User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 7

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hey, if you're still working at "converting" stuff then you might wanna hack through this. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm kind of saturated with all the Serbo-Croatian business now... but I'll make a mental note to attend to those once I start another edit spree :) I have my own lists of entries that ought to be created that I work through independently of existing B/C/S entries (which I convert ad-hoc whenever I stumble upon them). --Ivan Štambuk 10:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, good stuff then :) It's just that atm I'm "unwanting" some categories in Special:WantedCategories because they are B/C/S. Namely and currently, this one's Serbian cousin. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you do me just one little favour and merge radnik? :) It's just that only the Croatian has a synonym section and I of course don't know if it's fully "SC" or not. 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whenever you're unsure for cases such as this, just do a Google search on .rs (Serbia) and/or .ba (Bosnia & Herzegovina) domains for the word in question, and if it yields > 500 results it's SC alright :)

As for the merging - I wouldn't really want to do that lest Ullmann and his puppets would again try to troll me to death with their empty-worded homoerotic extravaganzas. djelatnik is of course, not synonymous to radnik, and I tried to explain that to the user who copy/pasted & expanded that contentious section on the article talkpage. It's one of those ugly words that rose to promimenence during the Tuđman's dictatorship in the 1990s and which unsuccessfully tried to replace the common (and still much more prevalent) everyday word radnik, and which modern-day nationalists with a knack for purism boast about as some kind of big "badge of Croatdom", ignorant of the fact that their Bosniak, Serbian and Montenegrin brethren have also been attestedly using that same word for more than a century (in both Ijekavian djelatnik and Ekavian delatnik forms). So merge if you will, but I'd rather wait for a vote in the future that would officalize obliteration of that redundant rubbish. --Ivan Štambuk 11:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, if I am to merge, what should I do with "djelatnik"? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'd leave it as a synonym but glossed with "employee" sense --Ivan Štambuk 11:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Continuing from our discussion here: User talk:PalkiaX50#Serbian → Serbo-Croatian.

I've watched Croatian news casts here in Australia. I know that you guys use "šport". Likewise "Talijani" (which I wondered what it was, and had to search the net to find out). No need to lie.--Pepsi Lite 08:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some sports journalist say it (they just read whatever lektori serve them), common people don't actually speak it. No need to be ignorant. --Ivan Štambuk 10:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

And as for the Talijani - wow, how different is it from standard Serbian Italijani? One letter? :) You can't expect me to believe that you actually did not straightforwardly recognize that one... Words have the same inflectional pattern, same accent; it's a trivial match by all means. --Ivan Štambuk 11:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Besides, Pepsi Lite, Miloš Crnjanski, whose Serbian origin is incontestable, uses the adjective талиjански several times in his masterpiece Код хиперборејаца. If both талијански and италијански are allowed as standard in the Eastern variety of Serbo-Croatian, then is there anything astonishing if the nouns appear with and without initial и as well? Why are you feigning surprise? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

So what? English writers used Achtung when writing about WWII. But the fact is: Zagreb was 100% Kajkavian before 1850. Less than 10% of Croats spoke Shtokavian before 1850. Even the current Croatian alphabet was mapped 1:1 to Serbian in the 19th Century. Before then, things were very different (didn't use Serbian consonants dž and ć‎, etc.). It's great for them they are presently undoing this damage. Mr. Štambuk is swimming against the streams of change. Croatian younglings are learning a different language to what was in Yugoslavia, so why put barriers to that goal?--Pepsi Lite 19:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The point is Pepsi Lite that you are, due to your ignorance, stating bizarre claims such as:

The word "sport" is purely Serbian, whereas "šport" is correct Croatian.

And when proven otherwise, you suddenly change the subject to something else. What the hell has the vernacular of Zagreb had to with the above statement you've been disproved of by Bogorm on me? Nothing. sport is the word that is 10 times more preferred in the Croatian vernacular, and Google and corpora search confirms that. talijan and talijanski were abundantly used by Bosnian and Serbian writers, and have you actually been put thru proper schooling and read a few hundreds of books of lektira in Serbo-Croatian literature, by most illustrious writers such as Crnjanski, you'd also know that. Language is not an imaginary thing codified in some books by a bunch narrow-minded nationalism-infected pseudo-linguists, it's what is spoken by common people and written the most representative writers. So unless you want to get rid of Crnjanski from the canon of Serbian writers, talijan(ski) will always be "Serbian".

Now you emit more Šešeljevian nonsense: "Serbian consonants", "Streams of change" LoL. You're infatuated with Greater Serbian linguistic credo beyond any hope. (And it's annoying to some how many otherwise "normal" Serbs tend to suck up that BS). Perhaps you didn't know, but 95% of all written Štokavian documents before prior to 19th century are Croatian, and none of their authors called themselves Serbs. Here are some text to feed your eyes one: s:hr:Kategorija:Hrvatsko_18._stoljeće, s:hr:Kategorija:Hrvatsko_17._stoljeće, s:hr:Kategorija:Hrvatsko_16._stoljeće

There is no "undoing the damage" that you hallucinate bout. You apparently have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Kajkavian and Čakavian dialects are on the verge of extinction, they're subliterary and spoken outside urban areas, and have almost zero current written literature. Children at schools are taught only literary Štokavian, and they never write anything else. Both of them have continual drop of areal spread for the last 5 centuries, yielding to Štokavian, without any signs inverse trend. They're en route to inevitable extinction by the end of this century. Neoštokavian Ijekavian is firmly established as a dialect for standard Croatian, and changing dialectal basis is out of the question. Council for Standard Croatian Language Norm reaffirmed that recently, that no changes will be made in the basic language structure (phonology, accentuation, morphology). Croatian younglings are learning exactly the same language as their parents did, language that they've been brought up on, language that is 100% intelligible in Beograd, Banja Luka and Sarajevo, and that fact cannot be changed no matter how many time you nationalist hate-mongers repeated your infactual statements on the "separate languages", sprinkled with imaginative historical lies. The more you lie, the more one and undeniable truth soars above your small-minded self-contained perspectives: Serbo-Croatian language and literature is one and only, indivisible and inseparable, and its oneness will only be confirmed with the ever-growing tendencies for economic globalization. Its separation, or better-said pathetic attempts thereof, is evolutionary unstable strategy, and the uniformative sweep of Smith's invisible hand will kick your nationalist butts. --Ivan Štambuk 22:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, it's not me of Serbs that were particularly claiming anything what Croatian language is or isn't. Ye Croats yourselves are claiming that "šport" is correct Croatian here. Ye Croats are claiming that you are currently using "sport" due to the use of political force by Serbians. Ye Croats have been claiming this at least since the 70's, particularly here in Australia, where you guys always had Croatian language government application forms, government interpreters, translations, etc. I quite remember what it was like in the 80's. Ye Croats convinced NATO and Americans that Croatia is a Serbian colony, and is worthy of bombing runs. Ye Croats also blew up w:en:JAT Flight 367, because you were forced to use the Serbo-Croatian language. And now that you guys have your precious Croatian language, you guys are again making trouble for us, even though we aren't using any political force anymore to make you use "sport". So use the word "šport", you have your freedom now.--Pepsi Lite 23:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not "ye Croats", but one specific person, Kubura, who is a radical extremist hate-mongering nationalist that deliberately spreads lies and propaganda to promote his cause. Just because he thinks or imagines sth, it doesn't meant that it's real or that other people think the same. It's so annoying that you perceive absolutely everything in terms of "Croats vs. Serbs"! Ye Croats, ye Croats...lol. Get a clue.

"Ye Croats convinced NATO and Americans that Croatia is a Serbian colony, and is worthy of bombing runs." - OMG! Serbia was bombed because Milošević's death squads were about to ethnically cleanse almost 2 millions Albanians in soon-to-breakaway Kosovo. I can imagine how it's easier for nationalist psyche to ascribe bombings to some mythical bjelosvjetske zavjere cause, "evil Croats" taking revenge on their arch-enemies Serbs, but puh-lease...

JAT Flight 367 - that was extremist Ustashi diaspora. You know, radical nationalist that commit terrorism and stuff. These were not "ye Croats" and only an imbecile can generalize their actions and attitudes to the general Croatian population. How would you feel if I said that all Serbs were like Mladić and Karadžić?

Croatian citizens will use whatever they happen to use. It will certainly not be words that Ustashoid propagandists want them to use, but what spontaneous usage norm happens to dictate. So far the usage of phonetically disgusting word šport hasn't gained usage at all in the spoken Croatian vernacular, and in written register it's still outused by sport by at least an order of magnitude. --Ivan Štambuk 23:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mr. Kubura is a radical extremist hate-mongering nationalist? Look who else is a hate-mongering nationalist here, and here. At least 94.17% of Croats want this (including yourself before February 2009).

About "Talijani":

• Have you not heard of the poem Jabberwocky? It is taught here in Australian high-schools and most other areas of the English-speaking world, and yet it contains a ton of words newly invented by the author, and not part of standard English language.
• Your idea that if an author uses a word, than that word is automatically part of the language is hypocritical when it comes to "šport".
• In Serbian, "Talijani" should be marked as non-standard, but in Croatian it should be marked as standard, which is why merging Serbian and Croatian into Serbo-Croatian for language dictionary purposes is such a problem. It means that there is no obvious way to collate words for the Serbian language to avoid "Talijani" for proper spell checking.

Your idea of what Serbo-Croatian language is, that you wrote in Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian, is not correct in the 21st century (and before 19th century).

• I have difficulty displaying how different Croatian is from Serbian in that Serbo-Croatian language is closest to Serbian and furthest away from Croatian, so when someone like User:PalkiaX50 says that Serbo-Croatian is a duplicate of Serbian, he is being right in a way.
• There is unfortunately no other Croatian language participants in this wiktionary apart from you, so there is very little differences that can be shown.
• Kosovo was lost way before Milosevic came to power, and even the most western leaning politician would have made much of difference. Marxist-Leninists in the form of SPS were a disaster. If Serbs avoided Yugoslavia, we would not have the problems that plagued us in WWII and 90's. This is a good reason to avoid Marxist-Leninists in the 21st century.--Pepsi Lite 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes Kubura is a radical extremist hate-mongering nationalist. That tirade of him you link above is a first-class example of spreading ethnic hatred. Trust me, 90% of Croats do not share his views. Take a look at yesterday's presidential elections results - the only radical right-wing extremist candidate M. Tuđman got miserable 4% votes. The first two cumulatively having almost 50% of votes are (ex-)SDP (the "communist" party). So terminate your malicious propaganda at once, and keep those imaginative figures of 94.17% to your Serb diaspora meetings.

Your comparison to Jabberwocky is useless and futile. The word talijanski was not coined by illustrious Serbian writer Crnjanski. That word has been in use by Serbo-Croatian writers for centuries, and his own usage is merely a continuation of that firmly-established practice. It was not a neologism, and it certainly was not a precedent among Serbian writers. Your attempts to discredit its usage are a horrifying display of twisted logic.

It is not hypocritical in any way. I did not say that the word šport is not used by Croats; I simply stated it is not the only word in use, and that its usage is comparatively insignificant with respect to much more prevalent sport, which you mischievously termed "Serbian word", even though there is absolutely nothing inherently Serbific in it.

> In Serbian, "Talijani" should be marked as non-standard, but in Croatian it should be marked as standard, which is why merging Serbian and Croatian into Serbo-Croatian for language dictionary purposes is such a problem.
You miss the whole point. Or, as your countrymen would say, Promašio si ceo fudbal! The purpose of a unified treatment inside the common Serbo-Croatian section is not to proscribe a particular spelling or a meaning, but, conversely, to provide a common platform for all of the modern-day standards to co-exist. Yes, Talijani should be marked as (Croatian), and (Italijani) as (Bosnian, Serbian) (not sure what the nascent Montenegrin standard prefers), and that is exactly how it should be done per the proposed WT:ASH policy. Have you actually read it you'd know it. And I very well know that you know it because you must have encountered countless such entries during your copy/paste endeavors. Which got me thinking what exactly is your point here, trying to retort me with such ill-logic?!

My "idea" of SC is not valid in the 21st century? Oh please. People certainly didn't suddenly speak one language in 1990, and the other one in 1991. That policy is an accommodation for all the misinformation propagandized by narrow-minded nationalists throughout the cognitosphere. Who are you to claim what is valid or not valid anyway? Your first declension in SC here was so wrong that I thought you were an sh-1 speaker. Serbo-Croatian language is one and only one language, and that position has been firmly embraced by the scholars in the field of Slavic studies for the last 2 centuries, and has no signs of diminishing in intensity. Change in quality - perhaps, namely the terminological shifts from Serbo-Croatian to absurd abbreviations such as BCS or BCSM, which are nothing but a layer of redirection in order to satisfy blood-thirsty nationalists who feign "insults" when faced with the term Serbo-Croatian. In practical notions SC linguistic unity is very much alive (last time I checked, we were still all bordering each other), and is moreover experiencing unification and pan-regional cultural integration beyond anything that has been accomplished in SFRJ. Have you heard how many "Croatian words" are used by Bosnian Serbs? :)

Your difficulties in "demonstrating" the separateness of SC are not manifestive of the fact that the SC entries generated by me are somehow "more Serbian" - completely inversely is the truth: I've been generating them chiefly on the basis of Croatian dictionaries and corpora. In fact, Croatian-only words that I do generate are quite-rare. In other words, the fact that out of > 10 000 SC entries Wiktionary currently has, that more than 95% of them are identical among modern-day SC standards, proves that the language is undoubtedly one and any trivial differences are nothing but regional variations of insignificant magnitude.

The absence of Croatian contributors is a poor excuse. Several of them already made their presence for their nationalist cause: one of them even accused me that I've added "Croatian" word mrkva (which is inherited from Common Slavic) as "Serbian", because allegedly Serbs don't used it, which was proven to him otherwise. Curiously others evaded direct questions: I openly asked several people whether modern-dan Serbo-Croatian standards termed "Croatian language", "Bosnian language" and "Serbian language" share 99% of grammar (phonology, accentuation, morphology, inflection, syntax), but none of them was comfortable enough to reply in a simply yes/no manner.

Marxism is making a comeback in the 21st century. But first we need to make one world government and bind all those hopelessly balkanized ethnolinguistic entities under the umbrella of humanity. Unless of course we're first overrun by sentient self-improving AI which will appear as early as 2020 (when $1000 computer will have the computational power of a human brain), which will mark the end of this evil self-destructive species anyway. --Ivan Štambuk 07:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Marxism is making a comeback in the 21st century. No wonder there are no other Croats doing anything to oppose this, they truly want this. Next thing you know, they'll be saying Milosevic & SPS wasn't so bad.--Pepsi Lite 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I almost doubted that the only conclusion you would draw from my response was "Croats want to reestablish Communist Yugoslavia, and the common Serbo-Croatian treatment on Wiktionary is a step towards that goal". Oh well. --Ivan Štambuk 05:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just thinking about all of those inflections and conjugations that your bot will create is starting to make my head spin (due to the large numbers that I am coming up with). I'm wondering how long it'll take your bot (when you get it working) to go through and make all of the form of entries in Serbo-Croatian ;) Razorflame 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

^_^ It won't be that much, some ~100k at best. SC is relatively moderately inflected language (as opposed to some other monsters), but I'm very productive and generate complete entries very fast, so it sums up to sth wowish :) Generation of inflected forms will be pretty trivial thing to do once I decide to do it (there is just 1 template for nouns and verbs, and some 4-5 for adjectives). --Ivan Štambuk 04:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not bad. Right now, my bot is standardizing the names of categories over on the Ido Wiktionary (changing category to kategorio), and there are about 185,000 entries to go through (of which 12,000 are already done). It'll take a few days, but it'll get done pretty quick. Anyways, cheers, Razorflame 04:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for my edit summary. You had gotten the main idea. Let me know if I can help you in any way. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

BTW, I have created {{rfc-def}} to allow users to mark problematic senses of terms. Please use it when an English definition seems wrong or just especially badly written. If you find it hard to understand, it will be the definition's problem almost all the time. It would also work for other languages technically, but the categories haven't been created and nobody would be watching (yet). DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK thanks. Now I always check my English defs against other dictionaries so hopefully they'll not be that bad anymore. --Ivan Štambuk 23:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your command of straight English is so good that you are probably a sensitive instrument for detecting idiomaticity in English expressions. Dan Polansky also sometimes helps me see idioms that I can't see due to a kind of native-speaker blindness. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 00:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan! There are many variations of this word: solenar, solendar, solentar, solunar, sulenar, sulinar, suluntar. Could you look up these variants in your resources? The only form in Turkish (Ota. and Modern) that I've come across is silindir. I could list them as synonyms, but I'd prefer to list the appropriate ones as spelling variants. The problem is I do not have resources listing the variants and their origins. I'm not sure if they are derived through the Ottoman borrowing or if they are directly derived from the Greek (as the spelling and sound does suggest for some of them). Ottoman سیلندر (silindir) comes from French cylindre, which comes from Latin cylindrus, which comes from Ancient Greek κύλινδρος. While, I'd say that solenar might come directly from Greek σωληνάρι(ον). Whenever you find some time... :) --Dijan 11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

sulundar is the only form listed in Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik & Речник српскохрватског књижевног и народног језика (the two largest dicts at hand). Vujaklija's and Klaić's dictionaries of stranih riječi don't even list that. Skok lists both sulundar and sulènār, quoting an etymology by certain Novaković: "From Middle Greek diminutive σωληνάριον, New Greek σουληνάρι, a derivation of σωλήν "pipe, channel"). These variant form that you list seem to be certain dialectal variants, which are of course perfectly OK to add, but the problem is that it would be quite hard to dig up citations for them, as they are likely recorded in live speech by a fieldwork dialectologist, and not extracted from literary works. There are some hits on the Web for solunar tho. For words for which citations cannot be found, but are nevertheless doubtful to be "invented", we might mention them in prose (without wikification) in the ===Alternative forms=== or ====Usage notes==== sections. --Ivan Štambuk 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just added. Could you put in the accents? I know it's bàcānje and that kugle is gen sg of kúgla, but I'm just not sure what the rule is with the accent on the genitive. – Krun 14:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The ending for genitive singular of a-stems is -ē (with post-tonic length!), the accent paradigm is "fixed", hence it's kúglē. Contrast this with nominative plural which has only ordinary -e. --Ivan Štambuk 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey. :) Could you try and convert this and it's Cyrillic form? 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That entry was created by User:Pepsi Lite who is a Serbian nationalist and is not particularly fond of common Serbo-Croatian treatment due to his ideological bias. That entry is of course also perfectly valid Bosnian and Serbian (alphabet, ordering, and the sounds represented are exactly the same), so the only necessary thing for conversion would be to switch from ==Serbian== to ==Serbo-Croatian==, and replace "Serbian Latin alphabet" to "Serbo-Croatian Latin alphabet" (LOL, there is no such thing as "Serbian Latin alphabet"; when gajica was devised these nationalist fabrications didn't exist!). You could add the SC section yourself if you want, I'm not particularly in the mood for tinkering with ===Letter=== entries right now :) --Ivan Štambuk 06:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ahh, ok :) I just thought there might be inconsistencies in like, what place in the alphabet the letter held. Oh, but wait, there are. Either that, or there are inaccuracies; the Latin entry says it's the 18th letter but the Cyrillic says it's the 15th (in the Cyrillic alphabet). o.O Surely the two alphabets map onto one another perfectly, no? Furthermore the entries also define it as an abbreviation for metre so in that way it's a bit more important than other letters. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both alphabets match perfectly (i.e. converting between them is a matter of trivial character/string substitution), but the orderings are different :) Latin alphabet uses familiar "Latin" ordering (taken from Greek, taken from Phoenician, taken from Egyptian), while Cyrillic uses traditional Cyrillic ordering (cf. Serbian Cyrillic alphabet), which is taken from Glagolitic whose ordering is OTOH slightly fixed from Latin so that when you pronounce names of the letters you get a nice song (so that illiterate 9th c. Slavs could memorize them more easily): az buky vede "I know letters", glagoli dobro est "words are good" etc. --Ivan Štambuk 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you were populating Wiktionary with the Sanskrit terms on: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User:Ivan_Štambuk/MW/6500 B9hummingbirdhoverin'^{æ•ω•ॐ} 09:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I copy them them directly from MW dictionary online which contains more up-to-date version of those entries (fixed scannos, and those metacharacters expanded). That subpage of mine contains entries extracted from MW dictionariy for words listed in the Dictionnaire Français de l'Héritage Sanskrit available on this website, which I found extremely valuable while studying Sanskrit. If you want to utilize that subpage for the creation of Sanskrit entries - be my guest :) The whole MW dictionary is available in XML format and Wiktionary-compatible entries could be created from it by a computer program (with human supervision, of course). Tens of thousands of entries could be created really fast. (That's the big advantage of ancient languages - out-of-copyright dictionaries don't grow obsolete!) I chiefly create Sanskrit entries from the request page, and those which are interesting from certain etymological perspective (linked as cognates from the etymology sections of entries of other Indo-European languages), as well as in some other ways (e.g. important religious terms). Sadly, we don't really have any regular Sanskrit contributors here. There are several important issues with the treatment of Sanskrit entries on Wiktionary that are yet to be settled, and if you're interested in contributing to Sanskrit seriously I could provide you some overview. --Ivan Štambuk 10:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan,

Could you please fix this entry in Serbian/Croatian or Serbo-Croatian. It's missing the Cyrillic entry - пушити. Anatoli 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you take a look at my in depth babel, you will see that I want to learn the basics of the Serbo-Croatian language. Have you any good sources such as SC ---> EN dictionaries, online resources to help me learn the basics of the language, etc.? Please let me know if you do so that I may begin learning SC :). Cheers, Razorflame 05:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Check out the SC materials at uz-translations. There are several very good English-language handbooks in there (you must register to see the download links). It might be illegal in your country so watch out ;) Most of the basic words that you're likely to encounter initially are probably already added on Wiktionary, with the exception of possessive pronouns/adjectives and prepositions, intricacies of which I'm still trying to gain motivation to tackle. --Ivan Štambuk 05:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

And the form of entries :) Thanks for the help :) Cheers, Razorflame 05:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

OOOOOHH....they even have Esperanto things :) Anyways, thanks so much for the help! I hope to be able to write simple sentences within the next two to three days. Thanks again for the help, Razorflame 06:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bah! Both the Esperanto and Serbo-Croatian dictionaries that I downloaded are completely written in Esperanto and SC. That is making it somewhat difficult to find new words to write entries for :o. Razorflame 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is Morton Benson En-SC-EN there, right? Also, I have scanned PDF of one very good Croatian-English dictionary that I could send you on e-mail if you want (send your e-mail to my e-mail, or write it here). --Ivan Štambuk 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, I didn't see that one there. I've also sent you an email so that you can send me the PDF through the email whenever you get the time or get the email. Kanpai, Razorflame 01:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you expand this appendix with Serbo-Croatian verbs and fix the number of columns (two of them are superfluous)? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone has writ castle (château) under the header Bosniaque in fr:grad#Bosniaque, but the Serbo-Croatian entry here does not contain any traces of such a meaning. grad means castle in Slovene, but in SC this does not hold, right? I am asking for verification, before are remove that meaning yon, since I am no native speaker. Also, I dared to add the verbs зепсти and бости to the Appendix. There is also запрети, but is there прети? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yup: one of the meanings of grad: (HJP) "srednjovjekovna utvrda koja je služila za stanovanje i obranu ; burg, kaštel, tvrđava, utvrđenje, zamak", (Rječnik srpskohrvaskoga književnog jezika): "mesto ograđeno bedemima radi zaštite, tvrđava, utvrđenje; zaštitne zidine, bedem etc. So not really "castle" (for which the usual words would be dvorac), but a type of fortified mediaeval burgh. I'd mark that sense with the context label {{historical}}.

There is indeed a word preti (present: prem, preš, ... 3pp: pru) meaning:

1. (ambitransitively) to sue (as in court)
2. (reflexively) to quarrel with sb

The family of related words includes terms such as spor, Russian borrowing poprište, raspra(va), parnica, suparnik, pr(ij)epor etc. (See Skok II: 37). Definitely related to Czech příti se "to quarrel, be engaged in a lawsuit" but seems unrelated to most of the other alleged Slavic cognates (Polish przeć (“to press on, push”), Russian переть (peretʹ, “to push, drag, make one's way”) etc.). Methinks that he legislative semantic field developed in South Slavic under the influence of Church Slavonic traditions (there is ChSl. прети, the verb later appears in its earliest SC attestation right in the Dušanov zakonik, and most of these words are legal neologisms in origin). So in the end you might even derive them all from PIE *per- "to beat" and Common Slavic *perti, but lots of etymologists seem reluctant to do so. Needs additional research for support, but it wouldn't be too wrong to list it even now if you ask me.

The word zapr(ij)eti is not related the the stem preti above in a way one would intuitively think it is (compounded as za + pr(ij)eti); its lexical stem -pr(ij)eti occurs only in the prefixed forms (in order to resolve the homonymy to preti). It is however ultimately derived from the PIE stem *per- "to beat" (by liquid metathesis > *prě-). See Skok II: 42 for more info. I can see others listed Slavic cognates of it, but these were strictly speaking not the direct reflexes of Common Slavic *perti that are supposed to be listed there.. --Ivan Štambuk 18:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am grateful for your exhaustive and circumstantial explication. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Ivan. I've recently installed the Avestan hack you made from the Alphabetum Demo font into my HP and for some reason it doesn't display properly in FF (I'm using a trunk build). Any suggestions? Also, any news on Planes 2, 3, etc., as regards Wiktionary entries? Thanks.--Strabismus 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I createdhacked an Avestan font independently from Ivan which might work better in certain situations. -- Prince Kassad 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No idea why it doesn't work. The other font I made works perfectly fine for me (created in 10 minutes with something called "FontCreator", the first google hit). I don't know about cross-platform font issues, so you're on your own. --Ivan Štambuk 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, I'd love it if you could send me the font. Thanks :) --Dijan 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:hr:Gothic derivations and Category:hr:Old Norse derivations are now empty and ready for deletion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ivane, bi li mogao slediti doprinose ovog korisnika, posebno u oblasti etimologije, kada se brišu izvori? Jako me je uznemirio... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

To my surprise, he claimed some etymological kinship between dialectal Bulgarian крокон and English rook. In Български етимологичен речник () it is related to Slovene and Serbo-Croatian krokotati (the Slovene verb is given here, but I have found no confirmation as yet of the Serbo-Croatian verb. Does it exist?), Slovene krokar (raven), but their origin is onomatopædic according to the dictionary. What do you think about this claimed kinship with rook? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

There indeed exists krokotati, recorded in some dictionaries of rural speech, derived from the noun krokot, denoting a sound emitted by the Scolopax rusticola, and rarely some other birds.

Here's wat EIEC that the user in question refers to states on it:

*kVr-C- (“crow; raven”). . Lat corvus (“raven”), cornīx (“crow”), OE hrōc (“crow, raven, rook”) (> NE rook), Bulg krókon (“raven”), Grk κόραξ (kórax, “raven”), κορώνη (korṓnē, “crow”), Olnd karaṭa- (“crow”), karāva- (“crow”) (Old Indic has in all thirty-six words for the 'crow'). The base term *kVr-C- denotes 'a harsh, coarse tone'. Similar to this root is Arm agṙaw (“crow”) which cannot be easily related. Armenian also has, for the term 'raven' and 'crow', derivatives of *h₃er- (cf. Grk ὄρνις (órnis, “bird”)), ie., Arm ori (“raven, crow”), while MIr tethra (“crow'”) derives from *teter- (“type of large (game) bird”). The same root that underlies the words for 'crow' and 'raven' also appears to supply Mlr·cerc (“hen”), OPrus kerko (“loon, diver”), Grk {falcon, Av kahrkatat (“cock”) and OInd kṛkara- (“cock”) but there is no reason to think that these non-crow terms could not have been onomatopeically engendered, independently.

The only other place where I could find Slavic words mentioned is IEW. The *ker- (verbal) and *kor- (nominal) roots are certainly reconstructible for PIE proper, but the usual problem with words of onomatopoeic origin is 1) they get reinvented in various languages all the time 2) they tend to undergo unusual sound changes. Especially when they refer to animals that are somehow "bad" (crow/rook/raven aren't exactly symbols of good fortune), and ancients thoughts that naming them would invoke their presence, hence their "real" names were often tabooed and the "descriptive" ones were often used instead.. It's messy, but there should be no problems mentioning them as cognates. --Ivan Štambuk 14:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this and maybe add its synonyms? Their full declension wasn't listed in HJP or HML. Thanks. – Krun 15:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey again Ivan, could you take a look here please? Thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, could you help me out with this Sanskrit verb? In Vasmer’s dictionary it is given as a cognate of Latin neo and of Serbo-Croatian нит with the meaning dress, twist around. The problem emerged when I googled it and all results were from wiktionary (whereas in other google queries the results include some Sanskrit texts). Another discrepancy is that the Monier-Williams dictionry lisy only the meaning bathe (root: snā) which is fairly distant from dress. So, is there a verb स्नायति with the meaning dress, twist around and what is its root? Another peculiarity is that the ligature sna looks quite different in the MW dictionary from its digitalised variant here (स्न, compare them). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, Vasmer is a bit obsolete on this one:

• Common Slavic *nitъ < Balto-Slavic *níHtis < PIE *(s)nh₁itis, derived from root *sneh₁ "to spin, weave", whence also Latin neō, nēre (“to spin, weave”), Ancient Greek νέω (néō, “to spin”), Old Irish sniid (“to twist, tie”) etc. (see LIV p. 571)
• Sanskrit snā < Proto-Indo-Iranian *snAH "to wash, swim" < PIE *sneh₂ "to wash, swim" (see LIV p. 527), whence also Latin nō, nāre (“to swim”), Old Irish snaid (“swims”), Tocharian B nāsk- (“to bathe”) etc.

There is no Sanskrit verb snā which means "to twist around" that I could find; that must be some kind of an error.. In fact, there are no Indo-Iranian reflexes of *sneh₁ at all. --Ivan Štambuk 14:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although there is already a lot of Serbo-Croatian here, there are some important words that are still left out; numbers, colors, nationalities, and countries, languages and chemical elements. Just a tip for your next edit spree. ;-) – Krun 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created Category:sh:Colours. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you clean up this root? Monier Williams gives खदति (khadati) as the 3rd person sg. præsent tense. Should it be moved there? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

And वस् (vas) - वसति (vasati) too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fixed all; the first one to खादति (khādati) though. --Ivan Štambuk 14:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just did a major expansion of this, also verifying that the feminine is the universally correct form of the noun, but again the declension is fairly uncommon (feminine ending with a consonant), and is not listed in HJP or HML. The senses are based on the R. Srp.-Hrv. Knj. Jez., and I hope I have captured them well enough also. Could you check it for me? – Krun 13:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine. There are plenty of SC feminines ending in a consonant, mostly in the "i-declension" pattern. --Ivan Štambuk 13:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vjerojatno već znaš za ovo, no ipak: Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mene zanima ovaj rečnik. Mogu li ja preuzeti ga? Posle registracije? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Prebacit ću ti na Mediafire, pa ćeš od tamo moći presnimiti. Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 12:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Evo ga:

Hvala, no već mi je poznat taj rječnik. --Ivan Štambuk 13:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

He could you try and fix this when you get a chance? In Cyrillic entries (e.g. скроман) the superlative accusative animate masculine singular starts with the Roman alphabet miniscule n. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding the etymologies for some of the Kannada entries I've added :) I appreciate it! Thanks, Razorflame 21:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's nice to see somebody working on Dravidian languages. I'd help too if I weren't too lazy to memorize those silly scripts (I had my share of traumas with Devanagari and wouldn't want to stray too far in the obscure lands of Brahmi derivatives). --Ivan Štambuk 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I decided to start working in Kannada a few weeks ago, and I've been honing my transliteration skills since then. Still needs work, but much better than when I first started :) Cheers, Razorflame 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

My mistake. I was not using the transliterations at User talk:Razorflame/Kannada/KNTL, but the ones from the Notepad file where I've been keeping my transliteration work. Sorry about that. I'll go fix that in my transliteration workbook right now. Razorflame 23:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

WTF?! Where do people get off saying I know nothing about Kannada? Please explain this bullshit. Your help is sincerely appreciated.--Strabismus 07:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey could you edit this to show what gender it is? Is it really masculine and feminine? Also, is there any online resource I could use to check the gender of SC nouns? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and what about declension? 50 Xylophone Players talk 11:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably the best online resource is HJP this (Ijekavian Croatian only, although it contains plethora of "Serbian" words). In the headword line: m = masculine, ž = feminine, s = neuter. It also contains inflection on the "IZVEDENI OBLICI" link on the left (search for the word first for the link to appear). There is also HML that can be used to generate lemma forms or inflected forms, and which has better algorithm than HJP. Both of them are actually valid for 95% of words, and for the rest they occasionally generate hypothetical forms, so it would be the best to check against both of them simultaneously. Or just copy the inflection from either and place {{attention|sh}} for me to verify it later. I hope to soon publish somewhere on the Web an online tool that will ease the generation of SC entries to the point of being trivial (Google App Engine probably). As for the alfa - it's feminine, as you can see for yourself on HJP. 99% of nouns ending in -a are feminine, it's the old Indo-European feminine-class suffix... (PIE < *-eh₂ :). --Ivan Štambuk 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Right, thanks for the info and links 50 Xylophone Players talk 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, have you already noticed the feats into which your compatriot is venturing lately? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hah, nope I haven't, and thanks for pointing that out! :) Any surge of Serbo-Croatian nationalist activity is disturbing and well as indicative of Ullmann's noxious tentacles preparing to strike another "deadly" move. I'll keep a close eye on his edits. --Ivan Štambuk 22:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan,

Could you check the acceptable Serbo-Croatian translations of Commonwealth of Independent States and mark the variants (if necessary), please? --Anatoli 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Adjectives nezavisan and neovisan are synonymous, both meaning "independent", and both being valid in either SC variety. I don't know if there is some "official", legal list against to check with, but it's safe to assume that either one of those two can be used anywhere. --Ivan Štambuk 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. I noticed they used different words on hr, sr and sh Wikipedia's. Thanks for nesting but don't you think it could be Cyrillic followed by Roman (or vice versa)? ...|sc=Cyrl|... takes care of what script is used. It looks nesting is more used by dialects or standard/modern versus ancient. --Anatoli 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the nesting is the usual way used for Serbian and now SC Latin & Cyrillic. I was actually thinking of creating a specialized translation template for SC only, one that could in a non-nested way handle both scripts, diacritics for accents, as well as mark by some kind of tags which if a translation is peculiar to a particular national standard. As opposed to the method of using two consecutive {t}s, and using (Xxx). I haven't been adding SC translations at all, and plan to do it en masse some time in the future. Feel free to add translations on the basis of bs/hr/sr/sh pedias, they're all going to be checked one day, sooner or later.. --Ivan Štambuk 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a good idea but please try to make it linked to FL (sh in this case) wiktionaries. I had to abandon zh-tsp and zh-ts (Chinese) for the same reason, they don't link. Just using consecutive traditional followed by simplified translations (if they differ), only the simplified having the Pinyin transliteration. It would look too messy to have 2 rows for Simplified and Traditional. Your hands are busy with entries, they are more important and harder to create than translations. Someone has to be busy with translations as well - they are some basis for new entries - can it be done with a script? When I add translations, I will try to look at sh as well, if I do for other Slavic languages. I am a bit worried about being told off for using sh, rather than bs, sr and hr. If I understood correctly, the consensus has not been achieved on using sh for the 3 existing official languages but it must be up to contributors, anyway. --Anatoli 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Use sh, we're going to forbid individual bs/hr/sr/montenegrin sooner or later. Fake languages fabricated by nationalist bigots are a waste of everyone's time. Don't worry about the template, it'll be heavily tested first, and you'll be informed. --Ivan Štambuk 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo. Nadgledaj ovo zanimljivo glasanje i posebno ovaj komentar jednog korisnika. Očekujem nestrpljivo videti šta će on reći o Bugarinu, koji ne podržava njegov pokušaj ^_^ Da li znaš ovog korisnika? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pojma nemam ko je to, po svoj prilici nečiji čarapko. Ovi glupani nisu ni svjesni koliko loše propagande na sebe navlače takvim zadrtim izjavama. Njihov idiotluk, naša prednost xD --Ivan Štambuk 19:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you possibly verify whether the Hindi word जीभ comes from the Sanskrit word जिह्वा (jihvā) that means "tongue"? It seems reasonable to me, but I'm not confident enough in it to add it yet :) — opiaterein — 14:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you fix where your bot writes its' reports to? Please include the User: prefix so that it makes the report in its' userspace instead of the mainspace.

On a side note, while I do believe that Serbo-Croatian should be represented on here, I think that if someone wants to add in the Serbian/Bosnian/Croatian sections of entries that you made and that are Serbo-Croatian pages, that they should be allowed to, don't you agree? Razorflame 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah sorry, I haven't even noticed that User: prefix was missing!

Sure, thare are already some users that are copy/pasting my ==Serbo-Croatian== entries as ==Bosnian==/==Croatian==/==Serbian==, the only changes being switching language codes. Pretty stupid way to prove that these are "different languages" if you ask me, but anyways.. --Ivan Štambuk 20:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't talking about copying your sh entry. I was talking about making their own. Razorflame 21:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Making them different would be moronic and misleading. They're not even different languages. — opiaterein — 21:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

But these would be identical. Serbo-Croatian treatment on Wiktionary is designed to be a generic container for all 3 (or 4, if you count Montenegrin) standard varieties. The only possible differences are in the example sentences, but the actual content (definitions, etyms, pronunciations, inflection etc.) would be identical. Given that the entries I personally create are pretty thorough, there's very little room left for anti-SH dissidents. --Ivan Štambuk 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

All hail Ivan :D — opiaterein — 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. When you delete a page, could you please at least provide a little bit of a reason as to why? It helps the people know why it was deleted. Thanks, Razorflame 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are you referring to? --Ivan Štambuk 00:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you just include a little reason why you delete pages such as uski and matricom? You could include something like this, "Form-of entry that will be recreated by bot" or something like that. Do you think you could do that? Thanks, Razorflame 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

These entries were terminated because they were either 1) ill-formatted 2) incomplete 3) factually wrong. As you properly assume, they will be recreated by a bot. Fixing them manually, or even adding explanations of their deletions, would simply be a waste of time, because they're worthless entries by themselves, create-and-don't-touch type of, and not something multiple editors contribute on. --Ivan Štambuk 21:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Still, it is a good idea to include even a small or short explanation, like to be recreated or something like that. While I understand that you think it would be a waste of time, in fact, it only takes a few seconds to type something like that, so it would actually be a much better choice to include the short explanation than none at all, because by leaving no explanation at all, one questions what motives you had for deleting it. By including the short explanation, you prevent that from happening, and yes, I already knew that you would be recreating them using a bot. In fact, I expect you to recreate them using your bot. Razorflame 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, there is something which perplexes me in your approach to the Serbo-Croatian language: from the history of matricom it is evident that you used this header (Serbo-Croatian) for the entry back in November 2009 as it beseems a studious learner of the language, whereas your recent entries like pločnik reveal a triplicating approach in which the entry abounds with superfluous sections lacerating the South Slavic language in three (there is a way in which you could have lacerated it in four, but I shall not give you the clue). Would you expound this discrepancy, please? What has unleashed such an about turn in your approach? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I asked him the same question but he never bothered to explicate. My guess is that he's just a nosy kid eager to build up his community karma by means of contriving artifical conflicts. I don't really have any problems with him making any B/C/S/SC edits, as long as they are accurate. If he truly pursues his interests in various languages, I'm sure that sooner or later he'll reach the same conclusion on oneness of Serbo-Croatian, and the triviality of diferences among its national standards. --Ivan Štambuk 10:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lo, Ivan - there has been some improvement. However, the incohærence in his stance towards the SC language still remains given the erroneous approach from the deleted page whose main author he was. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes Razorflame, they will be created by User:ŠtambukBot, which is actively being written. I'm making it language-agnostic so that it can be used to autonomously (without human interaction, on the basis of live XLM dump and the analysis of template usage) generate inflected forms for all the languages (you'll just need to specify how inflection templates map to inflected form entries in the configuration file). The current method of search/replace of stems and then mass-upload, or even the manual generation which some folks practise, is very primitive and wasteful on the part of human intellect which should be directed into more productive domains.

I write edit summary whenever I edit a page that has been or is likely to be edited by several users (normally English entries). Not for the deletions of obvious vandalisms, or my primary edits in Serbo-Croatian entries which are more-or-less automatized and occur very rapidly in succession. I sincerely don't know how it bothered you that those inflected forms got deleted. It's not that any valuable content has been lost (when you search for those inflected forms, you still find them on the corresponding lemma entry). I probably should have deleted them moments before the bot is supposed to be run though... --Ivan Štambuk 10:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Replying to Ivan and Bogorm): Actually, Ivan, I never checked back on this topic to see what was going on with it, so I am sorry if it seems as though I was ignoring this topic, because I just did not know about it. The reason for the differences between then and now is because it is actually a long time in between then and now. I've decided that we should not be removing languages through unification just because it would save space on the page or because Serbo-Croatian means the same thing. On my recent entry, plocnik, I entered the information that I found through use of print and online sources for Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian, thinking that Ivan would add Serbo-Croatian to the page. So far, he hasn't, because he knows that I disapprove of the merging of the languages when the community has not given him the approval to do so yet. I would have no problem with the unification of the languages if the community approved of it, but based upon the last vote, the community did not approve of it. I've suggested to Ivan to start another vote in the hopes that people have changed their minds, but to continue the unification of the languages regardless of the outcome of the vote shows me that he would rather unify the languages at any cost, which is not the right attitude that I want to see from someone who wants to work on this Wiktionary. I would much rather see him stop unifying entries, even if they are ones that he made himself or by others who support the unification of the languages until the appropriate vote has been started and completed and the community approves of the idea to unify the languages. To me, it just makes things much harder to find information on Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian words because while Serbo-Croatian is supposed to encompass all three of them and Montenegrin, not having the separated entries makes it very difficult for someone to discern between the languages where subtleties could exist in the different languages. I would much rather the community support the unification before more unifying is done. Razorflame 21:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

To me, it just makes things much harder to find information on Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian words because while Serbo-Croatian is supposed to encompass all three of them and Montenegrin, not having the separated entries makes it very difficult for someone to discern between the languages where subtleties could exist in the different languages. - LOL, the whole point of unified treatment is to make it easier to spot differences. The only thing you need to pay attention to are B/C/S/M labels when they occur (otherwise the content is generic, i.e. valid to all).

I would much rather the community support the unification before more unifying is done. - Seeking approval from uber-troll Ullman and his (not particularly bright) disciples on the basis of rational discussion has proven to be a glorious waste of time. I already have support from the majority of the relevant community, and as for the rest - well, I couldn't care less (and that includes you too). Most of the "unification" work is already done anyway (currently there are more than 20k SC lemma entries, which is more than pre-unification B+C+S). --Ivan Štambuk 22:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not doing this based on what Ullman says. I am doing it based upon what I think the future of this Wiktionary should be. I believe that ignoring policies to unify pages when there clearly is not support from the community to do so is highly unethical, and looking over some of your responses to people who point this out, you would rather trounce them into the ground than follow what they are asking you to do, which isn't really that big of a deal. Just make a new vote about the unification of SBCM, and if you gain the support of the community, I would have no problem with you unifying pages. Razorflame 22:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe that ignoring policies to unify pages - and what policies would that be?

...is highly unethical - No, unethical would be telling other people how they should spend their free time contributing in a topic you have absolutely no clue about or interest in and in which you've neither made any contributions at all, or utilized it for learning purposes. --Ivan Štambuk 23:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no, unethical is what you are doing. I am merely making a suggestion; I am not telling you how to spend your free time contributing to a topic, which I actually do have some knowledge on and interest in, so basically everything you just said is not correct because it contradicts the facts. In the last vote for the unification, many people were bringing up the point that they should not become unified who opposed the vote, and since the vote did not pass, they expect you to keep to that, therefore, when you don't, that goes against policy because you are removing content which is entirely correct, which in my eyes, and others eyes, constitutes vandalism, so that should answer your question about which policy that is against. Razorflame 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, unlike on Wikipedia we listen to people who know what they are talking about. The notorious vote is well passed, if there were problems with the status quo, they would be brought up by people with sensible arguments. Citing incorrect procedure is a waste of time. Conrad.Irwin 23:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Razorflame, I already explained to you several times that

1. there is no policy that forbids "unification" (no content is lost, so it's not against CFI)
2. the failing of any vote does not approve the logical opposite of what was voted for. If there is no consensus - there is no consensus. It's just that in this cases the lack of support for the vote is centered around a small group of non-contributors, which in my eyes renders the whole opposition movement irrelevant.
3. The only entries that are "unified" are those that have been created by the contributors supporting the merger. In 99% of all merging instances the content itself has been heavily expanded and rectified. Calling such edits "vandalisms" is moronic. --Ivan Štambuk 23:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've changed my stance on this. I think it is a good idea now. Razorflame 01:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear that :-) --Ivan Štambuk 01:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

šta je naš poznanik nedavno učinio? Čini mi se da momak ne zna mnogo o slavenskim jezicima i ako ga pustimo raditi ovako u budućnosti... To je isto kao kad ja bih stao praviti irske članke, možda i gore. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ma neka radi štogod hoće. Čim počne griješiti uslijed vlastitog neznanja - leti. --Ivan Štambuk 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you planning to create more of these? It is true that it was created 2 years ago and you are præoccupied with Serbo-Croatian, but, notwithstanding these appeasing considerations, I felt disquieted on remarking it. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not that I plan.. The Macedenian entries that I created back then were mostly to fill the missing entries from those lists of Proto-Slavic terms. --Ivan Štambuk 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivan. In the etymology of the Slovak noun huba Drago has inserted the Proto-Slavic origin as *guba (origin of Slovenian goba and Bulgarian гъба (gǎba), is there no SC descendant ? ), whereas Václav Machek in the entry of his etymological dictionary clearly points at *goba. I would have corrected it, but beforehand I would appreciate your opinion as to which of those two looks more plausible. I cannot consult Drago, as he has not been around for a long time. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just found the entry for гѫба. So the proto-Slavic form is *gǫba, no *goba possible? Does the Slovak word descend from OCS? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No it must be *gǫba (only */ǫ/ can yield both Slovene /o/ and SC /u/). There is SC descendant guba but with the modern-day meaning of "leprosy" (obsoletely and regionally denoting some type of mushroom). Yes Slovak word is a cognate. --Ivan Štambuk 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there Ivan. Please read the last section of my talk page and decide on whether or not you want the content removed or not. Thank you, Razorflame 00:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be deleting all of this, why? Conrad.Irwin 16:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because they don't exist. These entries were created by Flying Saucer (talk • contribs) who copied the titles from the "Old Church Slavonic Wikipedia". Wikipedias for ancient languages abound in fake words created by their editors which cannot pass our CFI. Some of them get entered at the translation tables (when editors enter translation by copying interwiki links at the English Wikipedia article), are rarely they're manually created by unknowledgeable Wiktionarians. These pedias for ancient languages will probably all be closed sometime in the future. --Ivan Štambuk 16:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, this term is considered derogatory and Албанац is the preferred term, in the same way that Влах (which is regionally also used to mean gypsy, Каравлах?) is used as a derogatory term for all Romanians. At least that's how it's used where I'm from. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this. --Dijan 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well I've heard Šiptar being used both in derogatory and non-derogatory meaning. It reminds me of the situation with the term Ciganin in that respect. w:sr:Шиптар has more on its usage. I'll add a (usually derogatory) qualifier, feel free to expand it to usage notes. --Ivan Štambuk 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I may intervene in order to compare the Serbo-Croatian words and the Bulgarian ones - влах is a neutral word in Bulgarian, but we Bulgarians have a derogatory word for Romanians which is мамалигар, from мамалига, their national dish. In the same way the derogatory word for Italians is жабари, cf. жаба. Is there a similar development in SC between the designaton of diverse nations and their præferred victuals? Is мамалигар admissible in SC? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

LOL! I've head the term žabar used pejoratively several times, but not for Italians (to which it can also be applied, according to the Rječnik srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika), but to persons originating from area where frog-eating is a common practice. Which is not so funny because I come from one such region (and brudet od žaba is one of my favorite meals xD). There is no such word as mamaligar (or mamaljugar) in SC, and I'm not familiar with any pejrotive SC term for Romanians.. --Ivan Štambuk 19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you think Влах is a neutral term in SC as in Bulgarian? That was my understanding too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, Vlah can mean several different things depending on the region and date, and can also be used pejoratively (e.g. when used for Bosnian and Croatian Serbs by Croats and Bosniaks, esp. in the context of Austro-Hungarian era). HJP also claims that it can also be used for Romanians, but does not indicate pejorative usage. --Ivan Štambuk 19:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ivan I sent you a couple emails. Thanks. Azaleapomp2 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey tovariš, could you check the pronunciation of osnovan for me? I read consonant clusters are either all voiced or all unvoiced, but I know some languages for some reason don't apply that to nasals. — opiaterein — 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope, it's pronounced as . In 99% of cases of consonant asssimilations it's reflected in the orthography (unlike some other Slavic languages). Phonological orthography -> phonological transcription. I know that you've accustomed to use for precision, but in some languages it simply doesn't make much sense..

And BTW ] is a bad entry which I shall fix. osnovan means "founded", and is a passive participle of osnovati. It's definite form is osnovani. "fundamental, essential" is osnovni. I've probably copied that from some crappy dictionary. Lots of en-sh-en dictionaries I've came across make such trivial errors, often wrongly lemmatizing definite/indefinite forms of adjectives.

Also, re: tovariš: despite some impressions and other people's propaganda, I'm not pro-communist at all. My political views are classical liberal/libertarian. Just because I'm against democracy (tyranny of the stupid/brainwashed majority), it doesn't mean I'm for totalitarianism ^_^

Also, in case you're interested in creating more SH edits by yourself, let me know if you're interested and I'll send you some goodies via e-mail that will make your life a lot easier. Or simply populate WT:RE:sh or place {{attention|sh}} and I'll create/rectify whatever you find confusing. --Ivan Štambuk 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I say tovariš because I'm so fond of irony :D Everybody in American thinks Serbia is Russia and that Russia is communist. Because we're so enlightened lol...

I decided it was time to start learning Serbo-Croatian, so resources are appreciated :D It looks like you've got a lot done, but I'll try to help where I can — opiaterein — 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK ;) I'm writing a bot (User:ŠtambukBot) that will help with generation of inflected forms, and various other edits too boring to be done manually. So please don't create these with your bot for now. There are some very tricky issues with Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs, and suppletive stem forms which have different lemma forms but within inflection there is a lot of collision. It needs to be carefully thought-out first, then pregenerated for all the present entries, and only then uploaded.

As far as the SC entries are concerned: the work long overdue is the entries for possesive/relative pronouns, and numerals. Irregularities and exceptions are too disheartening for me.. And also examples and thorough rework of all prepositions and conjunctions... Feel free to kick-start any of those, I'll review, fix and expand eventually. --Ivan Štambuk 16:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh trust me, the thought hadn't even crossed my mind :) I'm not going to run bots for any forms-of until I know them like the back of my eyeball. I'll try to do what I can with the 'little' parts of speech. (It's funny how those little ones are always so important) — opiaterein — 17:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On another note, did we ever decide what we're going to do with Arebica? — opiaterein — 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. One could add entries in it, but the thing is that the spellings in manuscripts that used it utilized variant forms of letters for some sounds (for details see the discussion on Dijan's talkpage). Also, I don't know of any dictionary of arebica spellings either... The resources on arebica are unfortunatelly really scarce. If you really want to add arebica entries, the best thing to do would be to add them as they are provably attested (see e.g. this webpage for some examples). I also created {{sh-variant}} to link among various spellings and dialectal forms of a word, but template still needs some cleanup before it can be used (most importantly, making paramaters optional). --Ivan Štambuk 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here you seem to be reducing the number of parameters as if you were using Template:sh-decl-noun-unc, but you forget to add a suffix to the template name. I've corrected some other cases of uncountable nouns/proper nouns before. Maybe it's a bug in your program? Still, the template I mention would still not be appropriate for this word since it declares “singular” at the top of the table, and there doesn't seem to be one for pluralia tantum yet… – Krun 23:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No I've done that manually, mea culpa. My program handles countability flawlessly.. Actually there is {{sh-decl-noun-plural}}. I have yet to write code checking for entry structure validation that will catch errors such as this. --Ivan Štambuk 23:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you make an entry for that word I sent you an email about? Thanks, Razorflame 19:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I take it that if you remove the im, you get perfectivization? Razorflame 20:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is correct. --Ivan Štambuk 21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add it? Razorflame 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Како се каже то на српскохрватсом? I wanna add it. (I need things to call people I hate) =) — opiaterein — 23:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

peder and gej are the most common. I was thinking of adding some SC vulgarisms and curses for a long time, but the main problem is how to translate them. They don't real "mean" anything, but rather convey a particular type of emotion. --Ivan Štambuk 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hm... I guess just find the closest equivalent? Or equivalents... I don't really know any yet, so I dunno... Or you could just say "A generalized insult" and have some examples of common usage. — opiaterein — 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivan. I embarked on proceeding with Crnjanski's masterpiece Код хипербореjаца and now and again there arise certain quæestions, so I may address you with them, if you do not mind. E. g. what does the word смука mean? From the following sentence: ... могу да одем, на дан, два, у планине, у снег, у смуку I can find out that the nominative singular of the word is смука and that it is feminine, but this word is not præsent in the Речник српскохрватскога књижнега jезика, књ. 5, p. 899. And again in the sentence: Тамо у снегу, изнад Сулмоне, смука jе лепа, до маjа месеца. Could you please create the entry? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. There is the word smuk meaning "downhill race in skiing", and that seems to partially fit in the abovecited discourse, except that it's of "wrong" gender. I couldn't find anything on smuka though. --Ivan Štambuk 10:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, downhill race in skiing fits in the second sentence, but the gender... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Could you check the Bosnian translation for frown? It looks like a verb but it's in the translation table for noun. Maro 15:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering... I haven't seen these tags in the definition lines for SC words and we don't have the categories yet... can I fix that? :D — opiaterein — 15:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I didn't even know that these existed :) Well, I wouldn't advise adding them in the definition lines because they're not connected to a particular sense (they'd have to be added to all the senses), but rather to a general word morphology/etymology. Perhaps it would be the best to add it as a parameter to PoS templates ({sh-noun} etc.), in a similar manner that verbs use {{pf}} and {{impf}} ?

Also, since all the Ijekavian/Ekavian pairs link to their complement yat variety in the ===Alternative forms=== section, does it make sense at all to explicitly mark that information? --Ivan Štambuk 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was thinking it might be better to just add the category, but that's so out of the way it would never get noticed... So the PoS templates might be the easiest place to put them - But since that information isn't really relevant to anything grammatical, I think making it small style text would be better in that case. Like - mlijeko n (Ijekavian) - or something like that.— opiaterein — 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would personally like it better if it were explicitly stated. Some words may also be both ekavian and ijekavian (but not ikavian), and ijekavian may have double forms (in case of a hyperijakavianism or an ekavianism), so I think it would be clearer with such a tag. – Krun 16:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK guys, I've made {{sh-yat}} and added support for yat= to {{sh-noun}}. It looks like this:

mlijéko n. (Cyrillic spelling млије́ко)(Ijekavian)

Perhaps the yat reflex information should be added before the Cyrillic script link:

mlijéko n. (Ijekavian) (Cyrillic spelling млије́ко)

Or merged with it in the same set of parentheses? --Ivan Štambuk 16:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

At first glance, I like it coming between the gender and alternate spelling parentheses... It seems the best place to put it, near the spelling (near both spellings, even). — opiaterein — 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Božiljak doesn't get many google hits, even on google.rs. On rainbow, Bosnian and Croatian only had duga, but the Serbian section also had božiljak. Should I be adding any additional context tags to these? — opiaterein — 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Never head of božiljak. Apparently added by this IP, which is a well-known troll from Australia adding fake words in translation tables, for which he was blocked many times. Just obliterate that garbage on sight. I was planning one day to write a program that will extract all the B/C/S translations, run google search on them and report everything with less then e.g. 500 hits. The BIG problem with such translation shite is that it keeps propagating to foreign wiktionaries (by automated importing and article generation with bots). --Ivan Štambuk 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I noticed that božiljak is on the Portuguese wiktionary... It's funny how terrible wikimedia is :D — opiaterein — 00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Since I don't know where all the macrons and stuff go, I can't expand upon the entries that I make, but I hope you like the entries that I made :) Cheers, Razorflame 01:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see some rough spoooooooooots. Whatever happened to focusing on Kannada? — opiaterein — 01:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I still am writing Kannada entries, but I wanted to make a few SC entries to bring peace between me and Ivan. I know that my entries are not perfect, but I do know that they are, at least, correct. Razorflame 01:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

In one of them, you inadvertently labelled a Roman spelling as Cyrillic. In another you invented a new word (and then made an entry for it.) — opiaterein — 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your interest Razorflame, I'll keep an eye on your edits. --Ivan Štambuk 02:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

On diskvalifikacija, you listed this verb as dìskvalifikovati. I changed it to diskvàlifikovati based on RSHKJ, but just want to make sure it is correct. Did you have this from a book source; do both perhaps exist? – Krun 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think both are OK at this case, but no, I don't have a source (my only source on accented Eastern Serbo-Croatian forms is also RSHKJ). --Ivan Štambuk 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have a chance and the infos, could you add the PIE and anything else you can here? Also, I got it from HJP, I dunno if it's an authoritative source for Proto-Slavic stuff. Any thoughts? — opiaterein — 02:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

HJP is generally OK for Proto-Slavic and PIE etymologies, only some 5% entries have errors. --Ivan Štambuk 10:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good... hvala :D — opiaterein — 13:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you hate the idea of adding borders and writing out the full forms instead of like 'hrvatskom(u/e)'? Or at least putting borders? :D — opiaterein — 19:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, write the full forms. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Borders no, but full forms yes. Full forms would distract from the underlying shared pattern and misguide the reader that these are somehow "alternative forms", which they are not. These vowels (e/u) are what is optional, and they are rather not used than used, and when used in D -u is the preferred one and in L -e, and the parentheses capture all of these notions. Also, if we wrote fully expanded forms, D and L cases would have to be multiline for most of the longer adjectives, at least in the superlative, at least on the laptop-size screens, which I'd hate. --Ivan Štambuk 19:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I like the linebreaks, it's a little more clear for me, but I understand :) — opiaterein — 21:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know if the word деведесет means ninety in Bulgarian? Thanks, Razorflame 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess that it means the same as in Serbo-Croatian: numeral for ninety (90). --Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You aren't sure, though? Razorflame 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure. Ask Bogorm, he's a native Bulgarian speaker. --Ivan Štambuk 21:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, will do. Cheers, Razorflame 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it means "ninety" in Bulgarian, Razorflame but please refrain from creating entries yourself. The problem is that there will a lot of work to make the entry to match the standards - pronunciation with the correct accents and gender, declension, etc. Most Slavic languages are pretty hard in this respect. For languages you know little about, if you really want to help, you can add translations into ttbc sections (e.g. {{ttbc|Bulgarian}}), see hungry for an example (I have no doubts about гладен and гладна but these are still in the to be checked area) or into requested entries (e.g. Wiktionary:Requested_entries:Bulgarian). These sections exist for other languages. Don't worry about being told off by others, I see you have a passion for languages but try to make it easier for other editors to work with your edits. :) --Anatoli 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't going to make the entry. Razorflame 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The translation was already there for Bulgarian, see ninety. If you decide adding translation into Russian, I can help you and can monitor and fix errors for some time. There are a lot of words needing translations. I can try to help in other Slavic languages as well but I may not be able to help all the time. Ivan, sorry for hijacking your page, I am off. --Anatoli 00:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have just put a comment on the Beer Parlour about this - I thought I had edited it - but mine obviously clashed with yours. No offence meant! —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 06:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply