User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 11

It's true. But this doesn't mean that here we mustn't apply the same rules. The adding of the asterisk for syntactic gemination is just an intromission from IvanScrooge98. It's not used in any phonetic transcription and above all it's not found in the IPA which is the alphabet used to transcribe the pronunciation of the words here. I wonder why an arbitrary convention as IvanScrooge98's should be kept. He inserted that symbol in the Wiki dictionary on its own initiative and without consulting anyone. He did the same in the Wiki encyclopedia and there he was contested. The issue was discussed and it was decided unanimously to remove the asterisks. Tell me why it's worng to remove his personal IPA convention and right to leave it here please. — This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 18:00, 5 April 2016‎.

I don't necessarily feel that we should use the asterisk notation here, but I do feel that we should discuss it here first, separately from the discussion on Wikipedia, and come to our own conclusion. You can bring it up at the Beer parlor for discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, in this case wouldn't it be better to start removing IvanScrooge98's insertion in order to restore the previous status quo and then discuss about the possible use of the asterisk for syntactic gemination in Italian? It's normally this the ways Wikipedians deal with such issues, when something not enough encyclopedic but quite subjective is added it's removed until a consensus to add it is reached... Furthermore, in the discussion I've mentioned above IvanScrooge98 didn't even take part! 1 + 1 = 2 — This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 18:30, 5 April 2016‎.

If it were a brand-new addition, yes, but it isn't. It's been there several months already and seems to be in use in several entries. By this time, removing it requires discussion. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand your point of view even if I don't agree, it's not urgent so I'm not doing it right now. — This unsigned comment was added by 2001:1600:3:9:7a2b:cbff:fe3e:ee99 (talk) at 20:00, 5 April 2016‎.

Fête (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) aka Phung Wilson (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks), who is globally locked under both accounts, has reappeared as Fête Phung (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks)/À la 雞 (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks). He's been doing mostly Chinese/Cantonese edits, which makes sense, since that's his native language. It's entirely possible that those are ok.

Unfortunately, he's also been doing edits of English pronunciation sections. He's always had a real fascination with pronunciation, but in the past has been really bad at it. I suspect that he's still having problems, but my IPA skills aren't strong enough to properly patrol those edits. Could you look through his English-language contributions and check for any problems? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The English pronunciation edits look fine to me, apart from (1) his insistence on putting British pronunciations first (which strikes me as POV-pushing), and (2) his use of the labels "UK" and "US", which are meaningless in pronunciation sections. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Angr! I'm contacting you as the last active sysop I found in recentchanges, I notice a fellow it.wiki's admin has been blocked for 9 years for "unacceptable username". I'm pretty sure it was at time but because of sul such this limitation shouldn't be longer in effect. Can you please give me a feedback about the best way to get him unblocked? Thank you! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess the best thing would be to ask at the Beer Parlor. I don't see any reason for him to be blocked indefinitely, but maybe other people know more about what constitutes an unacceptable user name than I do. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

1. I was referred to you by User talk:Stephen G. Brown. Please see: User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Khmer and User talk:Stephen G. Brown#Old Khmer.
2. Would you please create special language codes for Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian Khmer, Angkorian Khmer, and Middle Khmer? Thank you very much!

--หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@หมวดซาโต้: Having read w:Khmer language#Historical periods I'm not convinced there's a need for separate codes for Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian Khmer, and Angkorian Khmer. How about if I just create codes for Old Khmer and Middle Khmer? How do mkh-okm and mkh-mkm sound? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Though Pre-Angkorian Khmer and Angkorian Khmer are part of Old Khmer, Pre-Angkorian and Angkorian terms are sometimes different (e.g. according to this, the Old Khmer term kaṅa was also spelt as kaṅ during the Pre-Angkorian period and as koṅ during the Angkorian period). Separate codes will also enable us to specifically indicate the origin of a term (e.g. the Thai term "จับ" jàp was derived from Pre-Angkorian Khmer cap, not from Angkorian cāp). So, I personally think we need separate codes for them. Anyway, let's hear @Stephen G. Brown's opinion. He principally works on Khmer here. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's possible to distinguish stages of a language in etymologies without having separate codes. We do this for Latin, where etymologies distinguish between Vulgar Latin, Ecclesiastical Latin, Late Latin, Medieval Latin, and Renaissance Latin, but for entries they're all just la. So it would be possible to have etymologies distinguish between Angkorian Old Khmer and Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer, while still just having Old Khmer for entries. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: we do that by making etymology-only codes for the variants, so that references to the languages in the etymology templates can use those codes, but the terms themselves and the references to them use the main code. Thus {{cog|LL.|-}} produces Late Latin, but you would refer to {{m|la|praecocia}}/praecocia rather than {{m|LL.|praecocia}}, which would give you a module error. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

However, you can use the etym-only codes together with the term when you use the templates {{der}}, {{bor}}, and {{inh}}, e.g. {{der|fr|LL.|praecocia}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Still a little confusing. So we would need at least one new code, since the older forms of Khmer will be in the Latin alphabet and presumably in a separate category or categories from the Modern Khmer entries. Thus for Khmer, one would use {{cog|km|-}} {{m|km|កង}}, Old Khmer {{cog|mkh-okm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅa}}, Pre-Angkorian Khmer {{cog|mkh-pakm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅ}}, Angkorian Khmer {{cog|mkh-akm|-}} {{m|mkh|koṅ}}, and Middle Khmer {{cog|mkh-mkm|-}} {{m|mkh|kaṅ}}. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Almost. We would need mkh-okm and mkh-mkm to be regular codes, which could be used for anything. The codes mkh-pakm and mkh-akm would be etymology-only codes that are sort of subcodes of the other two: assuming that Pre-Angkhorian Khmer is part of Old Khmer, you would have {{cog|mkh-pakm|km}} {{m|mkh-okm|kaṅ}}. mkh is a family code, and you can't speak a family, so {{m|mkh|kaṅ}} won't work.

As Angr mentioned, there are a whole series of new etymological templates that work like a combination of {{etyl}} and {{m}}. All of these are smart enough to use the etymology-only code for the {{etyl}} part and the main code for the {{m}} part. For instance, {{der|fr|LL.|praecocia}} is exactly equivalent to {{cog|LL.|fr}} {{m|la|praecocia}}. {{bor}}, and {{inh}} are used for borrowings and inherited terms, respectively, while {{cog}} is used where you don't want it to add an etymological category, so you could safely have {{cog|fr|eau}} (which produces "French eau") in etymologies at agua, acqua, or apă. Confusingly, {{bor}} is different in that it adds "Borrowing from" unless you tell it not to, but there's talk of getting rid of that feature. The other source of confusion is that the order of the language-code parameters in those templates is reversed from the way {{etyl}} has them, but {{etyl}} always was a bit counter-intuitive.

My apologies to Angr for turning a simple conversation into a seminar... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have now created the language codes mkh-mkm for Middle Khmer and mkh-okm for Old Khmer. Both are set to use the Latin alphabet. These codes can be used in all situations where any other language code (e.g. km for Modern Khmer) could be used.
 In addition, I've created the etymology-only codes mkh-okm-A for Angkorian Old Khmer and mkh-okm-P for Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer. These codes can be used in Etymology sections inside {{etym}}, {{bor}}, {{cog}}, {{der}}, and {{inh}} tags, but not inside {{l}}, {{m}}, and {{t}} tags.
 Finally, I've created the pseudo-regional tags Angkorian and Pre-Angkorian which can be used inside {{lb}} and {{label}} in Old Khmer entries to tag certain senses as belonging to one or the other variety of Old Khmer. This will place words into the categories Category:Angkorian Old Khmer and Category:Pre-Angkorian Old Khmer.
 Moreover, JohnC5 has very kindly set Middle Khmer as an ancestor of Khmer and Old Khmer as an ancestor of Middle Khmer, so now {{inh}} can be used to trace Khmer words as inherited at every stage from Modern Khmer all the way back to Proto-Austro-Asiatic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

:) —JohnC5 06:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again. Would you please create an etymology-only code for Modern Khmer too? Such code is and will be required by a considerable number of entries. Thank you very much! --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Modern Khmer is a full-fledged language, not an etymology-only language. You can use km in the etymology templates. For example, the etymology section at kouprey says "From {{cog|km|en}} {{m|km|គោព្រៃ}}", which could be rewritten as "From {{der|en|km|គោព្រៃ}}" or as "{{bor|en|km|គោព្រៃ}}". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I understand that km is equal to Modern Khmer. But when I need to distinguish varieties of the Khmer language, I just feel weird to manually add the word "Modern" (see the etymology of จวัก for example). Is such manual addition okay? Or should I avoid doing so? --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think adding the word "Modern" manually is fine. I've done that for Modern Irish and Modern Greek myself. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! I am very grateful for your kindness. --หมวดซาโต้ (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

We currently seem to be missing an entry for this rather elementary word. Could you create one? —CodeCat 22:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Old Irish word for "two" is listed at dá, though it should probably really be at da since that's the oldest form. When used independently (i.e. not directly governing a noun) the form is dáu, which becomes dó in Middle and Modern Irish, but AFAIK dó doesn't occur in Old Irish proper. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

When I was dreaming this morning I had a question that I wanted to ask you, but (since I was dreaming) I was unable to ask it. If I remember what it is, I will ask you. I'm a little ticked off that I can't remember it, honestly. Tharthan (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have noticed that you edited the entry drobami, but it seems that the template {{instrumental plural}} does not exist. Did you mean to add {{inflection of|drob||ins|p|lang=dsb}}? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess, if that's the only way to make it work. There was no reason for {{instrumental plural}} to be deleted, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It never existed in the first place. DTLHS (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Right, I meant {{instrumental plural of}}, which is the template I actually used at drobami. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

If you would like to translate the phrase into German, "We exist because God loves us.", that could be great. Here's my somewhat educated guess: Wir existieren, weil Gott uns liebt. Also: "When in doubt, go back to your roots." --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Wir existieren, weil Gott uns liebt sounds fine. For the other, Im Zweifelsfall kehre zurück zu deinen Wurzeln. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hippietrail added ပင့်ကူ (pang.ku). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also, don't be afraid to check the newly added pages (such as ဖား (hpa:)) as well as the oldest entries by their last edit. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Phonology isn't my strong suit, and I've shied away from adding pronunciations in any languages other than those that I actually have some experience in. As you expressed willingness to help with FWOTD, I was wondering if you could apply your skills to reviewing the linguistic literature to help add pronunciations for terms like Wintu čaliharas or Hausa baka, which have lingered unfeatured for a while for that reason. Please don't feel obligated, but I would appreciate whatever help I can get. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do, but without access to a university library it may be very difficult to find out complete information (especially regarding stress, which is often overlooked in simple phonological descriptions). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not knowing your situation in meatspace, I wasn't sure what you have access to. Well, whatever you can do is appreciated. I just became mildly concerned at the fact that after setting a bunch of words, there aren't too many left that are ready to be featured! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget about Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/Emergency. There may be gold among the dross. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought I'd leave it for emergencies, being rather boring words overall. It might be more useful if an updated version were to be produced, but I won't bother Ungoliant for that unless I really need it. In any case, you're right that I should go through it more systematically. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

The template {{lb-noun}} ought to have a parameter for diminutive forms, just like {{de-noun}}. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's not protected; go for it! :) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Better in Derived terms? Sobreira (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, that's for same-language terms too. It could go in Descendants, but it should really be in the Descendants section of cuprum; cuprum could be in Derived terms of Cyprius, though. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you added IPA to бєзградьникъ (bezgradĭnikŭ), добрость (dobrostĭ), оудавлѥнина (udavljenina), and црькъвиштє (crĭkŭvište). We generally don't add IPA pronunciations to OCS terms. There is so much we don't know about it that the IPA cannot possibly be accurate, plus the IPA you added does not convey any information not conveyed in the transliteration. Also, it was more of a literary language and not so much a spoken language, and so probably did not have a well-defined pronunciation and was pronounced according to the various vernacular Slavic dialects. User:CodeCat and User:Ivan Štambuk can probably explain this in more detail. --WikiTiki89 19:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I only added it to make them eligible for FWOTD. If OCS words can be exempt from FWOTD's requirement of pronunciation information, I don't mind if it's removed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Metaknowledge: What do you think about this? --WikiTiki89 19:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Two independent references or quotations is sufficient for featuring at FWOTD, so the pronunciation isn't even strictly necessary. That said, even for a language like OCS, I don't see why we can't just give IPA and put in {{a}} something like "per the reconstruction by Fulano et al.", and then put Fulano et al. in the References section. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget that OCS had tonal accents, like Slovene and Serbo-Croatian still do. —CodeCat 20:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: I deliberately omitted all stress and accent information from OCS because it isn't shown in the writing, so it would have to be purely conjectural (even more conjectural than the segmental info). Besides, I myself don't know where the accents are conjectured to be. The pitch accent systems of Slovene and SC have changed a lot since Proto-Slavic, and I am in no position to be guessing where OCS's accents fell or how they were realized. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Most likely, OCS still had the archaic accent like that found in Chakavian. —CodeCat 21:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem is we don't know exactly what the accents were like or on which syllable they were on for every form of every word. I would support giving a pronunciation from a reference like in Metaknowledge's example, but only if the reference gives the pronunciation of that specific word. --WikiTiki89 14:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask you from time to time (let's say once a week) about ProtoIndoEuropean? Things like why this evolves to that, or what form/grade is one? For the sake of timing, are you West Coast, East Coast, European, Australian? Sobreira (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's probably better to ask at the Etymology Scriptorium. There's a lot about PIE I don't know or don't remember (it was more than 20 years ago that I studied it). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but it's more about solving my ignorance than fixing or checking something wrong. Sobreira (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I understand that, but I think you'll be better served by getting answers from several people rather than just from me. If you just ask me, more often than not my answer will probably be "I dunno". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Angr. I sent you an e-mail. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right. It does not apply to Etymology 3. For Etymology 3, /dɛːɹ/ is appropriate. A slight oversight on my part.

Collins' pronunciation for Etymologies 1 and 2 is /dɪə/.

It's probably nothing, but I get nervous any time I see a new contributor making large numbers of edits with edit comments like "wrong" and "incorrect". They do seem to know their IPA pretty well, but it would be good to confirm that they're not trying to singlehandedly upend current practice. I'd appreciate it if you could look through their edits, and see if they're doing things right. The user is Mr KEBAB (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) (please note that I'm just using the {{vandal}} template for convenience- I wouldn't dream of accusing them of vandalism). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

He seems to be working mostly on languages I don't know very well (or at all), so I'm not really in a position to verify his edits, but Ungoliant has already engaged him on his talk page, so it looks like he's on top of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

It rhymes with teeth, heath and neath. The spelling for this word is a bit messed up. And I am not really sure how to spell it in the first place, because I never saw it spelled I just heard it said. There seem to be a ton of forms out there for this word. There is even a form reeth, but there are also ryth, and rithe and ride and reth and a lot more other forms including rith. Rith, as far as I can tell, is the most common of them and it is the form that is still found in surnames and place names. I heard people say /ɹiːθ/ when they were referring to small, fordable streams, but I do not know how they would spell it though.

I noticed in your edits to 幸 and to 幸い that you replaced <span/> with <span></span>. In markup terms, these are functionally equivalent. Is there some flaw in the MW markup parser that doesn't properly handle self-closing tags? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

In XML, they are equivalent, in HTML, they are not. The <span/> syntax is now deprecated and will soon no longer be supported. See the GP discussion Wiktionary:Grease pit/2016/July‎#CAT:Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags. --WikiTiki89 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh, gawd. Is this one of the changes in HTML 5? I am very disappointed in the changes in HTML 5 that move away from a common markup framework.  :(

Thank you for the brief explanation and the link. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apparently no version of HTML ever supported self-closing of non-void tags. --WikiTiki89 19:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you. Reading the linked thread, I realized that my bias was XHTML, and my comment above should have read one of the failures to change in the shift to HTML 5. HTML 5 continues so much of the horribleness of earlier HTML. Yet the specification work had the potential of making things saner by incorporating much of what works well with XHTML. <sigh.../> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Alba, sioc, Ó DTLHS (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You seem to be knowledgable about Ireland and the Irish language, and are active. Could you please help me with these entries that are derived/borrowed from Irish as well as creating the cognate Irish terms as entries? i.e. Ciarraige#Irish and Triúcha an Aicme? Thanks.

(BTW, do you happen to know where Ratass might've come from in Irish?)

Philmonte101 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

http://www.logainm.ie is a good resource for place names in Ireland. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

How would Nortmann be a direct borrowing of Norðmaðr into Old Irish? Old Irish had /θ/ and /ð/, so why not Northmann or Nordmann? Tharthan (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe via some variety of Old Norse in which /θ/ had already become /t/. On the other hand, I'm not sure Old Irish had /θ/ or /ð/ between /r/ and another consonant, so "Northmann" might have violated OIr. phonotactics even if all the individual phonemes were present. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was using a script to batch upload words, hence they're at the end of the pages. I have been using the Latin script that most people use with some minor modifications since neither the Devanagari or the Perso-Arabic standardised script can be typed on the platform I'm on (Mac), or Windows for that matter. Only some obscure programs for Windows handle the Perso-Arabic for Kashmiri properly. Most people around me use the Latin script to write Kashmiri. I've never come across Devanagari in Kashmiri and barely anyone is aware of the existence of a standardised Devanagari. You might as well think that I am transcribing a language. Haziqmir (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)HaziqmirReply

@Haziqmir: Can you modify the script to insert Kashmiri in the right place, or do it manually? Otherwise it just creates work for other people to clean up. I don't know anything about Kashmiri myself, all I know is what it says at Wikipedia. One thing it says there is "The Kashmiri Perso-Arabic script has come to be associated with Kashmiri Muslims, while the Kashmiri Devanagari script has come to be associated with the Kashmiri Hindu community", so if you don't know many Kashmiri Hindus it makes sense that you're not familiar with it in Devanagari. When you say "most people around me use the Latin script to write Kashmiri", do you mean just on computers, or do they use the Latin script even when writing by hand? Is the Latin script used in published words like books and newspapers? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Aɴɢʀ: Like I said, there isn't a way to type the PA or Devanagari equivalents without manually copying each character from some Unicode block. People definitely use the Latin alphabet on computers, but most of Kashmiri media is in Urdu and English. However, I have run across poetry written in the Latin alphabet here and there. Haziqmir (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, as long as there are published works in the Latin alphabet, then including it is fine. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Angr Many thanks for modifying the etymology and especially for sorting the vertical line format which I failed to correct. Regarding the initial sentence, after Old English mōr the rest of it could be deleted, that sorts out the missing term for the PIE root, since this word, as stated in its Discussion Page, is a rare example of a lexeme that was handed down from the Brythonic in the other Germanic dialects also. Andrew H. Gray 09:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)Werdna Yrneh Yarg