User talk:Ookap

Hi Ookap. Thanks for your contribution to RC:Proto-West Germanic/gram(ī). Couple of things though. Could you provide a source for the Old French term being borrowed from Germanic? Also, we treat Frankish as a dialect of Proto-West Germanic, so a level with Frankish is unneeded. Thanks! -- Sokkjō 03:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo: I took it from chagrin#French (ignore chagrin#Old French, I created that). I'll remove the Frankish level though! Ookap (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In case you're interested, I updated the entry. Despite the surface similarities between tatazu and tatazumu, the negative ending ず (“-zu”) in tatazu is not part of the verb たたずむ (tatazumu). Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that! I'm honestly not sure where I got that from, and I'm glad you've put the correct etymology on there. Ookap (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source for the etymology you added to this term suggesting a relation to 見(み)る (miru)? 廻(み)る (miru) is generally accepted to have had an 乙類(おつるい) (otsu-rui, “B-type”) mora in OJP, i.e. mi₂ru in contrast with the 甲類(こうるい) (kō-rui, “A-type”) mora of 見(み)る (miru), i.e. mi₁ru. If there is a connection between these words, it is not straightforward and the entry would benefit from more explanation. Horse Battery (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

That was likely a mistake! I was going through a bunch of the sight-related and more obviously connected みる at the time, and must have accidentally included this one as well. Thanks for catching that. Ookap (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm also curious where you get your A/B distinction data from, if it's a freely available resource—knowing those forms would be quite useful for editing. Ookap (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This particular example I saw when reading through "A History of the Japanese Language" by Frellesvig, pg. 106. This example is also included in a table of example words on the Japanese wiki page for the Jōdai Tokushu Kanazukai. When it comes to other words, it's probably a matter of finding phonographic attestations in OJP, and seeing which pronunciation the characters correspond to in a man'yōgana table. Horse Battery (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good to know, thanks. Ookap (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

• @User:Horse Battery, Ookap, pinging in case you're interested in the details -- I just updated the 廻る (miru) etym. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Fascinating, thank you! Ookap (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  FWIW, here's how I think this root verb む extends to form other verbs.

  • む → (+ 上二段活用) → 廻る (miru), 712

  ↓

  (+ iterative / repetitive verb auxiliary suffix ～ふ)

  ↓

  OJP mapu, modern 舞う (mau), 712 → (+ spontaneous / self-derived action verb auxiliary suffix ～る) → Classical mafaru, modern 回る (mawaru), 810

  ↓

  → → → → → → → → → → → → → → (+ causative / transitive verb auxiliary suffix ～す) → Classical mafasu, modern 回す (mawasu), 970

  While tempting to think about, I don't believe that modern 申す (mōsu), from older mawosu, is related here -- the key is that "wo", which appears in kana spellings as を, not ほ, and thus this does not look like it could be any extension of まふ. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Interesting, I love this kind of thing. You could even spell them 廻(まわ)る (mawaru) and 廻(まわ)す (mawasu), or alternatively 回(み)る (miru), which make them look even more related.

  Seeing む kind of makes me think of the old volitional/presumptive jodoushi む (mu) (and its likely relatives, the adjective nominalizer み (mi) and verbing suffix む (mu))... I doubt they're related, though. Funnily enough given what started this discussion, I've more so heard all of those compared with 見(み)る (miru), 目(め) (me), and ぶ (-bu) (modern びる (-biru)). All good food for thought, I suppose. Ookap (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Make sure to be aware of stress when adding the IPA template. Vininn126 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: I've been checking them. Although I believe stress is dialectal in Kashubian, I've verified that the two pages I've added the template to both have initial stress in the dialect of Kartuzë, the same as the template's default. Ookap (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Within the somewhat standardized form it's phonemic. the module prints pentultimate by default. Vininn126 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Either way, I checked the transcriptions aurally with a Kartuzë Kashubian speaker, and the stress placement is correct. Ookap (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's just something to stay aware of, is all. Something easily overlooked. I also recommend leaving at least one source for new entries. It's not policy, but it avoids things like WT:RFV. Common sources can be found at CAT:Kashubian reference templates Finally, consider joining the WT:DISCORD where it's easier to have more direct conversation. Vininn126 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm in the Discord! Perhaps I should be more active there.

As for sources, I actually don't have any as I'm getting all of this directly from speakers. Are here any reliable online Kashubian dictionaries I could use? Ookap (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

{{R:csb:SPK}} and {{R:csb:ISKJ}} are the most accessible, probably. Vininn126 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I recently added a bunch of derived terms to the ど (do-) entry, including ドM and ドS, and I happened to notice you edited these recently so I thought I might ask you: when I added these to ど I used the full width latin characters (i.e. ドＭ(エム) (do-emu)), but it looks like the entries are at the half-width characters (i.e. ドM(エム) (do-emu)). Do you know if there's some standard for as how to handle latin characters in Japanese entries? Should one be a hard redirect to the other, should it be treated as an alt. spelling (soft redir.), should it be ignored, which should be favored, etc. Horse Battery (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we tend to use halfwidth characters, and use a hard redirect if needed. Wiktionary will display the halfwidth as fullwidth in Japanese anyway, so there isn't much of a downside to it. Taking M as an example, M#Japanese is the entry, while Ｍ#Japanese is a redirect. I don't know if it's an official practice—WT:AJA doesn't mention it at all, not that that page is very up to date—but I think I've almost universally seen halfwidth. Ookap (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Why, on March 8 2025, you make ただちに reading for 直 as reading that does not learnt in Japanese schools? Frozen Bok (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not from Japan, so I don't know what's taught in Japanese schools. However, the official 常(じょう)用(よう)漢(かん)字(じ) (jōyō kanji) list includes this reading. The full list of official 常用 readings for 直 is: チョク、ジキ、ただ-ちに、なお-す、なお-る.

I've just checked the article's history, and now I understand what you were trying to say. My edit did not remove the reading—obviously, it's an important reading. I just added the space to update the ローマ字 link, to fit with Wiktionary's romanization style. If you check the page 直ちに, you will see the ローマ字 is tadachi ni, but the ひらがな is ただちに, as is correct. When using the template {{ja-readings}}, adding a space does not change the ひらがな or the reading, just the ローマ字, in this case making it correct. So, on 直, I did not change the reading, just the ローマ字. Ookap (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean the cyan rectangle on ただちに. Frozen Bok (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ookap It's not removal of ただちに, you removed a cyan rectangle from ただちに by space... Frozen Bok (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Huh, that's weird. I didn't do that on purpose, the template did that. I'll have to fix that when I get home. Ookap (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fixed it, check now! Ookap (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

According to WT:EL, numbered etymology sections are used for grouping content by etymology, and should normally only be used when there are multiple etymologies. Ignoring some east Asian languages that mix them in weird ways with numbered Pronunciation sections and entry subpages that refer to etymology sections in the main entry, that means you should never use an "Etymology 1" header unless there's at least an "Etymology 2" header in the same entry (again ignoring Arabic entries where the numbering is tied in to grammar and may not be a straight forward 1, 2, 3, etc.). And because those etymology headers are used for grouping, the headers for content that is so grouped should be one level lower (with an extra pair of "="s) so that they nest inside their numbered etymology section.

I just fixed an entry where you changed "Etymology" to "Etymology 1" for no apparent reason, and, if memory serves, it's not the first time you've done this. Please don't. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious where I've done this. I of course know how numbered etymology sections work, and to my knowledge have only changed "Etymology" to "Etymology 1" when adding another etymology section. Ookap (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looks like いやいや is the one Chuck saw most recently. You may have intended to split the adverb and interjection into separate etyms, but forgotten. Horse Battery (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is exactly what I meant to do, thank you.

@Chuck Entz, apologies—I suppose I never finished the edit. Thank you for letting me know. Ookap (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply