User talk:Ivan Štambuk/Archive 9

Archive
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Zdravo. Ja sam Róbert Szajkó (ja), i gledao sam, de i jugoslaven. Gdi živiš ti? Molim pomozi mi u članci Fiume i Rijeka na ovoj wječnici. Pozdrav Szajci ^reci 07:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hvala. Razumijem, ali ja sam jugoslaven :D. Još jednom, hvala da pomoći mi :D Szajci ^reci 08:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Ivan. These words have recently come up in some discussions with other people over the Internet, and I was wondering if you would be willing to make these entries so that I can understand what they are saying:

• častoljubiv
• slavohlepan

It would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Razorflame 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

These words do not appear in spoken language and I seriously doubt that you heard them in some Internet discussions. What exactly are you up to? --Ivan Štambuk 18:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

They are words on another site that I found (a Croatian dictionary), and I wanted to make sure that they were right. That was all :) Razorflame 18:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both mean "ambitious, aspiring after fame/glory". --Ivan Štambuk 18:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Great :) That is what the dictionary says :) Thanks, Razorflame 18:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Ivan. I've come across this word in the same dictionary and want to make sure that it means powder, and if it is a masculine term. Does that sound right to you? Razorflame 14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, specifically: "cosmetic powder". --Ivan Štambuk 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for the help :) Razorflame 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bog Ivane, nešto sam zblesio na stranici piston rod, molim pomoć. Hvala--Lasta 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hvala, pomoć nije trebala, riješio sam problem. FYI, zanimalo me koliko je teško napraviti 50 promjena koje su potrebne za glasovanje i zbog čega se digla tolika prašina. Zaključak je jasan, pozdrav --Lasta 10:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

A, to znači da si ti ovde zbog tih 50 doprinosa i zbog važnijih budućih glasanja. Vrlo teško je to, ali si ga bar samostalno priznao... Veliki je kod vas na hr.wiki interes za naš skroman wikirečnik, pa ja samo stojim te se čudim. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ma ne, Lasta je samo bio ciničan :) --Ivan Štambuk 12:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now, I don't want to start another big flaming war between you and me, but I've been talking with a native speaker of Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian, and he said in an email to me that ever since Yugoslavia broke apart in 1992, Serbo-Croatian is no longer in use in the countries that it used to be used in. Instead, he said that all three languages broke away from Serbo-Croatian and gathered in their own mannerisms. He also said that it was a bad idea to "unify" the languages in Serbo-Croatian, as he said that it is no longer used since 1992. Keep in mind that he lives there, and that I highly respect him. I just wondered what your thoughts were on this matter.

Also, I just wanted to say keep up the good work on this site! Razorflame 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Language(s) can't "broke away". Serbo-Croatian was not "unified in Yugoslavia", because it predates it by a century. It cannot be "no longer use", because people didn't change their talk or writing since the proclamation of sovereigns. Your friend is a brainwashed nationalist idiot. --Ivan Štambuk 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so you are poking holes in a grammatically incorrect statement, however, what he said is true. The government of the new country that took Yugoslavia's place does not promote Serbo-Croatian usage and that after the fall of Yugoslavia in 1992, that Serbo-Croatian has become outdated and that Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian have all gone their own ways since. Anyways, I'll look past the insult that you hurled at my friend this time. Again, kudos for the great work that you do on this site. Razorflame 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow, when the American government declares American English a separate language from other dialects of English, we'll have to get right to work and start splitting them up, won't we? — opiaterein — 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Government has no control over a language. Language is a spontaneously formed medium of communication voluntarily used by autonomously governed human units. What words enter usage in what meaning is not under the control of any stupid government. In particular, Balkanic governments imagine (and propagandize) themselves to be of much more importance than they really are (IMF and EU puppet-regimes). You hopelessly dumb-down the entire issue as if the language is something subject to arbitrary switching points in structure and usage. It's not. The modern standard languages of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia are 99.9% grammatically identical. There are much less differences among them than in e.g. British and American English, both lexically and grammatically. They are as much "different languages" as some of their speakers imagine them to be - purely terminologically. Modern standard Croatian is the same language as previous "Western Serbo-Croatian". Your friend doesn't know much of either linguistics or history. But given the general lack of intelligence and esp. education on ex-yu area (less then 10% of population has a uni degree), he is excused for his ignorance. --Ivan Štambuk 16:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to point out the government has some control over languages. Look what happened in Turkey... In France too, there were tens of dialects, many of which are near extinct because governments have for centuries decided that everybody should speak parisian french. 216.252.85.200 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Like Neo-Stokavian, which is what Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia base their standard "language" on? lol — opiaterein — 16:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Governments do not speak. They may coerce people to use a particular dialect as "standard" through government indoctrination centers (public schools), but in the end it all boils down to an individual choice, which is mostly based on practical (economic) factors. In case of fascist language policy as in France that you mention, you might suffer legal penalty or public ostracism for not "speaking properly" or using "wrong language". Such countries are infringing on basic individual liberties and are inevitably doomed to break in internal conflicts as their immoral actions backfire. It's most ironic twist of history that exactly in those countries that championed and constitutionalized individual liberties (France, USA), that today the politicians are most gravely pissing on the constitution they swore to uphold. In the globalized world of the 21st century however, there is very little influence that can exerted by weak governments of strangely-shaped countries whose borders do not match at all with ethnic composition. And, as Opi points out, there is not much leeway for B/C/S standards to diverge at all, because they are so similar (identical) and fixed in structure being based on the same dialect. --Ivan Štambuk 16:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't necessarily disagree with you about the fascist aspect of those kinds of language policies, but they are influential sometimes, as in the examples I pointed out. Now will France "break", of course everything has an end, but it doesn't seem likely in the near future. In the meantime, nobody I know is able to speak patois anymore. I don't know anything about the situation in ex-Yugoslavia. — This unsigned comment was added by 216.246.225.180 (talk) at 19:43, June 13, 2010.

Regional dialects/languages die out on an unprecedented rate even in countries with much more tolerant language doctrines. Certainly the government bears its share of responsibility, but in general - extinction is a process resulting from more practical factors. Don't worry, soon patois will be replaced by Turkish, Arabic, Polish.. :D The despicable reverse racism and "forcible assimilation" policies that Sarkozy and his ilk are pursuing will backfire faster than anyone can imagine. It'll be fun to watch Dutch, French, Germans...realizing that they are a minority in their "own" country. --Ivan Štambuk 19:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

2 words. w:Geert Wilders. — opiaterein — 20:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes - extremism breeds extremism, and Murdoch and his friends cannot hide truth forever. It's as if somebody is deliberately trying to wreak havoc by promoting insane immigration policies. Netherlands has population density 400/km2 and is neverhteless importing like a drunkard. WTF?! :D Unfortunately, as it turns out, only English-speaking countries like Americas, Canada, Australia.. have workable assimilation models. At least we on the Balkans are safe (Croatia granted like 5 asylums in its 20-years history :D). We screwed all the empires from ancient Romans to Nazis and Soviets, we're gonna buttfuck EU too. Xenophobic Balkans is the only reason why Europe is not called "Western Asia" today, with the majority of populace being Muslims speaking Persian, Mongolian, Turkish.. Down with the Bruxelles bastards! --Ivan Štambuk 22:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, I think you are too harsh about Sarkozy's foreign policy in the eastward direction. Even though he is too obsequious in the westward direction, he is the only chief of state in the EU overtly and valiantly opposing Turkey's encroachment on the EU. Not that I am particularly fond of the EU, but its membership would inflict consequences more devastating than the Völkerwanderung had in the 5th century. Even though Sarkozy is known as Sarko the American, once he openly challenged Obama's urging for the EU to accept Turkey and that was doughty, was it not (by retorting that it is an internal issue of the EU, if I recall aright)? I admit that I cannot approve of the rest of his policies, especially his intention to increase retirement age, which is now 60, the lowest in Europe. Why do you dislike France's linguistic policy? Everyone intending to dwell in France is obliged to speak French and your prædiction about Europæan people going to become outnumbered in their countries sounds truly scary. French was until recently the most widespread international language and it is logical that its speakers are struggling to præserve the remnants of its pinnacle and not give way to the pervasion of the modern lingua franca, English. And yes, I agree that it was the stiff resistance of the people from the Balkan pæninsula in this and this battle, that prævented another Völkerwanderung from overwhelming our continent. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't be so mad at Turks, they're amicable, well-educated, entrepreneurial and secular, unlike those ME nutjobs.

Why do you dislike France's linguistic policy? Everyone intending to dwell in France is obliged to speak French.. - You answered your own question. Man's language is his inalienable personal freedom.

...especially his intention to increase retirement age, which is now 60 - Again, when and for how long I choose to work, is my own business. Minimal wages, minimal retirement age....it's all Marxist bullshit that takes away your personal freedoms and eventually inevitably ruins the economy.

I'm personally look forward to Völkerwanderung and the societal changes it will usher in :P --Ivan Štambuk 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I replied per e-mail, lest the user talk page be flooded with this extraneous issue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivan. What is the difference between these three verbs when someone wants to indicate that he speaks a certain language? Apparently, the first two are valid forms, e. g. ja ne pričam latinski=ja ne govorim latinski=ja ne zborim latinski, right? In Bulgarian, there is only the verb говоря to indicate that one speaks a certain language (as in French only parler, in German sprechen ...), so I have a hard time trying to grasp the difference between причати, говорити and зборити. (The verb приказвам is virtually never used in combination with languages). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

govoriti emphasizes the action, manner or the ability of speaking: govorim engleski = "I speak English, I can speak English". govori polako = "speak slowly". ne govori gluposti = "don't speak stupid things".

pričati emphasizes what is being said, usually the object of a transitive verb: pričati priču = "to tell/narrate a story". pričao mi je o svom novom autu = "he told me about his new car".

zboriti is not used in spoken language, only in marked, literary writing. I'ts basically synonymous with govoriti in all usages, the only difference being in register. --Ivan Štambuk 10:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Ivan. I think Neskaya unblocked this user because he thought that the user would not come back after what has happened in the past. I would let the unblock stay and if the user comes back and continues the behaviors that got him blocked in the past, reblock him at that point in time (and not indefinitely, do something like a month). Razorflame 06:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are her spokesman? --Ivan Štambuk 06:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not. I was just telling you what I would have done in your place. I have no attachment to Kubura in any way. Razorflame 06:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your opinion, but since you're neither an admin nor an involved party, I don't find it relevant. --Ivan Štambuk 06:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been an administrator on other wikis before, so even though I am a) not involved, and b) not an administrator at this time, what I said was relevant. Anyways, now that we've discussed that....never mind about that note. Razorflame 07:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kubura often comes to our IRC channel and complains about you. I think that's what has happened now. You too should show up sometime; I make my best racist jokes there :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

What server and channel? --Ivan Štambuk 08:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

irc.freenode.net and #wiktionary. Razorflame 08:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very many of the listed descendants are wrong, no? --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. These appendices should be locked for IPs, I'm sick of fixing all that crap. --Ivan Štambuk 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

For all your hard work, you deserve a cookie :) Razorflame 19:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yummy :D --Ivan Štambuk 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan, can you help me? I'd like to know if there's an alternative in Serbian or Croatian like шалвари/šalvari for šalvare. Thanks. --Baron de Saint-Rémy 14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No; perhaps you're thinking about Romanian şalvari ? --Ivan Štambuk 07:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In Bulgarian there is шалвари and this is the standard form. I presume it is masculine, but it is used only in plural, so one cannot be certain. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Molim te, provjeri ovo: . Maria Sieglinda von Nudeldorf 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Što bi rekli u nas: isto sranje drugo pakovanje :) BCSM, srednjojužnoslavenski, srpskohrvatski...sve je stvar konvencije kako ćeš nazvati, u suštini nebitno sve dok je sadržaj isti. Svaka veća lingvistička enciklopedija sadrži također i definicije pojmova koje upotrebljava, pogotovo u slučaju nejasnih ili višeznačih termina. Jedino što bi trebalo jest spojiti inače vezani morfem centralno- sa sljedujućom riječju. --Ivan Štambuk 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan,

Can you your tricks and check all varieties of Белорусија, please? --Anatoli 05:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Ivan. Could you clarify on entries like гегати where exactly the reflexive pronoun is inserted similarly to the conjugation tables for French reflexive verbs? E. g., is it correct to say био се бих гегао or био бих се гегао? From my Bulgarian background I can infer that the correct place in plusquamperfect is between био and сам: био сам се гегао, but it may not be evident for many other editors. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

bio bih se gegao or ja bih se bio gegao is proper. I thought about inserting reflexive pronouns into the inflection tables, but the thing is that the reflexive pronoun can be inserted in several possible places depending on the conditions such as the presence of explicit subject, like in he previous example. In the present tense: gegam se, or ja se gegam; ne gegam se vs. neću da se gegam and so on. It's a syntactical question, rather than that of inflectional morphology, which inflection tables are basically for. An appendix page should be made exemplifying the usage of reflexive pronouns, which should be linked directly from the grammatical labels in the definition lines, which I hope to do one day. --Ivan Štambuk 10:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is just a short message to let you know that we're replacing IE with Indo-European and PIE with Proto-Indo-European. It's part of our "plain English campaign" - that is using English words, not abbreviations. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There's a discussion at the GP about language codes with same language name. One pair mentioned is {{xlu}} & {{hlu}} and you seem to be the expert in this area. It appears from those language codes and Category:Luwian language that Wiktionary treats them as the same language, just different scripts (Cuneiform & Hieroglyphic). Is that right? If so, would it make sense to handle Luwian like we do other language that are written in multiple scripts (with a single code and distinguishing the scripts in other ways)? --Bequw → τ 15:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the same language but different scripts. Anatolian hieroglyphs are not yet supported in Unicode, but will be probably in the next version. A single code should suffice. --Ivan Štambuk 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've made {{hlu}} a redirect to {{xlu}}. Thanks. --Bequw → τ 12:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Odsustvovao sam od projekta podosta, jer zaboravih lozinku, tako da ti tek sada odgovaram na poruku od pre godinu dana. Izvinjavam se zbog toga. Uključiću se u rad koliko uspem, samo htedoh da te pozdravim. Ajd', pa u zdravlje. --Biblbroks 16:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Jel' to dobro shvatam da se koristi sad isključivo srpskohrvatski, a ne posebno srpski, hrvatski, bosanski? Odgovori mi na mojoj strani molim te. Pozdrav. --Biblbroks 07:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you have an easy way to follow changes to the ISO 639-3 codeset? I know most new changes come out in January, but I miss the ones changed at other times ({{sgs}}). I tried to sign up for one of their email lists, but haven't received anything. Thanks. --Bequw → τ 11:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found about the code for Samogitian on this page, which I assume gets updated whenever changes in the code set occur. I suppose that one of the ways to track down the changes as they come about is to periodically check that page. I remember seeing somewhere web services that can do that for a page of choice, and which then send you an e-mail when the page changes. --Ivan Štambuk 12:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, will do. --Bequw → τ 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ja sam napravio залуд kao Serbo-Croatian, a ti zalud kao Croatian. Ne slažu nam se ni akcenti. Šta ćemo sa ova dva? --Biblbroks 00:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hm, problem je u tome što ne poznajem baš dobro IPA notaciju da bih znao da napišem izgovor, a druga stvar je što ne znam šta podrazumevaš pod infleksijskom linijom. Voleo bih kad bi mi pokazao kako bi trebalo da izgleda зáлуд u IPA notaciji sa tom infleksijskom linijom, pa ću naučiti na primeru. Hvala, kako god. --Biblbroks 15:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan. What are your thoughts on that? Is doba in very sooth indeclinable? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, your admired Beekes has been mentioned by an IP here. Could you verify this edit? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

doba - Prescriptivist BS. I just love it when that happens. One dim-witted grammarian invents a "rule" and expects the rest of the universe to follow it. And if you're not following it, it's not "proper language".doba has abundantly attested inflection, and indeclinable usage appears nothing more than a vestige of ancient history. --Ivan Štambuk 09:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The entries in this list could use your attention, particularly with how to present subscript and superscript Cyrillic. Nadando 19:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there a site containing the .pdf of this book with a ticking clock, like the one you showed me for Martirosyan? --Vahag 19:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nope. --Ivan Štambuk 21:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan. Is there in Serbo-Croatian any of the following words: приманцир, приманцер, преманцир ? They were listed here as fellow borrowings (together with Bulgarian примикюр) from Latin primicerius (through Byzantine Greek) and are supposed to mean some kind of prælate in the Œcumenical Patriarchate. I mentioned them in Appendix:List of Balkanisms (without linking them, because I could not find any of them in the Речник срскохрватскога jезика), but if some of the spellings are unattestable, it would be wise to remove those spellings. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

This (Latin) word has been phonetically adjusted in many ways: pr(e)mancer, premencer, pr(i)mancir, primencir, primancijer, primincir, prvocir etc. having been continually borrowed throughout the history from Church Latin sources. No modern dictionary lists it, although mesuspects it could be found in dictionaries specialized for Christian rituals. I think that pretty much all of the spellings are attestable, just not that easily on the interwebs. I'm not sure which spelling to choose as the main one (i.e. which one is the most common), or which English word to translate it to. --Ivan Štambuk 11:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ivan, you did an edit of the word etymology entered by an IP. I am turning to you because (as I just did melta on the french dictionary), it seems to me that malt = melta < mlít (grind), = old feminine with metathese of mletý (ground)

In other word, different from moloto (hammer) and mláto (hammer) - although not entirely incorrect, etymologically speaking.

I am turning to you as a native slavic-speaker and "professional" WKT editor, to change if you deem it correct. --Diligent 14:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

These words are old and all etymologically related, dating back to Proto-Slavic times:

• Proto-Slavic *melti "to grind, mill" > Czech mlíti.
• Proto-Slavic *mělь, mělъ "some sort of fine powder" (dust, sand, chalk etc.) > Czech měl
• Proto-Slavic *moltiti "to beat, thresh" > Czech mlátiti.
• Proto-Slavic *moltъ "hammer" > Czech mlat
• Proto-Slavic *mol'ь "moth" > mol

One can easily observe the lexical root *mel- here, and the Indo-European ablaut e~o at work. In fact, all of these can be traced back to PIE times, to the PIE root *melH- ~ *molH- with cognates in other IE branches corresponding on both phonetic and semantic grounds (Even the "moth" word, the apparent outlier). Czech melta on the other hand seems to me rather a recent borrowing from a Germanic language, although you should check a Czech etymological dictionary for that first (I unfortunately don't have any). --Ivan Štambuk 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is one detail though: as Dan once explained to me, the Czech infinitive endings have been orthographically modified from -ti to -t (a decade or two ago). Therefore I took the liberty of modifying your links to Czech verbs. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, these were "Old Czech". --Ivan Štambuk 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

For some reason you've put "pred" in there. – Krun 01:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, thanks for catching that. --Ivan Štambuk 07:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'll have to reinsert your response in BP to me and Ruakh; wiki has accidentally removed it with msh's comment :(. --Dan Polansky 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK Thanks for the notice. --Ivan Štambuk 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan. I just provided the entry for радити with etymology. However, Vasmer lists four different Sanskrit 3rd person sg. forms corresponding to the same verb (radical) in Monier Williams. Could you please check whether I spelt rādhyate, rādhati and rādhnóti aright as राध्यते (rādhyate), राधति (rādhati) and राध्नोति (rādhnoti) ? Should all four (I added three of them) be present in the etymology section or there is another possibility to reduce the number of linked Sanskrit entries for succinctness' sake? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sanskrit literature is very diversified geographically and chronologically, so problems arise with verbs exhibiting several possible inflectional classes. What should be done is to choose the most commonly cited lemma, which is a bit problematic in this particular case. I say we go for rādhnóti. --Ivan Štambuk 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo Ivan. What is the relation between broj and brijati? Maro 19:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In modern language brijati means "to shave". That is however an imperfective form of the earlier form briti (which is no longer used in modern Serbo-Croatian, as opposed to e.g. Russian брить (brit’)) by means of the most common Serbo-Croatian infix for forming imperfective verbs -ja-. The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root for it is *bʰriH-, from which Slavic bri- can be reached by regular sound changes (*bʰriH- > aspiration was lost: *briH- > laryngeal "H" was dropped with compensatory lengthening of the previous vowel > *brī- > Early Proto-Slavic quantitative vowel oppositions were replaced by qualitative oppositions with *ī turning to *i thus > *bri-). That PIE root originally meant "to cut with a sharp object", out of which Common Slavic meaning "to shave" can easily evolve (semantic shift). Other Common Slavic words of the same family include *britva "razor", *bridъ "sharp age", *bričь "razor", bridъkъ "sharp".

But how do we arrive to the meaning "number". Well, old Slavs in the ancient times counted with primitive methods such as cutting/notching a piece of wood. Counting was quite literally cutting/notching, and broj was a "cut, notch". Later, when more abstract notion of number/numeral was introduced, that meaning was simply generalized. Formally broj is derived from the what is called an "ablaut" form of the root, where the basic root vowel would change to something else. In Proto-Indo-European, that was e~o (see w:Indo-European ablaut). In modern IE languages these vowels usually changed to something else, but in Slavic languages these were preserved (although in the Proto-Balto-Slavic times PIE *o changed to *a, but later changed back to *o). You can see that in many old native words, were the verb has e, but related noun o. I don't know much Polish so I can't give you examples for your own language, but I'm sure you can figure out some on your own :) However, as it turns out, the word broj has been preserved only in South Slavic languages: my sources list only Bulgarian word as a cognate. Other etymologists list Czech broj (“fight”) as related, and the denominal verb brojiti allegedly also (beside Serbo-Croatian) reflected in Slovenian brojiti, dialectal Russian броить (broit', “to scratch, scrape”) Polish broić (“to be mischievous, unruly”) etc. --Ivan Štambuk 11:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comprehensive answer! :) Maro 20:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just added this word, but the the instrumental “Suez” found in HJP roused my suspicions. Is there any reason for the e? Shouldn't it be “Suezom”? – Krun 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, it's a bug in their algorithm. Should be Suezom. --Ivan Štambuk 12:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Vanya, I'm looking for a rare Serbo-Croatian word čap, meaning “caliber of a cannon”. Can you verify the spelling and create it? It's from Turkish çap.--Vahag 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've found it only in one dictionary: it says of Turkish origin (exact etymon is unspecified) but not in that sense, or anything resembling it. Seems very rare because no etymological dictionary (even the one specialized for Turkish LWs into SC) lists it. --Ivan Štambuk

It's OK, I forgive you :) --Vahag 17:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo Ivane. I admit that I am unable to put up with¨such kind of edits, so I would be grateful, if you umpired in this case. Do you think that listing both the Czech and Russian cognates at elder is too much (that only one Slavic cognate should be præsent). I would be much more satisfied with one West Slavic, one South Slavic and one East Slavic. If this inringed some rules (does it?), might I replace the Czech one with the Russian, as the Russian language is spoken by more people than Czech (This is the approach which I dilike, since I do not want to give præcedence to any of them, but neither would I be content with the Russian cognate being removed). The user Flibjib8 has a weird prædilection for some cognates over other, for instance he præfers Swedish over Danish and Dutch over German (and here, Czech over Russian). For diffs and more details, see User talk:Flibjib8#Serbo-Croatian. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 16:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, only one cognate should suffice for all the Slavic languages. Russian should be given preference because it has by far the most speakers. See Wiktionary:ETY#Cognates, point #1. German should also take precedence over other lesser known/spoken Germanic languages, although there is no problem in having multiple cognates from Germanic branch listed, because English is also Germanic. Also, Gothic cognate is IMHO OK to mention, although it should really belong to the etymology section of respective Old English etymon, but only because Gothic has no modern descendants. --Ivan Štambuk 17:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivane. Jedan korisnik je zapitao ovde da li je *h₂yuh₁ení- pogodno za naziv jednog Appendix-a. Ja se ne sumnjam da ćeš biti u stanju da mu pomogneš. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is one more quæstion concerning the cuneiform sign ÍD/ID2 Nr. 579d according to Šumerisches Lexikon/Handbuch Assur, whose Unicode character I am unable to find. In this comprehensive list from Wikipedia there is only 579a and some obscure 579n, although the Lexikon contains signs from 579a to 579f, but no 579n. The thought that 579 might stand for all signs from 579b to 579f, had crossed my mind, but there is no trace of ÍD in that table. If you happen to find the corresponding Unicode character, please add it here and here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's because that would be a combination of two different characters, not one character per se. ID2 = 𒀀𒇉 . Cuneifier is your friend. It als matches the image at ePSD. Unicode standard uses obscure naming and splitting practices and has been variously criticized (e.g. by venerable Borger here). --Ivan Štambuk 16:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Do you know if there's any relation between Proto-Slavic *ogurъkъ (cucumber) and Greek αγγούρι? Any PIE root? And also agurk, kurkku, gurka. I've found on ogórek page that it's derived from Greek, but I changed to Proto-Slavic and I'm not sure if it's correct. "ó" in Polish "ogórek" seems strange if it's of Slavic origin. "ó" comes from Proto-Slavic "o" AFAIK.
PS Please also look at *solnce. It seems incorrect for me. Maro 21:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't find anything on this. I think that Proto-Slavic reconstruction is not valid, and that all of these are in some way borrowed from Ancient Greek ἀγγούριον (angoúrion), which is interestingly according to German Wiktionary also borrowed but from Old Persian angōrah, but that word unfortunately isn't attested. --Ivan Štambuk 17:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just merged and expanded this. I just want your input to make sure my usage notes are accurate. It might be good to be even more specific, though. Also, could you expand the senses? Do krst and križ share all senses (nuances)? – Krun 21:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes I think they're 100% identical in all usages. I'm not sure about religious usage completely, because they may be some special Orthodox senses in which krst is also used in "Croatian". Interestingly, the same root is present in many normaly used "Croatian" words: raskršće, kršćanstvo, krstiti. During the totalitarian 90s nationalist-purists tried to eradicate some of those words and replace them with newly-minted "pure Croatian" ones, so we have raskrižje instead of raskršće, prekrižiti instead of prekrstiti and similar. They haven't really caught on. --Ivan Štambuk 14:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pozdrav, Ivane. Jedno pitanjce: Jel' u redu da stoji ovako

Lua error in Module:sh-headword at line 73: Parameters 1 and 2 are not used by this template.

1. final
2. finite

Ili treba da se stavi i neka oznaka za rod - možda da stavim nekakvo neutrum negde?

--Svako dobro, Biblbroks 19:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think you could find the source of Lithuanian's gerti and Latvian's dzert? I've been noticing a few places where Lithuanian has palatalized "g" where Latvian has "dz", but I don't know quite where to look for trustworthy etymological information :D — opiaterein — 15:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cognate to Serbo-Croatian ždèrati/ждѐрати (Czech žrát, Russian жрать (žrat') etc.) < Common Slavic *žьrati (note the Slavic palatalization), ultimately with Baltic cognates all from PIE root *gʷerh₃- "to devour", whence also Latin vorāre, Ancient Greek βιβρώσκω (bibrṓskō, “I eat”), Sanskrit गिरति (girati) etc. You can look up trustworthy Baltic etymologies here if you can tolerate the buggy interface (it's Russian in origin). In Latvian but not Lithuanian & Old Prussian, *g (< PIE *g, *gʷ, *gʰ, *gʷʰ) as well as *k change before front vowels and *y to dz and c respectively, so that should be a regular correspondence in cognate words. --Ivan Štambuk 16:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Buggy stuff breaks my brain, but I can try :D Thanks for the info, buddy. — opiaterein — 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you translate *sokº- into...somethin we'd use here? :D Lt sakyti/Lv sacīt (The o in there is also kinda odd. Is PIE o LT and LV a? Derksen gives *deh3- for lt duoti/lv dot; everything PIE confuses me.) — opiaterein — 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivane. Srećna Nova godina. One user is interested in Akkadian fonts, but I could not help him out, since I do not have a clue to his question. Probably you could be of avail to him here. Additionally, there is one more Akkadian-related question here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please check if these quotations and a definition may not be copied to Serbo-Croatian section. Maro 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-02/Deprecating less-than symbol in etymologies, which would benefit from your participation, even if only in the role of an abstainer. Right now, the results of the vote do not quite mirror the results of the poll that has preceded the vote. There is a chance that the vote will not pass. The vote, which I thought would be a mere formality, has turned out to be a real issue. You have taken part on the poll that preceded the vote, which is why I have sent you this notification. --Dan Polansky 08:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan, just to call your attention to it: the nazalnost entry lacks a definition. --JorisvS 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, thanks :D --Ivan Štambuk 14:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. --JorisvS 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That bastard is always out to get me :D Thanks for cleanin' up after my sloppy ass. (Don't let me edit anymore, I've started to drink chocolate milk for adults since my last edits) — Laurent — 17:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Renegade5005 21:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, thank you for your suggestions. Do you know where I can download 'Development of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Greek' by Robert Beekes on the internet?Reply

No idea. However, that work is ancient prehistory (1969), and everything described in it is likely to be available in other sources on the Internet. --Ivan Štambuk 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ringe reconstructs it with underlying a, and even mentions that it is one of only a few words for which underlying a can be reconstructed. —CodeCat 10:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know, but he doesn't list any arguments in favor of it (perhaps these are in some of the works referenced but I don't have access to them) and just about everybody else uses *h₂elyos form. --Ivan Štambuk

Visit Talk:Friction. Why did you delete the talk page ? Can you give evidence as to why you deleted the talk page? 173.178.93.250 22:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

That page never existed. The main page at ] was deleted once the entry was moved to ].--Ivan Štambuk 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just created carev. It seems that it can only be indefinite, but in the declension paradigm at HJP (confirmed through Google search) there are also alternate forms from the definite declension mixed in (carevog, carevom, et al.). It seems that this goes for all forms except nominative (I don't know whether there is a difference in post-tonic length, though). The current template ({{sh-adj-indef}}) doesn't show these forms. Maybe there should be a separate template for these “mixed” adjectives, or does this maybe apply to all indef-only adjectives? – Krun 21:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possessive adjectives in -ov/-ev have only indefinite forms, by the rule. (see Barić et al. §475). These definite forms are generally considered colloquial and illiterate. I would prefer that we don't add them at all in the main templates, but that we do generate them as inflected forms in the future (but clearly marked as sub-standard with appropriate labels). --Ivan Štambuk 18:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Someone created a meaningless entry there so it got deleted, but since it seemed to be a real word I thought I could see if I could make a small entry. I don't really know any SC beyond some very basic grammar so I just looked around online to see what I could find. Could you check to see if it is correct? —CodeCat 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I and Mglovesfun have been working hard on merging Serbo-Croatian entries. The goal of complete unification draws ever closer, and I would like to enlist your help, particularly with emptying the categories which are now almost empty: Category:Bosnian adjectives, Category:Serbian adjectives (these two comprising 8 words in total) and Category:Croatian adverbs (74 words). The moment when this merging process is over I shall be most relieved. – Krun 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

All done. --Ivan Štambuk 11:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that's great! Now there is very little else left under Bosnian and Serbian: Just over 100 nouns, 30 verbs, and only a handful of other things. – Krun 18:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

JorisvS (talk • contribs) has done a lot more than me, oh and see User:Mglovesfun/un-unified Serbo-Croatian. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm currently working on reducing the amount of wanted categories. Could you please take a look at User:CodeCat/affix categories and help out if you can? There are quite a lot of categories for Serbo-Croatian, but I don't know if all of them are proper affixes. Thank you! —CodeCat 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Created all for now. Some of these will be deleted in the future when we decide whether to sort by the underlying affix or its surface form, which is the problem with languages using phonetic/phonological orthography. --Ivan Štambuk 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you, that helps a lot. If you know any editors that could help with the others, could you ask them too? —CodeCat 17:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I started a poll about this in the Beer Parlour. I thought you might be interested. —CodeCat 10:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand why you deleted snowmageddon. "We don't do redirects?" WTH? Ohms law 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Read, fool. "we don't do redirects generally - if it's alternative spelling, provide a full entry" — Laurent — 23:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

snowmageddon is auto-redirected to the existing entry ], unless it's directly linked to which should never be the case, unless it's a full blown entry by itself for some reason (e.g. alternative spelling). See WT:REDIR. --Ivan Štambuk 05:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dude, this edit made me so fucking happy. I love seeing Old Persian in etymologies lol — Laurent — 20:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

LOL I'd add them more were they not so time-consuming (shitty script with variable orthography, most words not attested in lemma form) But cuneiform sure is pretty ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's really hard to work with that stuff that's really old and has surviving written examples, but was never well documented like we have now... even stuff like Latin was more varied than I think some would have liked. It's for these reasons that I love seeing that stuff so much in etymology sections :D The historical stuff is really interesting to me, the evolution and whatnot. — Laurent — 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there was a "Like" button on these comments, I would press it. :) --Dijan 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If only Wiktionary were more just slightly more like Facebook :D — Laurent — 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have Facebook, it's boring, you can't define words on it. --Daniel 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, but you can piss off all your friends by only posting stuff in foreign :D — Laurent — 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Ancient Near East is is nothing short of fascinating. I can't help smiling when reading how "king of kings" quelled the rebellion of those pesky mutinous Armenians. --Ivan Štambuk 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I like seeing which of the kingdoms Darius reigns over still exist :) Looks like it's only Greece, Armenia and Egypt. I guess Arabia would correspond to Saudi Arabia today? If so I suppose that one could count. I remember earlier this year I saw a really old little globe that was made decades ago and had a bunch of really neat differences from a modern globe, it was really interesting to see. Stuff like, of course, Yugoslavia, the USSR... the Koreas were still one state, some other European countries were rather larger than they are now... there was still West French Africa (which to be honest I had never even heard of at that point). Actually now that I think about it, I don't even think Alaska was part of the USA on this globe. It was really fucking cool. Too cool for me to express without my signature vulgarity :D — Laurent — 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Modern Egypt are a bunch of Arabs, not real Egyptians. Greece, Armenia, Iran, India, China and North Carolina are the only continuously existing ancient countries. --Vahag 13:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Haha :D What about Lithuania? They may not exactly be ancient, but for Europe they did pretty well. Were even once the biggest country in Europe. I found that really interesting to learn — Laurent — 13:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

How do you feel about one Ljubomir (talk • contribs) adding mostly Bosnian into translation tables? I want to ask someone else's opinion before I go into kill-it-with-fire mode. — Laurent — 18:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

His translations are fine. Feel free to convert them to "Serbo-Croatian", and add missing Cyrillic spellings. He doesn't seem to be a regular user, so it doesn't make much sense to bother informing him about that. I could modify the translation-adding script to automatically add "Serbo-Croatian" whenever the misinformed and the brainwashed decide to add bs/sr/hr?! --Ivan Štambuk 19:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually really like the idea of bs/sr/hr automagically being put in as sh in the translation editor... like so much I can't describe haha — Laurent — 01:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have many existing bs/sr/hr translations waiting to be grouped under sh... --Anatoli 03:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but we also have POS categories full of terms needing to be switched over. I like the idea of this *right effing now* because it helps limit the amount of future clutter. If tomorrow we made editor.js autocorrect bs/sr/hr to sh, then we shouldn't have to worry as much about new translations slipping in. — Laurent — 04:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ej, ja sam ovaj 78.3.15.226, imam account ali sam skroz zaboravio na njega. xD

Evo odsad ću raditi ulogiran.

Doccolinni 20:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would it be possible for you to go through the rest of Category:Serbian language and Category:Bosnian language and update the entries? There are only ~120 entries left under Serbian (nouns, prepositions, symbols, idioms, suffixes, and abbreviations). The Bosnian entries are largely the same ones and total 63 (nouns and suffixes). Most of the entries that are left are ones requiring the attention of a knowledgeable native speaker. – Krun 16:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great work guys. Somebody must be rolling in their grave now LOL. I'll clean up the remaining entries ASAP. --Ivan Štambuk 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The vote Categories of names is going to end soon, after receiving contributions of only a few people. (it proposes a number of renamings, in this pattern: Category:en:Rivers to Category:English names of rivers)

It would benefit very much from your vote, even one of abstention.

I assume you would be interested in this subject, as I am sending this message to everyone who didn't vote yet, but participated in the discussion that introduced the vote, and/or in this poll, which received far more attention than the vote, and is closely related to the proposal in question.

Thank you. --Daniel 16:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan. This might catch your attention. I spotted it, but I was not sure how to handle the use of the infinitive (put pričati in brackets or vice versa) which the IP inserted together with its (the IP's) ill-fated POV complement. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

That particular usage already has (''Serbian'') qualifier in the definition line, so adding Croatian in the example sentence below seems a bit inappropriate. However, it's useful for comparison. We should handle all cases of differing syntactical/lexical usage among Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian with appropriate inline or ====Usage notes==== remarks. Let it be. --Ivan Štambuk 15:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Srdačan pozdrav posle dugog vremena. Odmah ću iz neba pa u rebra: imam problem. U suštini žestoko se jedim što sam podržao odblokiranje Bugoslava, jer čini mi se da sam duboko pogrešio. Mislim da me sad ovde harass-ira, ali nisam siguran. Pogledaj ovo, ako uzmogneš. Bolje da ti ne opisujem kakvu je prethodno ujdurmu pokrenuo na sr.wikipediji, samo ću da se nerviram. Pogledaj sam ako imaš vremena i energije: wikipedia:sr:Разговор:Граматика српског језика. Inače, jel' postoji neka politika po ovom pitanju harassing-a? Mislim, ako to jeste harassing. Jer ja se stvarno trudim da se ne žalim, i mislim da se zaista retko i žalim u životu - bilokad bilogde bilokome - ali ovo sada, prosto sam ostao bez teksta, pa rekoh da te pitam je li postoji negde na Wiktionary-ju nešto zapisano o harassing-u. Uz nadu da te nisam mnogo uznemirio, svako dobro ti želim. --BiblbroX дискашн 21:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Molim te ako možeš zanemari moj prethodni komentar. Sad sam se setio da sam ja prvi počeo: ovakav post na Wiktionary_talk:About_Serbian sam postovao skoro cela četiri dana pre no što je on postovao ovaj post na tadašnjem Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Bosnian_language. Izvini molim te što ti oduzeh vreme i energije, tj. ono najdragocenije živce. Oprosti, malo sam pod stresom jer sam pod pretnjom blokade na sr.wikipediji. A i tu sam možda malčice i sam kriv, jer sam već prvom izmenom od više njih (koje se tamo smatraju neodgovarajućim) nepažnjom kopirao tekst sa sh.wikipedije (ako te zanima). U tom tekstu je već stajalo srpskohrvatski (umesto srpski) u jednoj novo dodavanoj sekciji. Veliki borče za prava pripadnika Homo Sapiens specijesa, i zagriženi protivniče zatucanosti mnogih pripadnika tog istog specijesa, molim te još jednom da mi oprostiš na mojoj sopstvenoj slabosti kojom sam te neopravdano opteretio. U zdravlje ti bilo, --BiblbroX дискашн 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

...a lot za savete o taktici. Budi mi dobro, --BiblbroX дискашн 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan, I have found you through interwiki pages of Old Church Slavonic. I write at the the time pages on this language on the french Wiktionary. I have a question : don't you think that loc sg or loc du forms of млѣко should be palatalised as for example for чловѣкъ? Best Regards, Dhegiha 14:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS : see also вѣцѣ and вѣцѣхъ. Dhegiha 18:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your answer. I had to create special templates (an I am not a specialist) for the palatalised words as - correct link, this time. Dhegiha 21:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo Ivane. Could you check крв? Something is wrong with declension. Moreover, it's not the same as in krv. Maro 19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because you voted in Wiktionary:Votes/2011-07/Categories of names, I'm informing you of this new vote.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your eytmology work on the Linear B words! Damate 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ivan. I yesterday fount the category Category:Polabian language. But there is not a information in the articles, from which source are the words. Did you use the etymological dictionary from Fasmer about the Russian language, or another work? Greetings --Tlustulimu 15:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you mean Max Vasmer's dictionary - no. I remember using several sources: Rick Derksen's etymological dictionary, some German dictionary of Polabian that can be snippeted on Google Books, and the chapter on Polabian in The Slavonic Langauges (Comrie&Corbett). Perhaps some other sources which I cannot recall at the moment. What particular words trouble you? --Ivan Štambuk 22:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just started a discussion on BP and would really like to know your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. – Krun 18:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd support termination of ===Proper nouns=== as a POS in the upcoming vote. It's an arbitrary category built on semantic grounds, in no particular way any more "special" than collective nouns, pluralia tantum and others, none of which have their own POS. --Ivan Štambuk 22:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, are надћивљавати, надћивјети, and надћивети misspelled? I mean, are they typos for надживљавати, надживјети, and надживети? —Stephen ^(Talk) 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I used a computer program that helps me generate Cyrillic spellings from Latin, and it had a bug in handling dž sequences that do not transliterate as џ but as дж. I thought I fixed them all ages ago. --Ivan Štambuk

There seems to a problem with your tool; at least it has stopped working for me and only returns an error message, e.g. <Ne mogu dohvatiti informacije o lemi "pas"!>, for every query. Has it also stopped working for you and have you made any recent updates? – Krun (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

See e-mail! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I could never get the tool to work online, but it was always marvelous for formatting and stuff. — — 14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Jel` mogu i ja malo te poslastice? :-) Čemu služi u stvari? Pitam čisto jer bi mi verovatno koristila alatka. --BiblbroX дискашн 15:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ma jednostavno programče koje automatizira dosta dosadnih gluposti. Daj e-mail pa ti pošaljem :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ne bih da poustujem svoju adresu ovde, salji mi preko mediawiki softvera... ako nije problem. --BiblbroX дискашн 20:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Any chance I can use the tool? I have many definitions planned and the task itself is rather daunting and repetitive. Thanks in advance ! --Sulejman Veličanstveni (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Uh, a ko si ti? :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Kilibarda, more! Zaboravih šifru pa sam napravio novi račun. Nijesam imao dovoljno vremena da bih dao sve od sebe za Wiktionary. Kada sam ugrabio što slobodnijeg vremena, zeznuli su mi internet ovi iz telekoma pa sam ti ostah bez interneta za nekoliko mjeseci. Gle koji baksuz sam ja. Ja slučajno naiđoh na tvoju strancu za razgovor kad viđoh da imaš program. Stalno sam se zamislio kako brzo doprinijetiš. Sad znam ;) Pozdrav! --Sulejman Veličanstveni (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pošalji mi e-mail tako da ti mogu replicirati, jer ti inače ne mogu poslati pošto ti ne znam adresu! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you created 𐤓𐤈 as an Ugaritic word but the spelling is Phoenician, not Ugaritic (𐎘𐎗). Is it a mistake or was Ugaritic written in Phoenician characters (or transcribed to the language) for certain time? Also, references would be helpful. Thanks. Regards. --87.222.104.118 16:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The entry was erroneously semi-automatically generated from the Proto-Semitic page, which contained the offending spelling (which was on the other hand generated from the (also erroneous) transcription..). This is usually caught by cleanup bots which check the script used for a particular entry with the usual script used for the corresponding language header, but unfortunately obscure languages with low entry count are frequently cast aside from such activities. Feel free to rectify such obvious blunders by yourself in the future! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I just wanted to confirm whether the spelling had existed or not (as I said, it may have been an attested transcription). Regards. --87.222.104.118 01:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo,

Please check the sh translation for adequacy. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan, do you remember where you got this from exactly? I'm currently reading the Descent of Ishtar, and her name there is always given as 𒀭𒈹. (Which is what the image on the 𒀭𒌋𒁯 page actually shows.) Ƿidsiþ 13:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

L2 was wrong - it was Sumerian spelling of Ishtar (one of, at least). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the suggestion, however, I don't think I'm going in the direction of the Russian noun templates, as I think the capabilities of the html/wiki code are adequate enough to include all the inflection patters in relatively few templates. At the moment I am still working through the statistics and thinking about how to best arrange the templates. Unfortunately it will take some time before I finish them all, but I do not expect the final number of templates to exceed the current one by much. –bead-v, talk — 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

hey Ivan, this anon has added a few "Croatian" translations. Can you go through them and convert them to SC? :) I fixed fuzzy logic and logic, but they still need the Cyrillic spellings. 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apart from utjelovljenje and utjeloviti (which also exist in Serbian Ekavian forms utelovljenje/uteloviti), all of the added translation where either made up or neoloisms that nobody actually uses. Next time somebody adds a translation with <100 google hits for a common word like logic, and argues that it is a "real word", just block him immediately. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ivan, at Wiktionary:Information desk#sanskrit words someone expressed that Sanskrit entries such as अग्नि should be moved to अग्निः (with visarga). Is there a reason that the entry should be located at अग्नि instead of अग्निः? Dijan said he thought it had something to do with the way traditional dictionaries list Sanskrit lemmas (usually words are listed uninflected or undeclined or bare - which usually is not the nominative). —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the notice, I've replied to the discussion thread. To my knowledge no Sanskrit dictionaries lemmatize with visarga suffixed, deviating from 2500 years of established grammarian practice. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

WTF is wrong with you dude? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is generally frowned upon in the community to unblock yourself if another administrator has blocked you. Razorflame 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think you’re thinking of a different community. Unblocking oneself is normal and usual in this community. Maybe you’re thinking of Wikipedia. —Stephen ^(Talk) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is still not a good idea, regardless of what project oneself is on. I think this situation could have remedied itself if the blockee just waited for someone else to unblock him. That's all I'll say about this. Razorflame 02:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Zdravo, Ivane. Recently I came upon почев од used in the meaning beginning from, which corresponds to Russian начиная с. However, I failed to find it in the Речник српскохрватскога књижевног језика, there is only почети and among its meanings this one was not listed. Is a separate entry for почев justified? If not, what kind of verbal form is this? Is it productive? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bumping in. As for your question, почев would be short for почевши, or почевши would be extension of почев... not sure bout the direction of etymology. And почевши is a form of gerund, past verbal adverb (see почети). Analogous would be узев and узевши. Anyway, a separate entry is IMO quite justified. --BiblbroX дискашн 11:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Added by an anon. Can you please Serbo-Croatianify it and clean it up as necessary (stress marks, etc)? Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Done --BiblbroX дискашн 23:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! (I hope Иван is OK...) --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

np. I hope too. I haven't heard from him lately. --BiblbroX дискашн 12:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're back! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

'bro doš'o! --biblbroks_{дискашн} 20:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I saw that you have some knowledge about the ancient Hittite scribe, could you please add the scribe here to and remove the {{rfscript|Hittite}} then:

• Template:termx please add to "hapa" ("water").

• warm please add to "warnuzi" ("burn").

You may look here for more entries needing the Cuneiform scribe: Entries needing the Cuneiform script.

If you don't know the cuneiform that for, I propose that you can look the transliteration up where you found the information of your Hittite entries.

Thanks!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hittite ḫapa- "river" is not from PIE *h₂ep- but from n-stem *h₂ebʰ-o/n- (and so are Celtic and Italic forms which are also wrongly listed). warnuzi "to kindle, to set fire to" is a derivative of the root ur-/war- which we apparently do have as entry: 𒉿𒊏. However, citation forms for Hittite are usually 3rd-person singular present (as for Sanskrit and Old Irish), and I'm not sure that all of the forms listed in the inflection template are actually attested. For the afrementioned root the respective (attested) citation form would be: urāni, spelled: 𒌑𒊏𒀀𒉌, the 3rd-person singular present middle. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have now proposed a vote. SpinningSpark 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Did you edit Proto-Slavic verbs and nouns?I'm surprised that Serbo-Croatian speaker added these verbs breći blesti bljusti cvasti gnjesti grepsti gresti klasti lesti mesti nesti tepsti žeći peti duti gnjiti riti kosnuti sahnuti bajati čajati crpati ufati

I am pretty sure that almost none of these have meanigs.Or maybe I just never heard them?

You are adding many words that are known only in Croatia.You should mark them as Croatian when you add them.— This unsigned comment was added by Zabadu (talk • contribs) at 17:26, December 10, 2012‎.

Just because you've never heard of them it doesn't mean that they don't exist :) Spoken vocabulary is but a tiny part of the entire language lexis. Most of those verbs are even listed in standard dictionaries. All of them are from the inherited Common Slavic stock and none are Croatian-specific. Just don't delete anything blindly, OK? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Evo reći ću ti na srpskom:Daj neki dokaz,neki link,neku sliku rečnika gde su ove reči zapisane pa ću ti onda možda poverovati

Na stranici HJP-a (Hrvatskog jezičnog portala), koji je kompiliran od nekoliko iscrpnih enciklopedijskih rječnika, možeš naći sljedeće: cvasti, gnjesti, grepsti, gresti, mesti, nesti, tepsti, žeći, gnjiti riti, kosnuti, sahnuti, bajati, ufati. Samo ih upiši u bijelu kućicu s lijeve strane i klikni botun TRAŽI RIJEČ'.

Što se tiče ostalih mislim da ih sve imaš u Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog jezika skupa s citatima kojeg možeš naći na Internetu preko tražilice (ja ti ne mogu dati link jer je to protuzakonito..). Ako neku ne nađeš reci pa ću naći ja ;) Neke od ovih riječi su fakat arhaične i rijetke (Npr. blesti = pričati gluposti, huliti). No, sve postoje. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Jedno pitanje: kako se dodaju praslovenske(proto-slovenske) reči?Gde se mogu naći?Kako se zna ispravna praslovenska forma reči? Hteo sam dodam poreklo reči "tajna" i "britva" jer su obe opšte slovenske reči ali ne znam gde da nađem praslovensku reč od koje potiču. Takođe napisano je da je šara reč turskog porekla.Izvini,ima li nešto/neko ko može to da potvrdi?Čini mi se da dodaješ neproverene etimologije.

Pitam te jer vidim da si ti ovde glavni za srpsko-hrvatski.

Za praslavenske rekonstrukcije je najbolje konzultirati odgovarajuće etimološke rječnike. Ako znaš ruski (a čini mi se da si generacija koja ga je učila u školi :D), imaš na Internetu etimološki rječnik ruskog Maxa Vasmera koji je star ali još uvijek poprilično vrijedeći, a od novijih rječnikȃ jako je dobar Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon Ricka Derskena koji je doduše na engleskom ali inkorporira neka suvremena saznanja iz akcentologije pa tako rekonstrukcije imaju i naglaske. I taj drugi se dade naći na Internetu u digitalnom obliku.

Praslavenske rekonstrukcije su općenito jako slične ili identične one iz starocrkvenoslavenskog jezika, uz neke trivijalne fonološke promjene koje lako možeš naučiti (metateza likvida, *t' > št itd.). Moj ti je savjet da prvo proučiš starocrkvenoslavenski, pa da tek onda kreneš na praslavenski i pokušaš sȃm pisati rekonstrukcije.

Što se tiše riječi šara, ona je praslavenskog porijekla, ali je u praslavenski posuđena u pretpovijesnom periodu, i to najvjerojatnije iz nekog turkijskog jezika (ne otomanskog turskog za razliku od "normalnih" turskih posuđenica.) Više o takvim riječima možeš pročitati u članku na engleskoj wiki Proto-Slavic borrowings kojeg je većim dijelom autorirala moja malenkost :)) Konkretnu etimologizaciju riječi šara možeš i sam verificirati u praktički svakom etimološkom rječniku, to je jedna dosta popularna posuđenica koja se često navodi.. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Pa taj ruski sam već našao.Njega i citiraju na ruskom vikirečniku.Ali tu ne vidim praslovenku reč.Samo objašnjenje reči na ruskom i poređenje sa drugim slovenskim jezicima (koji je uglavnom netačno).Ostalo trenutno ne mogu da tražim,možda kasnije.Bilo bi dobro dodati poreklo reči : britva,sirot,tajna,lagati,srdit,vojska,lom.Ako se ne varam sve su po poreklu slovenske. Takođe mislim da si napisao da je iz гвоздь došlo srpsko-hrvatsko gvozd?Možda na tvom jeziku gvozd nešto znači,ali na srpskom ne.Postoji gvožđe,gvozden ali kao zasebna reč ne.To može biti samo koren tih reči (gvozd + je = gvozdje = gvozđe = gvožđe kao grozd + je = grozdje = grozđe = grožđe) Takođe molim te reci mi šta znači klasti? Te arhaične reči treba tako tako i obeležiti - kao arhaične Citiraš strane engleske i ruske rečnike koji sadrže greške,a kao neko kome je maternji srpsko-hrvatski(tj. hrvatski) trebalo bi da znaš da su mnogo navedene reči u tim rečnicima (glagoli i imenice) ili izuzetno retke ili zastarele ili jednostavno potpuno pogrešne.Mislim ovaj engleski rečnik koji navodiš je potpuno sranje.Koliko gluposti sam pročitao. Zabadu (talk)

Šta je sa rečju kecelja?Piše samo iz mađarskog ali od koje tačno reči? Zabadu (talk)

Do sada nisam stavljao naglaske u transkripciju (tek sam tu i tamo uopće ubacivao transkripciju), ali obratit ću pozornost na to kad budem sljedeći puta imao vremena i pokušat ću transkribirati i dodati naglaske barem za unose koje sam ja kreirao. Pozdrav. Fejstkajkafski (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Kako se moreš zalagati za glupost zvanu Serbo-Croatian, tu obću jezikoslovnu abominatiu. To vielim bez ikakšnog nationalisma. Umiesto da pridonosiš zasebnom razvijanju obadvaju jezyka, ty pristaješ na ovu silodržnu creatiu. 46.229.244.158 03:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neki bi rekli da samo nastavljamo djelo hrvatskih i srpskih lingvista od 19. stoljeća pa sve do danas, izuzevši kratak period "osamostaljenja" smiješnih banana državica 90ih koje se srećom polako gase pod budnom paskom gazda iz Brisela. Neki drugi bi rekli da se iz perspektive ostatka svijeta bogzna što nije ni promijenilo - SH gramatike i dalje vrijede, naziv se promijenio u BCS(M) ali de facto se svodi na isto; iz perspektive lingvistike i leksikografije neosporno se radi o jednom te istom dijalektu kodificiranom u više centara. Uostalom, kad vidim tko su bukači, intelektualna paparat beznadežno mozgoisprana nacionalizmom ili pak propagatori ustašopisa poput tebe - znam da zacijelo ne radim ništa pogrešno ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Imaš podpolno pravo kda kažeš, da se nikaj nie promienilo, ter da je hrvatski, srpski, bosanski, crnogorski jezik još uviek jedan te isti jezyk, nu zaboravljaš jednu bytnu stvar, a ta je da ovaj jezyk ki se danes naziva chrvatskim, nie nikaj drugo kot srbski jezyk, ter je chrvatska čtokavica, kajkavica i čakavica nekaj podpolno drugo i ne uklapa se v taj tako zvani srpsko-hrvatski. Ja sam upravo o tom jezyku govoril, o onomu kojega moremo najti v tysuće spisa ot Marulića, Lucića, Frankopana... od Držića, Gundulića... to je chrvatski jezyk, ter taj jezyk ne ima nikakve veze s srbskim. A kaj se mojega prvopisa tiče, on ne ima nikakve veze s Ustaškim, jur je on čisti etymologiski, ar ja ne ću imati bylo kakve veze s Ustašama ali s Srbima. 46.229.245.12 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nazivi su arbitrarni, a princip ovog projekta je slijediti etabliranu terminološku praksu. Hrvati, Srbi i 95% ostalih današnjih naroda su izmišljeni u posljednjih 150 godina kroz organizirane projekte kolektivnog pranja mozga nepismenog i priglupog seljaštva (u povijesnim udžbenicima spomenuto kao preporod; zanimljivo da gotovo svi glavni akteri "hrvatskog" narodnog preporoda nisu etnički Hrvati ili su masoni), a pridjev hrvatski, srpski koje su upotrebljavali Marulić, car Dušan i ostali u dalekoj povijesti nemaju ama baš nikakve veze sa značenjem tih termina danas. Navlačiš mak na konac izmišljajući uzročno-posljedične veze bacajući na hrpu kojekakve regionalne pisce kroz razne periode i sve objedinjujući kroz prizmu ortodoksije suverenosti propagandizirane od strane današnjih političkih elita.Taj tvoj izmišljeni pravopis osmišljen po uzoru na onaj oktroiran u NDH nitko ne koristi osim tebe i nemoj više dodavati natuknice u njemu. To nisu "arhaizmi" već opsoletna ortografija koja vrlo često niti nema potvrda u korpusu. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, vidim da si ih počeo formatirati kao treba; dobar dečko ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Opet si v pravu kad veliš, da je većjina naroda izmyšljena v 19. stolietju. Nu, v krivu si kda veliš da su Chrvati izmyšljeni v 19. stolietju, Chrvati kot narod su postojali oduviek, čak i Srbi su postojali prie, dok su Slovenci, Slovaci, Macedonci... izmyšljeni. Molim te da to ne razumieš kot izkrik nekakvoga nationalisma, ar ja nisam nationalist, nisam čak ni patriot, samo sam ljubitelj poësie i pisane rieči. Ja tebe v cielosti razumiem, i tvoj stav prema današnjoj situatii, nu isto tako by volil kda by ty mene mogel razumieti. Molim te da me v buduće ne uzporedjuješ s Ustašama, to by bylo isto kot by ja tebe uzporiedjival s Jugounitaristima, niti moj pravopis s ustaškim, jer ustaški pravopis se temelji na Klaićevom Korienskom pisanju, a če si ga čital, lahko si mogel uvidieti da je on isto tako glup i nedosliedan kot i vukovski pravopis, njegov korien nema absolutno nikakve veze s korienom (etymon), jer kot idioti pišu srdce, otca, razprava..., a pišu gdje, djeca, zdrav, zdenac...... plus drugi primieri, absolutni nonsense, isto kot vukovci pišu vse phonologiski; ispričati, srce, iščupati, bešćutnost, besmrtnost... a onda kot idioti pišu gospodski, ljudski... a pogotovo ije. Vse absolutni nonsense.

Ter by ti chtiel napomenuti da ako snižavaš vriednost Marulića, Gundulića, Držića... na niveau regionalnich pisca, onda niti jedna natia, ni jedan jezyk na svietu nema svoje pisce jer su vsi regionalni. A pričati da su kajkavski, čakavski aliti neka miešavina, govor običnoga plka i seljačstva, je sramota (kot da je čtokavski jako uzvyšen, do prie 150 godina niti jedna bytna knjiga njime ni napisama).

Za ovo kaj sam počel dodavati primiere i pisati da su Obsolete spelling of... je samo moja prilagodba na situatiu, ar by mi vy vse obrisali ali spromienili. Liepo posdravljenje 46.229.244.232 17:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tako je, nijedna nacija nema "svoje" pisce - ne postoje njemački, britanski, hrvatski itd. pisci; postoje pisci na engleskom jeziku, pisci na njemačkom jeziku, pisci na (srpsko-)hrvatskom jeziku itd. Isto kao što nekidan nije igrala Hrvatska protiv Srbije, već je igrala reprezentacija Hrvatske protiv reprezentacije Srbije. Glavna je falacija koju nacionalisti prave kad ovdje dođu evangelizirati o tome kako ne postoji srpskohrvatski već 4 "različita" jezika baš ta što pretpostavljaju relaciju ekvivalencije između jezika i naroda, koja je u civiliziranom svijetu odavna napuštena.

Čakavica i kajkavica će izumrijeti kroz par generacija (svakako do kraja 21. stoljeća) tako da nisu više ni bitni.

Oprosti na nemjesnoj usporedbi (mislio sam da si neko drugi ;), no svejedno mislim da je fonološki transparentne jezike kao što je naš retardirano pisati korijenskim/etimološkim pravopisom (za razliku od engleskog npr.) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ako izume kajkavica i čakavica, njima će byti pokopan i zauviek izgubljen chrvatski jezyk, jer štokavica pogotovo novoštokavština je chtieli mi to ali ne, srbski jezyk (barem v cielini, većjini). Zato se moramo boriti, barem truditi da se naš jezyk očuva (kako su to činili Zrinski i Frankopan, ako smiem primietiti naboljše ostvaren chrvatski jezyk). Kaj se tiče pravopisa on je samo stvar navike, kako je normalno bylo za "illyrsko" vrieme pisati etymologisko-morphologiski, tako je danas normalno pisati phonologiski, nu vse se to da izmieniti, i nanovo se priviknuti. Ja osobno smatram da etymologisko-morphologiski pravopis je znak i izkaz obće pismenosti, poštovanja prema poviesti jezyka, ter poštovanje spram drugich jezyka, ter smatram retardirano phonologiski pisati rieči kot su vikend, kvaliteta, klasika, Ahilej, ruž, ambalaža... a o imenima da i ne govorim Frojd, Šejkspir, Vitgenštajn, Nicše, Gute... to izgleda podplno retardirano. 46.229.244.232 20:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tko smo to "mi"? Koji je to "naš" jezik? To su sve imaginarni konstrukti u tvojoj glavi. Taj jezik kojim ti tipkaš je, izuzevši smiješnu i nečitljivu ortografiju, manje-više čista štokavica, po sintaksi, padežnim nastavcima i morfologiji. Vidio sam ekstremiste koji vade iz naftalina odavna izumrle riječi, kao i izmišljaju nove a sve u svrhu razlikovanja prema Srbima, ali ti si jedan totalno novi ekstrem.

Jezik je prije stvar pojedinca ne zajednice. To što mi makroskopski zaključujemo o jeziku kao komunikacijskom mediju nekog kolektiva je stvar čiste statistike. Ja često volim napomenuti da su leksikografi zapravo arheolozi: na temelju dokaza (pisanog ili snimljenog korpusa) ekstrahiraju i popisuju značenja riječi.

Vikend, kvaliteta, klasika i sl. riječi su usvojene i prilagođene strukturi jezika i baš zato ih treba pisati fonološki. Strana osobna imena ne, kao i direktno citirane fraze, brandove i sl. iz drugih jezika ne. To što Srbi pišu Majkl Džordan ili Majkrosoft vindous je totalno retardirano. To pravilo fonem-za-znak je imalo smisla prije 150 godina, ali u globaliziranoj zajednici sa visokim stupnjem interjezične razmjene od njega više štete nego koristi.

Što se tiče povijesti, poštovanja i ostalih gluposti - to je sve arbitrarno dakle nebitno. Sve nacije-države treba abolirati dekretom (jer su gotovo sve tako i nastale, uvelike i na etničkom čišćenju starosjedilačkog stanovništva), proglasiti jedan službeni jezik na razini planeta, a sve koje i dalje gaje svoje zadrte plemensko-reakcionarne težnje deportirati u neki zabačeni kutak, uskratiti im civilizacijske tekovine visoke tehnologije i pustiti da se sami pobiju do istrebljenja te da ih bolesti i oskudica potamane. Papua Nova Gvineja se čini jako prikladna. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ma nemoj mi reći da nije. Slavić (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

V zadnje vrijeme v hrvatskom pravopisu vrnjeva se "kratki" jat iza r; grješka, potrjeba, krjepiti, vrjemena... pa čak i srjeća. Slavić (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dobro srjeća nije vseopće prihvaćena, nu ostale strjelica, grješka, pogrješka, brjegovi, trjezniji, malovrjedniji, naprječac, oprjeka, krjepostan... se slobodno koriste. Znam da to ne vrijedi za srpski, bosanski... Slavić (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Za te ostale riječi da. Veći je problem što zasad ne postoji jedan službeni pravopis pa su oba oblika (sa i bez j) "pravilna", ovisno na koga se pozivaš. Kad IHJJ-ov pravopis izađe on će biti jedan jedini službeni i te varijante s rj će biti nestandardne i sve će ih trebati označiti kao takve. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mislim da nema smisla pisati ispod riječi kajkavian, čakavian, mislim da je dovoljno pisati samo only in Croatia, jer bi se tako mogel cijeli slovenski jezik, svrstat pod Serbo-Croatian jer nema nijedne riječi v slovenskom jeziku da se nebi našla v kajkavskom ali v čakavskom narječju. Slavić (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sa Čajkavian i Kajkavian se naglašava da se radi o supstandardnim dijalektalizmima, kao i specificira regionalna odrednica. Hrvatska je zemlja jako čudnog oblika i velike geografsko-dijalekatske razdvojenosti. Već imamo kontekstnu labelu Croatia za riječi koje su karakteristične za hrvatski leksik sh-og. To su inače uvriježeni lingvistički termini korišteni u običnim (papirnatim) rječnicima i nema razloga da ih izbjegavamo. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ako su obadva primjera točna, kaj onda su i taščina i tašćina, jednako točni, jošče-jošće, ščit-šćit, dijela-djela... onda lahko mogu biti i primjeri lijepo-ljepo, cijelo-cjelo, bijelo-bjelo, svijet-svjet... Ako se gleda kako se izgovara, onda vjerovatno jesu. Slavić (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nitko ne piše svjet, bjelo itd. - ti su oblici nepismeni i ne koriste se ni sad niti ikad. Zastarjelice poput cijeć/cjeć su same po sebi stilske obilježene, dio književnoumjetničkog fukcionalnog stila gdje je licentia poetica zvijezda vodilja i odakle ne valja generalizirati zaključke u svakodnevni jezik, bilo čitani ili pisani. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Le baiser sémantique nikaj drugo, cijeć je isto tak nepismeno kak i pijesma, mijesto... dok cjelo, bjelo... bu prije ali poslije ušlo v standardni jezik. Slavić (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neće nikad ući u standardni jezik. Suprotno u kroatistici uvriježenom mišljenju da je standardni jezik nekakva svetinja propisana od strane nekolicine komesara koji "znaju najbolje" i iza kojih stoji nekakav zakonski i institucionalni legitimitet i čijim se dekretima mi obični smrtnici trebamo dogmatski priklanjati, u ostatku svijeta je standardni jezik sinonimno s upotrebna norma. C(i)jeć je mrtva riječ koju danas 99.9% govornika sh-og pojma nema što znači, a to se neće promijeniti ni sutra ni za 100 godina. Sve rječničke natuknice na Wiktionaryju se dodaju iz perspektive upotrebne norme danas. Eventualno možemo pridjeliti geografsku, temporalnu, dijalekatsku i inu odrednicu (u oblicu kontekstnih labela neposredno prije definicije riječi). Ali nije na nama da izmišljamo što i kako bi bilo "pravilno", kao i da predviđamo frekvenciju upotrebe odnosno standardnost pojedinih leksema. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Riječi s ch i y su toliko rijetke, da ne znam kaj uopće rade v obsolete spellings, i nigdar nijesu bile v stndardnoj uporabi, samo v pokoji knjizi i to v onima ke su se zalagale za pan-slavenski korijen v riječima. Takoj bi te prijedloge trjebalo izbrisati. Slavić (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nikaj onda, oprosti. Već ne bum makival te riječi. Još bi trjebalo dodati riječi s ě, jer se ono koristilo na prjetek. Još bi te nekaj htjel pitati, a to je; kaj misliš ima li mogućnosti da se v skoroj budućnosti vrne korijenski pravopis v stalnu (službenu) uporabu? Slavić (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

What self-invented orthography? In our previous onwritings, I never use etymological orthography, archaic and obsolete words yes (however I don't consider them archaic or even less obsolete), but never etymological orthography. If I use any orthography, I use that one of Broz. Slavić (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The orthography that you're using for Serbo-Croatian is incomprehensible to anyone but specialists. Spellings that you've been adding as entries have fallen out of use more than a century ago. Your overall contribution to this project, particularly when taking into consideration time wasted fixing your entries as well politically-charged talkpage communication, is dangerously approaching net negative. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oprosti! nu mislim, da ljudi zaslužuju znati kako je hrvatski pravopis izgledal prije nasilnog posrbljivanja v duhu jugoslavenstva. Znam da ne radim nikaj loše ali hudo, jer to ionako spada pod obsolete spellings WT:CFI. Ja zasiguno nijesam stavil ni jednu riječ koja se neuklapa v WT:CFI, a za ovoga prije sam ti jur napomenul da riječi s ch i y se nalaze samo v par knjiga. Postoje nekoliko pravopisa iz 19. stoljetja (ilirski, zagrebački, riječki i vukovski) ter sam čvrstog mišljenja da se vukovski pravopis ki je službeni i zastupljen je službeno, ostaje i njega nitko ne će mijenjati, nu ostali bi trjebali ući v obsolete i tam biti za stupljeni, možda čak i potstupnjeni v ilirski, v zagrebački, ter v riječki. Slavić (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mošnja when used for pocket, is only in Croatia (Kajkavian chiefly/see Balade Petrice Kerempuha, but also in Čakavian). 46.229.244.124 01:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, but that hardly justifies removing the Cyrillic spelling altogether as well as marking the other two meanings as exclusively Croatian! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those words are not just propositions and meaningless word coinages, they lack wide application or use, but still they exist, they occur; and as it they should be included in Croatian wordstock. So please in future don't erase such words. 46.229.244.124 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Words don't come into existence by somebody merely inventing them. People (a set of humans with cardinality >=2) must use them in speech or writing. Wiktionary is attestation-based dictionary, so unless those coinages have attested usage (which they do not), they do not "exist" as far as we are concerned, and you must not add them because they cannot pass criteria for inclusion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

If word is used in one or several official, scientific or literary works, that pass's criteria for inclusion in Wiktionary. Please see English and James Joyce. I see (and one some level understand) your aversion against Croatian linguistic purism, but here you look like a classical "vukovian" using intentive rhetorica iugoslavena. (something very uncommon for an anti-nationalist) 46.229.245.167 23:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it wouldn't pass CFI. If you lack the intellectual faculties necessary to comprehend the prosaic English describing the admittedly Byzantine policy in minute details, than English Wiktionary is hardly the appropriate venue for you to contribute. Perhaps Croatian Wiktionary could serve as a lesser substitute? Although, given that most of the entries there are generated by a bot which shamelessly rips off copyrighted content from HJP, and which will be deleted sooner or later once the issue is brought under a closer scrutiny of the WMF, you are advised to do so at your own peril. At any case, the entry is now protected until you provide citations of its usage on the entry's citations subpage (a rather Herculean task if I might add, since the word is not even recognized by Google!), and your IP is blocked for a repeated offense. If you persist in your unreasonable pattern of behavior, the entire IP range will get blocked and you will be unable to make any edits at all. They already banned you on Croatian Wikipedia for promoting this nonsense , and if such notorious gang of nationalist with a knack for neo-Croatian coinages can't find any worth in your silly words you really should think twice before making your next edit here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You are unbelievable, a Yugoslav nationalist par excellence. This is meaningless, only shews your cimmerian, uneducated views of our language. 'Tis really piteous, that someone like you have the power, billy puissance to control which words can be included, wordstock'd and which can't. Oh, what a pity! Élyus (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary's rules on lexical inclusion are governed by community-approved policies, not by dictatorial whims of individuals. Don't accuse the messanger - I'm just a harmless drudge enforcing the rules. Those words would get deleted sooner or later if someone RfV-ed them. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The goal of Wiktionary is to eventually define "all words in all languages.", however common or uncommon they are. Élyus (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but what constitutes a valid word is governed by our criteria for inclusion. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Élyus, please stop your attacks, words should match the Wiktionary:CFI#Attestation rules, there is no discrimination. An exception is only made for languages with low internet contents, Serbo-Croatian (i.e. any of Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian) is not one of them. The format of entries should match WT:ASH. For checking of specific words use you can use WT:TR. Please follow the rules or leave. We have too many random users with political agenda but not enough people to reply to them and handle them. If you're here not to contribute to the contents but stir trouble you'll get blocked as well, just because it's easier. Thank you for understanding. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Any cleanup needed here? The IP you just blocked was vandalising it, although I don't even know why. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m sure there must be something wrong with the accents in faliti po dvije daske, i.e. an accent on both the preposition po and on dvije? I know a preposition can “steal” a falling accent from the following word, but surely that word the loses its accent? Is that the case here? – Krun (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The accent is transferred if the following word has falling accent (which dvȉje does). The transferred accent is short rising unless environments listed in §210 of Barić et al. If the original accent were long falling there would've been length preserved on \e\. is phonetically one word, so I'm not sure how to render it in properly IPA phonemic transcription. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ovo je potpuno sramotno obeležavanje reči s obzirom da je kupatilo srpska reč.Mošnja je takođe potpuno srpska reč ovakvo prohrvatsko uređivanje je za svaku osudu.24.135.76.120 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nije "prohrvatsko uređivanje" već neznanje izvornog autora natuknice koji je zaista mislio da se radi o terminu iz specifično hrvatskog leksika. Znam da je to malo teško kad su u pitanju prefrigani Balkanci, ali uvijek pretpostavi dobru namjeru :) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sramno prohrvatsko uređivanje zašto jednostavno ne odvojiš jezike nije mi jasno?ko si ti brišeš moje istinite i tačne izmene na rečima . ne znam o kakvim balkancima pričaš ali sa takvim uređivanjim bi trebalo da prestaneš to nije nimalo lepo.kakva je to glupa reč natuknica?ne znam šta to znači žao mi je možda si mislio "odrednica" "unos" ili "reč" ali reč natuknica u mom srpskom jeziku ne postoji.zašto je izbrisano praslovensko poreklo reči padati ne razumem?24.135.76.120 13:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Kako je moguće da za starocrkvenoslovnski glagol padati može da stoji poreklo a za srpskohrvatsku reč padati ne stoji isto poreklo?sad vidim da je obrisano poreklo reči taman?zato što je već napisano poreklo reči tama i pasti?zašto?ja sam našao posebne korene za te dve reči i mislim da ne škodi da se za njih stavi odvojena etimologija.Što se tiče opšteslovenske reči "luna" ja mislim da ona uopšte ne postoji u srpskohrvatskom (mada postoji pridev "lunarni") i ozbiljno sumnjam da se radi o novoizmišljenoj hrvatskoj reči koji nije ni u kakvoj upotrebi (valjda mesec zvuči suviše srpski ne znam šta je u pitanju). Ma nemoj molim te "nije znao" "nije hteo" i slične gluposti nema nikakvog opravdanja za ustaško ponašanje i uređivanje tvojih sunarodnik eto gomila ustašoidnih jadničaka dolazi i sve reči počne da obeležava kao hrvatske kao eto slučajno.slučajno nema primera na ekavici slučajno nema reči na ćirilici slučajno polovina unosa napravljenih je popuno nepoznata i nerazumljava svakom Srbinu i svakome iz Srbije?Ne može tako ko je tebe ovlastio da budeš glavni zaduženi za nepostojeći jezik "srpskohrvatski" da možeš da brišeš menjaš i kontrolišeš doprinese drugih korisnika koji se tiču ovog jezika?24.135.76.120 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Zanimljivo kako je za tebe reč "veče" kolokovijalni izraz (verovatno je to za vas samo skraćeno od "večer" dok je u srpskom standardna reč)??Ups opet neka greška?

Zato jer to nisu različiti jezici nego jedan te isti jezik standardiziran u 4 različite banana državice. Ja sam ovdje dečko s gumbićima za blokiranje i zato bolje da me slušaš :P A ako imaš kakvih konkretnih primjedbi na izmjene upitne točnosti slobodno ih izdvoji. Za definiciju riječi natuknica vidi ovdje (odrednica je nešto drugo). Srpski jezik nije "tvoj", niti ti svojim ograničenim vokabularom definiraš što je on; to je samo i isključivo svojstvo uporabne norme. Za glagolske parove po vidu po predvidljivom obrascu nema smisla duplicirati etimologije za infinitive osim ako se radi o supletivnim osnovama ili nekim sličnim anomalijama (glagol je zapravo paradigma ne infinitiv). Etimologija od támān nije izbrisana već je dijakronijska koja mi se činila sumnjiva zamijenjena sinkronijskom; no uz dodatne provjere čini se da je i prvotna bila OK. Lijepo je da imaš svoje mišljenje o porijeklu riječȋ, nadasve je zabavno dokučivati tvoja obrazloženja zašto opstoji lunaran no ne i leksička osnova luna, no ovdje baš nikoga nije briga što ti misliš već što potvrde iz korpusa indiciraju. Dosta smeća koje je tvoj kolega hrvatski nacionalist napravio (zapravo ste isti ekstrem samo s drugim predznakom, za tebe sam "proustaški agitator" za njega "prosrpski", pljuc) je već pobrisano, a njegovih nekoliko nickova blokirano nakon što je poput tebe pileći odsustvo koherentnih argumenata pokušao nadomjestiti svođenjem na ideološke naočnjake. Rijetke riječi, dijalektalizmi, zasterjelice i prastare ortografije su dozvoljene, ako prolaze kriterije za uključivanje, i premda je simpatično takav oblik doprinošenja promatrati kao manifesticiju etnojezičnog separatizma, što možda po motivacijskog osnovi i jest, nas ovdje to uopće ne zanima - ako dodane natuknice zadovoljavaju kriterije dozvoljene su i ne smije ih se brisati. Ja sam ovdje Veliki Inkvizitor što se tiče srpskohrvatštine, tako da bolje da me slušaš jer ako se upletu stranci koji su redom kratkog fitilja problem će biti riješen pragmatično staljinistički - blokom (nema čovjeka - nema problema). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bolje me odblokiraj želim još nekoliko reči da dodam ako me ponovo blokiraš dobiću sasvim novu adresu a tu ne pomožu ni blokiranja širih razmera.65.126.16.155 11:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dotični soradnik User:PalkiaX50 me je liepo vputil k tej na dalne informacije. Pak bi te štiel vpitati če ima smisla pisati Sebo-Croatian odzgor nad kajkafskime rieči. Ar kak zavarno i veš, metati kajkafske rieči pod Serbo-Croatian ma več smisla kot jih metati pod češki ali bugarski. Pa tak je vsejeno dal bo pijsalo same Croatian ali i Serbo-Croatian, gdaj serbijanski jezik nima nikakšne veze z kajkavfskemi rieči, ar je kajkafski isti več ali menje kot slovenščina, a nima Sloveno-Croatian. Pak tak če mi moreš tu kaj pripomoči ali vrediti.

Pozdravlenje Slavuj (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ivan, could you please have a look at the Deklination of serbo-croation кафа and кава singular, locativ, instrumental, whether this cases are right? I would think it should be instrumental: кафом and locativ: кафи??? and the same with кава!? I don't speak serbo-croation, but I deduced it from the other words on -a? If it is so, could you please correct it? Thank you. --Allexkoch (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, thanks for catching those. These are leftovers from old declension templates which had the cases listed in a different order, and which were subsequently not properly converted the new template. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Po Lovrijenca koga žegoše, neću te u kuću!

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

Is the dropping of -i maybe an early influence of Czech, Slovak and/or Slovene? Those languages also have lost the -i (Slovene only in speech) and it seems like a typical "North Slavic" feature. —CodeCat 22:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply