User talk:Mulder1982

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page 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.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

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! Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my formatting corrections. Please take note for next time. Part of speech headings should never contain numerals Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 00:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Wiktionary community encouarges the addition of translations, but expects its users to add only translations for languages they are familiar with. If you do dpeak Arabic, Min-Nan, Slovak, and Faroese, then that is great. But, if you are not personally familiar with those languages, it is a very bad idea to add translations in those languages. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your response to my comments above are confusing to me. "necromancy" is not a country; it is a word. I repeat: if you are not personally familiar with those languages, it is a very bad idea to add translations in those languages. Editors have been blocked in the past for doing this. --EncycloPetey 15:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you add {{Babel}} to your user page? I'd appreciate it.

An aside: If you choose to respond to this post, please respond here on your talk page. --Dan Polansky 11:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:Metaknowledge told me you have made a lot of contributions in a number of languages, so I'd just like to say hello. I see from your Babel box that you have a wide range of languages.

I recently started a new project for languages with lesser documentation. You can find it at WT:LDL, though it still needs a lot of work.

I was wondering if you'd be interested in working on an "about" page for Faroese. It should be placed at WT:About Faroese. You might also talk to some of the other Faroese editors at Category:User_fo.

Also, we recently passed a vote that makes it easier to add words for languages lesser documentation. Now, only one actual use of the word in a book, etc., is needed as long as a template such as {{LDL}} is used. You can see the rules at Wiktionary:CFI#Number_of_citations. I hope that makes it easier to add words.

Best regards! --BB12 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just added tollaksmessa and I wasn’t 100% sure whether it’s /ˈtʰɔtlaksˌmɛsːa/ or /ˈtʰɔlːaksˌmɛsːa/. – Krun (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sæll. I looked over your article, and it looks correct. (the former that is). Mulder1982 (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! – Krun (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, about valborgarmessa, is the first a short, as I’ve made it, or should it start with /ˈvɛaːl/? – Krun (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it's short. Compounds are not exceptions to the rule of the shortening, so <valborg> does indeed have a short <a>. (Although some Faroese people tend to hypercorrect themselves and pronounce similar compounds with a long vowel, but this is incorrect, really. But well done. :) Mulder1982 (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I’ve begun to create rhyme pages for Faroese. Can you check them (Category:Faroese rhymes) for me? I also have a few questions about Faroese pronunciation:

1. whether -i at the end of a word is truly /ɛ/ (I have seen it transcribed as /ɪ/ as well)
2. whether (unstressed) -ið and/or -ig are pronounced the same as -i, i.e. /ɛ/, at the end of a word (e.g. øki and økið); what about -u/-ug and -a/-að (e.g. tosa, tosað; blóðug, móðu)?
3. whether -i (-ið, -ig) at the end of a syllable (but not the end of a word) is also pronounced /ɛ/ or is it then /ɪ/? Example: øgiligur
4. the article about Faroese on Wikipedia seems to suggest that there are two different voiced sounds for written r, distinguishing in ráða , fyrra , áðrenn (initial/intervocalic) and in morgun, bátar, seyður , etc.; is this accurate, and if so, is this merely an allophonic distinction, or are they really separate phonemes?
5. what is the unvoiced r sound (in merki, svartur, etc.); and what is the pronunciation of rs (e.g. in byrsa, orsaka, írskur, lutherskur, bulgarskur, oberstur)?

– Krun (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, well, from what I've learned so far:

1. -i actually varies a lot being anything from over and to . This is why, the morpheme is written as /ɪ/, so sticking to this would be the best option.
2. The final -ð or -g has no influence on the pronunciation. AFAIK, it never does.
3. This one is similar to the 1st one. In the case of øgiligur it becomes: /ˈøːjɪˌliːjʊɹ/.
4. This has been written about for a long time, but I don't know where they get the idea of from. AFAIK, there's only one rhotic-phoneme in Faroese: /ɹ/. So stick to this.
5. In the first it's 'simply': . Note that if possible it retroflexes the following sound so the <t> in <svartur> is . <rs> is AFAIK and AFAICT always .

- Mulder1982 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, so I assume this rhyme page is okay. I also wonder about whether there is elision in Faroese, as in Icelandic. In Icelandic, unstressed word-final -a, -i and -u are often dropped before a word beginning in a vowel (or h + vowel when the h is dropped). Does this happen in Faroese at all? – Krun (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

The only thing I can think of off-hand is that some pronouns might loose the aspiration, so a phrase like: "Hugna tær!", might be pronounced as "Hugna dær!". There may be other examples as well, but this is the only one I can think of right now. Mulder1982 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are quite a few OCS entries that list descendants across all Slavic languages. Someone must have assumed that OCS was the same as Proto-Slavic, even though it's not. In fact I'm not sure if it has any descendants at all. It would be appreciated if you could find and fix the other entries as well. —CodeCat 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Well, OCS has no modern descendants, and it's not the same as Proto-Slavic, that's true, however some of the modern Slavic language _do_ have some loanwords from OCS, and these should be listed there, and yes, I will look through the articles, and in cases where I'm certain, I'll correct these. Mulder1982 (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what your latest edit was for. You added a script, but forgot the more important part: the language. The language is required, the script is optional, because it can be derived from the language. So instead of sc=Avst it should be lang=ae. —CodeCat 01:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to laud you for adding articles relating to words in Skolt Sámi, and the knowledge of them. Where were you able to learn them? I'm only asking out of intellectual curiosity, haha. Porokello (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't speak it, so I'm mainly using whatever glossaries or declension tables I can find online to add more material on it. Also I use cognates in other Finno-Ugric languages for the etymology sections. I know that this is probably the most professional way of doing things, but I do try to be at least 150% sure before adding anything at all. I have a weakness for minority languages, especially Finno-Ugric (especially Finno-Saamic) ones and I did once find a course in Skolt Sámi and I'd do anything to be able to attend that one. Looks like though, that I'd have to learn Finnish first. But oh well, I guess that in the meantine I can do my deed by adding stuff here on Wiktionary. Mulder1982 (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's funny, I have a soft spot for Finno-Ugric languages too. I've added a small volume of Karelian nouns to the database, and done some stuff for Finnish as well. I've been learning Finnish on my own for a bit, so editing Wiktionary helps reinforce knowledge. Porokello (talk) 02:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Please do not duplicate content like this, especially since that one may be wrong (see Beekes for an alternative origin). It makes harder to maintain the etymology. If someone is interested in the origin of սապոն (sapon) beyond Ancient Greek, let him check out σάπων (sápōn). --Vahag (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Slovak noun džíp is missing the instrumental plural form in its declension table. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was actually the accusative singular, that was missing. But thanks for pointing that out to me! (y) Mulder1982 (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you tell me what eys means in Icelandic, please? I guess something from ausa. What does the headword line "ausa (eys; jós, jusu, ausið)" mean? --Back on the list (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

eys is the present tense (either 1st or 3rd person) of the verb að ausa. The head line you describe is the dictionary declension of the verb: infinitive, present tense, 3rd person past tense singular, 3rd person past tense plural, supine. This is how Nordic verbs are usually conjugated in dictionaries. Mulder1982 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Could you please add an Icelandic entry for eys too? --Back on the list (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if I figure out the exact details of the meaning, then no problem. Mulder1982 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Elfdalian doesn't actually descend from Old Swedish. Old Swedish is specifically an East Norse dialect (from which Danish also descends), which Elfdalian is not. You can see that in how certain sounds developed: Old Norse au > East Norse ø, but > Elfdalian o. —CodeCat 22:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was puzzled by that, because some of the Proto-Germanic appendices list Elfdalian as being a descendant of Old Swedish (I am a university student of Faroese, so I know more about West than East Nordic as a result), so I carefully added those. However, I can also carefully remove them. It's no biggy. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that several Wikipedia articles also classed it as East Scandinavian and descending from Old Swedish. I changed that now as well, although I don't know how valid it is either way. The articles don't say anything about what criteria there are for the classification. I think a lot of people just assume anything in Sweden must be Swedish... —CodeCat 23:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Slovak dictionaries do not contain any entry for "Čierne more", so should not be referenced. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, it has an entry in Pravidlá slovenského pravopisu. Hence I put it there. Mulder1982 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops, you're right, I have overlooked that. Sorry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

V pohode, kamo! :) Mulder1982 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed you've been doing work on Uralic etymology. I invite you to take a look at Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Uralic for input on figuring out transcription standards. --Tropylium (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have recently written a script for MewBot that automatically creates certain categories (those it recognises) whenever they appear in Special:WantedCategories. So it's probably not really necessary to create lots of them yourself, at least not if you are patient and can wait until the list updates. —CodeCat 22:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Right, OK. Usually, I am but sometimes I'm not. But well, it doesn't really bother me doing a lot of them myself. Thanks for the tip, though. :) Mulder1982 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw you making edits such as this one. Here's a tip: Macedonian does not have phonemic stress (it is predictably on the antepenult or on the first syllable if the word has less than three syllables). So when you are removing the transliteration from Macedonian, you do not need to add a stress mark to original Cyrillic script. Note that this only applies to Macedonian. --WikiTiki89 17:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I actually know this, but I just kept it since the old tr= thingies had them. But sure, I'll just mark irregular stress (those not on the antepenultimate stress) from now on (pretty much what I intended anyway). Mulder1982 (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is currently no clear consensus for replacement of template:temp with template:m. Therefore, you should not perform a systematic replacement. --DPMaid (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You mean Template:term ? In that case, OK, I thought this was decided already. My bad. Anyway, what I'm doing these days is not this. I'm just removing redundant transliterations of Gothic (and others that happen to be on the same page) Mulder1982 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

diff is a recent edit in which you are converting temp to m. --Dan Polansky (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ehm... I can't see that I've changed any 'temp' to m... just 'term' to m... Mulder1982 (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I mean term all the time, my mistake. --Dan Polansky (talk) 01:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, well, is there any place where you vote on this? I really prefer m since it's quick and easy and it probably saves space on Wiktionary's servers aswell. Mulder1982 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since, in discussions, multiple people supported and multiple people opposed, I have created Wiktionary:Votes/2014-08/Migrating from Template:term to Template:m, to start in a week. --Dan Polansky (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks. Mulder1982 (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can ignore Dan, he's being overly bureaucratic. I support your replacements and encourage you to continue. —CodeCat 01:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

CodeCat does not care about consensus; they only care about pushing their preferred changes for which there is some support, despite there also being some opposition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing wrong with tidying up formatting while also editing content. Mulder1982 is not botting, so he does not have to ask for consensus for every edit he makes. --WikiTiki89 13:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but I can revert to status quo ante absent consensus. There exist much more effective ways of making collective decisions, and executing them in the mainspace. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In two entries, so far, your removal of the transliteration parameter has resulted in a module error. Apparently there are characters in the terms that the transliteration module can't deal with. I'm not sure if it's something wrong with the translations, something wrong with the module, or just use of automatic transliteration for a legitimate script that isn't covered by the module, but you shouldn't have saved your edit with a module error in it. If you run into a module error like this and you can't correct the problem yourself. you should leave that part of the edit out and bring the problem to the attention of someone who might know how to fix it, perhaps at the Grease pit. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I figured out the problem: they had sc=Cyrl instead of sc=Cyrs, which led the module to consider them the wrong script. My general comments above still apply, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have always replaced Cyrl with Cyrs when I've seen it but I guess I missed those module errors. My bad. In any case, shouldn't we try to strive for automatic transliterations as much as possible? (look I know that this won't be possible for certain scripts but for most alphabets and abugidas but also those abjads with mandatory marking of vowels (like Arabic Uyghur) this should be possible) Mulder1982 (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Removing unnecessary transliterations is fine- the only thing you did wrong was not checking for errors before you saved, or at least before you left the page. It's very easy to go on autopilot when you're doing the same kind of edits on multiple pages, and to forget to check things- but checking the results should be part of the routine. The main reason I brought it to your attention, though, was that I thought I saw a pattern emerging and wanted to head it off before it was repeated. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's a tip: remove the sc= parameter entirely. For most languages, it is no longer necessary, due to automatic script detection. --WikiTiki89 23:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

This (diff) is getting ridiculous. What's the point of changing a literal to a template if you do it wrong? If there's only a transliteration, putting it in {{l}} is guaranteed to cause a module error, and using "ocs" as a language code just shows you're not paying attention. Changing literals to templates and removing redundant transliterations has rather minimal practical benefits, but causing module errors renders the term unreadable and clutters up the maintenance category. Pretty soon I'm going to stop cleaning up after you and start reverting edits that cause module errors. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please make sure you take into account the variable position of the lang= parameter in {{term}} so that {{term|lang=la|Gothus}} gets properly converted to {{m|la|Gothus}} rather than {{m|la|lang=la}}. --WikiTiki89 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The current vote Wiktionary:Votes#Migrating_from_Template:term_to_Template:m does not suggest consensus for diffs like diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Until the vote is closed, it means nothing. The status quo, is that editors can use and replace any templates they want, as long as it conforms to the proper entry layout, and as long as a bot is not involved. --WikiTiki89 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's no consensus for it, but no consensus against it either! Renard Migrant (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's ridiculous. Editors cannot freely replace widespread markup with rare markup unless there is consensus for it. This is based on an elementary requirement of stability. Since I can start to revert, which I have avoided so far. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Umm... If that were the case, no one would ever be able to test out new templates without asking first. That would greatly impede productivity. --WikiTiki89 20:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

New templates can be tested in userspace. Furthermore, it is one thing to add templates as part of one's lexicographical work, it is another thing to start systematically replacing elements of other people's work. The latter is often done by people whose substantive lexicographical contribution is rather unimpressive. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see nothing in that vote, even if it were to fail rather than end with no consensus, that would prohibit Mulder1982 from making these edits. After all, the vote is about whether we want to do a complete, large-scale replacement of {{term}} with {{m}}. It says nothing about editing individual entries. —CodeCat 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

You yourself said that having fewer templates in the mainspace helps new editors. Placing more occurrences of the much less common template harms that goal. Intentionally creating a mixture of templates in mainspace is borderline vandalism by my lights. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you've been adding Votic inflections so I wonder where you are finding them? I haven't found anything online about Votic so far. —CodeCat 02:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

• In this book: Чернявский, В.: Vaďďa tšeeli (Izeõpõttaja) / Водский язык (Самоучитель), PDF. You can download it for free online. Mulder1982 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I looked for this book and ended up finding two different editions of it. They differ somewhat in content from what I can see, and one uses tš where the other uses c (so the name is vaďďa tšeeli in one and vaďďa ceeli in the other). I don't know which one is the more recent/complete version, would you be able to figure it out? —CodeCat 23:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Mulder1982,

currently I'm working on a project for school that requires us to write a little books, related to any school subject. These books will actually have sort of strong impact on the grade that we receive in the chosen subject, as a matter of fact.

My topic is the Old French and Old Norse influence on the English langugae, merely, I have been investigating the introduction of contact clauses to the English language and its relation to Old Norse. I already found out that contact clauses are constructible in Swedish, whereas they are inconstructible in Icelandic. Is it possible to employ them in Faroese, namely omitting the relative pronoun in this sentence for example: "I took the keys (that) you left on the table"?

Greets HeliosX (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not exactly sure if I know what you are asking about but if you mean if Faroese can omit that pronoun then the answer is yes. Your example would, translated into Faroese, be: "Eg tók lyklarnar, (sum/ið) tú legði á borðið." Hope that helps, if not, just feel free to ask again. :) Mulder1982 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

thank you! May I actually know your personal name, thus I could write in my book that I conducted an interview with you? I won't misuse your name, I'll hand out the book to my English teacher, actually. If you wish to tell me your personal name you can send it in an e-mail to "[email protected]". If you prefer not to tell your name, could you tell me your gender and the country in which you were born, thus I could note this information about you, as a matter of fact? :)

Regards

HeliosX (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The language header says Uyghur but all the templates use the code for Chuvash. DTLHS (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edited. Thanks! Mulder1982 (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Where did you get this spelling? Te Aka Dictionary spells it Rēnata. The final -ā seems particularly unlikely. An interesting entry in any case. --Makaokalani (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

In December 2013, you renamed the article Уӕрӕсе (the Ossetian word for "Russia") from Latin æ to Cyrillic ӕ. Was this ever controversial or the result of a discussion or policy? As you can see, the Wikipedia link is now broken, because the Ossetian Wikipedia still uses Latin æ and this seems to be common among native speakers. At the Russian Wiktionary, it was discovered that many Ossetian words have been written with Latin æ and I started to rename them to Cyrillic ӕ, but now I'm hesitating. --LA2 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

See this discussion and do not hesitate. --Vahag (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I noticed that you removed my comment in *gulþą to swedish variant guld. According to what I've read, an epenthetic stop consonant was only inserted between /l/, /m/ or /n/ and and ending with /r/, in old swedish. This seems to have happened in post-runic times, before an epenthetic vowel was inserted before the -r ending, which was in pre-literary times. Therefore, koma is komber/kumber in singular, but komo/kumo in plural. Similarly, finna is sing.pres. finder. There are also many examples in the noun declensions, e.g. nominative of valder (*walþuz) which has vall- in other cases and in plural. I gathered from Svenska Akademiens ordbok and Svensk Etymologisk Ordbok that the form guld is from low german influence. I lack knowledge of the history of the danish language, so I can't say if the change mentioned above happended to danish as well, or if it's a separate sound change which you explained in your comment. However, there are sufficient differences between old swedish and old danish to not generalize them as "East Norse". Finna, for example, didn't evolve to finde in old swedish. Be well! Aquarianus (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

From my (small amount of) experience with Danish, it seems that Danish tends to insert a silent purely orthographic d after n in many places seemingly without any etymological or phonological reason. Maybe it does so after l as well. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I may have been too quick on the draw re: Swedish (I will, of course, yield to SAOB and SEO) but it is a fact that Old Danish had this sound change quite regularly. I don't have access to a book on Danish historical linguistics nor can I find one online but I do quite vividly remember being told this during a class on Danish linguistics at my university. But as I say before I can get to a proper source all I can point to is Ordbog over det Danske Sprog which is accessible online. Cya! Mulder1982 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm planning to rewrite all the templates in Category:Faroese noun inflection-table templates and fold them into a Lua module (work in progress code: Module:User:KarikaSlayer/fo-noun), and I wanted to hear your input on the matter (since I don't speak Faroese myself). KarikaSlayer (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think that's a good idea. It'll be similar to or maybe even more complicated than how Icelandic works but sure go right ahead. Mulder1982 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if gleði and styrki are defective, or is the template just missing the declensions? KarikaSlayer (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not totally sure. These words are rare in plural as is but I wouldn't say that it's impossible to hear the form "styrkjum". I'll have to consult someone. Mulder1982 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is the Faroese lemma limur masculine or feminine? The headword says feminine, but the declension template says it's masculine. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's masculine. I'll edited that. Thanks! Mulder1982 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Um... why are you moving all those entries? —CodeCat 21:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm just making sure the articles use the proper suprasegmental marker, according to Tim Feist's dissertation on Skolt Sami. Wikipedia is following the same guideline. Unfortunately, I can't programme bots, so I have to move each article individually. I'm trying to find the articles that link to the articles with the wrong marker and change those links too. Any idea how to do that more easily? Mulder1982 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is this "proper" marker something that people writing in Skolt Sami use? Remember that Wiktionary entries have to reflect words as they are used, not how a guideline says it's to be used. —CodeCat 21:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I know, hence why I'm referring to Tim Feist's paper. But according to the KOLTANKIELISET group on facebook, then yes, this is what they use. Mulder1982 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

And YLE uses it too, apparently Mulder1982 (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, then it's fine. Thank you for taking the time to move the entries. —CodeCat 21:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure. Mulder1982 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

A Wictionary page was created for the compound word mjólkasjokuláta "milk chocolate". Isn't mjólkarsjokuláta (gen. mjólkar + nom. sjokuláta) the actual spelling for this word? Thank you! -- Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be the proper name. However, I can't find that term in any dictionary, and the only translation I have found of "milk chocolate" gives "rómasjokuláta" (literally: cream chocolate), however, I don't remember ever seeing this word in practice. But, just move the article by adding the r, as it's properly spelt, and I'll leave it to you if you decide to add rómasjokuláta as a synonym. Mulder1982 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was able to find the phrase "100 g myrka sjokulátu ella mjólkarsjokulátu" under the heading "Sjokulátusós" on the website: "Rúsdrekkasøla Landsins" (). Apparently the first element in the Faroese compound noun "rómasjokuláta" (rómi, róma) is also cognate with Old Norse rjúmi, Icelandic rjómi, Norwegian Bokmål rømme, Norwegian Nynorsk rjome, rømme, dialectal Swedish råm, römme, Dutch room, West Frisian rjemme, Low Saxon (Low German) Rahm, Rohm, High German Rahm (early New High German raum, Middle and Old High German roum), Old English rēam, and Scots ream. Interesting. Have an excellent day! --Hans-Friedrich Tamke (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wintry greetings from Idaho, Mulder.

Is eygur at least an alternative noun plural form of eyga?

I ask that question because I made a prototype module for masculine nouns and will make one for neuter nouns. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

@KarikaSlayer Now I created the prototype Module:fo-noun/data-n. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, guys... yes... originally only the r-less form was "allowed" but because of analogy from the other genders the -r forms became really common so a few decades ago both forms began being seen as correct, hence all neuter nouns ending in -a (like eyga, oyra etc.) have two possible plural forms: -u and -ur. Same with -i-neuters: -i and -ir (eiði can be both eiði and eiðir in plural). Mulder1982 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Concerning the declension tables for n3-s and n5-s, I think they're identical. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

They are. The only reason they have different numbering is the fact that n5 has a root vowel change in the plural. Mulder1982 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mulder, I've just found it quite unusual for someone in the Faroe Islands speaking fluent Slovak, as per your user page... — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ ) 09:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

PS does '1982' represent the year you were born? — AWESOME meeos ！ * (не нажима́йте сюда́ ) 09:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, I am fluent in Slovak. Or well, I used to be since I might be a little bit rusty. And yes, I was born in 1982. Ste Slovák? Mulder1982 (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nei, eg eri avstrali. Meiri júst, eg eri fimta ættarlið enskur (lið faðirs míns), og annað ættarlið skotskur (lið móður mínar). — AWESOME meeos ！ * () 07:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hatta var ikki heilt galið, men hevði eg ikki dugað enskt, so hevði eg ikki skilt, hvat tú segði. :) We don't really use "5th-generation X" constructions. We'd probably just say something that one of my X times great-grandparents was from this or that country. But well done, nevertheless. Mulder1982 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

For my part, I'm also most intrigued by this combination! I’f just stumbled over your contributions and profile... Ale som Čech. Do I get it right that you’re born half Danish half Faroese? I can't think of other explanation that you had a Slovak girlfriend in your past... Am I right? Anyway, chapeau! --FuLAmGNut (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

P.S. How about contributing a few more Faroese or Danish entries into the Sk.Wiktionary? We'd appreciate it very much. Really! --FuLAmGNut (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm 100% Faroese. And I used to live in Slovakia. I'd love to do some entries but I need to get used to the different templates. I'm not good at programming and making new ones either, so I've just copied what I needed from time to time. But sure, I can do a few more, it's not a problem. Mulder1982 (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the Proto-Norse form ᚨᚺᚹᚨᛚᚨᚾᛞ (ahwaland)? It seems very doubtful to me, and looks like a stem form rather than a lemma form (the lemma should end in -a). Additionally, unless the word is attested it shouldn’t be added to the main namespace anyway. It seems more likely that this is a reconstruction, and should be added as such. The reference I could find online mentioned it as Germanic *Ahwaland- (here):

Аландские острова

Ахвенанмаа, в Балтийском море; Финляндия. Русск. название от швед. Aland из герм. *Ahwaland - 'водная земля'. От этой же исходной герм, формы фин. Ахвенанмаа (Ahvenanmaa, где maa фин. 'земля').

Unless there is some runic inscription we can cite, I suggest that we use {{inh|non|gem-pro|*Ahwalandą}}. – Krun (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

{{inh|non|gem-pro|*Ahwalandą}} would imply that the term existed in Proto-Germanic, which it probably didn't. In fact, can we be sure it existed in Proto-Norse, even if not attested? —CodeCat 20:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

“Proto-Germanic” is being applied rather loosely here on Wiktionary, and refers to the Germanic language through the whole Common Germanic period. Proto-Norse is also just northern late Germanic and we already have “Proto-Germanic” entries for specifically North Germanic words. We could use Proto-Norse for this, but it’s not easy to mix the Latin and Runic scripts in some of the templates (e.g. {{compound}}), and using Runic for reconstructions doesn’t sit right with me. In any case, I do seem to recall some editors preferring to use Proto-Germanic generally, reserving Proto-Norse for the attested inscriptions (I don’t know where to look for that discussion, though). I tend to agree, and although naming it Proto-Germanic could be considered a bit unfortunate, we are generally going for the earliest common forms in our reconstruction (though we apply that form also to late vocabulary). “Germanic” would be too general, as it can mean (and is already used for) borrowing from an unknown (even modern) Germanic language.

As to the question of the antiquity of the term, that seems to be suggested by the Finnish name Ahvenanmaa, which certainly looks like an adapted borrowing from Germanic times, with the -land part replaced by native Finnish maa (cf. also the Russian source). – Krun (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

This has already been brought to my attention and as I have pointed out on the Talk page of said article that I was "too quick on the draw" and I have given my blessing to delete the article. I've even offered to make a Reconstruction article instead. So, please, if a source can't be found (which sounds most likely), just delete it. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej Mulder1982,

Jeg stødte på din brugerside, og læste, at du ønskede dig en enkelt bøjningsskabelon til alle slovakiske adjektiver. Kan du bruge {{sk-decl-adj}} til noget? Den tjekker det sidste bogstav i sidenavnet, og hvis dette er i, y, í eller ý bruger den en af de fire tilsvarende skabeloner, idet stammen er sidenavnet minus det sidste bogstav. Hvis det hverken er i, y, í eller ý bruger den {{sk-decl-adj-poss}} med hele sidenavnet som stamme. Hvis du vil have bøjninger for et andet ord end sidenavnet, kan du angive det med første unavngivne parameter. Jeg ved intet om slovakisk, så du må fortælle mig, om dette er den korrekte måde at gøre det på.__Gamren (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej, ja, tusind tak, det virker helt fint. Jeg har dog siddet og kigget på, hvorvidt der er undtagelser i alle disse paradigmer. Som jeg kan se, så kan instrumental ental for feminine adjektiver have undtagelser dog kun i meget få ord, men jeg må lige få det bekræftet først. Så jeg tænkte på at bruge en skabelon, som mere ligner {{cs-decl-adj-auto}}, hvor 1 giver stammen, 2 giver typen (dvs.: i, y, í, ý) og hvor et muligt 3 giver den mulige alternative stamme, som så kun findes i feminin instrumental. Slovakisk har nemlig en stavningregel hvor de ikke skriver ˇ over ň ľ ť ď hvis den følgende vokal er i, í eller e. Og da feminin instrumental har -ou så skal et ord her muligvis have en anden sidste konsonant, hvis du forstår, muligvis har jeg forklaret det lidt for kompliceret. Men du skal ihvertfald have tak, og måske kan jeg skrive til dig igen når jeg får dette spørgsmål bekræftet? Mulder1982 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Selvfølgelig, der er intet der haster. I mellemtiden har jeg lavet {{sk-adj-form}} og {{sk-adj-form-poss}}.__Gamren (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej igen. Tak for de skabeloner, dem skal jeg nok få brug for. Jeg har i mellemtiden fået gåden løst: det forekommer en stammeveksling i feminin instrumental, så t.eks. det afledte tillægsord "havraní" (fra havran, allike) har formen havraňou i instrumental hunkøn. Er det muligt at indsætte et eller andet så at man kan definere instrumental hunkøn og som så kommer istf. det automatiske? insf= eller sådant noget? Mulder1982 (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Naturligvis, det er ikke svært. For et parameter insf er {{{insf|}}} sandt, hvis insf er defineret, falsk ellers. Så man kan bare sige

{{#if:{{{insf|}}}|{{{insf}}}|{{{1}}}ou}}

hvilket betyder "hvis insf er defineret, brug da insf; hvis ikke, brug det første unavngivne parameter med -ou bagpå. Men jeg må nu spørge; finder den her stammeændring kun sted i femininum instrumentalis, og ikke i de andre bøjninger, hvis endelser ikke begynder med i, í eller e, f.eks. om-bøjningerne? Og for såkaldt "hard" adjektiver, der ender på -ý/-y i maskulinum nominativ singularis, skal der så ikke tages nogen forbehold overhovedet? Jeg har forresten netop accelereret alle fem skabeloner.__Gamren (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej. Tak for at du fangede den. Jeg havde overset -om-formen. Og jo, der skal også ˇ over havran i havraňom. Så måske stem2= eller noget lignende? eller helt enkelt et unavngivet 2? Mht. til Mnsg, så nej. Der skulle ikke være noget. Så for lidt at reperetere, så vedrører det stammen i lokativ singularis maskulin og neutrum og instrumental singularis feminin, men kun hvis stammen slutter på -n, -l, -t og -d. I disse få tilfælde får disse bogstaver formen -ň, -ľ, -ť og -ď, da denne konsonant skal forblive blød igennem hele paradigmet (i og e gør dette automatisk). Et eksempel, som allerede er på wiktionary hvor den forkerte konsonant forekommer er labutí, der står nu labutom og labutou, hvor der skal stå labuťom og labuťou. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nu skulle det hele gerne virke fra {{sk-decl-adj}}, sådan at man ikke behøver rode med de nedre skabeloner. Jeg har iht. det du har sagt gjort en yderligere redigering, som du kan omgøre, hvis du ønsker.__Gamren (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Would you like to be an administrator? --G23r0f0i (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the plural forms? I can't figure out the Izeõpõttaja, it gives the genitive and partitive, but I don't know how to get the plurals. In "Vadja keele sõnaraamat", the plural elative seems to be "tšivilöissä", "tšiveläiss", or seemingly "tšivessä" (this should be the singular, right?) The singular elative is "tšivessä", or only once: "tšivissä". "tšivess", for the singular, is also seen a couple of times. For example:

ahjo päälin on tehtü heenossa tšivessä - the top of the oven is made of small stones. (the Estonian translation given clearly says väikestest kividest, the plural)

Another example: põltoloja puhasõttii tšivilöissä poiz - the fields were cleaned from stones. That "poiz" probably messes with the case in some way.Strombones (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, I had to extrapolate them from later chapters of Izeõpõttaja. As I'm not a Votic speaker myself (nor a Russian speaker) it's quite possible I may have missed or mistyped something. I don't have "Vadja keele sõnaraamat" so I can't comment on its content. Mulder1982 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hej igen,

Dengang User:Arne List redigerede, markerede han en del færøske ord som kvæði (f.eks. heiti, veitsla, frami). Ved du måske, om det er synonymt med poetic, eller om det er mere specifikt end det?__Gamren (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, could you give any reference for these Norn terms, please?

• tåisti: google hadn't any results for this, except wiktionary and clones. täisti - as a possible OCR error - did not bring up any relevent google book results either, while taisti - as another possible OCR error - brought up too many Slavic results.
  By the orthography (å) it's not from James Wallace (Wallace/Wallace) or George Low; and like blatho and fúa it's not in Hægstad's wordlist.
• blatho: Christer Lindqvist's Norn im keltischen Kontext (2015, p. 140 GB) states (with Marwick as reference) that it is (Lowland) Scottish/Scots, more precicely Orkney Scots, and implies it's not attested in Norn.

-84.161.3.81 10:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, tåisti might be an OCR error as I got it from a scan of Jakobsen's dictionary. I believe I found fúa on the Proto-Germanic reconstruction page and I don't know about blatho. Mulder1982 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much.
In case you are interessted:

• tåisti/täisti: The Danish edition of Jakobsen's dictionary (Etymologisk ordbog over det norrøne sprog på Shetland af Jakob Jakobsen. Udgivet pa Carlsbergfondets Bekostning. København, 1921 hathitrust's scan by google (which might require an US IP)) has: "täisti , s., tejiste, søfugl; uria grylle. alm. En sjælden, tildels forældet form er testi, tisti . -- Orkn. täist. -- On. þeisti, m., tejiste." (with ä instead of å).
  As for the English version, hathitrust finds "taisti", "täisti" and "tåisti" in vol. 2 on p. 938, but doesn't give any preview or snippet, and ignores 'diacritics' anyway. (E.g. in the Danish version it finds "täisti" too while searching for "taisti" or "tåisti".)
  "Fróðskaparrit" (snippets only) has: "Teisti 'black guillemot' / The derivation of Far. teisti (as of Norw. teiste, Norn täisti, etc.) from ON þeisti ". While title, author, year can't be seen, the text can and it really has "täisti".
• fúa: Noreen's Altnordische Grammatik I. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) (3rd ed., p. 87; 4th ed., p. 103 in § 112, 2.) has: "ebenso (s. Kock, Beitr. XXIII, 538 note) fóa (got. faúhō) füchsin neben orkn. fúa." (2nd ed. IA; 3rd ed. 1; 4th ed. transcript a, b, c, d.) I'm not sure what orknöisch (Orkney, Orkneyan, Orcadian) refers too, but I'd guess it's the first of these three possibilities:
  1. old, maybe pre-Norn, texts from Orkney ("Denkmäler der alten zeit sind die 30 runeninschriften zu Maeshowe aus der zeit um 1150 und eine zu Stenness , sowie 4 bis 6 diplome aus der zeit 1329—1426", i.e. there are some runic inscriptions and 4 till 6 diplomata). According to wikipedia this should (mostly) be Old West Norse.
  2. Norn from Orkney ("Orknöer-inseln, wo der ebenfalls ursprünglich südwestnorwegische dialekt etwas nach 1700 ausgestorben ist.", i.e. Orkney Norn became extinct some time after 1700)
     --- BTW: The most famous source for this should be the Lord's Prayer from Wallace.
  3. Lowland Scots from Orkney.

Maybe Noreen (or a similar source) was used as a source for Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/fuhǭ but with orknöisch (or in similar sources maybe English Orkney, Orkneyan, Orcadian, etc.) being interpreted as the second possibility.

-84.161.48.189 01:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, the time period 1329-1426 is just around the time when people stop speaking of Old (West/East) Norse and start speaking about medieval forms. The limit is usually given as 1350 (Black Death) so I'd tentatively call that "Medieval Orcadian Norn". There are some Faroese diplomas from the very early 15th century, some of which are written in Shetland so this would be Medieval Faroese-(Shetlandic) Norn. These are called the Húsavíkarbrøvini, you may have heard of them. One reason why I also went with tåisti is that in Faroese the ei diphthong became ai in some dialects and oi/åi in others so I guess I had a sense of the possibility that something similar had happened in Shetland Norn. But apparently, I was mistaken. Mulder1982 (talk) 12:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea whether you care about stuff you did 6 years ago, but just in case you do: remember that is raised to when not in front of /q/ or /r/. Also, I think equative might be -sut? Bjørnum just says "-/+tut, -/+sut" (p. 75) without clarifying when which is used, but his examples on pp. 190-205 all use -tut. It might be interchangeable, but a timarit.is search gives more for danskisut than danskitut, and the latter is used only in Kleinschmidt orthography and not in the dictionaries.__Gamren (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that a few Pite Sami noun entries have inflection tables. Do you still remember where you got the inflections from? —Rua (mew) 00:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, from the book: *Wilbur, Joshua: A grammar of Pite Saami, Language Science Press, Berlin, 2014. I found it in PDF on the web. Mulder1982 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh, derp. It turns out I already have it. —Rua (mew) 00:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can I ask your source on these? Mostly out of curiosity, but also because I wonder about the gender; they're feminine in most languages of Spain. Ultimateria (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I got it from a PDF of a book(let?) called Gramatica Basica de l'Aragonés by Estudio de Filología Aragonesa. It's a provincial text that was publised in March 2017 by EDACAR (Edicions Dichitalis de l'Academia de l'Aragonés). Mulder1982 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mulder. I wonder if ia is a diphthong here? 113.77.252.191 22:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, not in Slovak, at least. Mulder1982 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

What about ia in Viktória and ie in Gabriela? Are your transcriptions without ⟨.⟩ mean acquiescing the underlying diphthong? 113.77.253.244 21:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Same. Those are all of non-Slovak origin so they fall into the big exception group (well, Viktória definitely, Gabriela most likely). And honestly, I'm not as consistent about using . as I probably should be but that's because the current IPA template counts the syllables correctly so the need for . is superfluous. But I could and probably should go through all of them and add the . everywhere. Mulder1982 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh you have used ⟨̯⟩ to indicate diphthongs. Are you sure ie in Daniela is also a hiatus? And do you know ia in Škriniar? 14.220.228.144 07:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I used that breve thingy for non-syllabic. And yes, foreign, as in non-Slavic ia, ie, iu are usually not diphthongs. Might be a few exceptions but Daniela definitely has four syllables and so does Gabriela. Or damn it, so I though... I'm currently reading about Daniela and Gabriela in Slovník súčasného slovenského jazyka (A dictionary of contemporary Slovak) and it lists the genitive plural of Danielka and Gabrielka (diminutives) as Danielok and Gabrielok suggesting that the -ie- here are diphthongs... damn, I will probably need to redo all of these. Sh*t! Anyway, as for škriniar this -iar is a diphthong as it looks to be an allograph of -ár. But yeah, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I'll look into that and go through the articles. Mulder1982 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh it must be a big big job... I always admire dedicated editors like you without any rewards! 113.77.17.167 19:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hej!

Vil du hjælpe mig med at gennemgå denne liste og tilføje danske oversættelser? Der er ca 5000 artikler og de har alle mindst en nb-oversættelse som ofte er meget lig den danske.

Jeg har netop begyndt med -, A og W.--So9q (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The transliteration module does not change the case of its input. If the input is in uppercase, so will the output be. So it reveals that you are using the wrong case for the Glagolitic forms, you should be using the lowercase Glagolitic letters. —Rua (mew) 12:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that Glagolitic had this distinction. Mulder1982 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey, could you have a look at these? The meanings were ill-formated, so I've tried my best to clean up, but I'm not sure if I haven't messed something up in the usexes or pronunciation, since I'm not very good at Faroese. Thanks in advance! Thadh (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply