User talk:JohnC5

Why can't we change the module:de-noun so that it displays the accusative declensions in the second row and the genitives at the fourth row? It's important because it's then easier to compare. See Frau, Innenstadt, Mann.

For the definite article: Both of the nom. and the acc. declensions are the same for neuters/feminines/plurals.

The dative is the same for masc. and neut.

The genitive is the same for masc. and neut.

The gen. pl. is the same for fem. and pl. as well as dat. fem.

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I prefer listing the accusative next to the nominative as well. —Rua (mew) 00:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri, Rua: I'm fine using either order (I've certainly seen both). I'll mention that de.Wikt uses the current ordering, but I don't care too much. —*i̯óh₁nC 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm very excited to see the module change. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

We should be careful about this. I don't recall ever seeing the order nom/acc/dat/gen. When one is accustomed to nom/gen/dem/acc, this change seems confusing and difficult. Note that we use this same order, nom/gen/dem/acc, for Russian, Latin, Ancient Greek, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Belarusian, and Serbo-Croatian. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is probably not worth the effort, but I'd like a gadget that would allow each user to use the order s/he prefers / is most accustomed to. I think the grammatical tradition of each country (language?) differs about this: for example, the usual ordering in the French grammatical tradition for Latin is "nom., voc., acc., gen., dat., abl.". --Barytonesis (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't be changing such things without consensus from the editors that work with the German entries, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Barytonesis: I created a script for reordering cases in declension tables: User:Erutuon/scripts/changeCaseOrder.js. It currently works for Ancient Greek and Latin. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

In theory I like the idea of basing the order of cases on syncretism. For instance, a similar order for Ancient Greek (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative) would show syncretism between nominative and vocative, and nominative and vocative and accusative, more clearly by putting these forms next to each other. But it's unfamiliar and somewhat confusing to me. I experimented with this order in Module:grc-decl/sandbox; the result can currently be seen in the appendices linked from Appendix:Ancient Greek declension tables. — Eru·tuon 22:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Somehow your script didn't work for me after I applied it for German: User:Mahmudmasri/vector.js. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri: In order for the script to find a table, the table needs the class inflection-table-language code: like this. The same should be done for all German declension tables – though honestly, I need to come up with a better name for the class, because the script doesn't affect conjugation tables: perhaps declension-table-language code. — Eru·tuon 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri, JohnC5: See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/March#German case ordering. Let's discuss this more widely. – Jberkel 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I made my vote. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

this edit is IMHO a mistake, in Latin nouns from verbs are regularly past-participle + -or

• amo, amatus, amator
• edo, esus, esor
• invenio, inventus, inventor
• pingo, pictus, pictor
• colo, cultus, cultor, etc.

By going back to ine-pie, you are only confusing the reader. compare with etymology of eater. --Diligent (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Diligent: I'm fully aware that -or was a productive suffix in Latin, but there's comparative evidence for this word being inherited from Indo-European. To say that it is created synchronically in Latin would be a misrepresentation. —*i̯óh₁nC 08:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can we at least, mention the standard construction and link it with edo, esus ? --Diligent (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Diligent: I've added the surface analysis. Also, the suffix is -tor. —*i̯óh₁nC 09:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey John, I sent you an email, when you have a moment. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: Thanks for the heads up, but I haven't received anything from you today, as best I can tell. —*i̯óh₁nC 05:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I sent it 5 days ago. :3 --Victar (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: I responded to that email 4 days ago. :V For further context, I'm not sure what we can do about this issue as it stands. —*i̯óh₁nC 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Weird, I don't have a reply in my inbox nor in spam. --Victar (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity, do you know if there is any rule that determines whether a stem takes the "-vant-" or the "-mant-" suffix in Sanskrit?--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Tom 144: Yes, Ryan Sandell did a paper about it at the 27th annual WeCIEC. I'll try to get it for you. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Thanks! --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 14:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I find the declension templates of great use and I thank you for your contribution thereto. Now, while creating स्पृध्‎ (spṛdh‎) I couldn’t make the template work: this is because no template to that effect has yet been developed, right? Something like this but, you know, encoded for the Wiktionary. Thanks for your attention! — This unsigned comment was added by Gfarnab (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your ἀγγούριον corrections: so, we have to add prosody in lists too... It seems i have to stop adding words, because i really don't know prosody. About the ety of ἄγγουρον: I have seen at el:αγγούρι more info, different from αγγούρι.ety, that might be interesting (and I am unable to cope with). About choosing between 'References' or 'Further reading' headings: as a user of wikt, i always wondered why not ref.footnotes at specific data as in wikipedia (I mean: this info at ety, that addition, etc, come from this ONE source -as one footnote for multiple references-). Further reading i would add, when i have read it, but have not used anything from it. Is this any close to the policy of [email protected]? P.S. Excuse my adding ancient greek things... I do it only when they coincide or affect modern greek entries. I do not mean to burden you with more work. Thanks, sarri.greek (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: No worries about adding AG entries. We all make errors when editing. In regards to the "References" vs. "Further reading" headers, there was a recent vote where the practice was changed to "References" being primarily for the <references/> tag, and everything else goes under "Further reading". As to the etymology of αγγούρι (angoúri) and ἀγγούριον (angoúrion), I saw the source at αγγούρι (angoúri) which claims that ἄγουρος (ágouros, “cake”) is involved, but I find the semantics ("cake" to "cucumber") and the appearance of a nasal (ἄγ- (ág-) to ᾰ̓́γγ- (áng-)) very hard to believe. The etymology at el:αγγούρι seems to agree with mine at least at the beginning. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 20:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Sir. I just wanted you to know about this ety (which is why I left message within-text for future editors). Ok, I'll use Furth.Reading if not ref. (I was comparing to the Wikipedia 'Sources', where a ref can be repetitive a.b.c.d (placed in many places in the page), ultimately linking to the bibliography source. Have a nice Sunday, sarri.greek (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The "edifice" variants in English and French are not actual descendants. They are loans. It is actually phonologically impossible that either could be a descendant. So I am reverting your revert. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Loan" means the same thing as "borrowing". The entry was already correct. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge The entry as it seems quite unclear. It is listing it under a list of "descendants"-- which are absolutely not the same thing as loans. Nowhere is it made clear that the relationship between these and Latin and the relationship of the others with Latin is not the same. This is actually very problematic, the distinction is very important to linguists. --Calthinus (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: To clarify, this is the method that is used by the entire project. The arrow before a descendant is the correct notation for a borrowing or loanword. The fact that you don't know this demonstrates your inexperience with this project. Also, the administrators of this project are well aware of modern linguistic concerns. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 05:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Mea culpa. Apologies guys. I was under the impression that the system used on entries like directus was standard.--Calthinus (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: Yeah, directus needs to be cleaned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 05:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can I at least ask what the reasoning is behind this? It seems much more clear and informative with whether it is a borrowing or a descendant explicitly stated? If I didn't pick up on the arrows surely many readers don't. --Calthinus (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus: Hmmm, an interesting point. This has just been the practice for quite a while. It might make sense for us to add some alt-text to inform the user. @Metaknowledge? —*i̯óh₁n̥C 05:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking it into consideration -- give me a ping if you guys reach a conclusion on the matter? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you are making a distinction that linguists don't actually make. Borrowings are still descendants. If someone said to you "Direct is descended from the Latin word directus", would you respond, "No, you're wrong, you nincompoop! It's borrowed!"?. That's just to say that our current system is not incorrect. However, it could be improved; I like the idea of a tool tip on the arrow that says "borrowing". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I think it would be nice, but I fear that the markup might displease others. Perhaps we should bring this up in the BP? —*i̯óh₁n̥C 18:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The arrow already has a tooltip- can you not see it for some reason? DTLHS (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

And you are right, excellent! But I've been conditioned only to expect a tooltip when there's a dotted underline and question-mark mouse, like for m.—Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's hilarious! Yeah, I had expected to see the dotted line, as Meta mentioned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 18:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I think you're misrepresenting my position, and I also think you don't understand what the issue I've raised is. You say that the distinction between a proper descendant and a recent loan (i.e. French descendant droit versus the modern loan direct) is trivial to linguists. This is not true.

Some explanation seems necessary -- I hope I don't come off as pedantic or preachy. In Historical Phonology especially, this is an extremely important distinction, especially where concepts of diachronic predictability and Neogrammarian regularity (or lack thereof-- note the disputes between "Neogrammarianism" and "diffusionism") are concerned. Thankfully with "direct" and "droit" it is obvious to anyone knows French historical phonology as -kt- clusters could never survive in French. But it is not so obvious all the time and presenting loanwords as descendants (which would be expected to undergo regular sound shifts under Neogrammarianism) is actually effectively disinformation. Note that which words are loans and which ones aren't is a critical factor in determining the sample sets for Historical Phonological research. --Calthinus (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the information is important, but it seems like something that should go in the etymology of the descendant term, not in the descendant section of the parent term. DTLHS (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

And yes, in a perfect world it would be in both places, but since we don't have the technology to do that it's important to not duplicate information. DTLHS (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

We don't have the technology to do that? All that is necessary is six characters-- "(loan)". Or you could even make it two: ln. It is really not that hard to make it clear to hte reader at all, without taking up too much space. Or maybe you could change hte arrow so that it says ("ln") on top, I don't know if that's possible. But as Wiktionary is actually used by many people with interest in the field I do think it would be very helpful to make this actually clear.--Calthinus (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about additional information such as the date of borrowing. DTLHS (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay I didn't realize that. Yes that would also be helpful but I didn't want to ask for too much haha. I'm fine with the date of borrowing being only on the descendant term's page though I'm sure in the future it would be great if there were a convention established for succinctly marking that. I'm just trying to argue that it has to be clear that a loan is a loan and not a regular (double-entendre here! :) ) descendant, and the arrow is ... not clear enough. --Calthinus (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Calthinus What do you think of the new format? (see aedificium). DTLHS (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: I like it :). Thanks, --Calthinus (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please? --109.240.104.141 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you are not willing to talk, please guide me how to bring your behavior under common consideration. --109.240.104.141 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You specifically suggested me to come to your talk page. I did just that, seconds after your suggestion. Now please act to your words. --109.240.104.141 17:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You need to give people some time to respond. Conversations often run quite slowly around here. The problems with your edits are threefold:

1. We don't provide "false friend" information very often/almost ever, particularly for distantly related languages. In particular, the fact that two words do not share the same etymology is normally considered enough.
2. The template {{af}}/{{affix}} has all the functionality of {{suf}}/{{suffix}} and thus is preferred in all cases.
3. If someone reverts you, you should wait until they respond before going around undoing it. Just because you are impatient does not mean you are right.

—*i̯óh₁n̥C 17:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also FYI, the text that occurs when we do a "rollback" (If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.) is automatic, so those are not "my words", per se. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I assume the words are there also to guide operators in their course of action. --109.240.104.141 17:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I was answering to you when some dickhead threw another block. I had thought that suffix is to be preferred over affix because to my understanding it links the suffixes to some collection which affix does not. I am happy to provide relevant false friend information. It's not impatience to expect dialogue, do not pretend otherwise. Thank you for discussion. --188.238.210.227 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I certainly am not pretending that you are impatient, as you have shown yourself to be by starting using offensive terms and immediately redoing edits you knew had been reverted. I would request that you calm down and wait for a discussion to conclude before you start doing something that you know has been removed for a reason. PS: I'm not sure you know what the word "admittedly" means based on this edit. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did not see a discussion even begin, because the operators are lurking in the coffee room, throwing random rollbacks. I wouldn't have made the last two edits before your talk if they appeared before those. Anyway, you're quick to rollback edits (in minutes), so an hour should be enough for any power hungry operator to step down and show willingness for a dialogue. Chuck didn't. And you summoned your brainless verdict of an edit war. And oh, you don't have to worry about my English. It's not perfect but there I knew what I was doing. You just did not get it. --188.238.224.37 18:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

lol, those people are volunteers, not "operators". No one works for Wiktionary. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 00:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You could also have looked at JohnC5's userpage and read that he doesn't have a lot of free time to spend on Wiktionary.... 😊 — Eru·tuon 01:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I didn't respond because I had to leave for work (90-minute+ commute both ways), and I may be old-fashioned, but when I'm at work, I work. I never do Wiktionary business during the 9 hours I'm on the clock. Also, don't forget that we're in different time zones. It's now approaching 9 pm here. Expecting people to respond within an hour is totally unrealistic. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @JohnC5: for your corrections at κάθομαι synonyms. And you've done them all! I would correct them myself, according to your pattern. I always copy your corrections. John, by the way, about the look of tables and the row 'Derived froms' at adjectives (ἀγαθός): I do not 'get' the logic of the order of cells. I tried this for fun if you care to take a look. sarri.greek (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Yeah, the 'Derived forms' section is supposed to be different than the section above it. A similar this happens in all of Latin and Ancient Greek conjugations with their participles and infinitives. I think you solution looks nice, but we don't need that much information. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 00:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @JohnC5: for looking at it. Maybe one line for masculine, and the adverb under it, alone. Or take away the adverb completely. It is not serious, but looks buffling. PS. I try to do your prosody. :) About fonts+prosody (ugh, I see Palatino at my PC). How does one go about proposing fonts at Proposed New Characters @Unicode Would be wonderful. sarri.greek (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: You might want to ask @Erutuon about both the layout questions and the Unicode things. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 00:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ok @JohnC5:. Of course, he is very busy, and you all are, with more serious problems. Thanks. sarri.greek (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned in my edit comment, we do not recognize "Proto-Baltic" as a language and thus do not reconstruct it. Please don't do it again. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 22:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The etymology *wējas has been taken from the article vējš. Its current version states: "From an earlier (still dialectally attested) vējs, from Proto-Baltic *wēyas".--Ąžuolas (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ąžuolas: That etymology should be updated. The editor who wrote it had a long habit of ignoring the principles of our reconstructions. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 22:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The etymology *wēyas is correct and corresponds to current versions of this word in Baltic languages. The source is "Karulis, Konstantīns (1992), Latviešu Etimoloģijas Vārdnīca (in Latvian), Rīga: AVOTS".--Ąžuolas (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ąžuolas: That is all very well, but we do not believe there was an intermediate Proto-Baltic stage between Proto-Balto-Slavic and the Baltic languages. The most modern theories have the Baltic languages splitting into East and West Baltic dialectal continua directly from Balto-Slavic, and then breaking up further. You can add a Proto-Balto-Slavic reconstruction, if you format and research it correctly, but the scholarly consensus is that Proto-Baltic did not exist. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 23:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how all of this is relevant. Even if we admit that the internal consensus in English wiktionary prevails over the primary source, the Slavic forms did not develop from *wēyas. You can check the respective articles yourself: *větrъ comes from *ueʔtr- (has different Baltic descendants), yet *vějati comes from *wḗˀtei (has no Baltic descendants). They all stem from the same Indoeuropean lemma.--Ąžuolas (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ąžuolas: They may come from the same Indo-European root but not the same lemma by any means. They are different formations from one another. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 23:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Ąžuolas: There is implicit evidence for Proto-Slavic *vějь, too. It is correct to claim proto-Balto-Slavic origin. An explicit descendant is Bulgarian повей (povej, “small burst of wind, puff”), Macedonian повеј (povej) = *po- + *vějь. When I find time, I'll check for other descendants and I'll create the Slavic page (most likely for Proto-Slavic *povějь). Bezimenen (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. "Proto-Baltic" is a defunct language family. Wiktionary doesn't have a language code for it, so you shouldn't be allowed to create entries for it anyhow. --Victar (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Instead of focusing on proving some theory, I would be worried about missing piece of information. I’m not sure why it should be impossible to add ancient lemmas that are specific to Baltic languages and have no relevance to Slavic ones. And why exactly one single word (which we all agree is correct) should require a meaningless hour long discussion.--Ąžuolas (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read Proto-language. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

• wēyas is correct or not?--Ąžuolas (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't understand, *wēyas never existed because Proto-Baltic never existed (at least that's the scholarly consensus). That's not ancient, it's reconstructed. Please read the link Metaknowledge posted. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

A reconstruction is an intellectual construct based on the shared characteristics of the languages considered. I can construct "Proto-Old English-Lithuanian", which will be an odd version of Proto-Indo-European lacking certain features that both languages have lost, such as the ablative case. Likewise, "Proto-English-Tocharian" will miss the satem-language distinction between different types of Proto-Indo-European velar consonants. That just shows that reconstruction is an imperfect tool that's only as good as the data you start with, not that either of those two proto-languages were ever spoken. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are we sure these "Proto-Baltic" reconstructions by Karulis aren't, in fact, "Proto-Eastern-Baltic" reconstructions? The common ancestor of Lithuanian and Latvian is decidedly more recent than Proto-Balto-Slavic. --Per utramque cavernam 08:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Lint errors are a real issue. My edit of 09:48, 28 May 2018 of User talk:JohnC5/2016 had edit summary Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links; <tt> → <var>; <font> → <span style>; <code>...<code> → <code>...</code>. In other words I fixed lint errors including:

• Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links
• Obsolete HTML tags: <tt>
• Obsolete HTML tags: <font>
• Multiple unclosed formatting tags: <code>...<code>
• Missing end tag: <code>

And I believe this was accomplished without changing the appearance of the page, except that under the new linter just released within the past month, <code>...<code> extends the "code" behavior to the end of the paragraph, while under the old linter, <code>...<code> behaved like <code>...</code>. So I restored the appearance here to what everyone had seen until very recently.

Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error. Cheers! Anomalocaris (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: For future reference, you should start a discussion about why you're making these edits when you do and link to it so users understand why. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 06:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

JohnC5: For future reference, you should read and understand an edit summary before you roll back an edit. Even if someone does not know that <tt> and <font> are obsolete HTML tags, and even if someone has no idea what "Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links" refers to, anyone should recognize that HTML tags are closed with an identical HTML tag preceded by slash. <code>...<code> → <code>...</code> is a clear statement that the editor found one or more <code> tags closed with <code> instead of </code>, and the editor fixed the closing tag(s). If you paused to understand this, you would have known that my edit fixed some real errors. Take a look at my contributions on English Wikipedia. I provide painstakingly detailed summaries of the changes I make. Few editors provide as detailed edit summaries as I do, and I believe my edit summaries set a standard that other editors should aspire to. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: Ok, there is no reason to be so self-righteous about a project to which you are so new. You do not seem to understand our policies:

• In your first comment you ended with "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error." This could mean that you don't realize that the rollback text (" If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page.") is automated and not controlled by the users. If this is the case, it demonstrates your inexperience with the project. If you did realize that was automated text, then you were just being snarky, which is not appreciated. Seeing your second comment beginning with "For future reference, " as a mockery of mine leads me to believe that you are just being snarky. en.Wikt does not appreciate that sort of negative behavior because we are a smaller community than en.Wiki.
• Making sweeping edits to many pages, even if semi-automated, needs to be cleared with the editors before taking place, no matter how well-intentioned. I'm startled no one blocked you for your editing spree, especially since you were editing other users' pages. You need to try to follow the protocols of the projects you are editing, even if you are serving a higher trans-wiki mission.
• Don't just come to users' talk pages and insult them. I responded perfectly cordially to inform you of our protocols and restored your edits, but you decided to insult my intelligence and ability to read. That is not acceptable behavior. Perhaps, you did not mean to sound rude, but if that be the case, you need to reread your messages to ensure that they cannot be read in a negative way, since it is so hard to control how language is read.
• Your edit summaries on en.Wiki are immaterial. We tend to be somewhat insulated here (in part because our policies differ so drastically from en.Wiki), but it is not my duty to read your long edit summaries on a different project to discover why you've edited my user page. I did read your edit summary initially, but did not know about the in HTML5 compliance issues (because you did not allude to them or read link to a Wikimedia article). A simple link would have been so easy to explain everything and saved me having to be mocked needlessly by you.
• You edited User:Saltmarsh's signature, which is very much forbidden without permission. If you did get permission to edit signatures, you should have linked to it.

Overall, I may have been a little quick in my rollback, but this was due to a preponderance or protocols that you violated, which could have been explained if you had just courteously asked the project before going around making these changes. Please do not be so snarky and self-righteous (especially on an admin's userpage!) for it gets you nothing. You had already gotten your edit restored, and yet you still felt compelled to insult someone giving you advice. That type of uncivil behavior is exactly how users get themselves banned. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

JohnC5: Thank you for your detailed thoughts here. I appreciate your time and effort, especially as an Administrator, to provide counsel and advice.

My first reply here, with its alleged but unintended snark, was triggered by your statement, "For future reference, you should start a discussion about why you're making these edits when you do and link to it so users understand why." Your subsequent reply clarifies that you are calling for full-blown discussions. (If you point me to the protocol calling for starting such discussions, I will comply). But what I understood at the time was simply "Write better edit summaries with links to a page explaining why lint is bad, so other editors will know you're doing good." I am sorry I didn't understand that you were calling for a full-blown discussion, but if you reread my first reply with the understanding that I thought you were saying "write better edit summaries", then perhaps you will see it as I intended: a sincere response.

I wrote the preceding paragraph after writing everything below, so, sorry if some of the following is overly detailed; it seemed necessary before I wrote the above, and now I'm too exhausted to decide if it's all still needed.

In the event that you are not able to provide a link to a protocol calling for discussions before sequences of de-linting edits, I accept that edit summaries that link to Special:LintErrors, in the absence of Wiktionary:Linter (see below), could help some editors understand why delinting edits are purposeful and correct.

I would like to respond to your points in the same order you made them.

I made my first edit to Wiktionary in 2006, I made my first edit to the main space of Wiktionary in 2009, and I created my first new entry (plutogenic) in 2015, so I am not new to this project, even if I haven't had a lot of experience.

My comment above, "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error" appeared at the end of a detailed explanation of my edit, and I chose those words both because they summarized my thought, and because I was literally following instructions, " If you think this rollback is in error, please leave a message on my talk page." I couldn't care less (then or now) if those words were automated. Those are the words in the edit summary, and I responded accordingly. This is probably the first time any of my edits on any Wiki has ever been rolled back, which, if true, is a testament to the quality of my work. I have long been aware of the rollback right, but as far as I'm concerned, an edit rolled back is not fundamentally different from an edit reverted with "undo" or by any other method, at least in the sense how the editor of the rolled back edit is allowed to respond. In the future, if I make an edit on any wiki, and that edit is reverted with an edit summary that includes language along the lines of "If you think this rollback is in error, please ", and I do believe the rollback is in error, I will probably again reply explaining why my edit was correct, and conclude, "Yes, I do believe your rollback is in error." I don't think this is offensive in the least, and I think most rollbackers would smile in appreciation.

For future reference, replying to a comment that begins "for future reference" with "for future reference" simply means, "just as you believe that that there is something I should keep in mind in the future, I also believe there is something you should keep in mind in the future." And I would say it again. Even the most prolific and experienced editors and rollbackers should read an edit summary and ponder its meaning before reversing or undoing or rolling back an edit.

Every edit I make is considered individually; I do not know how to make automated edits on any Wiki.

I agree that every editor on every Wiki should try to follow the protocols of the projects they are editing. You are probably aware of this already, but Wiktionary is less comprehensive than English Wikipedia in providing help and guides for editors, or at least less transparent in its organization. Many templates are undocumented. Help pages that in Wikipedia would be categorized to help users find related help pages are uncategorized here. If there is a page here corresponding to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Linter, I haven't located it; Wiktionary:LINT is not the corresponding article.

I didn't come here to insult you or mock you. I appreciate that you restored my edit.

Editors on any Wiki have no obligation to delve into the background of editors on that Wiki or any other Wiki, although as a Pending changes reviewer in English Wikipedia, I do sometimes look at an another's editor's editing history to help me evaluate an edit that already raises my eyebrow. I didn't reference my edit summaries in English Wikipedia to say "this makes me a great editor", I referenced them to say, "I believe in writing good edit summaries; I believe that mine are as good as or better than most other editors; I value quality edit summaries; I wish other editors would take the time to detail what they did, as I do; a good edit summary provide other editors insight about the edit. Moreover, like my edit summaries in English Wikipedia, my original edit summary here did provide detailed information to inform other editors that the edit was doing something useful."

Thanks to your comment, I have searched for guidelines here on Wiktionary regarding editing other user's talk pages and signatures, and other protocols I have violated, but I haven't found what I was looking for. Kindly link to these guidelines, and I will do my best to abide by them.

Please do not confuse replying using the same words and phrases with incivility.

Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: Thanks for the clarification on these points. I won't respond to each in turn but give just generally mention that we are deficient in explicitly written policies, and just go by general practice (I know this tends to get on many Wiki editors nerves). I can say that it is frowned upon to edit other peoples' comments and especially their signatures. I believe that our bureaucrat, @Chuck Entz, can confirm this, if he's not too busy. An even though you were doing this on an edit-by-edit basis, a heads up to the community would have been useful. Regardless, please be mindful of these factors and be careful when posting comments, since the written word is so poor at delivering one's emotions faithfully. Otherwise, carry on. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 08:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Linter allow editing other editors' comments, user pages, user talk pages, and signatures in certain limited cases and with restrictions and caveats. I think those policies are good in Wikipedia and I think they would be good in Wiktionary as well, but written policies and widely recognized customs should be followed. Widely recognized customs that haven't been reduced to written policies should be so reduced with all deliberate speed.—Anomalocaris (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Anomalocaris: While we observe some policies on Wikipedia, we entirely ignore others. Indeed, when we do follow the same policies as Wikipedia, it is because they are sensible, not because they are on Wikipedia. As an aside, this might be useful to you. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 09:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi;

I noticed you edit on Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots, which removed most of the page's content. You made this edit without providing any rational for removing that content. Other than that you seem to be supporting a "buddy"?

So, as per Help:Reverting, I am asking you to explain your action there?

172.97.145.140 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

@172.97.145.140: I've left a full response at WT:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 19:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, JohnC5. I've seen that you have reverted all my changes in pronunciations. I would appreciate to know the reason why you did it. I've made all those changes because I've seen that the pronunciations the website gives aren't really accurate, detailed, and in some cases, wrong.

For example, you have reverted all my changes to the pronunciations that originally had B instead of β in the central position, like: huevo, trabajo, robar, bebé, cabo. In Spanish, B, D and G are allophones in intermediate positions in every accent (β, ð, ɣ) as you can check out here: IPA Spanish. Saying that "huevo" can be pronounced /ˈwebo/ is false and only a non-native speaker would pronounce huevo like that, every Spanish speaker pronounces the intermediate B as a β, intermediate D as ð and intermediate G as ɣ. Check the pronunciation of every Spanish accent of the word "huevo" https://fr.forvo.com/word/huevo/#es , you can figure out that nobody uses B for huevo, but β.

The same for "dedo", "verde" or "ustedes", the D in the middle position is always pronounced as ð and not D in all Spanish accents: https://fr.forvo.com/word/dedo/#es , https://fr.forvo.com/word/ustedes/#es

For the changes of the words "caballo", "pollo", "llanura", "llave" or "lluvia", I'm giving more detailed information, since a general "Latin American accent" does not exist for some words, and in Spain we have provinces with Yeísmo and some other provinces without it (pronouncing LL as ɟ͡ʝ or ʝ instead of ʎ). The same for Latin America, there are some countries that doesn't have yeísmo like Paraguay, Bolivia, parts of Peru, Ecuador and most of Colombia. So, it's more clear to divide the pronunciation in "accents with Yeísmo" and "accents without Yeísmo".

For the word "cinco" you have also deleted my correct pronunciation edit. The pronunciation (according to the automatic data) purportedly says that the N in that word is pronounced a N as in "seen co", but the real pronunciation is with the N (ŋ) in the word "sing", in every accent, as you can check here: https://fr.forvo.com/word/cinco/#es . Also, the automatic data says that it can be pronounced with a nasal ĩ. Where? Who? I haven't seen anyone pronouncing nasal vowels in Spanish, it doesn't even appear in IPA Spanish . That data is not correct.

I don't know where the data of the pronunciations are automatically gathered, but I can state that they are partially wrong. Yes, I saw that the pronunciation of bebé can be both /beˈbe/ and , but that is wrong! Allophones exists in every accent and nobody would pronounce it as /beˈbe/, always /beˈβe/. Maybe you can't notice it because you aren't a native speaker, and I don't want to sound rude, sorry if I do. I just wanted to give correct information as a native speaker for future Spanish speakers, the website says that they can ignore the allophones and that's wrong. Allophones are mandatory for sounding like a native Spanish speaker.

I hope you understand my point of view. I just wanted to correct the "automatic pronunciation data" which isn't always true. I rely on my experience as a native speaker and the data I have in forvo and Wikipedia.

Glevion (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're misinterpreting the notation used in the automatic IPA. The // denotes the phonemic analysis, while denotes the phonetic actual pronunciation (see Wiktionary:Spanish pronunciation). Besides, if there really were something wrong with the automated pronunciation, it would need to be fixed, not bypassed in the few entries that you happened to look at- that's a band-aid approach that makes things inconsistent and harder to adjust later. Feel free to discuss this at the talk page for About Spanish or at the Beer parlour. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Glevion: Or even better, at Module talk:es-pronunc. It's been noted several times that this module needs a lot of work. Chignon – Пучок 16:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Glevion: As always, @Chuck Entz has perfectly summarized the situation. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 18:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mr. JohnC5, I would like to discuss the /z/ sound becoming /r/ in English and Latin. We see instances of this occurring (Proto-Italic *snuzos to Latin nurus and Germanic *snuzō to Old English snoru (and all other Germanic descendants have r btw)).

R is not the most obvious outcome from /z/ as the two sounds are very far off from each other. Yet we see that this is the case in not just one but two language families independently. What's more astounding is Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan) shows a similar affiliation between /z/ and /r/!! Although /z/ is absent from Sanskrit, we can assume the "s" sound is voiced due to sandhi when next to a voiced stop. And this voiced "s" sound (which of course is /z/) is represented by "r". It happens most often in compounds. How many examples would you like? निस्- (nis-, “without-”) + दोष (doṣa, “fault, crime”) yields you निर्दोष (nirdoṣa, “guiltless”), दुस् (dus, “bad”) + भाग्य (bhāgya, “luck”) gives दुर्भाग्य (durbhāgya, “bad luck”) etc.

My question is: are the shifts to "r" from "z" in Latin, Germanic and Sanskrit related to one another? Can they be reconstructed back to P-I-E? - 2409:4042:2605:50F5:0:0:1878:D8B0 17:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@2409:4042:2605:50F5:0:0:1878:D8B0: This is a good question! As strange as it may seem, this sound change, normally called rhotacism, is quite common in the worlds languages. Most people think of it as a type of lenition of alveorlar consonants. When the force of gesture of the tongue tip touching the alveolar ridge is diminished, the resulting near alveolar closure or tapped closure sounds like an sound, resulting in the addition of an allophone. In some cases, this then becomes phonemic. It is tempting to line these sound changes up across PIE, but this particular sound change is so common crosslinguistically that we can't use it diagnostically. Also, we have evidence in several of these languages to show that *s/*z were not rhoticized until very late (for instance, the fact that archaic Latin still preserves words spelled with intervocalic s). Hope that helps! —*i̯óh₁n̥C 20:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

whilst I agree that redundancy needs to be avoided and that this deletion might very well be justified, as an observing Wiktionary user I would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions. Thank you!

1. Why is it that this deleted page does not link to where a discussion of its deletion has, or may have, been happing. It would be helpful for users who have previously been using this page to understand why it has suddenly disappeared.

2. I can imagine that people have put quite some effort into the page. When a page such as this is deleted, shouldn't this require that ANY AND ALL information gathered in that page for which there is not redundancy be transferred to a appropriate corresponding pages elsewhere on Wiktionary? (such information also includes information that is implicitly lost, such as a concise overview of phonetic changes etc., for example.

3. Why is https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Proto-Indo-European_roots not linked to from the deletion page? Why is there not even an archived version of the latest state of Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots linked to at the Discussion page of "Proto-Indo-European_roots", https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Proto-Indo-European_roots&action=edit&redlink=1 ? , in order to facilitate any work as described in 2?

EDIT: I found this reference with regards to the discussion of deletion: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others#Appendix:List_of_Proto-Indo-European_roots

--77.179.178.52 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

WT:RFDO#Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots will be archived on the talk page of the deleted appendix, making it easier to find.

One of the main reasons editors argued so strenuously against these appendices was that they were full of unsourced and speculative etymologies. It would be to hard to take these random cognate lists and convert them into real entries, especially since most of them would not pass academic inspection.

We do not archive things that were deleted. If they deserved to be archived, they wouldn't have been deleted in the first place. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 21:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind explanation. I found a copy of that page dated April 2019 in Google cache; it seems clear to me personally that the deletion was justified. Also, opposed to what I claimed, there does not seem to have been any information that got lost in the course of the deletion. (The list should have been deleted much earlier so people would not have wasted so much energy on this, and also users would not have gotten "attached" to it.) There is obviously no general anti-word-list policy on Wiktionary, and there shouldn't be, IMHO, as there are some lists of cognates that seem very reasonable to me (well-maintained/correct, and limited in scope as a result of them covering only 2-3 languages and a limited number of roots that would eventually be covered.)

That said, as an Off Topic may I add that I often stumble upon missing etymological links (linkings), for example from Old Norse to Proto-Germanic. This is always the same situation, and it is very frequent. I would like to suggest that there should be a dedicated how-to page for such recurring "missing link" situations: For example: "Help expand Wiktionary by adding etymological information! Sources for Old Norse Etymology include:" (add here a list of etymological resources, which should also include Norwegian/Swedish/Icelandic/Danish etymological resources -- if, and only if, they contain information that traces roots back earlier than Old Norse). Such instructions would help casual users if they so wish to contribute. I also think that some users might be scared to actually edit entries, but might very well be willing to dig into legitimate etymological sourced and quote them. I think these users should be encouraged to add their findings to the *discussion* page of an non-existing entry. -- You may delete this comment, or move it to a more appropriate place. Thank you! --77.179.178.52 22:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This sort of information is normally contained at WT:AGEM. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 00:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I saw you undid User:Djkcel’s revision on the Latin entry obliquus although there are at least three (reliable) sources (like Etymonline) which state the word is probably composed of the prefix ob- and licinus (or an unattested liquus) which comes from a Proto-Indo-European root meaning “to bend.” Why did you undo the edit without giving a valid reason? Is the etymology too speculative and controversial? Latisc (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Latisc: Sorry for the delay. I removed that because Djkcel keeps adding bad Proto-Indo-European reconstructions on the basis of {{R:es:Roberts:2014}}, despite many attempts to tell Djkcel that Roberts is not a good Indo-Europeanist. I did not have a problem with the claimed derivation from ob- + licinus (though the morphology obviously has some issues). It was mostly deleting the PIE "root" Djkcel had added. Thank you for coming through to clean this up! —*i̯óh₁n̥C 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here I must agree with you, the page, my unfinished work and honestly that consonant chart qshould be in my sandbox at the moment, is total and absolute shit, and over reliant on Orel (and Matasovic. You forgot that). If you happen to read German and/or have Demiraj/Camaj on hand and are willing to help me fix it, I may end up granting you a barnstar. Also I have long been waiting to get access to Totoni.--Calthinus (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I was trying to find out how to combine these two modules, Module:sa-utilities/translit/IAST-to-SLP1, and Module:sa-utilities/translit/SLP1-to-Deva into one and through a template get a reverse transliteration of a Latinized Sanskrit word, so far unsuccessfully. Could you help me out? It would be quite useful to have it, as I have a lot of data in IAST, which could be used here in their Devanagari forms. LinguisticMystic (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

I actually found it out by myself. Thank you. LinguisticMystic (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@LinguisticMystic: Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I'm glad you got it to work! —*i̯óh₁n̥C 22:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the page for πᾶς (pâs), you added it came from *peh₂-, a PIE root relating to sheparding and protecting. Do you have a source for that? Is it a different homographic root? Thanks in advance :) The cool numel (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@The cool numel: Interesting question. This seems like just a mechanical reconstruction on the basis of the morphophonological form. Beekes reconstructs ph₂-ent- without any comment on the semantics. Adams thankfully provides more citations (not all of which I have tracked down) and also seems to support peh₂-, but again without commentary on the semantics. This reminds me of the etymology of *péh₂wr̥ (“fire”), which again is often parsed as *péh₂-wr̥ without any semantic interpretation (the fire is "the protecting thing" or "the entity being fed (ritual oblation)"?). Indeed, it is a very difficult problem. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 04:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I know that you have a huge workload. But I notify you as #admin for grc.
I was wondering if you had any objection to extending Late Koine ending to 6th century instead of 300 as in proposals at MedievalGreek@BeerParlour. Also, for changing the title over medieval lemmata (Category:Byzantine Greek) to Medieval Greek and creating it a separate autonomus language Section. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 21:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: Thank you for all your work on this and on Greek generally. I have absolutely no objection whatsoever. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 08:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

A! what a relief! Thank you, thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 08:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: I have been away so long it is daunting to catch up with what is going on and remember where everything is. It may still be a while yet until I return. —*i̯óh₁n̥C 08:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wish you a Happy 2024. I know you are very busy, but if you have time, could you please take a look at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Petition to upgrade Medieval_Greek? Thank you! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 09:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply