User talk:LissanX

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! --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

(diff) I couldn't find ساکاستان Sâkâstân, maybe you mean سکستان (Sakestân) ?

Hello, ساكاستان Sâkâstân and ساكستان Sakâstân would both be correct, with the latter more common and I the one I should have added. سکستان is not correct, though.

Hello, There isn't word such that in Persian. Please check it out before creating new page.(Irman (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC))Reply

Hello, Imran. You are mistaken, they are definitely words in Persian. Persian Wikipedia also has articles on them:

https://fa.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/سکائستان https://fa.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/سکاها https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Sistan (LissanX) (talk)

Wikipedia is not reliable to use as a source. I recommend you that use published sourrces instead.(Irman (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC))Reply

This site is from Wikipedia. There are also several books on the word, and it even exists in Old Persian. Please do not claim words do not exist simply because they are not in your vocabulary. (LissanX) (talk)

Hello,

Persian never uses letter ي. The correct spelling and the correct Persian is just one click away at شیطان (šeytân). شَيْطَان (šayṭān) (stripped of diacritics) is the Arabic spelling, not the Persian. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Anatoli,

Yes, you are correct. That was a typo on my part due to mixing up keyboards. Thanks for the amendment.

LissanX (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is the only Arabic word spelled with ۦ, as you can see from the category. Are you sure it's correct? DTLHS (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Yes I am sure it is correct. It is a common Classical Arabic spelling of the name Abraham (Arabic Ibrahim). It appears quite frequently throughout several classical texts, including the Quran where it is found approximately 70 times and can be seen abundantly in Surah Al-Baqarah, verses 2:124 - 2:260. There are other terms which use "ۦ" as well, such as:

‘نَبِيِّۦن’, ‘أُمِّيِّۦن’, ‘رَبَّٰنِيِّۦن’, ‘حَوَارِيِّۦن’, etc.

LissanX (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DTLHS: I've moved the entry. It's a diacritic and shouldn't appear in the entry title. --WikiTiki89 17:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That’s agreeable with me. LissanX (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you might want to check this one if there some kind of editing which you don't agree with in Arabic at the moment. I did a minor edit to the Persian in the meantime, though. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Kaixinguo, I made some changes to the Arabic page but left the Persian entry as it is because I don’t know what else to add. - LissanX (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

You've already been reverted by two different users. Time to start asking yourself what you're doing wrong. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I’ve only been reverted by one user, and that was you. Reading comprehension is a virtue. The other user arbitrarily removed content that was originally on the page, they did not ‘revert‘ anything. I was the user who reverted their removal of content, not the other way around. Then, the original revert was reverted by you. It’s time to reflect on why you lack the mental capacity to read a page’s history and then ask yourself why you’re vandalising a page by deleting translations. Good luck. - LissanX (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

My apologies: I've misread the edit history, and I was indeed the first person to revert you. Now that that's cleared up, I'll revert you a second time (a hint: I'm not vandalising the page.) --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

As for Милейковский, FYI, Wiktionary:Entry_layout#Translations, "Entries for languages other than English and Translingual should not have Translations sections." --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ottoman Turkish used و for u, o, ö, ü, and sometimes also ı, as well as v. The vowels have not developed suddenly in the twentieth century but were there in Proto-Turkic. Proto-Turkic had even a length distinction between all vowels. Nobody transcribes as you have دونمه. You could also have easily seen the Europeans have always transcribed it Dönme, as here the whole page C. Sandreczki. You could just have searched Google Books transcriptions in the nineteenth or eighteenth century. I have also added you a reference to Meninski’s dictionary, which of course gives dönme, in 1680. Fay Freak (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The term for Dönmeh in Ottoman Turkish is from the 1600s, not the 19th century. The 19th century transcriptions are the era of modern Turkish. — LissanX (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

19th century is Ottoman Turkish according to Wiktionary usage and every usage. And it always was with ö. See also Meninski. You say 1600s, Meninski is from the 1600s. Fay Freak (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Meninski's dictionary is Turkish-to-Latin, not English, other Turkic languages, or even another comparable language such as Persian or Arabic. Your explanation of "Europeans write it as Dönmeh in the 19th century" is weak and frivolous reasoning. Regardless, I’m willing to agree to disagree. If writing "dönme" means the world to you, you can continue with my blessing. — LissanX (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the page on يهود: The shaddah on the final yā' (يّ) is only in the case that the word is an adjective, not in the case that it's a singulative. Yahūdiyy (يَهُودِيّ) means "Jewish," not "Jew." Yahūdī (يَهُودِي, i.e. without a shaddah on the final yā') means a Jew. Same way, for example, Rūmiyy (رُومِيّ) means "of or related to (Eastern) Romans/Byzantines" while Rūmī (رُومِي) means a (Eastern) Roman/Byzantine. - Ash wki (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ash wki You are wrong. There is no difference, it’s the very same suffix ـِيّ (-iyy). Fay Freak (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Fay Freak, I didn't say they are two different suffixes. Rather, what I said is the use of diacritics is different. That is why the singulative ending is pronounced as ī and not with a geminated yā'. You don't say Jinniyy, you say Jinnī. - Ash wki (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ash wki The diacritics aren’t different, and the pronunciation is the same. Fay Freak (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ash wki, Fay Freak is correct, the same suffix is used for both. In Arabic, the Yaʾ suffix used to form singular nouns is the same as the one used to form adjectives. The only time the Yaʾ suffix without a Shaddah is used is for the possessive suffix, which would make يَهُودِي mean “my Jews” and يَهُودِيّ mean “ Jew”. The automated transliteration on Wiktionary is actually inaccurate, يَهُودِيّ is pronounced as yahūdīy (not yahūdiyy), and يَهُودِي is pronounced yahūdī. In everyday speech, both sound like yahūdī. For example, the name عَلِيّ is commonly pronounced ʿalī, though it is actually pronounced correctly as ʿalīy — LissanX (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC), last update 03:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak, Atitarev, Chuck Entz I have tried to revert all the damage you've caused by adding alif waṣla signs where they don't belong on a whole bunch of pages. I've also reverted your addition of a dagger alif at the end of words like مثنى, where at the very least it isn't necessary and isn't what's normally done here. Likewise you wrongly added a sukūn in مائة. Please don't add any of them back, it took a lot of work to undo all the changes. I would suggest you read some articles on Arabic diacritics. If you persist in adding them again, I may block you. Benwing2 (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2 Go learn Arabic, then come talk to me. None of the diacritics were wrong, you’re just semi-literate and deteriorate the quality of content on Wiktionary by replacing things based on a POV that exists only in your own head.

The Alif Khanjariyah on مَثْنَىٰ is part of the word’s diacritics. Just because you have some kind of mental problem with having the diacritics be "too complete" doesn’t make it wrong. You might as well go around removing Fathahs before Alifs as well.

The word مِاْئة does have a Sukun because it is a silent letter that was added because early Arabic didn’t have any diacritics, including letter dots, and the word was written ماىه so that it wouldn’t be confused with other words that could result from مىه, such as منه. It is the same as the silent wāw for the word عَمْروْ, so that عَمْر wouldn’t be confused with عُمَر. You’re so utterly ignorant and oblivious that you’re embarrassing yourself. The fact you said that “Alif Wasla is only needed after a vowel” when that’s when it’s least needed is just evidence of your buffoonery.

This comment itself is nothing but a childish provocation from you as I already stated that I will not be making any more corrections to your faulty diacritics on the previous talk page. If you want to block me like the buffoon you are, then go ahead. I don’t get paid to correct your errors, I do it voluntarily when I’m bored. There’s nothing particularly compelling for me to stay and volunteer my time so that others may benefit, especially with semiliterate degenerates like you pestering me. 03:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)