User talk:Kwékwlos

I don't think you've ever been shown the standard welcome message. Here it is:

Welcome!

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 documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. 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.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I, for one, would like to thank you for great work you're doing adding the intermediary PIA forms and missing PII reconstructions. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask! --Victar (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wow, a great improvement! Maybe we should work harder as well! Perhaps the Rigveda itself is Proto-Indo-Aryan! --Kwékwlos 17:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Wiktionary Project is a team effort, so having a way to communicate with contributors is essential. Rigveda is OIA, which includes all the Sanskrit dialects. PIA includes includes both OIA and Mitanni. Although the line between PIA and OIA is rather blurry, as Mitanni is scantily attested (we mostly only know about the retention of diphthongs), at the very least we can include archaisms found in MIA that we don't see in Sanskrit, i.e. no kṣ-merger. --Victar (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

If an entry can be reconstructed, please do not null out {{desc}}, as you did here. Best to simply leave it blank if you cannot yourself. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, Proto-Anatolian is reconstructible using Hittie an Lydian, so please don't null it out in {{desc}} as you did here. --Victar (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove hyphens showing morphological boundaries, ex. diff, diff. --Victar (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please don't change {{inh|hi|sa}} to {{der|hi|sa}}. For convenience we take Sanskrit to be all Old Indo-Aryan, so Hindi is in our system a direct descendant of Sanskrit (even though in actuality it may be descended from a particular OIA dialect that is not attested). —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 22:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kwékwlos, please don't reference earlier forms when the later form is a predictable outcome, like the loss of laryngeals before *ǵ (Lubotsky's law). We only do that for random outcomes, like a metathesis. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The accent shift in PIA on i/u-steams is also predictable. Please don't reference earlier forms for that either. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was hoping I wouldn't have to bring this up again, but please don't add earlier forms to etymologies when the outcome is predictable. --{{victar|talk}} 06:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kwékwlos, {{inh}} should only be used when they are directly inherited (see template usage notes). So Proto-Italic *wenos is derived from PIE *wenh₁-, not inherited. --Victar (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you skip morphological steps in a etymology, it's correct to use "ultimately from". Please don't delete those. Thanks! --Victar (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please stop changing language codes on entries. If someone used a particular language code in an etymology or descendants tree, there is probably a reason and you should ask them for going around changing them. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The prevailing standard is just "From {{bor|hi|xx}}." Not sure about other languages but that's what I've always done for Hindi. My reasoning is that it automatically categorizes into a borrowing category so the "Borrowing/Borrowed from" is redundant. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 01:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA, typing in "Borrowed from" is pretty standard for most languages. I much prefer it because it's useful information that is otherwise lost -- most people aren't going to look at the categories to find that out. --Victar (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar, right, it does provide an emphasis for distinguishing borrowed words from derived words instead of just scrolling to the bottom for the category. --Kwékwlos 10:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar: And that is what the template used to have automatically before the text was removed. I agree in principle, but I make a lot of Hindi entries and want to save time typing. But I'll use "Borrowed from" from now on if you insist. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 14:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA, I agree that typing in "Borrowed from" every time is a pain, but if you recall, I didn't vote for its removal! =P --Victar (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Grassmann's law only applied to PIA, and not PII. --Victar (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Victar, How do you prove that it applies to PIA and not PII? Ancient Greek already has it. And also, forms like PII *ĵʰuĵʰáwti would yield PIA *źuźʰáwti (Sanskrit जुहोति (juhóti)), which looks strange as PIA *ź occurs only with aspiration or in clusters. So I do see Grassmann's law as necessary in PII. --Kwékwlos 16:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's widely accepted that the Grassmann's law that applies to Greek is separate innovation from the one that is found in Sanskrit. One example of how we know it didn't apply to PII is because we find *x- for *kʰ-Cʰ in PIr. --Victar (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

DO NOT delete pages instead of moving them. I warned you before about this. Please do not do it again. --Victar (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can you please add sources to your *duHrás entry? Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, please address this entry and the other entries you created. All proto entries should be sourced, otherwise they may be nominated for deletion. --Victar (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

You think you have the skill to do this now? --{{victar|talk}} 20:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Terms in the Derived terms list should be clickable links. --Victar (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're making quite a few mistakes with your Proto-Anatolian reconstructions. Please do some more research before continuing. --Victar (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

RUKI was not triggered by laryngeals. Instead, it was an active rule that lasted well into the development of PII languages after the loss of laryngeals. You could argue that "syllabic laryngeals" triggered RUKI as well, but that's not currently how we reconstruct PII as we do not reconstruct syllabic laryngeals. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forgive me, but the reflexes show (š/ṣ), so I thought that the reconstruction needed an *š. I do note that Nuristani keeps the *s instead of Indic and Iranian. Sorry if I had to disappoint you; it was my mistake, but please, in the descendants section, use desc instead of cog. Thanks. --Kwékwlos 17:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

LOL, yes, I will use {{desc}}, the template I helped create, instead of {{cog}}. --Victar (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

When a reconstruction has a cite attached to it, do not change the reconstruction. I've had to revert you several times for that now. Please stop. --Victar (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, my mistake. Recently I had to research for my thesis and learned of this recently. --Kwékwlos 13:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and good luck. --Victar (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the accentuation for Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/blēˀtei? —Rua (mew) 11:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Rua, the accentuation is present on the first vowel, because the verbal suffix *-ti/*-tei does not get an accent (at least, in the present third person form). We know that there is one vowel preceding the verbal suffix, and it should be accented like in PIE. I haven't seen a case of *-ti receiving an accent on the *i. The verbal suffix is an example of an accentless marker; it does not receive an accent. --Kwékwlos 11:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You realise that the Balto-Slavic infinitive ending has nothing to do with the PIE 3rd person ending *-ti? —Rua (mew) 12:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so at some stage, Balto-Slavic changed the standard verb ending to *-tei? Are there any cases in which that ending receives an accent? --Kwékwlos 12:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Slavic *berťi has the accent on the ending. This probably reflects a retention from Balto-Slavic, but I wasn't sure so I left the BS form unaccented. The BS infinitive comes from a case form of *-tis, and I believe it was an oblique case form so in theory the ending should always be accented originally. But Balto-Slavic has many accent-movement rules so the PIE situation doesn't generally get preserved in BS. —Rua (mew) 12:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Should have discarded the accent, thanks for that. Though I do believe in an innovation in Slavic if Baltic evidence does not corroborate. --Kwékwlos 12:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Balto-Slavic accentology is a huge, messy, muddy topic, so I advise you to stay well away from it. Even modern linguists haven't worked it all out yet. —Rua (mew) 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, when creating reconstructed entries, please source them. If you cannot, it may be best to keep them to the descendants list of a sourced ancestor. --Victar (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Per my earlier petition above, please do not add earlier forms to an etymology unless there is some unpredicted irregular intermediary form. Case in point with the Pre-Germanic forms you are adding. --Victar (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Inflection and declension sections serve the same purpose and should not appear side by side in an entry. It's one or the other. If one of these sections already exists, use that one instead of creating another. —Rua (mew) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am curious as to what source you are using for these words. —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 06:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Whoops, hi! My sources are from JLect and Nevskiy's Miyakoan dictionary. The problem with Japanese kana is that there is no standard orthography to denote all Ryukyuan sounds, and that the pronunciations can be found in the Wikipedia pages. But making references is hard, it does take too much time. Kwékwlos (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I had figured that one of the sources might be JLect; There's actually been discussion about JLect's stuff before, which you might be interested in reading. (I personally don't believe I know enough to comment more on the matter.) —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 07:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added the asterisk to *यन्तुर् (*yantúr) because the nominative form is unattested and it should not be removed. I've also warned you about this several times now, DO NOT change cited forms. Please do not continue to do this. Lastly, *yaćśáti is the correct reconstruction, not **yaśćáti. The development was *sḱ > *sĉ > *ŝĉ > *śś > *ćś > c(c)h. --{{victar|talk}} 05:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen that you've been using {{ja-readings}} in non-Japanese entries. I think there should be new templates made for each of the Japonic lects or a language-neutral template made. The links produced by this template are currently linking to Japanese, which is not right. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 06:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, though I appreciate you trying to be a completionist, if a compound or suffixed word has blue links to its elements, please don't go in and put the whole etymology in the each word in there. It's redundant and just clutters up entries. --{{victar|talk}} 14:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've seen several mistakes in your recent changes even though I'm not super-familiar with Proto-Balto-Slavic and such. For example, you have changed o to a in Proto-Balto-Slavic etymologies even though the convention that appears to be followed here is to reconstruct *o, and in some cases you appear to be mechanically constructing Proto-Balto-Slavic etymologies by carrying the reconstructed PIE form forward. In another case, in Proto-Slavic *ložiti, you put ź which is clearly wrong (it should be g, both based on the PIE form and the Slavic form). One change that looks glaringly suspect is renaming Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/snusós to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/snuséh₂. @Rua, Victar, JohnC5 Can you review some of his/her recent changes and let me know what you think? Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

At the very least, the rename of that page without any further changes to the sourcing is wrong, because now it says that Ringe reconstructs the new form, which is clearly not true. As for Balto-Slavic, the norm is to reconstruct short *a, since no Balto-Slavic languages show any distinction between *o and *a. Derksen still distinguishes them, but gives no justification. —Rua (mew) 15:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

We don't tolerate reconstructions such as *wʔitis, so it's natural to follow orthographic conventions and reconstruct it as *witis. Different authors use different reconstructions, but we can cite their alternative forms while converting them to standard Wiktionary conventions. I know I may be imperfect, but I am still learning! Kwékwlos (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, you're still going around creating proto entries with no sources attached to them. Case in point, these Proto-Albanian, Proto-Japonic, and Proto-Ryukyuan you're adding. Please desist. --{{victar|talk}} 08:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you valuable work in Proto-Japonic entries (as usual), but this reconstruction is confusing. How can the k > f change in Miyako be explained, as k should only become f before original /u/, not an original /o/? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Normally, sequences of the type CuCuCV in Japanese (such as kusuri) are realized in Japonic as *CuCoCV (c.f. *kusori). The case in Yaeyama is straightforward: *kï would be expected instead of ku in tsïkuri. Proto-Miyako seems to have innovated via *CuCoCV > *CuCuCV, as in Japanese. For Northern Ryukyuan, Okinawan has the same ku where *chi would be expected if one assumes *tukuru. Therefore, *tukoru should be the reconstructed form as it regularly correlates with *kusori. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Any other examples of a Miyako CuCoCV > CuCuCV shift? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 01:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Where do you get your Yaeyama, Yonaguni, etc. words from? Is there a dictionary anywhere? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 14:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

See Nevskiy's Miyakoan dictionary, don't know what to put on sources with. But the forms marked with (Ya) mean Yaeyama. Kwékwlos (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, forgot to check Nevsky. Thanks! mellohi! (僕の乖離) 14:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please do not sweepingly reconstruct these as /wa/, the four-vowel Proto-Japonic theory that leads insinuates that all of these must derive from /wa/ has been obsolete for many years now. Pellard 2013 and 2018, Frellesvig and Whitman 2010, Russell 2006, and Vovin all reconstruct Proto-Japonic /o/. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 19:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alright then. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is just bad linguistics, man, and unsourced, as usual. --{{victar|talk}} 16:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're continuing to add absurd, unsourced etymologies, like at Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/pirə and Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/pitə (both of which I have removed), as well as other content unlikely to meet WT:CFI, like Sanskrit उचिना (ucinā). None of this is acceptable. From now on, if you want to add an etymology for a protolanguage or create a reconstruction page, include a source, and make sure any mainspace entry you create is attested. If you're unsure, you can always ask first. If, however, you persist in the problematic behaviour described above, you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

You added, "However, this relies on discredited evidence on an initial *b.". I'm curious:

• Initial *b in what language?
• Discredited by whom?

Curious, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, the notion that initial w goes back to *b is due to Vovin's Proto-Japonic reconstruction which assumes a relationship within the discredited Altaic family. It was made to explain similarities such as *ban (now *wanu) "I" and Turkish ben "id." on the basis of Southern Ryukyuan forms such as Miyako ban. Even Proto-Ryukyuan points to an original *w, which disproves the evidence that *b existed as an initial consonant in Proto-Japonic. Similarly, we don't reconstruct *d for initial *y because back in the 1500s, a group of Korean fishermen recorded the name of Yonaguni with a zy- sound, clearly a transitory phase to d, a fortition common to the language (compare *ki > *tsi > *ti) and in Sino-Japanese words. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Granted, Wikipedia is very down on Altaic as a theory. However, in my reading, I haven't gotten the impression that Altaic is wholly discredited. That said, I don't think Altaic is even all that relevant -- there is evidence separately within Korean and within Japanese for /w/ ↔ /p/ variation. For now, I've reworded a bit, and I've removed the mention of /*b/, since that's just confusing without substantially more context, which I don't think would fit very well in this etym section. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

FYI, I've been moving back the various CHV entries because there maybe be some evidence for their retention. --{{victar|talk}} 16:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You mean due to metrics in the Rigveda? Kwékwlos (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You stated in your pagemove reason on *eka that Proto-Japonic /i/ would become /n/ in front of /k/ word-initially in the Ryukyuan languages. Any other examples of this? mellohi! (僕の乖離) 07:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let me see: We know that word-initial *u assimilates in Ryukyuan, such as *uma > mma, but that *omi > umi or un. If it was *e, then we would expect /i/ not assimilating to the second consonant. It seems that a lot of PJ words that have word-initial /i/ reflexes in Japanese begin as */e/. I would personally consider *eka as one. Kwékwlos (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Are there any examples you can provide of *i undergoing those assimilations to /n/ specifically in front of /k/? The assimilations you provide are in front of nasals. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 19:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have yet to find a case in which Japanese initial /i/ corresponds to Japonic *i. So far, can't think of any. Sorry if my extrapolation was wrong. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

(chiming in belatedly -- *uma > mma is probably not a great example, since this appears to be derived from Middle Chinese 馬 (MC maeX) in such a way that the initial /m/ was emphasized -- even mainland Japanese may have been realized as mma, and the kana realizations うま and むま were both in use during the Heian period. See also mainland Japanese 梅 (ume, “plum”), which likely also came from Middle Chinese and had a similar phonological path with うめ and むめ in free variation.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr, Kwékwlos, Mellohi!: Okinawa for 膿 (umi, “pus”) is ʔnmi (< PR *umi. Clearly not any Chinese word. In addition, Yamatohama /ʔumi/ (id.; source here; also can go from PR *omi; pron also means 'sea'); Nakijin /ʔumi:/; (id.; source here)

I don't think PR *i- assimilates. Any thoughts in 2023 @Kwékwlos?

I also realized Ryukyuan cognates of tentative *Eka 'in which (way); 如何' point to *ika, not *eka, from what I remember. Chuterix (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It gets a bit complicated with Hirt's law in nominals. Usually, the accent retraction happens and then the word is converted to the fixed accent paradigm. But there are also cases where the retraction appears to have been undone and the mobile paradigm restored, like Lithuanian sūnùs and Proto-Slavic *sy̑nъ, both of which are mobile. In the case of *źírˀna your change appears to be correct, but this is just a heads-up that Hirt's law doesn't always apply the way you expect. —Rua (mew) 09:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... can you explain the factors that cause another retraction? Kwékwlos (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Which other retraction? —Rua (mew) 10:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

The "son" word in PBSl. that you mentioned earlier. Kwékwlos (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Slavic, at least according to Jasanoff, the accent on the stem is from the accusative form, where the stem accent is a regular inheritance from Balto-Slavic. The same substitution is found in o-stems and i-stems as well. The Lithuanian accent of i- and u-stems thus reflects the original situation, while the stem accent in Lithuanian o-stems is explained as coming from the neuters, which merged into the masculines.

Olander, on the other hand, posits that the accent should have been on the stem in the o-, i- and u-stems in Balto-Slavic. The ending accent of the i- and u-stems in Lithuanian would then be irregular, while the stem accent of Slavic is regular, as is the stem accent of the a-stems in Lithuanian.

So you can see there isn't really a clear picture of the situation. The rules for when a form in the mobile paradigm should be stem-accented or ending-accented aren't clear, so different linguists come up with different explanations, that predict different things, and then come up with different explanations for the forms that don't fit the pattern. I can't say which of these two is right, but I find Jasanoff's explanation a bit more plausible. There is evidence to suggest that the o-stems originally did not have the same ending for the nominative and accusative in Proto-Slavic, because there are some masculine names that end in -o in Slavic, and there is also the Old Novgorodian ending -e (which would result from -o after soft stems). This appears to point to an original nominative ending *-o for early Slavic, which was mostly replaced by the accusative ending but not completely. Olander also cannot explain the final accent of the i- and u-stems; there is no obvious model that this could be taken from, other than the ā-stems. The stem accent of a-stems, on the other hand, is very well explained by the influx of neuter nouns in Jasanoff's position.

Now, as to why the word for "son" is mobile and not fixed, this is explained by Jasanoff with the relative ordering of sound changes. According to him, the split of PIE words into fixed and mobile paradigms, and the subsequent redistribution of stem-accented and end-accented forms, happened before Hirt's law. Thus, when Hirt's law operated, this resulted in more stem-accented forms, but some ending-accented forms remained (i.e. those in which the ending had more than one syllable). Jasanoff then says that such paradigms could either be converted to a fixed accent, or, based on the remaining ending-accented forms, the "proper" mobile paradigm could be restored. It is not entirely clear if this restoration occurred by the late Proto-Balto-Slavic period, but for simplicity we can assume that it did.

This restoration only appears to have happened in nouns. In verbs, mobile paradigms do have the retracted accent on the stem in the infinitive, while unretracted infinitives have ending accent. On the other hand, fixed paradigm verbs have stem accent in the infinitive regardless of Hirt's law, apparently by analogy with the present stem. —Rua (mew) 10:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

So it's quite unpredictale, though, because I mostly work with Indo-Iranian, which is a lot easier to explain. Kwékwlos (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Balto-Slavic accentuation is quite complicated, and it only gets worse in Slavic. Things are easy enough when all the Balto-Slavic languages agree, but when there is disagreement, there is no single explanation. "Son" is clearly mobile in all the descendants, and it is more economical to assume that this is the inherited situation in Proto-Balto-Slavic than to say that each of them independently innovated the mobile paradigm. So that part is clear, at least. But then the question of whether the accent is on the ending or the stem in the nominative singular is more tricky. —Rua (mew) 10:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please do not make up internal (i.e. claiming that Japanese terms are made off of other Japanese terms) etymologies for terms, such as what happened at oishii, unless you have demonstrated sufficient fieldwork backing them up. Thank you. Your Proto-Japonic comparative reconstructions are fine; they are not the subject of this reminder. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 18:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, you've been changing up a lot of the Nuristani descendants, which often correspond to the source given, but not providing any new sources of those allegedly attested forms. Please do so or I will start reverting those changes. --{{victar|talk}} 17:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I base it mostly on Strand's dictionary, and they do not list *ti as being part of the verb in Kamviri such as in *éti. Plus, the PN reconstructions given by Strand mostly lack final vowels, and you tend to add them. There is actually no consensus, because no one has come up with a definite reconstruction of PN. Mind if you can help put Strand's source into the references list? Kwékwlos (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Than please take the time to cite with a link. In regards to the separate issue of Proto-Nuristani reconstructions, I try and use published works for those, not Strand's website, which is not peer reviewed. --{{victar|talk}} 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Alright, can you give me the sources you are using? Kwékwlos (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Category:Proto-Nuristani reference templates --{{victar|talk}} 18:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, I know you're not accustomed for sourcing things, but ===References=== is for inline references. If you're not adding inline references, which you really should be at all times, they belong under ====Further reading====. --{{victar|talk}} 18:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, what page are you citing with {{R:iir-nur:NEL}} on *éti? It's a very large website. --{{victar|talk}} 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am very busy with other things so I can't focus on this right now. To be precise, the page is located at https://nuristan.info/lexAlphHdr.html where you click the phoneme labeled /i/ and scrolling until you see the PIE form (*ʔ-ei- "goes"). Kwékwlos (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edits to *éti. Strand is probably citing the 1sg.pres., not the 3sg.pres., which is why they have no -ti. If you can provide a link that they're in 3sg., I'm happy to restore them. --{{victar|talk}} 18:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, specify them that they are 1sg.pres. One question, where does the -ti come from in the Nuristani reflexes? Kwékwlos (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point, and looking at it, I may have been citing the 3pl. so I've restored your cited forms, though the link you provided does not work. Please provide a functioning one when you can. --{{victar|talk}} 18:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I recommend you hold off on creating Nuristani reconstructions. There is a lot of research that needs to be done first, and again, I will likely delete unsourced reconstructions on sight. --{{victar|talk}} 18:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Pinging you on this again. Please don't create Proto-Nuristani reconstructions before we have an established methodology of doing so. --{{victar|talk}} 06:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

  This not responding and just going along your way is going to land you a block, Kwékwlos. --{{victar|talk}} 05:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, don't be too arrogant. I will stop. Kwékwlos (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, so you do see things posted to your talk page? Great. --{{victar|talk}} 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kwékwlos, can you please add {{delete}} to old redirect pages after readjusting the links to it (using Special:WhatLinksHere). Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 20:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Again, please add {{delete}} to pages you move. --{{victar|talk}} 06:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Would you add {{Babel}} to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The modern term is 名前 (namae). The shorter form 名 (na) is seldom used as a standalone noun in modern usage. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oops Kwékwlos (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this be *kuh₂et-, since the w is between two obstruents? —Rua (mew) 11:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It is actually distinct from the labiovelar. Kwékwlos (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Curious about your recent edit to the Proto-Japonic entry for /na/, where you added hypothetical /namuy/. What is that term meant to represent? The Amami term appears to be a compound, where the initial na- may be a shortening of 名 (nā). See also the Amami Dialect Dictionary entries for ナー and for ナミン.

What would be the shift from Proto muy to Amami min? Proto Lua error in Module:links at line 223: The specified language Proto-Japonic is unattested, while the given term does not begin with '*' to indicate that it is reconstructed. correlates to Amami mi, for instance, not min.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think -n is a later addition, probably meaning "also" (< Proto-Ryukyuan *mu, compare Japanese mo) What about Japanese words such as ta ~ tame and ka ~ kami? Also, I noticed that PJ *tay is often cited to have an earlier form *tana, just as *kə < *ko̱no̱r according to Vovin. Kwékwlos (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Interesting about the possible abbreviation of a particle. Would that consistently produce a noun? The semantics are odd...

I'm not sure which Japanese terms you're referring to.

• I'm only aware of two possible terms for tame, 為 (tame, “sake, reason”) and 溜 (tame, “a buildup of concentration or energy; a place where one stores things, particularly dung or other fertilizer; a specific kind of rhythmic affect in certain music”). Neither term has any ta form.
• There are more possible matches for kami, as 上 (kami, “upper, superior”), 神 (kami, “deity, spirit, god”), 紙 (kami, “paper”), 髪 (kami, “head hair”, as opposed to body hair). However, again, none of these has any ka form.

Regarding Proto-Japonic *tay, there are a few old compounding forms that include tana, such as 掌 (tanaura, “palm of the hand”, archaic), 掌 (tanagokoro, “palm of the hand”), 手末 (tanasue, “tip of the hand, tip of the fingers”, archaic), but in all of these, the na is an apophonic form of possessive particle の (no). There is a separate term 棚 (tana, “shelf”), but that appears to be a wholly separate etymon unrelated to Japanese 手 (te) or Proto-Japonic *tay.

Regariding kə, I'm again at a loss as to what modern term is intended. ⟨ko₂⟩ could be at least Old Japanese 木 (“tree”) or 此 (“this”). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the pages for 神 (see the Nanori section) and ため (look at Etymology) you will see what I have mentioned before. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Re: 神, or indeed any Japanese term at all, nanori are wholly unusable for etymological derivation purposes: names are notoriously loose in spelling.

Re: ため#Etymology, all you the editor says is, "attested alongside with ta." I'm not sure what ta you're the editor is referring to. Do you have any quotes? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not sure, but it is listed here at http://oncoj.ninjal.ac.jp/list-of-words for Old Japanese. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Very interesting, thank you. Digging around in various page histories, I found the relevant edit to the 為 page. @Poketalker, other than MYS 808, are you aware of any other clear instances of this ta? I note too that tame was ⟨tame₂⟩, suggesting that ta ("sake, reason") + 目 (me₂, “notable aspect of something”) might be a possible derivation. I don't suppose you've run into anything further about that? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: KDJ? in Kotobank has an example from the Shoku Nihongi (the passage begins with “The Emperess visited Tōdai-ji...”). Here is the selection, it's in the center of the left page. Edo-period manuscript #1 and manuscript #2 of the same Kotobank example. Never thought tame was a compound in my opinion.

I edited the た page with the OJP entries with the SN example. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 10:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@POKéTalker, thank you! You say, "Never thought tame was a compound in my opinion." What's your take then on the relationship between these synonyms た and ため? Is た a shortening of ため? Is ため derived somehow from た? Or are they unrelated etyma that just happen to have the same first mora and same meaning?

Looking further just at ため, I begin to think this might be a nominalization of the stem of verb たむ, a 下二段活用動詞, of which all the senses have an underlying meaning of "working towards a specific purpose" -- not far from the "reason" sense of ため. See the KDJ entry at Kotobank.

If this derivation holds, we might have た as the ancient root, with む as the common verb-forming suffix that's counterpart to ぶ → modern びる and likely cognate with 目 and 見る, "to seem like, to be like; to make something be like something else". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: it's up to you if you want to edit the た/ため entries with the possibilities you have. In my opinion, either ta is indeed a shortening of tame or is part of tame. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 11:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

For terms with multiple etymologies, all headers under the etymology should be at level 4 or higher. Do not change these to level 3 (the same as the ===Etymology XXX=== header), as you did in your recent edit at 強い.

Also, any alternative forms for Japanese are (usually) dependent on reading, which is specific to the etymology. So please do not move alternative forms to the top of the entry, as you did in this other edit to that same entry.

Thank you, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Wait, did you just remove the Proto-Japonic etymology when there are obvious Ryukyuan cognates? Fixed it. Kwékwlos (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

It was easier to revert your structural goofs in various places in the entry, and then re-add your etymology (plus some more details I'd found) in just the one place. Have another look.  :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, nice. I usually use level 3 on most headers and level 4 on declension/descendants in Sanskrit terms. Kwékwlos (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ya, frankly, I've never been a big fan of our structural conventions -- POS header levels are conditional rather than consistent, which is ... I dunno, it seems like poor practice. But it is what it is. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please take caution to ensure that your edits to etymology templates do not create nonsensical language. "Pre-Greek, perhaps Pre-Greek", from here, is not the kind of phrasing one wants in any running text. If you simply wanted to categorise it as a descendant from Pre-Greek, this does the trick. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

1. NO SOURCES! 2. we generally don't create entries proto with one descendent -- this would have been best left on the PIE entry. --{{victar|talk}} 16:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd written the etym there based on my findings in JA sources. Gogen Allguide's entry for 葉, for instance, explicitly calls out a likely relationship between 葉 and 生ゆ. Internal to our entry, it's also a bit odd to say that 葉 is not related to 生ゆ ("to sprout"), and then say that it is related to 歯 and 羽 because all three sprout. What was your basis for this edit, where you changed the "probably cognate" to "probably distinct"? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I came across the 正しい entry and saw your addition of the Proto-Japonic *tantasi derivation.

I'm not sure the word is old enough for that. 正し (tadasi) first appears in Japanese in 858, and is clearly just 直 (tada) + adjective-forming suffix し (si), modern しい (shii). This term appeared almost exclusively in 漢文訓読 (kanbun kundoku) contexts to start with, suggesting that this was not an everyday term. In addition, a lot of the ～しい adjectives arise around this period as new coinages.

I'm curious, are you aware of any definite reflexes in other Japonic branches? If so, can those be identified as true cognates, rather than either borrowings or convergent constructions?

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr Okinawan does, which has tadasun (a verb, though cognate - see http://ryukyu-lang.lib.u-ryukyu.ac.jp/srnh/details.php?ID=SN20208). Kwékwlos (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. That's not a cognate with Japanese adjective 正しい (tadashii), but rather with verb 正す (tadasu), derived from the same root 直 (tada) + transitive / causative verb-forming suffix す (su), the root of modern する (suru) and reflected in Okinawan as スン. That relationship of Okinawan タダスン to Japanese 正す is indicated there at the bottom of the タダスン entry, with the line:

関連標準語： ただす〔正す〕，ただす〔糺す〕

The Japanese verb appears already in the Nihon Shoki of 720 (per the KDJ entry here), and is much more likely to have come from Proto-Japonic than the adjective. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

How are they non-cognate despite sharing a similar root form? Are they false cognates? Kwékwlos (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here's the breakdown, as I currently understand it.

• RYU tadasun is cognate with JA tadasu, but not with JA tadashii. Both RYU tadasun and JA tadasu are likely inherited from a common ancestor, i.e. Proto-Japonic.
• RYU tadasun is apparently derived from tada + sun. RYU tada is cognate with JA tada, and RYU -sun is cognate with JA -su.
• JA tadashii is a coinage within JA. While the tada portion is cognate with RYU tada, the -shii portion is not, and there does not appear to be a RYU word that corresponds wholly with JA tadashii.

If there is such a RYU word as a full cognate with JA tadashii, it is not tadasun. The list of adjectives at that site clearly demonstrates that JA ～い adjectives are reflected by RYU ～さん adjectives, such as RYU akasan ↔ JA akai, RYU asasan ↔ JA asai, RYU shirusan ↔ JA shiroi, etc. The 形容詞 section in the JA WP article on 琉球語 explains that Okinawan adjectives are derived from ～さ + ある, where sa aru becomes san through a collapse of the long vowel, and by the JA ending -ru reflecting as RYU -n (as we also see with JA suru ↔ RYU sun). Given other apparent RYU cognates for JA ～しい adjectives, such as RYU utunasan ↔ JA otonashii, or RYU wukasan ↔ JA okashii, we would expect to see something like tadasan as the RYU cognate of JA tadashii, but there is no such RYU term listed.

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's currently unclear what the ending of PBS neuter o-stems was. The ones we had so far all had -a, but Gnosandes has been creating them with -an instead, disrupting the pattern. I advise caution before moving them. —Rua (mew) 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oops, fixed. Somehow the declension was changed. Kwékwlos (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

it's all in the name of truth :) Gnosandes (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Rua and @Kwékwlos, Valency theory shows that there should be a mobile accent(!) in your theory 🤔 Gnosandes (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

And valency theory is nonsense according to the majority of linguists. Stop pushing your POV. Last warning. —Rua (mew) 15:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, the old placement of alternative forms at *éźera is also allowed, it's not an error. I prefer that format because it treats alternative forms like other synonyms and such. —Rua (mew) 11:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it's very likely that this term was formed within Proto-West Germanic. That implies that a Proto-Germanic ancestor must have existed, it just left descendants in only one branch. Only when it's likely that terms were formed separately within PWG, by a derivational process that was productive in PWG, should such pages be moved. —Rua (mew) 16:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The one who created this page listed it under the regional term West Proto-Germanic (= Proto-West Germanic), and it is only attested in the WGmc. languages. For example, *kwalm, which clearly has a PG and PIE antecedent. Kwékwlos (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

So you go and decide to move bunch of the Nuristani without ANY discussion? --{{victar|talk}} 05:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the μέταλλον etymology, where it said "From Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 2 should be a valid language, etymology language or family code; the value "pregrc" is not valid. See WT:LOL, WT:LOL/E and WT:LOF.," you added the word "pulled." It isn't an etymological term I've ever seen. Did you mean derived? "Pulled from" could also mean 'removed from', implying that it's no longer thought to be of Pre-Greek origin. I think the meaning was clearer before you added "pulled" and it should be reverted. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I got very excited when I saw this category, but then got disappointed when I saw that it was empty. Did it used to have members? Is it a placeholder for future additions? カモイ (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

No. Kwékwlos (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You made a big mistake. Sfentekimta. Sélam oliküm. 58.11.0.44 06:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Albanian cognates with Hebrew? Yeah, no, they didn't. --{{victar|talk}} 07:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I never made those, this IP simply posted it on my talk page for no apparent reason. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Victor you are quite stupid,
one term, who is linked by a sense, in other language,
don't mean that all Albanian cognate with Hebrew,
but anyway lot of Arabic term and others in Albanian derive from Hebrew. But you don't have any knowledge of it.
Also you don't speak Hebrew or Albanian according to you're Babel level so just shut up arrogant ignorant.
I don't talk to you first…

@Kwékwlos :

• https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=helm&type=revision&diff=53592176&oldid=53479646.

Removing some info without any detail in edit (comment),
hidden like this, is just wandalism,
but anyway, Allah / Êlohim see you where & when you don't see him.
I pray him to judge you for this to go in Héll Kwélkos, like your name suggest it.
Z.

Please, don't post pseudolingustic ideas by claiming that all words derive from Hebrew. We all know that Hebrew is not Indo-European (it is Semitic) and therefore not related to Albanian, and the semantics are quite off (poison = trauma?) Cognates don't need to be similar in form, just look at English two = Armenian erku. P.S. Insulting others will get you banned. Kwékwlos (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kwékwlos, I recently pinged you on my talk page regarding a debate between me and another Wiktionarian on accents in Albanian entries. Just checking - did you see it? I would appreciate some help/insight, as I am admittedly not experienced with the wider Wiktionary world of proposals and etc. Thank you in advance! ArbDardh (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)ArbDardhReply

Well, if your topic is on accents in Albanian, you should check professional sources beforehand. I don't have any knowledge of Albanian accent placement, let alone its proto-form. But we do know about Indo-European accents, which appear to have changed alot in the transition to Proto-Albanian, though I can't find any source on that. Kwékwlos (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

You added {{auto cat}} to a bunch of categories, creating errors. Please be careful to preview before saving when using {{auto cat}}. I will delete the categories. Benwing2 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Stop trying to reconstruct Proto-Italic on your own and putting it in Latin entries. You have no way of knowing whether those formations were internal to Latin or not unless you have other Italic evidence. Just don't add any that aren't in the scholarly literature. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry then, but how about De Vaan? Unfortunately there is a paywall. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

If it's in de Vaan, it's fine to add. I'm sure you can find a PDF of it on Library Genesis or a similar site. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

De Vaan's {{R:itc:EDL}} is free. -- Bhagadatta^(talk) 15:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Kwékwlos,

Can you try to find some descendants/lemmas for Proto-Ryukyuan *sabisi?

Thanks. Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jarosz (2016) cites Miyako sabїsї and a Yaeyama cognate sabїssa from Nevskiy. Other than that, I am not aware of others. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK! I’d say if you found some (more) feel free to edit my entry.

Added Yaeyama descendant Chuterix (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also this may help: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-255765/v1/f156a429c380ef9088bd73c0.xlsx Kwékwlos (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yay! Now creating Proto-Japonic entries (at least finding the Ryukyuan descendants) should be easier (as I use Martin (1987) JLTT for Proto-Japonic entries) Chuterix (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure if whoever reconstructed the words is aware of nasalization and -u- in some instances from -o-. For instance he reconstructed mugi (wheat) as PJ *mugi. Meanwhile you reconstructed mugi as PJ *monki. I know Proto-Japonic is not attested but I’m just wondering. Chuterix (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, unagi (eel) is derived from *unanki. But still missing -u- < -o- element Chuterix (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oops you reconstructed unagi as *unanki too Chuterix (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

PJ *mu syncopates in Ryukyuan, while PJ *mo never does (the reflex of both is mu in Japanese when not word-final). Also PJ technically had nasal + voiceless clusters which became prenasalized voiced early on. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

1st answer: thus, is it safe to move *monki to *munki/*mugi?

2nd answer: that explains why it got reconstructed as *gi instead of *nki? Chuterix (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

And hitsuji got reconstructed as *petunsi. Do you know why certain -i- is from *-e-? As in reconstructed *eku (to go). Chuterix (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

*monki seems to be the most widely accepted reconstruction. It wouldn't be a wise idea to redirect the page to *munki/*mugi. For *i remaining as *i in Ryukyuan, there are cases where the vowel triggers palatalization, which *e never does. For Japanese iku, there is an Okinawan cognate ichun which must point to an earlier *iku on account of the palatalized -ch- sound. For *petunsi "sheep", it is straightforward in Japanese, but Ryukyuan is much more complicated. There's a good few tweets by @cppig1995 that explains the development, but he posits mostly borrowings starting from Shuri Okinawan. Kwékwlos (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now I see in the file that wheat is reconstructed as *monki. However barley is reconstructed as *mugi for whatsoever reason. Chuterix (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

(chiming in...) @Chuterix, the *mugi ↔ *monki confusion that you noticed in the linked Excel list looks like general sloppiness, unfortunately. Notice that "barley" is given as *mugi in Proto-Japonic but then is given as Ɂuhumuzi in Old Shuri -- this is clearly a reflex of modern JA 大麦 (ōmugi, “barley”), OJP opomugi (from opo “big” + mugi “dry-field cereal grain”), not of just plain mugi. So not only is the reconstruction suspect, but it's also a reconstruction of the wrong word.

Considering that this "barley" sense is morphologically derived as "a specific kind of mugi", we must be careful to view the different Ryukyuan forms with a sharp eye. For instance, Hatoma padaka-muŋ looks like it's probably a reflex of modern JA 裸 (hadaka, “naked”) + 麦 (mugi, “dry-field cereal grain”), and thus irrelevant to any direct comparison with OJP opomugi ("barley"). Similarly, the Yoron / Mugiya-shima term siimugi appears to include some other element sii-, derivationally separate from OJP opo ("big").

HTH, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Kwékwlos,

Does your name spelling ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *kʷékʷlos (“circle, wheel”)? The spelling looks so familiar. Chuterix (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Yes Kwékwlos (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please find Ryukyuan sightings/lemmas for PR *naga (see here), and add them onto that entry. I've only gotten Okinawan, Kunigami, and Yaeyama, from the sources you've answered to other users in this talk page (JLect and Nevisky). But you've literally got (almost) every Ryukyuan descendant in (almost) every Proto-Ryukyuan adjective you've created/modified. So where do you get all of those other descendants besides Okinawan and the like if I can't find any real sightings of that? Any source you didn't mention for finding these sightings? Chuterix (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

see page here please add ryukyuan descendants, then remove the attention seeking message at the end of the entry source Chuterix (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

See page here

Please edit the descendants section to include the full Ryukyuan list. Thorpe (1983) lists the *paya ~ *paja in page 281. Chuterix (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Where did you find the word citings for kanasi descendants (see here)? I can't find them anywhere in Thorpe (1983) (at least the vocabulary section). At least the page of RLH, or some other Ryukyuan source? Chuterix (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

See here

Please update descendants section if you can. I can only find an Okinawan lemma pronounced either kucisaN or kurisjaN (assuming my analysis gives us kurisan), from the 沖縄語辞典 データ集, found by searching JLect. Therefore I just put that into descendants. Chuterix (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos You only seem to have done the kugi entry, so I assume you didn’t get notified when I alerted you about those entries. Chuterix (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's not on Thorpe (1983), so I can't really provide much. The only one I can find is Nikolay's Miyako form guri (with irregular voicing). Kwékwlos (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Update: JLTT 833 cites Shodon gurusyi- (probably a Japanese loanword, but voicing is unexpected), Nakijin kuCisen, Shuri alternate form and Yonaguni kuçisan (Yonaguni may have borrowed it from Shuri on account of the -san suffix, the usual adjectival termination in Yonaguni ends in -n). For the forms without -r-, the irregular second consonant indicates it is not probably cognate with the forms with -r-, so I have not included them. Kwékwlos (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.

Then, is there any other -shiku adjectives like *kanasi that have a full Ryukyuan list that I can add? Chuterix (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thorpe cites PR *sudasi "cool" (base *suda-), probably a cognate of OJp. suzusi except the correspondence d (< *nt) - z (< *ns) is irregular. Descendants of the PR form include: Kikai sudasai, Kunigami shidāsen, Northern Amami (Naze) shidasan, Okinawan shidasan, Tokunoshima (Inō) sïdaha, Miyako sïdāsï, Yaeyama sïdassan (< *sudasi + -san), and Yonaguni ndasan. Kwékwlos (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos I know about that word. But I was not planning to put it because I mainly want to put in a full set of Japonic terms (including Japanese), and the entry there lists that it's unclear how the OJ cognates work. So now I will put that along with PJ *suntusi, but call it an irregular sound shift.

You haven't answered my question about where you found *kanasi. As it's a full set of Ryukyuan terms, I must assume you got it from Thorpe (1983). But I can't find the page in the book linking to *kanasi/*kana (dear). So what page can I find *kanasi at in Thorpe Ryukyuan history book? Chuterix (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also in Shoki originally pronounce OJ suzusi- as sususi-. Chuterix (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also, is *sudasi all of them that's left to create? Chuterix (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

As for *kana/*kanasi, these were guessed via regular sound change. But feel free to remove the unsourced ones. For *sudasi, you can create it. But please notice it is only found in Ryukyuan, and not in Proto-Japonic since the connection with the Jp. term is tenuous at best. Kwékwlos (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

see here

please add Ryukyuan descendants, then remove attention message Chuterix (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

see entry here

please add more descendants

@Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

see entry here

please add descendants section and remove attn

@Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

see page here

please add more descendants Chuterix (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

• *mimi (“ear”)
• *sisi (“beast; flesh, meat”)

Chuterix (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Ryukyuan/sinobi < change the entry please Chuterix (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

(as in edit descendants section like always) Chuterix (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

please change Chuterix (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

please create the entry

proto-japonic entry Chuterix (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

please create entry

PJ entry Chuterix (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please create entry.

PJ Entry here Chuterix (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

investigate Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/tanosi and it's Ryukyuan descendants

update Reconstruction:Proto-Japonic/əpə (the Ryukyuan information) with more Ryukyuan descendants, they're listed in Thorpe (1983) Chuterix (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Please explain what each dialect of Ryukyuan languages mean that appear in Thorpe (1983). Chuterix (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kikai: A (Aden), Shi. (Shitōke)

Northern Amami: N (Naze), Ya. (Yamatohama), Yu. (Yuwan)

Southern Amami: Ko. (Koniya), Sh. (Shodon)

Tokunoshima: In. (Inō), Ka. (Kametsu), M (Matsubara), San

Okinoerabu: Kam. (Kamishiro), Se. (Serikaku), Tamina, Te. (Tetechina)

Yoron: C (Chabana), Mugiya

Kunigami: I (Ieshima), He. (Hentona), Nag. (Nago), Ok. (Oku), Sak. (Sakimotobu), Su. (Sumuide), Yon. (Yonamine = Nakijin)

Okinawan: Ishikawa, Na. (Naha), S (Shuri)

Miyako: Hirara, Ik. (Ikema), Nak. (Nakasuji), Og. (Ōgami), Ō. (Ōura), Sa. (Sarahama), Yo. (Yonaha), U (Uechi)

Yaeyama: H (Hateruma), Ha. (Hatoma), Is. (Ishigaki), K (Kabira), Kob. (Kobama), Ku. (Kuroshima), Ob. (Ōbama), So. (Sonai), T (Taketomi)

Yonaguni: Y (Yonaguni) Kwékwlos (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

P.S. (no response needed) this request was to make PR entries myself without the help of you having to make descendants Chuterix (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please update descendants section of Reconstruction:Proto-Ryukyuan/moye to include the Ryukyuan descendants.

Also, to quickly reference/source a Proto-Ryukyuan entry whose descendants are included in Thorpe (1983), you can use the Template:R:jpx-ryu:Thorpe 1983 ("R:jpx-ryu:Thorpe 1983") template. You can put "page=x"/"pages=x-x" to indicate the page of the Proto-Ryukyuan reconstruction/descendants.

This is to ensure that the descendants/PR source is verified (unless you/I reconstruct on own), and users can find where all of the descendants are (I had to consult you to even find where every single existant Ryukyuan descendant of nouns/adjectives are). I've already included this template in the *moye reconstruction published here.

Why were the IPA prons (sections) for Proto-Japonic entries removed, but Proto-Ryukyuan still uses the IPA pron section? If the language is reconstructed why not get rid of all IPA pronunciation sections in the PR entries? Chuterix (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Originally they had IPA, but it was removed because they were unsourced, even though PJ had a very simple consonant/vowel system. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

We also don't have academic consensus on the vowel values, and quite what the 甲・乙 distinction really meant in phonetic terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos oops "pages=x-x" if multi-paged Chuterix (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos: Where can I find Liúqiú guăn yìyŭ (the Northern Ryukyuan source you put in some PR entries like *yama)? Chuterix (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/08a47496-c7d9-4503-97cb-0c464b352f46 Kwékwlos (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; this also provides Haytong Cheykwukki info (I didn't ask for that originally to you because I looked that up and found some books about Ryukyuan or something mentioning this).

Added some of those information to some PR reconstructions I created, and also a reference template to use. Chuterix (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please consider Old Japanese (and it's dialects) < Proto-Japonic when using the comparative method (as in, change the reconstruction of PJ based on using the comparative method on OJP and PR). You've changed Proto-Ryukyuan *nau (“what”) to *nawo (“what”) and *ema (“now”) to *enama (“now”), but without changing the ancestor PJ word via the comparative method of OJP and PR on both of them, and @Eirikr asked on both reconstructed entries how the sound changes occur, saying either that it makes no sense or it's unlikely. See the talk pages of these reconstructions for what @Eirikr had said. Chuterix (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The PR reconstruction is heavily debated, but @cppig1995 points out that this word was *ema-ema and that it was loaned from Northern Ryukyuan to Southern Ryukyuan. But I fail to see how a basic word would be borrowed. Kwékwlos (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kwékwlos,

Thank you for your edits (and interest) in the reconstructed Latin area.

There are many mistakes with the autogenerated inflexion charts for Proto-Italo-Western Romance, etc. A by-no-means-exhaustive list would be:

• Claim of nasal vowels

• Claim of distinction between unstressed /ɛ, ɔ/ and /e, o/

• Lack of Proto-Italo-Western distinction between /-u/ and /-o/

• Presumption of a genitive distinct from the dative

• Bug producing -ẹi (for cases like ienuarius) for what should be -i

The verb inflexion charts are particularly problematic in their claiming, for instance, several types of inflexions for Proto-Balkan-Romance that are not supported by any of the descendants.

As things stand now, I would not recommend using these inflexion charts for any entry, reconstructed or attested. Nicodene (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. When where the templates created and by whom? Kwékwlos (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Depends on the specific template, judging by the edit histories of the pages on https://en.m.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Vulgar_Latin_inflection-table_templates

Fixing the noun declension charts may be simple, and I'll take a crack at it. On the other hand, the verb charts are the stuff of nightmares. Nicodene (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I messed up the reconstruction of PJ *mə (new fixed title) (OJP is actually mo₂ > mo, not mo₁, so I erroneously reconstructed PJ *mo), so is the reconstruction of PR *mu still correct? Or does it have to be changed? Chuterix (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

While most Ryukyuan varieties reflect *mu, there are a few (Amami and Okinoerabu) that reflect *mo. I believe the two coexisted in PR. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

The hyphen thing in Proto-Italo-Western-Romance and Proto-Balkan-Romance is meant for consistency with Proto-Gallo-Romance, Proto-Ibero-Romance, and Proto-Romance.

Language labels, such as these have just now been converted to, are generally put in the head or definitions of entries, not the pronunciation section, so that's why I've now been moving them.

I've been changing the lemmas to accusative forms for even Gallo-Romance because there are cases such as *fetonem, where the descendants do not actually attest a nominative *feto. Also it allows consistency with Proto-Ibero- and Balkan-Romance (and upcoming Proto-Italo-Romance), which are without a case system. Also consistent with our Old Occitan and Old French entries, which lemmatize by the accusative (oblique) form, even though a nominative still exists. In the future we can add inflexions to Proto-Gallo-Romance entries that will show the relevant forms.

Nicodene (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You should account for these unique survivals in the attested languages (productive nominative, etc.), and not by generalizing things based on other proto-languages Kwékwlos (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The generalization is based on two other considerations as well, perhaps most notably the identical treatment of Old French and Occitan (not only by Wiktionary, but generally by dictionaries of those languages as well).

Edit: what if we manually added the inflexions to the head? (Since I don't know how to make inflexion templates yet.) I have made an example on *visaticum. Nicodene (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

They should be in a table with Latinate forms and Gallo-Romance IPA. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Agreed on the need for a table. I need to figure out how to make the template for it. It may be tricky to include IPA alongside Latinate spellings.

Edit: what about like this? Nicodene (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for another ping. According to Template:label#Usage and Template:term-label, {{tl}} should be used with definitions, and {{tlb}} with headwords. Neither with pronunciation sections. Nicodene (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please keep them on the pronunciation section, because readers would not know what stage of Romance the pronunciation belongs. With the addition of a Gallo-Romance declension table, similar declension tables must be made for other Romance proto-languages (not the old one) with Latinate spellings and local IPA pronunciations. Kwékwlos (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

By that reasoning, readers seeing a label on the pronunciation would not now what stage of Romance the actual word belongs to.

I don't think readers would be so prone to confusion either way. Still, there may be merit in one day breaking free of Reconstruction:Latin entirely and creating normal proto-languages.

In any case, that is simply the rules for the templates tl and tlb. I didn't make them. Nicodene (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Have all of these names you're deleting gone through RFV? Vininn126 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems one person decided to make common Western proper names for a random Austronesian language that would seem out-of-place. For example, what if one decided to mass-create the same list of names in a language like Tolai (another Austronesian language)? Kwékwlos (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't delete other people's entries without sending them to verification. Please undo those changes and use the {{rfv}} template and send them through the proper process. Chances are they will be deleted but it creates prescedent as to why they were deleted. Vininn126 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. @Kwékwlos Please undo these and send them to RFV. Theknightwho (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quite unlikely to be borrowed, considering that it is not at all a general word for 'think' in literary Latin, that it diphthongizes in Spanish (yo pienso < ego pĕnso), and that it's attested from the earliest Romance texts. It survives in a similar sense in Romanian as păsa, where early borrowing from Latin is out of the question for historical reasons. The /ns/ forms could perhaps be described as 'semi-learned', but even that is unnecessary, considering that /ns/ survival occurs in for example the (very clearly inherited) descendants of *mansus < mansuetus. It could simply be that the variation between /s/ and /ns/ (when the reduction process was in effect) was exploited to differentiate what would later become pesar (“weigh”) from pensar (“think”), creating two verbs from one. Nicodene (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see. Given that they undergo all popular sound changes, I think they were borrowed during the Proto-Romance period and then passed on as "almost-inherited" descendants. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

At that stage it wouldn't count as a borrowing from Latin, since Proto-Romance is itself Latin. It would have to be a posh fashion passed down to the general population, but then we would expect that posh fashion to be reflected in the texts of that time.

I think it'd be fair enough to say this about the /ns/ forms:

(Inherited) from Latin pensare, with rare (and some sources claim learned) conservation of /ns/. Nicodene (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please use {{auto cat}}. Otherwise, they don't get subcategorised properly and no-one will ever find them - making it worse than useless, because it's also harder for bots to find them as they don't register as uncreated. Theknightwho (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos You did this again: Category:Vulgar Latin language. I will not warn you next time - I'll just block you for a day. Theknightwho (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Uhm... sorry Kwékwlos (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos You did this again:

• Category:Tregami numerals
• Category:Ashkun numerals
• Category:Kamkata-viri numerals
• Category:Tregami terms derived from Sanskrit
• Category:Kamkata-viri terms derived from Sanskrit
• Category:Ashkun multiword terms

As I told you last time I will block you for a day, as this is harmful to the project. Theknightwho (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could we please not do multiple reconstructed pronunciations, reflecting different stages of Romance, on one page? It exponentially multiplies the (already overwhelming) work of double-checking. For instance, the Catalan descendant of *longitanus retains the second vowel.

If you want we can move these "extras" to a sandbox page and play around with them there, as a sort of exercise, but I'd really rather not do this on the actual entries, because then I'd have to rigorously check each and every new pronunciation. There is already a ton of work to do to fix up Late and reconstructed Latin here (finding all the proper dates of attestation, for example, very time-consuming), and this would greatly complicate things.

Thanks. Nicodene (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

While exponential seems a little bit too much, tetrational seems way too much. Kwékwlos (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You should use {{tlb}} in the head rather than {{lb}} (I see Nicodene already mentioned this a few weeks ago). I have to say though I don't particularly like the practice of moving labels for single-sense terms to the head line, by moving them to a much less prominent position at the end of a line it makes them harder for users to spot without providing any functional benefit. What's the rationale? —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry. Wasn't really clear on the distinction between these two. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Kwékwlos. I believe that you added Etymology 2, “(Japan) Abbreviation of channel” to ch. I don't know what that gloss means, though. I'm guessing maybe it's something related to 2channel or the like, but that is a total guess. Could you take a look at the entry and see if maybe a usage example or other addition might clarify? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

In Japanese, ch refers to channel in general. So when the Japanese type English, they will transfer this to English as well. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. So you are saying that when native Japanese users write in English, they use ch as an abbreviation for channel – have I got that right? If so, I'm not sure that the practice is limited to Japanese speakers. With a full-stop ch. is a common abbreviation in English, and a web search shows things like “12ch speaker selector” (that is, channel in a different sense of the word). I'm not sure whether the label adds useful information, or is simply confusing. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is not from Japanese. This is attestable as an abbreviation of channel in English-language documents since at least the 1930s. See also https://www.google.com/search?q=2ch+two+channel&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1900,cd_max:1999&tbm=bks&source=lnt&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=916&dpr=1, particularly the Bell Telephone documentation from 1933. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

GW "golden week", HP "home page", and recycle shop are some English words with predominantly Japanese usage. They can appear both in a Japanese-language text, (in speeches) code-switching, or in full English. Kwékwlos (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not add unsourced cross-family comparisons in order to promote your fringe theories on this site. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

In other words, to clarify, Wiktionary is supposed to reflect what is more or less the consensus of modern linguists. Regardless of how plausible your deductions are, which as a layperson I may not judge, if unsourced, they do not belong in the project. Although we do not prohibit original research per se, this applies to matters of small weight, while claming that Japonic is a subbranch of Indo-European is quite the heavy claim. There will surely be better places to note down your finds, especially since adding them here, as evidenced, will just get you reverted and blocked. Please reconsider mentioning these kinds of connections on-site. Catonif (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos. If there are multiple pages to source, use |pages=x-x, not |page=x-x. Thank you. Chuterix (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I moved your About Proto-Nuristani page to your user subpage, as it's unsourced and incomplete. -- {{victar|talk}} 00:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos: essay(ish):

The history of Proto-Japonic on Wiktionary started on January 5 2019 when you first added PJ *mentu (“water”) onto Wiktionary, introducing lemmatized PJ to Wiktionary.

Next was PJ *pitə (“person”, later you created gloss "one"), etc.

January 11 2019 was when @Mellohi! began reconstructing Proto-Japonic, mostly basic vocabulary that even was listed in Thorpe (1983). E.g. *kəy (“tree”), *poy (“fire”), etc. Mostly basing off Pellard's reconstructions. The descendants are based off the former Ryukyu-go Onsei Database (Audio Database of Ryukyuan Lagnuages), which included Kunigami (Yonamine, Nakijin), Northern Amami-Oshima (Yamatohama), Okinawan (Shuri-Naha), and Miyako (unknown). Some descendants from Nevisky were added, along with other descendants from unknown sources.

Then, you @Kwékwlos started added descendants from Thorpe (1983), and blah blah blah.

Then there weren't anymore Proto-Japonic reconstructions since at least late 2021. I joined on Wiktionary to learn Japanese, then wanted to know etymologies for words. Some were from PJ (like ある (aru, “to exist”) < PJ *ari, or 胸 (mune, muna, “chest”) < PJ *munay). I first wanted to know etymology of 何 (nani, “what”), presumably from PJ *n-anu- (or *n-anV?). Now here is my reconstruction history, initially using reconstructions from Martin (1987), but soon start to take on my own reconstructions from analysis. Starting with PJ *asonpu (“to play”) and *nanka (“long”). I also forgot to mention that my initial days were troubled by there existing only Okinawan descendants. I soon began to make progress.

P.S.(-ish) I forgot to mention other users try to create reconstruction pages but they were badly configured (as I said in mukantay, had to clean up PJ *Enəti (“life”) and *məmə (“peach”)). The pages in parentheses were amply attested throughout all of the Ryukyuan languages. On momo however the unknown IP sound guessed every decendant based off okinawan mumu, so I had to fix it.

Anyways, the former Proto-Japonic members were @Kwékwlos, Mellohi!. Mellohi seems to no longer been creating new PJ entries, Kwekwlos seems to be fixing the problems in the PJ entries and updating some stuff. Some 2022-2023 created entries are all from Thorpe (1983) (e.g. PJ *mmanka (“grandchild”)).

Now I seem to be taking over PJ reconstruction (thanks to one unknown IP I created PJ *paka (“grave”) which is luckily amply attested all around the Ryukyus), but IDK. What wil be the future of reconstructing PJ here?

Also how is Wiktionary:About Proto-Japonic? @Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some stuff was implemented on the site, probably a few months ago, such that now the horizontal divider lines previously generated by typing ---- are now generated automatically so there is no need to try to add these dividers to entries yourself anymore. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Do I romanize this as kh or k? Chuterix (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Using https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/11526, Kunigami kh should be written as kh, while k' should be written as k. Kwékwlos (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also @Kwékwlos an example of /k?/ in Nakijin Hogen Jiten: https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E4%BB%8A%E5%B8%B0%E4%BB%81%E6%96%B9%E8%A8%80%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8/jfWwAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%E7%B5%84%E3%82%80 (reinput it to show the picture) Chuterix (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the cited word with /k?/? Kwékwlos (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

/k?/ = /kC/ = either k or kh. I know Martin (1987) puts K and T for k~kh and t~th.

The term cited is Kumin, cognate to JA 組む (kumu, “to link across”); the PJ form is *kumu based off the Southern Ryukyuan evidence: Irav & Sa. fum; Yaeyama fumun (< PR *kumi). Unlike PJ *kəmu (“to enclose”) where Hirara kumīz and Yaeyama kumin/kumi-ru(?) (< PR *kome). SR cognates from Jarosz (2015). Chuterix (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

When using Thorpe (1983) what dialects are you preferring for some entries like adjectives and verbs (e.g. *taka (“high”) and *ide (“to go out”))? I see that TKN entries there reflects Kametsu dialect.

Please list them in a reply here. Chuterix (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Kikai: Aden, Shiitoke

Kunigami: Nakijin (Yonamine)

Northern Amami-Oshima: Naze, Yamatohama

Okinawan: Naha, Shuri

Oki-No-Erabu: Serikaku, Tetechina

Southern Amami-Oshima: Koniya, Shodon

Toku-No-Shima: Inō, Kametsu

Yoron: Chabana

Miyako: Hirara

Yaeyama: Ishigaki

Yonaguni: Yonaguni Kwékwlos (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wonder why you picked those dialects (esp. Oki-No-Erabu and Toku-No-Shima). @Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because they are the ones that appear the most in Thorpe's dictionary. Kwékwlos (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK. I was supposing the mainland dialects (Hirara, Ishigaki, Yonaguni) are why. Also I believe Hirayama (1966) is possibly where you can find Northern Ryukyuan cognates. I'm considering getting Nakasone (1983) and Hirayama (1966). However, Hirayama (1967) isn't available on Amazon JP ATM. Chuterix (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Chuterix (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also what do you say about WT:AJPX? @Kwékwlos?

Can some modifications be made? Chuterix (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos You have been ignoring my questions on problematic reconstructions; I've listed these issues that you do not respond to:

• Reconstruction talk:Proto-Ryukyuan/etu
• Reconstruction talk:Proto-Japonic/mOsi

Please answer these questions as soon as possible. Chuterix (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Kwékwlos, Mellohi!): Please do something about this situation. Especially @Kwékwlos. Chuterix (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos You have been continuing to ignore my requests. Please answer ASAP.

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Kwékwlos, Mellohi!, AryamanA, Bhagadatta, Svartava, JohnC5, Kutchkutch, Inqilābī, Getsnoopy, Rishabhbhat, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, HappyMidnight, Tibidibi, Quadmix77, Kaepoong, AG202, Atitarev, Tooironic, Fish bowl, Justinrleung, Mar vin kaiser, RcAlex36, The dog2, Frigoris, 沈澄心, 恨国党非蠢即坏, Michael Ly, Wpi, ND381): please do something about this. Chuterix (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuterix: This is the fourth time I've received a mass ping from you, the other ones being Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Japonic/references#More references and User talk:Chuterix#Troll Poem from an unknown language. Please stop mass-pinging this many people, most of whom are not even tangentially relevant to/interested in the topic concerned. – Wpi (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. @Chuterix, as I told you almost a month ago at User_talk:Eirikr#馬, please slow down, and please respect that this is a volunteer project. Other editors have exactly zero obligation to respond to you, let alone to drop everything else and make your pings their top priority.

Please do not engage in further mass pings.

Please also do not repeatedly ping users so frequently, as you have done here to Kwékwlos, and earlier to Mellohi and myself.

This behavior is disruptive and not helpful to the Wiktionary project. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chuterix: I believe people are not obliged to respond on Wiktionary. If someone is not responding, urging them to do so is usually a bad idea. 恨国党非蠢即坏 (talk) 08:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I recently have Sakihara (2006) and they use Naha -in. But shuri -yun for cog of ja -ru.

This is for -ru. C.f. naha 蹴ーん (ki:n) https://www.jlect.com/entry/4823/kiin/.

(Notifying Eirikr, TAKASUGI Shinji, Atitarev, Fish bowl, Poketalker, Cnilep, Marlin Setia1, Huhu9001, 荒巻モロゾフ, 片割れ靴下, Onionbar, Shen233, Alves9, Cpt.Guapo, Sartma, Lugria, LittleWhole, Kwékwlos, Mellohi!): Chuterix (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

someone change

. Chuterix (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

oops i meant ot p osdgot tihs ism -breer oprl Chuterix (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos: Can you please bring them back? Every entry. I've gotten started for you. Chuterix (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is not a consensus on what the actual vowel values were, so quite frankly, we do not know how these words were pronounced. We don't include pronunciation sections for other proto languages: see also the entries for Proto-Indo-European *h₂eh₂ógʰe or *pléh₁yōs, or Proto-Sino-Tibetan *d-wam or Proto-Malayo-Polynesian *daqan kahiw or Proto-Semitic *bayt-, etc. etc.

@Chuterix, coordinate with other editors -- and discuss and achieve agreement -- before you embark on a reworking of our entry structure. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Eirikr: Take a look at the Proto-Austronesian entries and you'll see what I mean. Chuterix (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@荒巻モロゾフ, @Kwékwlos: any thoughts? Chuterix (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote over at User_talk:Eirikr#Do not remove PJ pron sections:

• We don't know how these terms were pronounced. Therefore, adding pronunciation sections is misleading at best, flatly incorrect at worst.
• The pitch accent information you were adding is confusing and unsourced. What are the accent classes? Who decided what accent class each word belongs to? None of this is explained or linked, which is unacceptably bad usability.

Better to have nothing than to have wrong information, or information that is so obscure as to be opaquely not-understandable.

As I noted on Kwékwlos's Talk page, you need to coordinate and achieve consensus first. Just announcing that you're going to rework entry structure and launching into that is insufficient and subject to reversion -- even more so when the content you're adding is problematic (as above). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

PS: Various Proto-Austronesian terms lack pronunciation sections, such as *baŋbaŋ₂, *laCəŋ, *lahud, *kurap.

Also, you quote Aramaki-san, but fail to cite: where do they say that? Context is important.

Slow down. Coordinate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 11:58 am, Today (UTC−7)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

We are still waiting for your response. Also pinging @Mellohi!, despite his ignorance of many Japonic questions asked. Chuterix (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Any changes you can make here? Chuterix (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please don't create any more Nuristani entries. There hasn't been an agreed upon reconstruction form yet. --{{victar|talk}} 07:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I came across an etymology of yours from Dec 2020 claiming to derive Latin sentimentum from Proto-Italic *sentimentom. This has persisted for over 3 years but it's wrong, and ludicrously so, as this term is first attested around 1500 AD. This shows how important it is not to add plausible-sounding garbage to Wiktionary. Benwing2 (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Hi, I am chiming in a bit late here, but I want to point out that in late 2020, the user in question took it upon himself, like a hobby induced game, to add ridiculous Proto-Italic reconstructions en masse to Latin terms that were obviously later formations. I managed to remove most of them but it appears that I also missed some. Please delete these on sight. Thanks. -- 𝘗𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘺𝘪^{(𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬)} 08:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Pulimaiyi Thanks. Yeah I removed the ones I found back in Jan, but I suspect there may be others. Benwing2 (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Howdy! I'm just curious, do you remember where you got the Sakha/Yakut etymology for this word? You wrote that this word came through Russian from Yakut юкагир (yukagir), but this word doesn't looks like a normal Sakha word at all. It is listed in the Sakha online dictionary, but it looks like a borrowing from Russian. All the sources I can find, derive the word from Evenki.

hi Kwékwlos, I just discovered the entries you created, about 2 years ago, for Teanu. Cool!

Simply, I noticed that all the references are wrong, because you simply cut-and-pasted the same link (usually the one to moe). I've corrected a couple entries (like here) but I cannot do all of them. Would you be able to check and correct the links? Ideally you'd double check that each link lands on the right entry.

Thanks! -- Womtelo (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

Very well. Kwékwlos (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your quick action -- Womtelo (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC).Reply

I believe the word final <-z> as transcribed by Nevsky for the Miyako language is actually supposed to represent a word final fricative vowel: イ゚ (ɿ). Chuterix (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos Can you please tell me the source for the Kikai term kyaa? I can't find it in Iwakura (1941)'s wordlist. Chuterix (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Kikaijima Kwékwlos (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kwékwlos I don't know if you should really put Old Okinawan forms (Liuqiu Guan Yiyu, Haytong Ceykwukki, Omoro Soshi, etc.) into Northern Ryukyuan descendant list in proto-ryukyuan entries (in spite that the Omoro Soshi apparently has different dialectal variety, but that might just be the okinawan forms that vary), because someone who is not acquainted with Japonic linguists would think that the Old Okinawan form that you masquerade as a Northern Ryukyuan form is the ancestor of all Northern Ryukyuan langauges (including Amami). Do you mind if I change the Northern Ryukyuan forms so they could look like a better ancestry?

E.g. the current setup:

• Northern Ryukyuan: foobar (Liuqiu Guan Yiyu, 1469-1470)
  • Kikai: foobar (foobar)
  • Kunigami: foobar (foobar)
  • Northern Amami-Oshima: foobar (foobar)
  • Okinawan: foobar (foobar)
  • Okinoerabu: foobar (foobar)
  • Southern Amami-Oshima: foobar (foobar)
  • Toku-no-shima: foobar (foobar)
  • Yoron: foobar (foobar)

Proposed new setup:

• Northern Ryukyuan:
  • Kikai: foobar (foobar)
  • Northern Amami-Oshima: foobar (foobar)
  • Okinoerabu: foobar (foobar)
  • Old Okinawan: foobar (Liuqiu Guan Yiyu, 1469-1470)
    • Kunigami: foobar (foobar)
    • Okinawan: foobar (foobar)
  • Southern Amami-Oshima: foobar (foobar)
  • Toku-no-shima: foobar (foobar)
  • Yoron: foobar (foobar)

Chuterix (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Though the exact subgrouping of Northern Ryukyuan is still uncertain, shared innovations are very useful, especially if they cannot be proven areally. One example is the apparent subgrouping of Yuwan Amami within Yoron, first made by Thorpe. Kwékwlos (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regardless of which is a more appropriate name in the abstract, Kamkata-viri is what we have in the modules. Anything else will put the pages in Category:Kamkata-viri entries with incorrect language header. Until such time as you get the name changed in the modules, please don't undo my changes. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note that the above only applies to the language name and L2 header. I don't care about any of the other changes from -vari to -viri, which for all I know may well be in error. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Earlier, the name was based on the suffix "-viri" found only in the Kamviri dialect, but Richard Strand (https://nuristan.info/PDFs/Strand%20-%20Ethnolinguistic%20and%20genetic%20clues%20to%20N%C3%BBrist%C3%A2n%C3%AE%20origins.pdf) prefers the term Kamkata-vari (with "-vari" reflecting the Kata-vari form of the word).

I do understand, but I apologize if I have done something wrong. Nuristani is not a group of languages most people study currently, with the exception of Richard Strand, Jakob Halfmann, and a few others. The Morgenstierne NTS papers are unfortunately not accessible to me right now. Kwékwlos (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Again, stop adding Nuristani entries. --{{victar|talk}} 04:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply