User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 28

I stumbled upon Wilhelmlux (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) while patrolling the "no head temp" abuse filter logs. It just shows that a motivated, well-intentioned contributor editing in good faith can do far more damage than any vandal. I don't have the depth in Latin to sort all of this out. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mahagaja, I noticed that you're replacing {{inh}} with {{der}} templates. First I thought you did so because of analogical changes, but for some that clearly isn't the case (like ingen). At the same time I noticed @Chuck Entz is replacing {{der}} with other templates (e.g. iuvo) and that's left me more unsure than I already was about which link templates I should use in etymologies.

I also wonder what the reason is for {{reflist|size=smaller}} instead of <references/>. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chuck's change at iuvo is because it originally said {{der|la|la|...}}, which put it in CAT:Latin terms borrowed back into Latin, a category reserved for cases where Latin has borrowed a word from another language, but that other language originally borrowed (or inherited) it from Latin. This often happens in New Latin, which borrows words from modern European languages, but those words may be of Latin origin themselves.

I use {{reflist|size=smaller}} purely for aesthetic reasons; I think it looks better to have the references in a smaller font so they don't take up so much space.

Finally, in some cases I replace {{inh}} with {{der}} because the term wasn't inherited in the strict sense, but in other cases I do it because I'm worried that someday someone will come along and change "From {{inh|...}}" to "{{inh+|...}}", which is an abomination of a template that makes me angry every time I see it. I'm hoping that by using "From {{der|...}}" instead, it will protect the entries from that template. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahāgaja: Why do you consider {{inh+}} an abomination? Do you feel the same about {{bor+}}? 0DF (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Both of those templates are insulting to readers by linking everyday words to glossary entries as if they were technical jargon and are in most cases redundant by explicitly saying "inherited" or "borrowed" when it's usually perfectly obvious. The only time we really need to state "borrowed" is in cases where a language borrows a term from an ancestor language (e.g. French borrowing from Latin or Hindi borrowing from Sanskrit), and in those cases it's sufficient to write "borrowed". We don't need a special template for it. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahāgaja: Would you feel less irritated if the "inherited" and "borrowed" terms no longer linked to Appendix:Glossary? I'd taken to using {{inh+}} and {{bor+}} recently purely for their labour-saving function. 0DF (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It would help, but there's still very little purpose in saying "Inherited from" and "Borrowed from" 95% of the time. Just say "From". If it's an ancestor language, it's inherited; if not, it's borrowed. I don't know of a single dictionary (general or etymological) that explicitly makes this distinction besides us. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahāgaja: I'd say cf. {{lbor}}, but I admit that I haven't really thought about this much. I just learnt the distinction and applied it so I could use {{bor}}, {{bor+}}, {{inh}}, and {{inh+}} competently, since they appeared to be de rigueur. I only use the -+ templates when I need a quasi-sentence, such as when I also add a synchronic etymology with {{surf}}. Would you prefer I eschew them, and just use "From {{bor}}/{{inh}}." instead? 0DF (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's up to you. I don't revert if someone else uses them, because I know that other people like them. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahāgaja: Not wishing to tread on anyone's toes, I shall keep using {{bor}} and {{inh}}, but desist from using {{bor+}} and {{inh+}}, since at least two editors (you and Thadh) disapprove of the latter templates' use, whereas no one seems very enthusiastic in defending or promoting their use. 0DF (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Changing {{bor}} or {{inh}} to {{der}} because you're worried someone might turn them into plus templates is a really, really bad idea - it's quite literally removing information from the entry because you're concerned about a hypothetical change that makes no practical difference anyway. Please don't do it! Theknightwho (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Actually - can you please go through every entry where you've changed it for that reason and reinstate {{bor}} or {{inh}}? If there is some other reason why they aren't appropriate then that's fine, but from a quick look through there are many entries where that doesn't seem to be the case. Theknightwho (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja I've noticed you are still doing this. If you carry on, I will simply raise it at the Beer Parlour. Tagging @Thadh who has also expressed concerns about this. Theknightwho (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm unaware of any policy or even custom requiring us to use the {{inh}} and {{bor}} templates. As long as I don't engage in edit-warring, I'm entitled to use {{der}} instead. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja You are actively removing information from the entry because you are concerned that someone else will change it to a template you don't like - that is little better than vandalism. I will be raising this at the Beer Parlour, and I will go through your contributions to revert you. Theknightwho (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

So you're the one who will be engaging in edit-warring. And I see you're not merely reverting the times when I've changed {{inh}}/{{bor}} to {{der}}, you're changing new etymologies that I originally wrote using {{der}}. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja I'm unaware of any policy or even custom requiring us to refrain from using the {{inh}} and {{bor}} templates. The difference is that adding specificity is helpful to the dictionary, while your removal of it is harmful, since you're not doing it for reasons of good scholarship. You clearly understand why I have a problem with what you're doing, so please focus on that instead of all this rubbish about what you are or are not required to do, since it's beside the point: the fact is that you've stated your reason for changing {{inh}} and {{bor}} to {{der}} above, and that reason is a very poor one. Theknightwho (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think a discussion in the Beer Parlour like you suggested would be a better idea. There's clearly a lack of consensus and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's confused about which templates to use. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

{{inh}} and {{bor}} generate valuable categories, and removing them for {{der}} is essentially removing information. I understand your concerns with the + templates, and share them, but removing information is not the way to go imo. Thadh (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mahagaja, I know you created some templates a while ago for Lower Sorbian, I was wondering if you would like to help me with the other variation of the language Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I can. What do you need? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just the noun templates, I imagine you also understand at least a little about the other language Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

thanks! Any kind of help will be accepted with open arms Stríðsdrengur (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Stríðsdrengur: Having looked at declension information in my Upper Sorbian dictionary, it looks much more complicated than Lower Sorbian, which doesn't have the vowel changes (e.g. dwór/dwora, měd/mjeda) that Upper Sorbian has. I think declension templates for US really need to be written with a Lua module to be efficient, but I don't know how to do that. By the way, what does "smh" in {{hsb-decl-noun-smh-inam}} and {{hsb-ndecl-smh-in}} mean? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is noticeable that it really is more complex. Smh = substantive masculine hard , according to the declension patterns found on the website Soblexx.de Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Sorry to bother you again, I saw that you added pronunciations to the dsb entries, and you probably understand the phonology well. I was unsure whether in Upper Sorbian ě is also pronounced as ɪ, and I saw that this feature is present in Lower Sorbian. I was 100% sure that this was true and this site gave me even more confidence, however @Sławobóg and @Vininn126 still don't trust it so much, do you know anything about this so I can finally kill this mystery, if this feature applies to both languages Stríðsdrengur (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, w:Upper Sorbian language § Vowels says so, and it seems to be reliably sourced to a paper by Phil Howson in JIPA. That's good enough for me. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Stríðsdrengur (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja is that process phonemic or phonetic? Furthermore, did they mention anything about Lower Sorbian because nothing I've read mentions /ɪ/ as a phoneme, usually suggesting /e/. Vininn126 (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which process are you asking about? —Mahāgaja · talk 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've mostly seen /ɪ/ explained as an unstressed allophone of /e/ in the literature about Lower Sorbian that I've read. However it is possible that that letter correponds to a phoneme /ɪ/ in general. Vininn126 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Really? What I've read is that ě (however we transcribe it) merges with je (i.e. /ʲɛ/) in unstressed syllables, as it does in Upper Sorbian. As for how to transcribe ě, I doubt there's any significant difference in its pronunciation between LS and US, and whether one transcribes it /ɪ/ or /e/ is merely a matter of convention. In both languages, it can be diphthongized in careful speech, and indeed when I first heard it pronounced by a Lower Sorbian native speaker, my initial inclination was to transcribe it , but it's hard to justify that as a phoneme in a vowel system that has no other diphthongs. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mahagaja Yes, those two phonemes are so close to each other. I have a similar problem with the vowel ó in Upper Sorbian - initually I used /o/ but now we have a very strange transcription. I could see a system using /ɪ ʊ/ or /e o/ for both languages. Vininn126 (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In LS, /ʊ ~ o/ for ó is marginal at best. Most speakers merge it with either y or (nonpalatalizing) e. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting - definitely that's the only sort of transcription I've seen for US. Vininn126 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

For US, definitely, just not for LS. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you think /ɪ/ or /e/ would be better for US, or that it doesn't make enough of a difference? Vininn126 (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it makes much difference, but using /ɪ/ would make US consistent with LS, and as I said above, I doubt there's actually a significant difference between how the two languages pronounce this vowel. —Mahāgaja · talk 18:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! I was wondering if there was a consensus regarding the use of the Khanty letters in entries. Mainly the ԯ and ԓ. Or was the entries that were written with ԓ changed because the referenced publisher used the desender? Since I have read in The Ocford Guide to Uralic languages that it is not decided, still debated which one should be used officially, and each publisher uses their own version. For example the dictionary I've found; Solovar, V. N. Khanty-Russian dictionary (Kazym dialect) from 2014 uses the hooked version. Ewithu (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My impression from the discussion now archived at Wiktionary talk:About Khanty was that we had agreed to use ԯ. I kept hard redirects from the spellings with both ԓ and ӆ. I would recommend continuing that practice with new entries so that we're consistent with ourselves. If you want to argue that we should use ԓ instead, you can start a new discussion at WT:RFM. —Mahāgaja · talk 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing me to it!

I don't really have new arguments to make to use one over the other, all was said there.

Although I think using the alternative form section to show that with the hooked l, it is still correct. Ewithu (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've just created a template for the 1588 Welsh Bible. I've been looking around and I can see that you've already created a template for the 1620 version. Considering it's essentially the same book updated, maybe it would be a good idea for my template to be moved to a name like "Beibl 1588".

Btw, are you involved in putting the 1588 Bible on Wikisource?

You can see what I did here (still need to add Apocrypha), happy for any input! — This unsigned comment was added by Arafsymudwr (talk • contribs) at 00:22, 18 December 2023‎ (UTC).

It was actually @RichardW57 who created {{RQ:cy:Bible 1620}}, not me. I did start putting the 1588 Bible up on Wikisource, but it got to be too big a task for me and I gave up. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Mahāgaja. Nine years ago, you deleted the page for the Welsh "conjugated" preposition iddof (the first-person singular form of i), giving the deletion reason "Created in error: no such word". Having used it my whole life, I was taken aback by this and went looking for evidence to prove that iddof exists. I found this prescription from 1883, but no uses as such. What I did find was a couple of documents pertaining to the WJEC GCSE Welsh language exam for the 2019–2020 academic year, which mark "iddof (f)i" as incorrect (, ). It seems, to my dismay, that I've been using a nonstandard colloquialism my whole life! That being said, I think this is evidence that iddof does exist, even if it isn't standard. Would you agree? If so, would you mind undeleting iddof, please? It could probably do with being tagged with {{lb|cy|nonstandard|_|colloquialism}}, too. 0DF (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@0DF This is entirely up to you, but I dislike pairing “nonstandard” with “colloquial”, since it feels a bit superfluous while also being disparaging of colloquialisms. Theknightwho (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I feel like prescriptive documents saying "don't do this" still don't count as uses. The Appendix Probi is useful for Vulgar Latin because it's otherwise so poorly attested, but Welsh has a pretty strong living speaker base, and even the colloquial register isn't hard to find in writing. Of course, final -f tends to disappear in colloquial Welsh, so perhaps it would be easier to find examples of people using iddo (f)i. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google Books yielded two Welsh results for the string iddo fi without intervening punctuation, namely:

• “Pa beth bynag fydd clod ne anghlod y tesni a sugnis o’r tai nefol heno, nid ’iddo fi’r naill na’r llall.”

wherein ’iddo = eiddo (not iddo), and:

• “oedd ti ’di gweud iddo fi beth i neud.”

which the same source parses “was you perf say to+3sg I what to do” (small-caps mine) and translates “you had told me what to do.” This latter use is a transcription of a child's speech. The choice of how to parse and translate that speech would have been made by the author (Bob Morris Jones), not the child. Referring to Jones's conventions in his corpus examples and inferring from gweud that the child spoke in a South Welsh dialect, I reconstruct that child's sentence thus:

• /ˈoːið(ᵊ).ti.diˈɡwei.di.ðɔˈviːˈbeː.θiˈneid/

but it would be bizarre if I then respelt that:

• “oedd ti ’di gweu diddo fi be thi neud”

My point is that where to place word divisions is a matter of judgment; words aren't neatly divided at syllable boundaries. Jones chose to parse that child's i.ðɔ.viː as the ungrammatical “to+3sg I” (iddo fi), rather than as the grammatical “to+1sg I” (iddof i); I would dispute his interpretation. (Of course, wrth is the standard preposition for construing the indirect object of dweud, but that's neither here nor there.) 0DF (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, at the moment it doesn't look likely that anyone would run across it and want to know what it means. —Mahāgaja · talk 19:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fair point. I'll keep an eye out for uses in print. I only need one, right? 0DF (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

For Welsh, yes. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. 0DF (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I went looking for the rest of ap Emrys' forms of i (except the standard iddo, iddi, and iddynt, of course) and found one use each of iddot and iddoch, qq.v.
@Mahāgaja: Since you also deleted iddot and iddoch giving the reason "Created in error: no such word", would you be happy at this point to undelete those two entries, please?
@Theknightwho: I wouldn't say that "nonstandard" and "colloquial" are a redundant combination. There are many colloquialisms that are perfectly standard, but which simply wouldn't occur in writing (unless that writing intentionally represented speech, as in dialogue), although most colloquialisms are probably informal. In the case of iddot and iddoch, however, their contexts at least are nonstandard:
• “Mae hwn y peth mwyaf pwysig gofynnais iddot gwneud erioed.” → “Hwn yw’r peth pwysicaf y gofynnais iddot wneud erioed.”
• “Y mynedfa hyn rhôf iddoch I ofalu hyd yr oesoedd, Dros cynhedliadau dirifedi” → “Y fynedfa hon y rhof iddoch I ofalu drosti hyd yr oesoedd, Dros genedlaethau dirifedi”
Infer from that what you will.
0DF (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've restored iddot and iddoch. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you kindly. My idiolectal usage actually differs slightly from the forms ap Emrys prescribed: I consistently use iddof and iddot, but I oscillate between iddom and iddym for the first-person plural and I only use iddych for the second-person plural. Accordingly, I may look into whether I can attest iddyf, iddyt, iddym, and iddych. 0DF (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wish you a Happy 2024. If you have time, could you please take a look at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2024/January#Petition to upgrade Medieval_Greek? Thank you! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 09:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for you immediate response! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

About ipa-grc and your concerns mentioned here, I presume you mean: 'subtract all gkm from the grc-ipa'. But never mind: it is a panorama of greek pronunciations. Or, @Erutuon might create some param to present specific rows i.e. ancient and koine only. On the other end, a Modern Greek row might be added (though heavily manual intervention there, as also at 15th century medieval: pronunciation is affected by etymology: loanwords are pronounced differently). Also, two corrections could be added at med-ipa: ξ = ks. and not k.s., ψ = ps and not p.s. commons:File:Medieval Greek alphabet - ipa chart.jpg.

At the beginning of changes, I shall not try to add IPA, or inflections. Give me some time, and we will do that step by step. _First step: a) correct title Ancient Greek b) separate 'byz' senses from Ancient lemmata. and c) correct names of Categories and update wikidata. Thank you so much. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 08:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Inflections separated, because there is no dual: There is no dual in Koine either. All this can be done with a title-note. Example: wikt:el:ἀδελφότης. We just show the dual for info. For Med, we param dual=-. Example: wikt:el:βάμβαξ which is identical to anc.greek without prosody and without dual. At the moment, I shall not provide talbes. For vulgar med, we provide at Notes, some attested inflectional forms. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 09:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our {{grc-decl}} allows |form=SP to show only the singular and plural, and I use it when I create Koine or Medieval nouns. But at the moment {{grc-conj}} has no way to suppress the dual in verbs. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mahagaja, there will NOT be any influection tables for Med.Greek, please take a look at here. At el.wikt, we have a Section Inflectional forms with some attested forms. Example: wikt:el:προβίδιασμα. We do not give auto columnar forms, but only those attested (for which we provide quotation). But this could be done later. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 09:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless you're the only editor who works on Medieval Greek, it's very likely that someone sooner or later will create or ask for inflection tables. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I was wondering if you could help with something, as you seem to be well-versed in the templates used here.

For Welsh adjectives, most of the equatives are incorrect: they are automatically rendered as + , whereas there should be and after the adjective, thus giving:

**. Without the necessary -ed ending, it is incorrect, and worse, implies 'former' (cf. cyn-fyfyriwr - alumnus/former student).

That is to say, for 'bras', the equative, thus formed, is 'cyn frased', not 'cyn fras', which means nothing.

Somebody would therefore have to adjust the template, and I feel that you might know how to do that!

I should add also that the 'cyn' is not strictly required when using the equative degree, but is usually included.

Warm regards 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:98A6:54B9:86F:342C 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The equative of bras is given as brased in the entry. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bras was a poor example on my part, sorry, But if you look at cwrtais, or addas, or many others, they have 'cyn gwrtais', 'cyn addas', which unfortunately means nothing. 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:28F5:ACD7:DFF5:7696 16:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

But not all adjectives add -ed. Only those that add -ach in the comparative and -af in the superlative do. See {{R:cy:Thorne}} § 198, though I notice that such adjectives form the equative with mor, not cyn, so that should be fixed. —Mahāgaja · talk 17:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no difference in meaning between 'mor' and 'cyn' in this sense; rather, 'mor' is more colloquial (and far more common in writing in modern Welsh too), whereas 'cyn' is considered literary or formal (or maybe very formal). Therefore, if one were to be chosen, it would make sense to go for 'mor' on that basis, but there is no rule. 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:28F5:ACD7:DFF5:7696 17:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I should say too that when 'mor' is used, the equative -ed is **not** used.

So you'd get 'mor las â'r môr' and 'cyn lased â'r môr' but never 'mor lased â'r môr'. 2A00:23C7:7C9B:AB01:28F5:ACD7:DFF5:7696 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you could, would you explain the Ancient Greek term ἵλαθι (hílathi) for at least me?

Thanks for reading. -- Apisite (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

P.S. The bilingual book Plethon's Laws and other Works inspired me to ask this. --Apisite (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Apisite: I created an entry for ἵλαθι (hílathi). —Mahāgaja · talk 08:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; that's just one of the words in the hymns by Plethon, that ought to be covered, along with the terms for the prescribed musical modes: ὑποδωριστί (hupodōristí), ὑποφρυγιστί (hupophrugistí), φρυγιστί (phrugistí) and δωριστί (dōristí). --Apisite (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Plethon may have chosen the aforementioned word for its being similar to ἵλαος (hílaos). --Apisite (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ω, thank you for your support for Medieval Greek, also for renaming too from 'Byzantine'. I wouldn't mind terribly either. The expected term would be 'Easter Roman Greek', but I guess Hieronymus Wolf who coined 'Byzantinus, Byzantine Empire' preferred Ancient Greek placenames. If the split happens, I hope I could bother you a few times for your valuable help. Thanks! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 10:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry in advance for any inconvenience.

The entries conas tá tú, cad é mar tá tú, etc… list themselves as the standard or correct form and have the "atá forms" (conas atá tú, cad é mar atá tú, etc…) listed as alternatives. On the "atá form" pages they list themselves as alternatives to the "tá forms".

As far as I’m aware the only, or at least the most common, forms are the "atá forms". And the cad é mar and conas pages on here both state that the should be followed by a direct relative clause.

So I think the "atá forms" should replace the "tá forms", which I think should be deleted (unless they occur in some dialects, in which case they should be kept as alternatives).

I’m bringing this up here since I seen how much you have contributed to the Irish entries on here, well done by the way people definitely appreciate it. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:F06B:ED9B:B619:D253 13:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that conas atá and cad é mar atá should be considered the standard forms, but conas tá and cad é mar tá are too common to be deleted outright. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will switch the entries around. Though I can't find any use of cad é mar tá tú online. 2001:BB6:B84C:CF00:F06B:ED9B:B619:D253 15:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Douglas Hyde uses it on page 44 of his Leabhar Sgeulaigheachta. There are some more examples in the Historical Irish Corpus. —Mahāgaja · talk 15:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

"From 𐌿𐍃𐌱𐌴𐌹𐌳𐌰𐌽 (usbeidan, “to await”) +‎ -𐍃𐌽𐍃 (-sns)." I suppose "-𐌽𐍃 (-ns)." cp. siuns saiƕan , the initial "s" is from dental. ПростаРечь (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/-niz, "Following root final dental consonants, an -s- is inserted creating the variant *-sniz", so it's not simply a phonological rule of d → s / _ n. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply