User talk:Rajkiandris

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

It's great to have you here and registered! Please note the changes I made to kasang (how to link etymologies). ms stands for Malay; all Wikipedia entries have the language codes on the infoboxes in the righthand corner. Thanks! --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, please format your etymologies correctly. See tewel for how I fixed it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is very frustrating. Please just try to format them correctly. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's five years later and you are still not formatting etymologies correctly. —Rua (mew) 16:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is not a part of the default orthography, but it's not actually predictable either, so we have been marking it in headwords such as kež, vež, veļ. It's generally also transcribed in source literature, and so I've been similarly including it in Proto-Finnic entries (e.g. Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.). Compare this with our conventions for Latin: "On Wiktionary, macrons should never be used in the names of entries, so the word līber would appear on the page liber. However, within the text of the page, macrons should be used wherever appropriate."

Wiktionary:About Livonian should maybe have a mention of all this, though: the info is currently only found at Appendix:Livonian pronunciation. --Tropylium (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I notice you also corrected jeng to jeṅg at Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fiu-fin-pro" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. The letter ‹ṅ› is however to my knowledge not a part of the Livonian standard orthography at all, compare Līvõkīel-ēstikīel-lețkīel sõnārōntõz. Do you have some different source you are working with? --Tropylium (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

My source is quite old, that is true: Sjögren 1861.

Hi, you added a Livonian entry at lem, but according to Reconstruction:Proto-Finnic/lämbin it should be spelled lemm. Can you double-check which spelling is right? Thanks. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In Sjögren 1861 it is spelled as -mm, but in modern dictionaries it is just -m. The same applies to many words ending in -ll in the older dictionary, turned to -l in modern dictionaries.

Okay, thanks! If the -mm and -ll spellings are likely to be encountered by people reading Livonian texts, we could add them as {{archaic spelling of}}, {{dated spelling of}}, {{obsolete spelling of}}, or {{superseded spelling of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend prefixing all Salaca Livonian material from Sjögren with {{label|liv|Salaca}}. It is a fairly different language variety from Courland Livonian; Salacan also went extinct shortly after Sjögren, and all later publications on Livonian work with the Courland dialect(s). --Tropylium (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't leave completely blank but please write {{auto cat}}. Equinox ◑ 15:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're still creating blank pages. Please stop. —Rua (mew) 15:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are creating more blank category pages. Last warning. —Rua (mew) 14:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it's 2021 now. You still shouldn't be making this mistake from 2017. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The etymology sections that you are creating are not etymologies. Please either provide proper etymologies (like in the Finnish entries), use {{rfe|izh}}, or leave out the etymology section. Also, you should use {{cog}} to link to cognates. —Rua (mew) 16:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is a question: Do these Finnic languages (like Karelian or Ingrian) have etymologies that are independent of Finnish? Or they evolved directly from PF? (My answer: I do not think so.)

In most of your etymologies, you've said that they are akin to a certain Finnish term. That implies that they have common ancestry, and thus that they come from Proto-Finnic. If they aren't actually related, then it would be wrong to use {{cog}} or to say "akin". Instead, they would be parallel formations, formed independently. For most of these terms though, it is quite obvious that they are from Proto-Finnic. It's probably easiest to copy the Proto-Finnic term from the Finnish entry. —Rua (mew) 16:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a huge problem with PF (Proto-Finnic). It is as if we wrote "English fish comes from Proto-Germanic *fiskaz". This might be true, but this info is misleading: of course, English fish comes from Old English fisc. But we cannot repeat this kind of exercise here: Ingrian kala (meaning fish) does not come directly from PF *kala. It should come from a common Balto-Finnic word (originating around the 10th century), but here we are stuck: we have no written records. The first materials are available from the 16th century. So please, do not write "Ingrian kala comes from PF *kala". In my opinion, "akin to Finnish kala" is the best solution. This solution is not perfect, but at least it is not misleading. Regards.

What is misleading about Proto-Finnic? It's well-supported by linguistics. —Rua (mew) 11:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

In principle it would be possible to reconstruct also intermediate stages like Old Karelian or Old Veps, analogical to Old English or Old Norse etc. However, there is no consensus on the exact make-up of these, while Proto-Finnic does have a rough consensus reconstruction. This is because the classification of the Finnic varieties is still partly under debate, and a reconstruction of e.g. "Old Veps" is going to look different depending if we attempt to derive from it just the "Veps" dialects; or also some or all of the "Ludian" dialects; or even also the substrate in Livvi. (A similar problem would come up whe trying to reconstruct Old English, too: there are modern English dialects that do not descend from the West Saxon written standard of OE.)

On the other hand, since we do not distinguish things like "Old Veps", this means that "10th century Balto-Finnic" is still just Finnish, Karelian, etc. The Finnish and Ingrian words for e.g. 'fish' have been separate much longer than that (even though they have not changed in shape from each other). Proto-Finnic first breaks up around 500 BC, Proto-Northern Finnic around 0 CE at latest (though I suspect actually earlier than that as well). --Tropylium (talk) 10:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, can you please format etymologies using the right templates? You are giving other editors tons of extra work to fix your edits. —Rua (mew) 11:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

OK, I try my best.

You are still not using the right templates, such as {{inh}}, {{m}} and {{cog}}. Why is this so difficult? —Rua (mew) 14:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're now using {{m}} properly, which is good, but don't forget to use {{inh}} for terms inherited from Proto-Finnic. —Rua (mew) 17:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Category:Ludian terms inherited from Proto-Finnic is practically empty. Can you please start using {{inh}}? —Rua (mew) 17:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You can also leave a clean-up note by {{etystub}} if you're not sure if some Finnic word-group is native or what its proto-form would be. --Tropylium (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

What is your source for it meaning "morning"? ETY lists "Ludic huomen" as meaning "tomorrow", and huonduz as meaning "morning". Strombones (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Ludian vocabulary - sanat.csc.fihttps://dictious.com/en/Luokka:LudReply

It clearly says that it means "tomorrow" - here. Although the first translation into Finnish is "huomen", which is a poetic word for "morning", the translations into Russian say "tomorrow" as an adverb and "tomorrow" as a noun. Also, use 4 tildes to signature your posts. Strombones (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be on a roll of creating Livvi entries as "Karelian". Many sources call both of these "Karelian", but on Wiktionary we distinguish the two. For adjectives ending in *-eda (= Finnish -ea), the two are usually easy to tell apart: Livvi has -ei, Karelian proper has -ie. --Tropylium (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Depending on your source. I have Makarov's Russko-Karel'skiy Slovar' (Petrozavodsk 1975) and for adjectives ending in *-eda (= Finnish -ea) it clearly states -ei all the time. I apologize for that. (Rajkiandris)

Most likely this means the dictionary in fact is of Livvi, not of Karelian proper. No dialect of Karelian proper has -ei in these. I notice also a few other entries you've created as "Karelian" while they're clearly Livvi, e.g. tavar (Karelian proper is tavara), leugu (Karelian proper is leuga ~ leuka). I've added some notes to WT:About Karelian and WT:About Livvi on this, for future reference. --Tropylium (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the sources I've seen contain Proto-Uralic *pura (and not *pura-). What is the reason for the hyphen you added? --Panda10 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are right. The only reason I inserted the verb *pura- here is that in Hungarian, the verb fúr (to bore)) seems to be the original form, while the noun fúró (drill) is just a derivation. (Rajkiandris)

As long as you're on a roll, please do take a few moments also to familiarize yourself with the writing system and conventions of each particular language. In particular:

• the letter for a "non-nasal" glottal stop in Nenets is the single symbol ˮ, not two instances of ʼ;
• the lemma form for Nenets verbs is the 3rd person singular aorist (ending in -сь or -зь), not the bare stem;
• ȣ̈ and ȣ in Uralic reconstructions indicate "unknown front vowel" and "unknown back vowel" (unknown to the author, anyway); they do not stand for *ü;
• we use *d and *ď for Proto-Uralic, not *δ and *δ́ (forms with these are OK as redirects, though).

Whatever we do with reconstructions is in principle negotiable, but the first two are a bit more concerning.

--Tropylium (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Another issue is PU (Proto-Uralic). How can wole- (and many others here) be PU if no Samoyedic parallels exist? (Rajkiandris)

It's no longer universally accepted that Samoyedic was the first group to branch off, and therefore "Proto-Finno-Ugric" might have been the exact same thing as Proto-Uralic. (For some discussion and references, see e.g. w:Finno-Ugric languages.) We currently deal with this at Wiktionary by treating PFU as an "etymology-only language" — which can be referred to, but for which we will not create any entries separately from PU.

Also, for I should still add this sometime, but *wale- or *wole- (both can be argued for) has been occasionally compared also with the Samoyedic copula *åə-. The rime correspondence is regular, same as in e.g. *kale- > *kåə-.

Lastly, not to be too negative; so I'd like to thank you for incrasing our coverage of basic vocabulary in the more eastern Uralic languages. We are still fairly low even on the larger languages like Komi or Udmurt that have well-established literary traditions. --Tropylium (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

We use the Devanagari script for Konkani, the Latin script (and Kannada script) form is secondary. Please don't make changes like that without talking to people who know the language, like @माधवपंडित. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 05:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also can you use {{der}} and the like? Thanks, I'd appreciate it. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 05:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AryamanA: True, and the etymology given is wrong as well; Konkani words are not derived from Marathi. And @Rajkiandris, although the Latin script is also standard, it would be good to maintain consistency. The Latin script forms are anyway documented in every Konkani entry. How well do you know the language? -- माधवपंडित (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have a nice little English-Konkani dictionary published in New Delhi in 1999. It contains only Latin script, this is why I thought it would be useful to add a few of the words to the corpus already existing here - even, as you say, the Latin-script forms are secondary. Such a move would definitely alleviate any search within the corpus. This is, in my view, a VERY important aspect if we bear in mind that most users have Latin-script keyboards only. Have a nice day. (Rajkiandris)

The fact of the matter is that the standard for Konkani is Devanagari. Neither Latin, Kannada, or even Malayalam are actually standard, but are secondary scripts. As माधवपंडित said, consistency is key currently. Next time, just ask the main editor of a language before making such a change. DerekWinters (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we include the Latin script on the Konkani page, so anyone searching for, say, "zanap" will be able to find जाणप (jāṇap). I do agree that it would be a good idea to have Latin script entries that redirect to the Devanagari lemma though. If you don't mind me asking, who is the publisher for the dictionary? I've been looking for a Konkani dictionary for ages. Also, yes you are right that most people in India only know how to use Latin script keyboards, but I'm definitely not adding Latin script stuff for Hindi because there's no historical precedent for it. Konkani is different because the Portuguese introduced the Latin script in their colonial rule; just that people don't have Devanagari keyboards is not enough reason to have Latin script entries. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 14:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't remove useful templates with correct information, whether they be etymologies, regional forms, or anything else. It may well be accidental, but if that is the case, you must try to be much more careful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is Middle Persian really written in uppercase Roman letters? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Actually I copied an earlier text, to be found with the Persian word meaning flour. IMHO Roman letters are useful when there is no way to copy the original script. (Rajkiandris)Reply

A cursory look at Yaghnobi language on Wikipedia even shows that the language is not derived from Tajik. Please do a little research before making entries en masse; the Proto-Iranian "roots" you provide are incorrect as well. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 19:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Let's take one example, Yaghnobi маҳтоб. In my opinion this is clearly a borrowing from Tajik. I am ready to delete this etymology, but what is your suggestion, what should we write in its stead? (Rajkiandris)Reply

Take a look at маҳтоб (mahtob) now, I've made some changes. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 23:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have added a 'request for verification' for this word, I hope you don't mind but I think there could be a mistake. Also, if you don't mind me asking, it this the source for Yaghnobi entries https://yaghnobi.wordpress.com/online-yaghnobi-lexicon/ ? If so, are you sure there permission to use it? Thank you. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC) My source for Yaghnobi entries is "Jaghnóbsko-česky slovník" (Praha 2010). (Rajkiandris (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC))Reply

I see, so it's just a coincidence that out of the 20 Google hits for невиштан, one of them appears in that lexicon? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, there are a lot of problems here, and it's a pity they haven't been addressed until now. You are editing in a wide range of languages, and it's clear you're in over your head. Just in the last few days, you are adding incorrect translations in languages you don't know at all without even checking linguistic sources (e.g. in Tahitian), you are still (after all these years) not formatting etymologies correctly (e.g. at gwlg), you are adding entries without basic information, like transliteration (again, at gwlg and your other Middle Persian entries), and you are evidently lying about your sources based on the section above. This is unacceptable behaviour.

So what do we want from you? Basically, just effort toward improvement, care while editing, and adequate responsiveness to concerns addressed to you. If that doesn't happen, I (or another admin watching this page) will block you, first for relatively short periods of time, but longer if it is recurring. Ultimately, we care about building a quality dictionary, and you will have to prove that you can take part in that. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Why did you see the need to split dancer and singer into dancer and singer and female dancer and female singer?

In English there is no gender distinction between male and female performers in other languages can perfectly go into the same translation table. It's not an accepted practice here.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I only make this distinction in the Translations section. Eg. the English word "teacher" is unambiguous in Russian or in Hungarian: without context, no correct translation of the word is possible. By the way, English itself is illogical in this area: you have "queen", "actress" and "heroine", but no "*teacheress" or "*doctoress".

@Metaknowledge, Rua In October-December 2017, you removed several L2 entries (i.e. you removed the entire entry for a given language on about 20 pages). Why did you do that? In none of the cases that I can see is there any comment indicating why the entries were removed. If you can't justify them, I think we should restore them all. See for the complete list. Benwing2 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I can't remember, because Rajkiandris has caused different kinds of problems, but this might have been copyright violation. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge At least some of them can't be copyvios. See e.g. синь, where the entry removed was for Udmurt and simply defined it as "eye". This is still listed as the Udmurt word for "eye" in the translation table for eye. Benwing2 (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I can't remember, but you can feel free to reinstate them iff you check them against an external source. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

İf you don't know zazaki language, please don't create none. --Xorasan (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've noticed you've been creating a lot of Lombard entries lately, which is great, but there is one thing I'm worried about, which is the etymologies:

You seem to put an Italian lemma as a source for the Lombard terms, which doesn't make sense from a historical point of view. We treat Lombard as a separate language developed directly from Latin, not as an Italian dialect that has split off of standard Italian. As such the etymologies should be given in the form From {{inh|lmo|la|TERM}}. Cognates include {{cog|it|TERM}} rather than From {{m|it|TERM}}. I therefore ask you to correct these etymologies, and give new ones correctly.

For the rest though, nice job, we do need Lombard editors. (word of advise: if you follow a specific source, looking into creating a reference template may be a good idea) Thadh (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

One more request: Could you please use the designated templates {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{der}} and {{cog}} when creating etymologies? They are documented, so you can see at their respective pages how to use them, but in a nutshell: From {{inh|lmo|la|ecclesia}}, borrowed from {{der|lmo|grc|ἐκκλησία}}. Cognates include {{cog|it|chiesa}} and {{cog|es|iglesia}}. Hope it's clear, good luck! Thadh (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. May I ask if you are a native speaker of the Lezgi language? Gnosandes (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not. I am only intested in - among others - Caucasian languages. (Rajkiandris (talk)

What dictionaries do you use? Can I ask you not to write strange cognates in etymology, please. Gnosandes (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Russko-Avarskiy slovar' by Alikhanova 2003, Russko-Lezginskiy slovar' by Alikberov 1950 etc. Daghestani phonology is indeed strange, but what do you mean by strange cognates? (Rajkiandris (talk)

So you know Russian? Why is Dagestan phonology strange? It seems that these systems are not poor in anything… You attribute different cognates to completely opposite families. This can eventually confuse everything. Gnosandes (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I know some Russian, but I am not fluent. As far as I know, Nakh-Dagestani is an acknowledged family within the Caucasian languages. (Rajkiandris (talk)

Why are you nominating so many pages you've created for speedy deletion? You nominated хӀацӀу in the same edit that you created the page… Ultimateria (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of them are concerned with the Caucasian letter ӏ, which is sometomes written (wrongly) with Ӏ. For example, this was the case with хӀацӀу.(Rajkiandris (talk)

@Ultimateria: I'll mention you, maybe you wanted to answer something. Gnosandes (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the same topic, you really need to include reasons for speedy deletion. I'm looking at púeo and I don't see anything wrong with the page. If it's a misspelling, you need to move the content to the correct page and state the reason in |1= of {{d}}. Ultimateria (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC): The numeral púeo does not exist. Ten in Aklanon is napueo'. (Rajkiandris (talk)Reply

Would you please make sure that a word you create doesn't already exist? You created təzə and bəla that already existed. Also, please never use any other identically looking character for the Azerbaijani ə. Not the cyrillic schwa and not this one. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC): Thanks, sorry. (Rajkiandris (talk)Reply

Hello! I just wanted to encourage you, as an uninvolved user, to vote at WT:Votes/2021-08/Nullifying_the_previous_templates_vote. Please vote however you would like - whether in support or in opposition. These votes are a good way to influence governance here on Wiktionary. Imetsia (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

When you create a new category, please use {{auto cat}} as its content (unless it gives you an error message). Ultimateria (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're still doing this. There are people who check for missing categories and create them fairly regularly. Creating a blank page hides the category from them. Without the template, none of the connections with other categories show up, and the page is utterly useless. I fixed all of the blank categories I've found so far, but from now on I will delete them. If you don't stop creating blank pages, I will seriously consider blocking you. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do not add wrong Sanskrit entries like स्तूक (stūka). You placed मरीचम् (marīcam) as a lemma while it is the nominative singular of मरीच (marīca). Unless you know nicely about a language, you should not edit them because it puts extra cleanup load on the other editors of that language. Svārtava² • 14:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for "maricam": I thought that wiki (https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/pepper#Translations) could not be wrong. (Rajkiandris (talk)

There are many translation-errors out there. Please do not rely on the mention of a term elsewhere in Wiktionary to create an entry. Svārtava² • 14:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regarding these and some other edits: Modern Javanese is a descendant of Old Javanese, so the default assumption for the bulk of its lexicon is that it is inherited, unless there are clear indications of learned borrowing (visible e.g. in the phonological shape). And why did you delete the Indonesian lemma rawa? –Austronesier (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment. As for "rawa", as far as I know modern Indonesian uses "rawa-rawa" instead. (Rajkiandris (talk)

Please note that the spelling of semivowels in McKaughan (1967) using 《i》 and 《o》 was not accepted by the native speaker community and has been abandoned, see here for more information (p. 2):. So the lemmata with 《y》 and 《w》 are good and in common usage, whereas the lemmata with 《i》 and 《o》 should be reduced to alternative (obsolete) spellings. And ideally, if in doubt, it's better not remove lemmata with divergent spelling, but rather to keep them as alternative spellings.

The new dictionary is available online here. –Austronesier (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comment. (Rajkiandris (talk)

Hi, I only know pat from various sources (e.g. this online resource), so I don't understand this removal; upat sound very Visayan to my ears. –Austronesier (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have Jacinto Juanmarti's old dictionary: maybe some of the words are obsolete today. (Rajkiandris (talk)

Please don't remove entries unless you are certain they are orthographically incorrect. You should send terms you think don't exist to WT:RFV instead. Thadh (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Have you thought about using a {{Babel}} template on your user page? Fytcha (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

1. You can not use this - in modern languages if their official language doesn't have it. Also you have to use it if it is a verb when you reconstruct Ural-Altaic languages. But you are doing opposite.

Sorry: use what? (Rajkiandris (talk)

the linking hyphen BurakD53 (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

OK Rajkiandris (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

2. You can not reconstruct languages on your own. You have to use linguists' reconstructions. Do not undo my corrections and please correct your additions. BurakD53 (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

All Evenki verbs should end with the suffix -мӣ, not with the linking hyphen. Please fix all these entries. You can use this dictionary if in doubt for the correct form. Note: you shouldn't give the linking hyphen at all, don't give verbs of the type *игичэ-мӣ, just use игичэмӣ. Thadh (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I followed Starostin's method: all Evenki verbs are shown with the root, i.e. without -mi. True, he used a hyphen after the root. Rajkiandris (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

We are a lexical dictionary first and an etymological second, so the methods historical linguists use is not what we should do. Moreover, hopefully you already know this, but still, you should use Starostin's works with a lot of caution, if at all. Most of EDAL is very much not scientific, and you shouldn't blindly follow their etymologies. Anyway, long story short: stick to actual dictionaries (like the one I linked above), they are the ones that represent a language best. Thadh (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my dictionary 'to die' is буми. I give up. Rajkiandris (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Both are correct, and that is fine. Actually, I think 'to be dying' is a better translation for булми. Thadh (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This dictionary cannot be accessed. Rajkiandris (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's strange, I can access it via computer and phone alike... Alternatively, you can try and (just click "читать на сайте", the red button). Thadh (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you won't correct your wrong verb contributions about Tungusic languages, I have to delete all of them. BurakD53 (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I will. Rajkiandris (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You still haven't fixed them, even though you've gone on to create a bunch of messy Nivkh entries. When you make a mess like this, you force other people to clean up after you and waste their time. It's not fair, and it's a good way to introduce mistakes into the dictionary, as you have done many times, because few people have the time and knowledge to check your work. Clean the Tungusic entries up, and follow other guidelines on formatting and sources that you are given, or you may be blocked. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Messy Nivkh entries. Exactly what is your problem here? Rajkiandris (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll answer that question for Meta. The main problem is the etymologies. See the entry at му (mu) for instance:

1. What language is the parent term's reconstruction of?
2. Does it make sense to give a reconstruction if we analyse the macrolanguage as one language? Or should we switch to a dialectal distinction in the code and nomenclature, in which case we'll need to change a lot of infrastructure and is a change that has to be thought through!
3. If it's Proto-Nivkh (if such reconstructions are even reliable - this you should check using peer reviews and common sense - and useful), you should request a code and refer to a reconstruction entry (something like From {{inh|niv|nvk-pro|*mu}}, not just mention it is an "original Nivkh word" (what does that even mean? Is it that it's reconstructable to Proto-Nivkh or that it is not obviously borrowed from a neighbouring language? And how do we even know that? You should really source such claims). Which brings me to the next point:
4. Where do you get this word from? This is more general than just Nivkh, it also applies to the Tungusic languages for instance, but you obviously aren't a Nivkh speaker, so where did you get this information from? Is it reliable? The reader should ideally be able to verify the senses you give.

And finally, if you're working with a language, although it is not necessary, it may be nice to create some infrastructure or add morphological information along the way. It seems you hop from one language to the other without actually adding much more than the etymology, POS and sense, but it may be worth the time to also think about adding inflections, pronunciation, derived and related terms... But that's just my own suggestion, you don't need to follow it if you don't want to.

The first four point are important though. Hope this clears it up! Thadh (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Appendix:Proto-Nivkh_reconstructions Rajkiandris (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's why I said, you need to make sure if these reconstructions are a) reliable b) needed . You'd need to propose these changes at either WT:BP or WT:RFM. By the way, better to find the original book somewhere online (it's available on libgen for instance) rather than work off a second-hand appendix, it reduces the risk of an error. Thadh (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Thadh, Rajkiandris, Metaknowledge: As the person who added many of these Nivkh entries in the first place, I would like to join in to request that you please format the etymologies properly, and cite a reliable source before adding them. I do not have an etymological dictionary of Nivkh, so I can't verify any of these etymologies. I only have Taksami 1983, a bilingual Nivkh-Russian dictionary (with multiple dialects); Gashilova 2013, a picture dictionary of East Sakhalin Nivkh; and Gashilova 2017, a thematic dictionary of East Sakhalin Nivkh. I got these books from L. B. Gashilova herself after taking a Nivkh class with her, so I'm probably honestly the most qualified English speaker to be contributing Nivkh entries to Witkionary, and even I'm not that qualified. So please don't add messy etymologies to these entries.

Side note, @Thadh, I do think we should switch to a "dialectal" distinction in the code and nomenclature of Nivkh, since Amur and Sakhalin Nivkh are not mutually intelligible. Dylanvt (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dylanvt: You should raise the issue at one of the abovementioned fora! (I think the Beer Parlour is a good place for this). Thadh (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, umm... Why can't I see any verb pages moved? I thought that you will. But you don't make any effort. I would understand if you didn't have time, but you're working on other things. Your priority should be wrong entries added by you. You can add translations of languages later. Also you created these pages today; монӈими, юми, элбэсчэми, элбэскэтчэми, элбэсчеми, эендеми... These are not your priority. Moving Nanai verbs can be a good one. BurakD53 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

You may be entering some of your new entries to move old entries. Do not move by opening a new page. Wiktionary includes moving feature. Just press the move button to move the old page. BurakD53 (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moving Nanai verbs... Why? So far, we were talking about adding *-mi at the end of Evenki verbs. Rajkiandris (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nanai verbs should have -ри at the end. Of course, we don't use linking hyphen in modern verbs. If you have any other words have linking hyphen that i didn't see, know that it is most likely wrong too. I am also thankful to you, it's so valuable that you improved Tungusic languages on Wiktionary. But have you ever added any other Tungusic language with same method? I can help you while moving. BurakD53 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

My dictionary (by S. N. Onenko, Moscow 1980) does not show any *-ri. Every verb has a hyphen at the end. Rajkiandris (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see. But some online Russian dictionaries show with -ри. It should be with -ри. If you will work on any agglutinative verb, please ask for it. There will be probably an infinitive form of verbs that people use without linking hyphen. BurakD53 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A hyphen and the end is the stem, but we should prefer the infinitive, just as we don't lemmatize Turkish verbs as get- or aç-. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

We don't lemmatize... It depends. My Hungarian dictionary (by Éva Csáki, Budapest 2001) has e.g. hoz ("bring") = getir- and nyit ("open") = aç-. Sorry. Rajkiandris (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

By "we" I obviously mean the standard that has been established on Wiktionary, not some Hungarian printed dictionary. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Rajkiandris (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why are you trying to delete Nanai pages? BurakD53 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Trying to correct them. Rajkiandris (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I mean, putting *-ri after the verbal roots, as you suggested. Rajkiandris (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Give a reason. You can not add deletion logs just like that. BurakD53 (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

енері has a -ri BurakD53 (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

энэри* BurakD53 (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand, it actually takes -ури. Do not creat new pages, just move old pages. If you create new ones you can not move old pages. BurakD53 (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Was your removal of the topic category intentional, or due to an edit conflict or something? 37.110.218.43 14:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Topic (monkeys) was shown as empty Rajkiandris (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have readded it, and now, for me at least, монён shows up in the category page. 37.110.218.43 14:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Rajkiandris (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, your Kyrgyz verb stem entries caused some grief to @BurakD53. I agree with him that you have incorrectly lemmatised them. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I lemmatised nothing: my dictionary (K. A. Krippes, Kyrgyz Dictionary, New York 1998) did. Rajkiandris (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your response. Well, you made the entries here, not Krippes, the dictionary author. The dictionary apparently incorrectly lemmatised Kyrgyz verbs (and it's not the only one). I don't have the dictionary and I don't know if it's available online. We don't make entries for stems, e.g. Italian parl- for parlare or German sprech- for sprechen, so we shouldn't use сүйлө- for сүйлөө (süylöö). We use full lemma forms. Kyrgyz-English dictionaries are not known to be of good qualities. may give better results but it's mostly in Russian and needs careful filtering. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Maybe I should try to procure of a better dictionary (although the Krippes work is quite satisfactory: concise and clear). Rajkiandris (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It's their (Krippes) convention or focus (stems). This dictionary (Wiktionary) uses full lemmas, although choosing lemmas may be problematic for some languages (e.g. (Volga) Tatar and Georgian (verbs), when even dictionaries disagree on methods. We don't have Wiktionary:About Kyrgyz describing conventions and we don't have regular contributors, so errors are almost expected. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

By the way, so that we are clear, using stems instead of full words is not necessarily incorrect, it's just not what we normally do here (reconstructions are probably the only exception). One of my Korean textbooks used verb/adjective stems instead of full words. E.g. 가- for 가다 (gada). I could still use that as a source but I would need to "convert" taht informations to use the forms acceptable here. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can't just leave the Proto-Turkic pages unfinished. If you are going to create such a page, you need to register descendants that you can easyly reach and the etymology. You are copying and adding the information already on any descendant's page. You haven't added anything to them.

I hope you realize how much damage you have done to Wiktionary and how much tolerance you have been given. Stop persecuting the Kyrgyz language. What is this? тире- Are you kidding? Is it funny? BurakD53 (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but you had to realize that before me, it was тире. As it did not make sense, I just put a hyphen at the end (Krippes writes тире- in his dictionary, and he is not kidding). Rajkiandris (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

After e sound there is öö without e, after a sound there is oo without a, after any constonant there is uu or üü according to vowel harmony. If it has one syllable and ends with a vowel, you should extend the last sound as in жаа. After u and ü sound there is one more u or ü sounds as in окуу. search on google before create pages. You'll find the verb if you search the correct spelling. And NEVER EVER ADD THE STEM CONTRIBUTIONS. Finding the correct spelling is imperative. BurakD53 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You should complete previous PT page before start a new one.🤦🏻‍♂️ Do not start to another before complete them. You know, they are unfinished. BurakD53 (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which are the unfinished PT pages? Could you specify, because I do not remember anymore. Thanks. Rajkiandris (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/yẹŋ-, Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/yat-, Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/yār-, Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/ȫr-, Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/čïk-... BurakD53 (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

At present, I am dealing with Chuvash, Kyrgyz, Yakut only (as I have these dictionaries). Why can't I leave other languages to others? Rajkiandris (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your descendants are not leaved as script needed. You just don't write the languages. Turkish comes after ota and trk-oat; Kyrgyz comes after South Siberian and Kyrgyz-Kipchak groups. You should divide descendants into two as Oghur and Common Turkic, and you should divide into groups all the branches in CT. You can use database for the descendants and search for the correct spelling. If you know the rule of infinitive verbs, you won't have difficulties, you can find them easily. If you can't find the descendants, you still should add the language but just leave it as script needed so people can add the descendant that you don't know. PT reconstruction which doesn't have Oghur descendant should be marked as Common Turkic as in Reconstruction:Proto-Turkic/kerü. Also PT reconstructions have etymologies, relations with Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic, Japonic and even Chinese languages. You can add the etymology. If you don't work on any of these, why do you create PT page? What's the meaning of that page then? BurakD53 (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You just add Turkish, Kyrgyz, Chuvash and Yakut. All the pages you create are not 100% full. Arbasun (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it may be helpful to make an overview of what you've been asked to improve up to this point, and which you've unfortunately not been able to do:

1. State your sources in the entry. You're not a speaker of the languages you're working for, which is fine, but in that case you need to state clearly where your information comes from. Use reference templates (like {{R:kpv:Bubrikh:1949}} or {{R:kpv:Beznosikova:2000}}), since you seem to follow a single source for a long time.
2. Lemmatise at words. A noun, adjective and verb has a stem, but that stem isn't necessarily used in the language. It's just... there. So you have to find better ways to do this. If the language you're working for is an analytical language (like the Austronesian languages you've been working on), that's not applicable, but with Nivkh, Tungusic, Turkic and Uralic languages, you have to think of a good place to lemmatise the words. For verbs, that is most often the infinitive, if the language has one, and otherwise the 1st or 3rd person singular; You'll have to decide that on a case-to-case basis, and it's a good idea to discuss the issue with editors of similar languages.
3. Be as complete as needed, yet as brief as possible. This is mostly true for etymologies. "A word" is not acceptable. Give the parent language and the term where the word comes from. Make sure to follow the customs as decided upon on Wiktionary (e.g. Lombard is a descendant of Latin), or else raise your objections on discussion fora, like WT:BP or WT:RFM. Use appropriate templates: They are there for a reason. You don't need to get into detail about sound changes, but don't be too brief. In the case of uncertain etymologies, try to cite the info you give using reference tags.

I hope this helps. Please do ask me if there's anything you don't understand, and I'll try explaining it more clearly. Thadh (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, quick reminder: Please add references or quotes. To every entry. Thanks in advance and do approach me if you don't know or aren't sure how to give them. Thadh (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, me and Thadh have done some work on Kashubian, i.e. adding better headers that include noun gender, as well as declension tables. Could you please go look and see what changes we made and update your pages? Vininn126 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I will do that. Rajkiandris (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

See also WT:ACSB for more. Thadh (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so here's the templates you should be using:

{{csb-noun}} for nouns. The first parameter is gender ({{csb-noun|m}} for masculine nouns for instance)

{{csb-verb}} for verbs. The first parameter is perfectivity ({{csb-verb|pf}} for perfective verbs for instance)

{{csb-adj}} for adjectives. The first parameter is the comprative.

{{csb-adv}} for adverbs. The first parameter is the comparative.

You can follow the links above for a more detailed explanation. Now, which source are you using for your entries? The entries themselves are okay, but they would benefit with a reference section. Thadh (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I only have S. Ramult's dictionary, containing words written with obsolete orthography. Rajkiandris (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good resource, although like you said, a little dated. No worries though, I got you covered: Gòłąbk's dictionary is accesible online (it has the reference-template {{R:csb:SPK}}). Parts 1-4 and 6 of Boryś' etymological dictionary ({{R:csb:SEK}}) is also published online by RCIN. Finally, there's a grammar by Makùrôt, although it may contain some mistakes. Feel free to ask if you have any questions left! Thadh (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Can you confirm that both of these Ingush entries are correct?

• цӏерг
• царг

Came across this by chance and wanted to check. 70.172.194.25 01:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also noticed that Chechen has both царг and церг, but this fact is already noted in the entry itself which makes me think you checked it. 70.172.194.25 01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course цӏерг is correct. Can be checked e.g. at ids.clld.org. Regards. Rajkiandris (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It has come to my attention that the source you have provided above does not, in fact, support your claim that цӏерг is an Ingush word, or that царг means "tooth" for that matter. This has been the last straw for your incompetence and longtime problematic editing. Thadh (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Multiple editors have told you, time and again, that making stub entries is doing more harm than good. I've even written a relatively full guide above that explains what you should improve in your entries (most importantly: SOURCES!), and seeing your recent contributions (diff, diff) it seems you have not followed these instructions. This is your final warning. If you continue creating these stub entries, you will be blocked. If you don't understand anything: ASK. We're happy to answer your questions, but we're not happy cleaning up the mess you leave in the mainspace. Thadh (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Come on, you were doing so well...

• diff: Perfect!
• diff: Not good.

To be honest, going through your contributions once per week isn't my ideal way to spend a Friday evening, so help a friend out, would you? :) Thadh (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi - this does not mean "comfort". It means "melody", "method, manner" and "decency, appropriateness". What sources are you using? I'm going to revert all of your additions to that page, because you're so catastrophically wrong that we can't trust any of them. Theknightwho (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

My source: https://ids.clld.org/contributions/516 Rajkiandris (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply