. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word
, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say
in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word
you have here. The definition of the word
will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition of
, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.
If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
- Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
- Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
- Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
- If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
- If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
- Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
- You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.
Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria 21:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Huh?? Please explain your entry. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C 02:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
That entry was a mistake, I'm sorry. I was not planning on saving it. Koszmonaut 03:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I will delete this page. If you want to create a wordlist to work on, please use your own workspace, for example User:Koszmonaut/wordlist
- Very well, thanks.
We only use Category:Spanish noun forms. Use {{plural of|word|lang=es|nocat=1}} to avoid categorizing. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
So, we know that these words entered Spanish long after the 16th century initial contact? --EncycloPetey 18:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
- I was not aware that the categories were distinguished on the basis of when the term entered the language. I made the change with the purpose of having the terms present in the broader category (the current one). Two of the three terms present in the previous category were actually included there from entries where I had contributed the etymology. The Royal Spanish Academy's dictionary (which I consulted in this case) limits itself to tracing the etymology to "náhuatl", without providing a date. — Koszmonaut 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
- On Wiktionary we distinguish between Classical Nahuatl (pre-1600) and modern Nahuatl. We do the same for Ancient and modern Greek. Stating in a Wiktionary etymology that a word comes from Nahuatl means that it derives from the modern language, and not Classical Nahuatl. Yes, the RAE fails to make that distinction, and so cannot relaibly be used for that information. It is not so much a question of when the word entered the language, but which age of Nahuatl was the source, just as many modern scientific words are coined from ancient Greek roots. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
In all your recent edits, such as for otredad, you've miscoded the pronunciation. For example, /o.tɾe.ˈðað/ should be /o.tɾeˈðað/. You've placed both a syllable break marker and a stress marker in front of the last syllable. Only one or the other should be used before a syllable, never both. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Right. I'll keep it in mind, thanks. Koszmonaut (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply
Deponent verbs in Latin have no active senses, nor active conjugation forms. It is therefore incorrect to refer to active forms of such verbs in etymologies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's a lot more helpful if you leave your edit summary blank when creating a new entry, because then we can see the first part of it automatically. Thanks! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Looks like this could use a little cleanup, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Gracias! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Always glad to help! Koszmonaut (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Then could you do the alt-form puchtecatl too? I tried, but I really don't know almost anything about Classical Nahuatl... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- It seems like you did all there was to do. Can't really add pronunciation because it's just an alternative spelling. What's the policy on creating the plurals of alternative spellings? The attestations I can find have the normalized pōchtēcah spelling (give or take the macrons). —Koszmonaut (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Normally, we do add plurals if attested. By the way, I think I can write a template that will allow you to create the plural forms with a single click, if you're interested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, please! I really have no idea how to go about creating templates. —Koszmonaut (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- There I go making promises I can't necessarily keep. But I'll try. I just need a noun where you haven't created the plural yet, and the plural has at least one macron in it, so I can test the code once I write it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, and I also need to know if there are any classes besides animate and inanimate, and if there are any regularly added pluralisation suffixes. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- And I need another test noun where neither the noun nor its plural have a macron. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I'll get on the test nouns asap, I hope I can find a couple of useful ones soon. As for the categories, usually I include animate and inanimate for concrete nouns, because it determines pluralization, though in practice some agentive formations can have animate or inanimate referents. Abstract nouns are usually inanimate, or rather, aren't really animate or inanimate, they're just abstract. I'm no expert, though, might need to look into that. As for usual plural suffixes there's -tin and -h which can trigger reduplication and -meh and -queh which don't, also -queh is usually reserved for agent nouns. Overall, though, pluralization isn't really very predictable so I don't know how practical a template would be, though again I'm not the one programming, haha. I don't know if I told you what you needed to know, tell me if I just got you sidetracked. —Koszmonaut (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Honestly, I'm a crappy programmer, I just know how wikis work (I had to learn when I made my website). Anyway, all I got from that is that pluralisation is crazy and there's no damn way I can hardcode it, so you'll have to supply it as usual. I'm just hoping to save you some time. I just realized that I could just delete some plurals you've created to do testing, but maybe it'd be better if you created test entries for me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Is oquichtli (plural oquichtin) useful? —Koszmonaut (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- OK, that worked. Can I try one with macra? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, and usually we put quotes on the lemma form's page. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- How about tōltēcatl (plural tōltēcah)? Also I'm not entirely sure what you meant with "putting quotes on the lemma form's page". —Koszmonaut (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- (moving left) What I meant is, you put a quote at oquichtin, but since that's an inflected form of the word oquichtli, we'd normally put the quote there (even if it actually says "oquichtin"). For example, the quote at (deprecated template usage) amarsir does not use that verb in the infinitive, which is the lemma form for French verbs. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Success! The template works! Now, go to WT:PREFS and mark the checkbox that says "Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words." Once you've done that, when you follow the instructions I wrote at
{{nci-noun}} (they might be unclear, if you have any questions just ask), the plural should become a greenlink instead of a redlink. When you click a greenlink, it automatically creates the entry, and all you have to do is click save (although you can add pronunciation first, too). If you see any bugs or don't understand anything, tell me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Understood. I moved the quotations to the entries for the singular forms, or at least did so for the two I remember adding.
- Seems simple enough. Thanks! It'll be helpful with some pages I had trouble with before. One thing, though, I don't know if this is a good time to bring it up, but because of how plurals are formed in Template:nci sometimes two or up to three plural forms for a single word are attested, is there a way to use the template to include these? —Koszmonaut (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Now you tell me this? I'll add it in, but first, are you completely sure that three is the highest? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry. From the wording in the source it seems like three is at least a rare occurrence, and in any case I don't think it could go over four for a single form. So three or four seems sufficient.
- I noticed the template doesn't generate parentheses after the lemma, as when using
es-noun, for example. I don't know if that's how it has to be in this case, but I think it's a good look and it'd be nice if we could have them for Template:nci too. —Koszmonaut (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- I did the parentheses, I'll get to the multiple plurals later (remind me if I forget). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- When using the
nci-noun template I've had an issue with words with no plural form where after the parameter for animate or inanimate it'll display a comma instead of a closing parenthesis (for example in cihuātlācamichin). Can this be fixed? —Koszmonaut (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Dammit, didn't think of that. I'll go fix the code. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Hey, just here pressuring a little on the parenthesis thing. I've been using the
nci-noun code extensively (thanks again) so there are little end commas all over the place. —Koszmonaut (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, I've been such an ass to forget about that. Reminding me daily is not rude; it's often necessary. But now I must yield to the tranquility of sleep. It is on my (mental) to-do list for tomorrow. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Just did realized there's a way to do it without rewriting any of my horrible, messy code. Since I didn't put it off, that's means I'll never be a true lazy programmer. Anyway, that's done, now I have to dig up your other requests... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Looking good! Thanks. You've earned a good night's sleep. ))))))))) –Koszmonaut (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to bother you again, but could you clean up after this guy? Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Now we're talking. What is the policy when distinguishing Nahuatl/Classical Nahuatl? Some terms such as (deprecated template usage) ācalli and (deprecated template usage) tlācatl are listed under Template:nah but have quotations from sixteenth-century texts (Molina), for example. Should they be changed to Template:nci? And if so what do we do with forms which correspond to modern dialects and are listed in the same entry? –Koszmonaut (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply
- As the only editor around here who cares, I reckon you'll have to make your own judgments and stand by them. Also, your expertise is requested at WT:RFV#athl. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I'm far from an expert but I've put in my two cents. –Koszmonaut (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
With the introduction of Lua to this wiki, we now have vastly increased capabilities in templating. Many ideas that were impossible or infeasible before are now becoming realities. As an example, I've changed {{nci-noun}} so that now you can enter the form with macra as pl= without needing to use plm= at all! For an example, see what I did at axolotl. If you have other requests/ideas, now would be the time to tell me while I'm still excited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- !!!! Awesome. I think we'd discussed the possibility of a template for multiple plurals. I haven't been around as much so my memory's rusty but entries like ocēlōtl have two attested plurals, I recall encountering terms with three different plural forms but none come mind right now. —Koszmonaut 00:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- OK, here's the news. I fixed all the entries that had plm= and removed the support for it. You can always check this link, which is currently outdated but which should update soonish. If any entries show up in the plm column, they'll need to be fixed.
- I also added support for two plurals using pl2=, take a look at ocelotl now. Do we need three plurals?
- Also, is there anything else you'd like? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- You're the best! A basic noun template for Old Spanish would be amazing, basically something with the same options es-noun has but for Old Spanish (so gender, feminine forms and plural forms). I basically cheated with entries like nuera, pharaon and uebos. —Koszmonaut (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- No I'm not, I'm a mediocre hack and I reckon if you use the templates more you'll find a bug somewhere... but I'm glad you appreciate it. I don't know anything about Old Spanish, but I'll see what I can do. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Update: I've created
{{osp-noun}} and converted all our entries. There are some entries which need gender or plural, so take a look at Category:Old Spanish terms needing attention. For entries like foja, I have assumed that the plural is fojas, but I haven't created it. (Plurals are accelerated like {{nci-noun}}.) Now please make my work worth it by creating some more Old Spanish nouns! They are painfully few in number right now... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I noticed you have knowledge of Classical Nahuatl. Where did you learn it? Sorry if I seem like I'm being nosy, I just find the language interesting. Porokello (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hey. Nah, it's no problem. Mostly, if not only, by reading… I've gathered a small collection of books and there's plenty of info online once you know where to look. I've also come across some native speakers of Nahuatl varieties (I'm from Mexico) during my time but sadly I'm nooowhere near fluent. You speak Finnish and Karelian? I hadn't even heard of the latter before this. Anyway, hi. —Косзмонавт (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I finally responded on my talkpage. I really have been quite busy.
BTW, I have a quick request for you: I came across the reflexive verb amarse recently, but I am not completely sure of its meaning and I have no idea how best to make the entry, for I don't edit Spanish verbs much. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Done! Reflexive verbs make damn cute entries. —Косзмонавт (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- I think it's missing a meaning, though. Here's a quote I found: "Y los hombres y mujeres se estaban dormidos o amándose " which (at least to me) implies something sexual. Sin embargo, tal interpretación sea debida a mi nivel semibásico de español. Sólo empecé a aprender español en serio hace unos meses. Feel free to correct my grammar. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- You're right, yeah, in that context it's a euphemism for "making love", basically. Ok… so let's say it would probably only work for plural persons in that sense: nosotros, ustedes and ellos/ellas (it's the latter in this case), and let's also say (or I'll suppose, at least, based on context and my experience) that it's a literary usage of the verb. The question is how to indicate all that in the entry. I'll sleep on it I guess. (I was also considering the implications of transitive usages of non-reflexive verbal forms (amar, in this case), but I think you're right, it is a reflexive.)
- OH, and your Spanish is good for a few month's work! (Just a small note: empezó should be empecé). But yeah, you're using accent marks and everything (which a lot of Spanish speakers, either out of laziness or ignorance, don't do). I'm impressed. —Косзмонавт (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Gracias, pero sólo parece mi habilidad así por que el latín me da mucho del vocabulario y conjugación, dos cosas que se confunden toda vez por los anglófonos. Yo amo idiomas extintas también... el español simplemente es más útil para mí. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- A mí me pasa al revés, uso lo que sé del español para facilitar mi aprendizaje del latín. De todos modos creo que para llevar sólo unos meses aprendiendo vas bastante bien. Una duda, ¿dónde aprendiste a hablar tok pisin? —Косзмонавт (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Jaja, latín explica las estupideces y inconsistencias del español. Aprendí tok pisin en una manera familiar al amante de idiomas — por mí mism@. Wikipedia, unos fragmentos de libros, noticias del web y otros sitios web, vídeos de YouTube, y la Biblia traducida al tok pisin estaban mis mejores amigos de aprender. Si quieres hablar más conmigo sobre tópicos no relatados al Wikcionario, quizá movamos la conversación al email, por la función que se titula « Email this user ». —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Me tardé muchísimo en encontrar esa función pero creo que ya. —Косзмонавт (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hola, saludos desde México, me da mucho gusto que te guste el idioma mexicano (náhuatl), pues no soy un master en náhuatl pero conozco lo suficiente para poder dar opiniones al respecto.
Como usted lo ha dicho, el náhuatl central es una lengua nahua bastante emparentada con el náhuatl clásico; pero el náhuatl central no solo corresponde al hablado en Cholula-Tlaxcala, esta lengua se extiende por otros lugares, sobre todo el Valle de México, que va desde Pachuca hasta el Ajusco y Milpa Alta.
Pues yo no baso en Ethnologue para designar al idioma es más complicado, los códigos de Ethnologue ya no responden a las investigaciones de las que el INALI reporta, el náhuatl central, el INALI lo define como Náhuatl de Centro Alto , la escritura es la misma a la del náhuatl clásico, pero con la doferencia de ser más simplificada y sencilla. El padre Corochi en tiempos de la colonia incluyó macrones en el náhuatl clásico para vocalizar de forma alargada la palabra, por eso respetamos eso como escritura clásica para diferenciarlo del náhuatl central, la cual si es una lengua viva. Pero para mi no hay ningún problema si considera usted a mazatl como clásico y central, nosotros preferimos considerar en Wikcionario español a mazātl y maçatl como escritura clásica. A mí me resulta más como el Wikcionario alemán, porque no hay que poner algún código como NAH, NCI, NHN, NHV, NCH, etc. Yo prefiero nombrar solo Náhuatl huasteco y no: nahuatl huasteco central, nahúatl huasteco de Veracruz o náhuatl huasteco de Tamazunchale, etc. etc. El idioma náhuatl día a día se va compactando y unificando en criterios afines, pero las lenguas nahuas estan clasificadas por el INALI de forma distinta a la lista de Swadesh . Estos a sus órdenes y un abrazo.--Marrovi (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Saludos! De hecho también en Wiktonary en inglés indicamos las vocales largas de los términos en náhuatl clásico, lo único es que (siguiendo el mismo criterio que se sigue para el inglés antiguo, por ejemplo), no se indican en el nombre de la página. Estoy al tanto de que Carochi indicó en sus escritos el contraste entre la duración de las vocales del náhuatl clásico, y obviamente, estas mismas especificaciones se deberían incluir en una entrada moderna para un término en náhuatl clásico, pero, como ya dije, no tienen por qué indicarse en el título de la página.
- Entiendo que es difícil encontrar el código apropiado o específico para la variedad de la langua náhuatl que se está tratando a veces, peor lo ideal sería mantener una cierta uniformidad al crear nuevas entradas en Wiktionary. ¿De qué parte de México eres? (Si no es impertinente preguntar). —Косзмонавт (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Vivo en el Estado de México, claro que no es impertinente, puedes preguntar lo que gustes. Saludos!!--Marrovi (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi. The reference you included in this entry seems to have two years of publication listed - which one is correct? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Hi. The original text is a 16th-century work, published as a facsimile in 2008. Is this what you meant? —Koszmonávt (talk / contribs) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, I understand. Hmm. If the 2008 publication is a facsimile of the 16th-century text, would it work to just list 1571 as the year? It seems like that's the relevant piece of information. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, it does seem more straightforward now that you mention it. I'll keep it in mind in the future. —Koszmonávt (talk / contribs) 00:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
It used to be necessary to link to terms in the head= parameter using {{l}}. But the templates have been improved, so you no longer need to do this, and it's now preferred to just add plain links when adding links to words in head=. —CodeCat 01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- While I noticed that it no longer needs to be done manually, I had to resort to doing so because the template does not generate the links with macrons (as is necessary for Nahuatl). Furthermore, in some cases it becomes necessary to separate a word that does not occur as such outside the compound in question: (deprecated template usage) oncē (on/cē) simply means “and one”, and does not occur by itself outside compounds —like cempōhualli oncē—, but oncē would apparently make it seem so. Is there away around this? —Koszmonávt (talk / contribs) 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Oh. I see what you meant know, scratch that. Thanks. —Koszmonávt (talk / contribs) 02:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please don't forget to include a part of speech category in {{head}}. I fixed ytztic now. —CodeCat 17:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
¿Cómo se dice hedor en castellano antiguo? Saludos, --Romanophile (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Saludos, Romanophile. Aunque evidentemente no puedo hablar como experto, ni conozco a fondo todo el corpus del castellano antiguo, la palabra con la que más me he encontrado para describir un aroma es olor. Hablando de un mal olor en particular, el Lapidario de Alfonso X, por ejemplo, se limita a describir un aroma desagradable como:
Et ſi la metieren en el fuego. ſale della una olor muy mala q́ huele cuemo carne podrida. (f. 39r.)
- Sin embargo, si lo que quieres saber es qué forma tenía la palabra que dio lugar al español hedor, no sería insensato concluir que esta sería fedor, al igual que su equivalente en el portugués antiguo. ¿Hay alguna razón en particular por la que quieras saber esto? —K (talk / contribs) 14:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- En Wikcionario (el Wiktionary del idioma español), procuro incluir todos los idiomas itálicos. Ya he creado la entrada para fedor allí, mas quiero saber si debo incluir una sección de castellano antiguo. Saludos, --Romanophile (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Puedo confirmarte por lo menos un uso de la palabra fedor (en femenino, con la acepción de "mal olor") en la Estoria de España de Alfonso X:
los caualleros fuyen de la fedor de los cuerpos q yazien y muertos. (f. 81r.)
- Con base en esto, te aconsejaría hacer efectiva la creación de la sección que me mencionaste. —K (talk / contribs) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Ya que hablamos del castellano antiguo, ¿Cómo se diría "castellano antiguo" en castellano antiguo? --Type56op9 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Alfonso X le da el nombre de romanz o lenguage castellano a la lengua en la que están compuestas sus obras; de hecho, puedes encontrar una cita del uso del nombre lenguage castellano en la entrada de lenguage en castellano antiguo. —K (talk / contribs) 15:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
¿Se dice furtar en castellano antiguo? Saludos, --Romanophile (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Sí. Parece ser que se decía furtar. Generalmente, si la palabra actual existe con ⟨h⟩ y en latín tenía una ⟨f⟩, lo más seguro es suponer que el intermedio en castellano antiguo tenía una ⟨f⟩; en este caso, parece que el verbo es un derivado de furto (“hurto, robo”), del latín fūrtum. Te sugiero consultar el Corpus Diacrónico del Español (CORDE) de la Real Academia Española, un corpus que, si bien no es la fuente filológica perfecta, suele servir bien si necesitas confirmar la presencia de un vocablo particular en el español en algún periodo específico. En caso del castellano medieval, suele ser apropiado un parámetro cronológico entre los años 1100 y 1400. —K (talk / contribs) 14:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
¿Qué significaba torta en castellano antiguo? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Apparently, we categorise Spanish plurals in Category:Spanish noun forms, and not in Category:Spanish plurals. Goodness knows why, pero es así. --Type56op9 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah… I had my doubts about that. Category:Spanish plurals just made more sense to me. But I'll keep it in mind, thanks. —K (talk / contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
- "Spanish plurals" would make sense if only nouns had plurals. But adjectives also have plurals. —CodeCat 17:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Should Category:Old Spanish plurals then go to Category:Old Spanish noun forms as well? —K (talk / contribs) 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have some issues with your Classical Nahuatl entries.
- Why are you marking high tone on the pronunciations? What evidence is there for that?
- Is it really necessary to put "(it is)" or "(they are)" in the gloss for every noun? I don't think it's helpful.
- You list inanimate nouns as having plurals that are the same as the singular. But this is wrong. Inanimate nouns don't use a plural at all; they are grammatically singular. Listing e.g. tecpatl as the plural of tecpatl implies that tecpatl could be the subject of a plural verb, and it can't.
- What does "Hispanicized" mean in the pronunciation of sacerdoteyotl? The pronunciation you've given seems to be based on modern Spanish, but it would not have been pronounced that way in the colonial period.
--Lvovmauro (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Hey, Lvovmauro. Thanks for reaching out. Ok so…
- I was drawing from work done by Whorf concerning tones or pitch accents in Classical Nahuatl, but upon doing some research right now I see there is ongoing discussion on why he thought that these were present (phonetically or otherwise) in the language at all, with the current consensus indicating the opposite of his conclusion. My phonetic analysis up to this point was apparently based on post-classical varieties of Nahuatl, so I apologize.
- I have glossed nouns in the way you mention for some time now based on work by Andrews, who advocates for the use of the term NNC (nominal nuclear clause) instead of noun, stating that "Unlike morphological words in English, nuclear clauses are syntactically complete entities that OBLIGATORILY contain a subject and a predicate", and "lacking independence, nounstems seem to accede referentiality to the subject pronoun". Andrews does mention, however, the distinction between the "restricted-use" stem and "general-use" stem of Classical Nahuatl nominal lexical items, where the former serves as the "citation form". I understand from your words that you consider that Wiktionary entries are perhaps a better place for what Andrews calls the "abstraction" of the citation form.
- I'll defer to your judgment on your third qualm. My intention was to convey the fact that Classical Nahuatl speakers could recognize and express the plurality of inanimate NNCs, which as you mention, would be expressed exactly in the same manner as the singular. I am less familiar with verbal nuclear clauses and their relation to nominal items, so again, I will trust your knowledge on the matter.
- As to the question of pronunciation, I have seen in phonetic transcriptions of colonial texts a tendency to give Spanish words within a Nahuatl text a phonetic transcription which approximates or matches that of the Spanish pronunciation. I am aware however that many of these words had corresponding assimilated pronunciations (reflected later in standardized spellings such as Caxtīllān for the textual caſtillan). As for sacerdoteyōtl, I simply am unfamiliar with the precise nature of 16th-century Spanish phonology, and would be grateful if you could provide a more accurate transcription. All of this is to say that my labeling of the pronunciation as "Hispanicized" is intended to mean that it incorporates phonemes foreign to Classical Nahuatl.
- Finally, understanding the nature of a wiki, I don't mean to impose my idiosyncrasies or label them as necessary. I'll admit that, finding little conversation on the topics at hand and, perhaps through a lack of effort, few editors involved with Classical Nahuatl entries, I went ahead with creating or modifying entries using my limited knowledge. I'm open of course to any unnecessary or misleading information being corrected by those better versed in the overall nature of Classical Nahuatl. —K (talk / contribs) 05:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Very nicely done. The Nicodene (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you. :) I do what I can. —K (talk / contribs) 09:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply