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:
~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ƿidsiþ 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Woah there. Your entries have several problems. Apart from the formatting issues, this has no decent definition, and you are certainly wrong in listing English human as a derived term of Persian. Have a look at some of the links above, and preferably at some other members of Category:Persian nouns to see how it's done. Ƿidsiþ 09:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
For Proto-Indo-European terms, the usual format is {{proto|{{subst:langrev|Proto-Indo-European}}|the term here|the meaning here|lang=two or three letter language code here}}. This is undeniably a bit complicated; at the very least, don't link to unattested terms (WT:CFI#Attestation). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Hello there,
I am sorry for not responding to your messages earlier. I was completely lost in the website and did not know how to respond. I did not intend on offending anyone at all. I looked for a way to contact one of the volunteers through email but did not succeed. Again I apologize that my entries were not formatted properly. I will be going through the tutorials.
{{proto}}, use only valid appendix titles like skid- (no asterisk) not skid-, skei as that should be too appendices. Also try copying work across from another appendix, such as Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/skid- which I've fixed up, though CodeCat (talk • contribs) is our leading proto expert. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Hi, you added Danish "sövne" as a descendant in Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/swep-, but there is no such word in Danish. Your source probably doesn't use "ø", in which case it is "søvne", an archaic word for "expire", "pass away" or a variant of søvn ("sleep"), i.e "i søvne" ("in your sleep"). I'm guessing "søvn" is the best bet, but your other Germanic descendants seem to indicate sove ("to sleep").--Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
{{rfscript}}. Hopefully someone will then add the right script, and then you can link (um, obviously). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Hello Renegade5005, I have a question about the etymology of omnis: in this edit, you say that omnis stems from PIE *eum- and is related to PGmc *ium-jan. On what dictionary is that etymology based? Pokorny (p. 780) assumes it is derived from the PIE root op- ("to work, to perform") but the Pokorny book is rather old... Greetings, MaEr 10:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Hi, this particular etymology is based on Nostratic Etymology. According to Pokorny 1355 page 780, op-1 is related to the Latin opus, Old Iranian ápas, Avestan 𐬀𐬞𐬀𐬯 (apas) 'religious work', Ancient Greek ὄμπνη (ómpnē), 'nourishment'. According to Pokorny the root might be related to the Latin omnis.
Renegade5005 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, this is the information I was able to find:
Old High German: wiumen, Middle High German wimmelen modern german wimmeln, Gothic iumjōns and dutch wemelen. Also check the proto-indo-european *ṷebh-2 (pokorny 1210). I hope that will be helpful.
Here are some of the references I have used:
http://www.koeblergerhard.de/ahdwbhin.html
Sergei Nikolayev's IE dictionary
Pokorny's Indogermanisches woerterbuch
Renegade5005 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)I forgot to thank you for correcting/completing some of entries.
Hello Renegade5005, in similis you say that Latin similis stems from Ancient Greek homos. Are you sure about this? If it was borrowed, it shouldn't be similis but **omus or **homus. According to my sources, similis stems from *semilis, while homos stems from *somos. Different root vowel, different suffixes. Or do you want to say that the Latin and the Greek word are cognates? Greetings, MaEr 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 17:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Hello, They are actually cognates. That was one of my first entries and the mistake is due to the fact that I couldn't edit wiktionary entries properly yet. Thanks!
Renegade5005 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC) Yes, but the same person who was planning on deleting it already fixed it and I have spoken to him about the matter. I am not sure if he is still planning on deleting it or not. I am currently going over my previous contributions and trying to fix them.
When you make PIE entries, could you please add them to a category? I see you've missed quite a few so far, and we prefer not to have entries without categories on Wiktionary. Adding something like ] is enough, although you should of course replace 'root' with something more appropriate if you can. :) Thank you! —CodeCat 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I also noticed you added numbers to some of the names. I'm not sure what those mean, could you explain that? —CodeCat 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Renegade5005 20:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Hey there, what numbers are you talking about? Also would you please explain how I should add the PIE entries to categories please? Give me an example please. I am still kind of new to Wiktionary.
Thanks!
{{like this}}, and it adds the template to the page right there. Often, templates add categories to entries as well. And if that's the case, then you don't really need to add the category yourself. The template will do that for you. But you have to make sure that at least one category is added, so if the template didn't do it, then you need to instead.
Renegade5005 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the help. The numbers are based on Pokorny. Certain PIE roots have different meanings and are in fact different roots. For instance lei-1 means to bend, lei-2 means to eliminate, lei-3 means to glide, etc. Instead of putting the meanings all on one page as some of the PIE entries on wiktionary are, I put them separately according to Pokorny.
Hi Renegade5005, I'm a bit surprised about this edit of yours. Do want to say the Romans borrowed words from the speakers of Sanskrit? I think you'll have to change that.
By the way: writing Sanskrit words in {{term|...|lang=sa}} is a good idea. If you don't know the correct form in Devanagari script, you can leave it open like this:
This will appear as
tr means "transliteration". See Template:term for details. Then you should add {{rfscript|Deva}} (not only for Armenian). Greetings, --MaEr 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi! It's me again :)
Something has gone wrong in the etymology of German fragen: in this edit. The modern German verb fragen is not the continuation of the Middle High German noun vrage, and Old High German forsca is not a parent but a cognate (a very distant one). I guess you have taken this etymology from the material of Pokorny. For the path from modern German to MHG and OHG, you better use an etymological dictionary of German. All of these dictionaries, also Pokorny, must be used very carefully because they are not very user-friendly/readable. It's easy to mix-up cognates and parents and this gives rather bizarre etymologies.
Now something else: may be you know this already, may be not:
They aren't easy to find, and it took a while till I have found them. They contain some PIE related material, and maybe you find them useful.
In the dictionary entry of Latin ago, you have changed the PIE root from h₂egʰ- to agʰ-, probably based on Pokorny. This is not wrong... But here, many contributors seem to use laryngalistic PIE forms, with h₂e where non-laryngalistic forms have a. See also w:en:Laryngeal theory. When adding material from Pokorny, you have to keep in mind that Pokorny is not that "laryngalistic" and describes many roots in a different way.
Greetings, --MaEr 14:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Renegade5005! in this article you have inserted a link to a source you have used, A handbook of Germanic etymology by Vladimír Orel. The source is interesting, but I hope you don't use it too often, because the plain text version is full of (scan) errors, beginning already in lines 5 and 6, and this is just English text without any special characters.
Here some suggestion: in Talk:pulcher, you asked some question, which has been answered meanwhile. Next time, if you want to make sure that your question is read by more users, you may want to include the discussion page in Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium. The procedure is described there, or see the examples.
Greetings, MaEr 17:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In general, we don not approve of them. The whole Nostratic thingy is too fringe for our taste. Connections with words of other language families on the basis of loose phonetic correspondences are valid in case of words which are provably borrowed, but with no known mediator. E.g. in case of asinus which you recently etymologized. But to even mention the word Nostratic would imply that we accept it as a genetic grouping of languages, which we do not. So it's best to avoid it altogether. Also, keep in mind that the databases at the "The Tower of Babel" website are, in case of at least PIE etymologies, compiled on rather obsolete material such as Pokorny, lacking the modern nomenclature such as laryngeals. --Ivan Štambuk 20:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Renegade,
I just added a Dutch "navel" descendant to Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/h₃nobʰilos, as Dutch (my mother tongue) seems to have two, both naaf (meaning hub, axis) and navel (as in navel). Are they actually descendants from h₃nobʰ and h₃nobʰilos resp? Or was there only one word in Germanic and is this a later development?
Jcwf 23:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please pay a little more attention to how existing entries are formatted? When you add descendants, you often make some words italic (with {{term}} and {{termx}}) and some words not (with {{l}} and {{lx}}), and you link some words but leave others unlinked. You also link to proto-languages with {{proto}} even though that template is meant only for etymology sections. You also don't seem to check the descendants you add, and in one case I even found a Greek letter delta in an Old Norse word. I would normally be a bit more patient with new editors but you've made a lot of edits since then and I keep having to fix them, but you don't seem to pay any attention to the fixes I or any other editors make to your entries afterwards. You just make the same mistakes over again. —CodeCat 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You can see the changes I've made here. I've removed the Germanic descendants altogether because there was just too much to clean up (Old Middle German??), and the page Template:termx has them anyway. I fixed the link to Proto-Germanic, as well as the word itself (where you got the original word, I have no idea!). I changed the heading to "adjective" and added the language header. I also moved the page to Template:termx because that is the proper nominative form of this adjective. I added a headword template below the adjective header. I removed the entry from "Proto-Indo-European roots" because it is not a root, since it contains the suffix *-yo-. And then I linked the Celtic forms. —CodeCat 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Persian and Avestan are both Iranian languages, but Persian is not descended from Avestan. This edit is probably wrong. --Vahag 14:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)