologije, which is an addendum to Skok's dictionary with many dialectal words from Dalmatia. Some online dialectal dictionaries also list it . --Ivan Štambuk 02:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: your replies to Ullmann's trolling in WT:BP some time ago: this seems to explain the term pošandrcao somewhat. (mind you it does say English to Croatian but meh...) :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

In your link another word is visible, which has its full analogue in Bulgarian - otkačio (откачил in Bulgarian). Ivan, are those two synonyms or there are subtle nuances? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOL ^_^ Well pošandrcati would mean something like "start to lose control and act irrationally". It's a non-formal word with somewhat humoristic overtones. I suppose some English idiom could fit as a replacement but as an ESL speaker I don't know of such :) I couldn't find anything on two bubbles off in my dictionaries.. otkačiti colloquially means something pretty similar, "to lose control and act unusually and eccentrically". otkačen = "crazy, wild". --Ivan Štambuk 19:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hehe :) Well that two bubbles off level thing is new even to me bu I imagine it has something to do with noun sense#1 of level. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Two bubbles off level refers to a либела цјевастог типа, which contains a bubble in liquid to indicate level or plumb. Two bubbles off level means very unbalanced, very much off center. —Stephen 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Seems to be some quite rare phrase, only one hit on books.google.com --Ivan Štambuk 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It’s something that someone would say but never write. I’m surprised that you found even one. There are lots of phrases similar to this one: one card short of a deck, two bricks short of a load, one sandwich short of a picnic, one beer short of a sixpack. Some people can make them up on the fly, but everybody understands them (they mean that somebody is crazy and/or stupid). —Stephen 23:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, there's lots of and lots of them. :) Like Stephen said you could go on and on; two/a few shillings short of a pound (old Irish currency), a few pieces short of a puzzle, a few cents short of a Euro/Dollar... ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ivan. Could you check the Lithuanian word for soot in soot#Etymology? Someone has written it as suodziai, but my source has súodžiai. But I know nothing about that language, so the veracity of the spelling hinges upon you. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed it. The ultimate resource for verifying Lithuanian spellings (and especially accents) is LKŽ. --Ivan Štambuk 23:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the link. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I discovered that a Turkic theory about the origin of ťava has been added by you and it immediately raised mine inquisitiveness as to what source it might stem from. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I probably guessed it. It's definitely not a native word but some kind of a borrowing, and it bears too much resemblance to words such as Turkish deve, which is likely its ultimate origin (probably via Hungarian teve or something), just as in the Balkans languages. --Ivan Štambuk 10:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it sounds plausible, but... do you know where there are etymological languages of the Slovak language in order to verify it? I found this one for Czech, but this word has no Czech æquivalent. It is marvellous. You can hardly believe, but I am learning dialectal Bulgarian with it - words such as гръсти (see hrst) or соха (see socha) were completely unfamiliar and now I boosted my knowledge in Bulgarian dialects ^_^ The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOL. Often etymologically interesting words are only found in the dialects (which doesn't make them any less of a value as opposed to the big-shot "standard" words, au contraire!). Sorry, I don't know of any Slovak etymological resource :/ But for this particular word, I think it's 99% of Turkic origin.. --Ivan Štambuk 12:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have blocked you for removing content in this edit. Please do not remove valid language headers in future edits but, instead, create additional headers with your improved content. - Amgine/^talk 20:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to sound overly disrespectful here but puh-lease! stuff like this was done a lot already around the time of the vote that RU ruined in a way, and in case you haven't noticed (if you were in la-la land or busy doing something else) there has been a lot of convincing info put forth to support replacing B/C/S with SC. -.- Maybe if RU hadn't started talking about said alterations to our entries being reminiscent of Serbian supremacist-related genocide then that vote would have passed. :P And no, in case it would cross your mind I have nothing personally to do with Ivan, or any Balkan crises. As I'm sure other people have already said we are not supporting one nationality over another...Compare my comment at WT:RFV#zwavelzuurtjes. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were obviously unaware of WT:ASH in doing so. Please make yourself familiar with Wiktionary policies before infringing thereupon. En effet, Ivan was expanding the entry by adding pronunciation, definitive and comparative forms. Concerns about WT:ASH are to be addressed in Wiktionary talk:About Serbo-Croatian rather than by blocking not like-minded contributors, id est præferably by discussion with them. WP:Admin is worth recollecting : They are expected ... never to use them (the tools) to gain advantage in a dispute (bold not by me). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Ivan did not remove content. He added content. This block really is not appropriate. Ƿidsiþ 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Amgine, do something useful with your time instead of blocking one of our best editors. — opiaterein — 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks and insults. - Amgine/^talk 22:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from useless blocking of exemplary editors. — opiaterein — 22:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

No more would I than refraining from correcting a malformed link or template syntax. - Amgine/^talk 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I find in several dictionaries that the Greek and Latin words for “donkey” may be derived from the same source in Asia Minor. My Armenian dictionary says that source may as well be Armenian էշ (ēš, “donkey”). In that case almost all donkeys of the world would be derived from Armenian. Could you please check the latest opinions on the relatedness of these 3 words? Also, can you add Serbo-Croatian èšek borrowed via Turkish, please. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, as far as the Turkic branch is concerned, according to the entry on p. 503 of the 2003 Altaic Etymological Dictionary by Starostin, Dybo & Mudrak "The phonology of the word strongly resists all attempts to regard it as an interlingual borrowing (Turk. > Mong. > TM, see, e.g., Rozycki 67), as well as attempts to derive it from Armen. eš etc.". Tungusic and Mongolian words for "donkey" look really similar to the reconstructed Proto-Turkic form, and it's probably of native Asiatick lexicon ("Altaic" or whatever), and not derived from Armenian. It might as well be that in Armenian semantic shift occurred of the inherited PIE word for "horse" under some foreign influence (it would be interesting to read what Martirosyan says in his new dictionary...I can't wait that Leiden folks finally upload it).

As far as the Greek and Latin words are concerned - both are completely obscure and incompatible. Greek form is attested even in Mycenaean period, which guarantees its antiquity. Unless there is some additional evidence that pinpoints to Armenian mediation (are there any old Armenian borrowings in Ancient Greek at all?), I don't think it's justified to assume it. See also Sumerian anše, and Basque asto (< lexical root as- + diminutive suffix -to). Smells like one of those Wanderwörter that was borrowed all over the place, eh. --Ivan Štambuk 02:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, interesting.--Vahagn Petrosyan 02:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you put {{etyl|tr}} instead of {{etyl|ota}} in your sh-entries, whereas the borrowings happened in Ottoman era. Now I've been in two minds about this for Armenian borrowings (I'm inclined to use tr because I can't type Arabic). What are your thoughts? --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I usually type modern Turkish in Latin script, which is the form found in all the etymological dictionaries I have access to, and let Dijan fix it (he monitors my edits as well as Category:sh:Turkish derivations, and has resources on Ottoman Turkish spellings). I sometimes tag it with {{attention|ota}}. --Ivan Štambuk 04:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I would be glad at your opinion about those two. Wanderwort? Cheers. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seems totally obscure, couldn't found anything on it. There is dialectal SC bušati "to kiss" which seems formally compatible and that's all I could find. I don't have Snoj's dictionary at home unfortunately. Also, not likely a Wanderwort - these are usually terms for some culturally-agnostic objects, not abstract stuff such as the verbs for "to kiss" or "to stroke". --Ivan Štambuk 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is Snoj'a dictionary bigger and more famous than Skok's? Interesting anyway. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please check the etymology of भुरति (bhurati)? It is flabbergasting to have भुरति (bhurati), which Vasmer considers a cognate of бура, Russian буря (burja) in the PIE appendix for take, брать, is it not...? It is actually not in the appendix, but the etymology section claims it descends therefrom, whereas in the PIE appendix only भरति (bharati) is listed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vasmer is a bit obsolete I think on this. This is what Matasović says on the etymology of SC bura, and it sounds quite plausible:

Od prasl. *búrja, *bura ‘oluja, nevrijeme’ (stsl. бꙋря (burja), slov. búrja, rus. буря (búrja), polj. burza); prasl. *búrja apstraktna je imenica izvedena iz glagola *buríti (sh. dijal. búriti se (“ljutiti se”), rus. dijal. бурить (burít, “udarati, rušiti”). U sh. je ova riječ kontaminirana romanskim riječima koje označuju sjeverni vjetar buru, usp. mlet. bora, tal. bora. Ishodište je tih riječi grč. Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "polytonic" is not valid. See WT:LOS. (odatle lat. pridjev boreālis (“sjeverni”)).

And as for the Sanskrit bhuráti, it's from PIE root *bʰerh_2/3- "to quiver, hurry", which is different from the root *bʰer- "to bear, carry" (see p. 81 in LIV 2Ed). --Ivan Štambuk 16:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I fixed भुरति#Etymology according to the root you mentioned. I read elsewhere about Romance influence in бура, but this is not the case with the rest of the Slavic cognates, is it? How can I link भुरति (bhurati) to its Slavic cognates, if you are not favourable of diachronic cognates? Might I insert just the Russian? Old Norse is ok as a cognate in भुरति#Etymology, since there is no other Germanic cognate as yet, is it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also OE byre (“event, opportunity”), west Frisian bur (“wind”), MLG bore-lōs (“without fair wind”). Germanic-Slavic lexical isogloss it seems. --Ivan Štambuk 20:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have the time, could you please review some of the recent edits of the (currently blocked) User:Amgine, to confirm whether such automated restoration is as harmful as claimed on WT:BP. Sorry to trouble you with this issue yet further, please feel free to ignore me. Conrad.Irwin 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've expanded the LAtin entry. Could you add the etymology, please? I see that you've been working on one of its cognates (बर्हिस्), so this ought to be a simple request. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply