User talk:Sorjam

Hello Sorjam, welcome to Wiktionary! I saw you created the page for the root -DZIL. I reorganized a little. The idea of these pages is to organize the meanings by themes, and also to keep the right column (most of the time) for the corresponding transitive bases. A verb on the right side must match a verb on the left side in a intransitive / transitive pair. Incidentally, not all -ł- classifier verbs are part of such a pair, and this case, -ł- is considered thematic on its own.

Also, I usually do not put all the verbs derived from one theme, as the list could grow way too big. I usually put only the most characteristic verbs, that best exemplify the theme and its category.

Feel free to discuss further if anything is unclear or you feel like the layout needs improvement (it certainly does). —Julien D. (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Happy to see someone else interesting in expanding the etymology section of the Navajo lemmas. I'm in the process of creating templates to help categorize and systematize all entries. For instance, in your addition to áchį́į́h, we need the categorization to the root, which is currently missing. Iʼll try to come up with something for that. Thanks —Julien D. (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! In Navajo, enclitics like -gi, -di, -góó can basically be added to any place names. It is not good practice to add such combinations as they are considered sum of parts (SOP). There are some examples of these here from previous editors, but we'll eventually have to clean them up. At least they should be considered "non-lemma forms" and not "lemma forms", just like a conjugated verb is not a "verb" here but a "verb form". Thank you! —Julien D. (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dziil (strength) is deriving from the root -DZIL (to be strong). —Julien D. (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

ayóóʼánííníshʼní is not a lemma form and as such shouldn't be classified in the category of terms belonging to the root -NIID... —Julien D. (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't forget to delete the original page, by flagging the page with the {{delete}} or {{d}} template.

Hello, in yiłtsééh, the "biih" shown is afaik clearly a mention and not a label, since you're talking about this word. So just curious why you changed it back to a label. Thx! —Julien D. (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are absolutely right. Now I restored it back to a mention. At the beginning I wasn't sure about the correct template, so I remember I changed it so many times before publishing the page... Sorjam (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making this! I'll be sure to use it when I'm interested in Tocharian B again. —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 17:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! I'm planning to write a template for verbal paradigms too... It would be nice to do the same for Tocharian A, but because of the complexity of the Tocharian declension, it's often very difficult to guess the correct noun theme without relying on a good etymological dictionary, which I don't possess at the moment. — Sorjam (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making the entries! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Lol, I didn't notice that I thanked you earlier too… —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I realised that you removed a bunch of descendants — was that by mistake? Also, please don't copy over lists of descendants, because it makes it easier for them to fall out of synch — instead, use {{see desc}} to point readers to a more specific reconstruction. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm wondering where you got the spelling for kalaqudjalan and qudjal from. According to the standard orthography (原住民族語言書寫), it should be spelled kaljaqudjaljan and qudjalj. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thank you for reporting the error. You are right, it's kaljaqudjaljan and qudjalj. I'll fix that immediately. For the orthography I have been using the preface of Ferrell, Raleigh (1982) “Paiwan Dictionary”, in Pacific Linguistics, volume 73, but it doesn't use the standard orthography, so I've probably confused ɫ (transliteration of /ʎ/ in the dictionary) with l (transliteration of /ɭ/). — Sorjam (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Ferrell was published before the current standardized orthography, which is relatively recent. Do you think we should keep the redirects? If not, I can delete them. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 20:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If I'm not wrong, I've already requested the deletion of those redirect pages. I don't know how long does it take to process these requests. — Sorjam (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I missed that. I've deleted them. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 23:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am intrigued. What's "Corn World"? —suzukaze (t・c) 01:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. As far as I know, the "Corn World" is a place mentioned in the Navajo Creation Story (Diné Bahaneʼ). In Young & Morgan (1992) this word is listed as a separate entry. The etymology of Dáʼasdzáán is quite transparent: it's a compound word which can be segmented as dą́ą́ʼ (“corn, food”, combined form: dáʼ-) + asdzáán (meaning “woman”, but also “world”). In Navajo culture, corn has an important role, since it is the base of the diet (see naadą́ą́ʼ), so it seems understandable that the people begin to refer to it in mythological terms or in a sacred connotation. —Sorjam (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Proto-Vietic *k-ɟəːŋ has been cited as an Old Chinese loan by a number of authors. For example, Mark Alves. PhanAnh123 (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. I've added the paper to the list of references for Chinese language and also modified a bit the entry for 床. I actually did read Alves' paper before and watched his presentation on Youtube (here), but I didn't remember that the character 床 was on his list of loans from OC to PV.—Sorjam (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do not add definitions in translingual section. They are depracated and new definitions should be added to Chinese section.--Zcreator alt (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry. I didn't know that. —Sorjam (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen you using this template in reconstruction pages for non-Sino-Tibetan words. I think this template is only meant for Sino-Tibetan reconstructions, as seen in the sit- prefix of the template name. I think {{desc}} should probably be used instead. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 02:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you are right. I have used {{sit-loan}} in the past in pages dedicated to non-Sino-Tibetan words. If I recall the first time I've actually seen it was in Proto-Mon-Khmer page, maybe Proto-Mon-Khmer *klaʔ (“tiger”), where {{sit-loan}} is used to group Thai words of Mon-Khmer origin. From that moment I've admittedly started using this template for non-Sino-Tibetan pages, for consistency with the fact that it has also been used elsewhere. From now on, I will avoid it and will prefer {{desc}} instead. However, I should say that the layout and the design of {{sit-loan}} are quite appealing ;-) (just a matter of personal taste, though), and maybe in the future I'll make a template for loanwords specific for every proto-language. Sorjam (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Diakonoff and Starostin operate under the assumption that Hurro-Urartian is a branch of East Caucasian language family, but this is not widely accepted. In Wiktionary, we are generally sceptical of long-range comparative linguistics popular in Russia and at the Starling website. Their theories can be referenced the way I did at խնձոր (xnjor). --Vahag (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciate your comment and your suggestions. In the future, I'll try to follow carefully the standards you showed me when referencing words. In my defence, I'm personally very sceptical of long-range comparisons myself, and I decisively (but respectfully towards proponents) take distance from macrophyletic hypotheses like Dene-Caucasian, Altaic or Nostratic whenever I have a chance. In խնձոր (xnjor), I wasn't trying to state a connection with East Caucasian as a fact, instead I was only reporting that some researchers (Diakonoff, Starostin, but also Greppin, if I'm not mistaken) have claimed that, nothing more. As for the Starling database, while I do agree it contains many egregious etymologies (as Vovin, 2005 has argued, at least for the Altaic part), I think that if used cautiously it can still retain some value (although not in the way the authors intended), especially if one is looking up for loanwords and Wanderwörter. One is perfectly right to be sceptical of wide genetic relationships. However, the hypothesis that similar words and look-alikes could be explained as horizontal interferences (such as Sprachbund phenomena, borrowings, ancient substrates, etc.), and not vertical (as in a genetic drift), is much more believable in my opinion. Anyway, thank you for your feedbacks! --Sorjam (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No need for self-defence :) Keep up the good work! By the way, Greppin was a sloppy scholar. His work should be used carefully and critically. --Vahag (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, according to the official IPA guidelines, diacritics should be used to mark pitch/tone on languages where the defining feature is the height of each syllable, while tone letters are for languages where tone is generally marked by the contour of each syllable. Since Middle Korean is in the former category, please do not use tone letters. I have recently fixed all of them to use the diacritics. Could you correct your recent edits if possible, too? Thanks in advance.--Tibidibi (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have corrected the recent edits I have made to the entries 뎔 (tyél) and 가큰도ᇰ (Kàkhúntwòng) using diacritics rather than tone letters. However, I kept the superscript /ʰ/ for aspiration in the second entry, because it was already lacking before my intervention.--Sorjam (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sorjam, could you tell me exactly where in 마경헌집 you found the earlier form 졷? Did you happen to have access to the original manuscript, or did you find the word from a photocopy of it? I have been poring over the digitized version of the book to check for myself, but I haven't been successful. Unless it is a garbled text, it must be a very intriguing discovery.--Evan Lee 11:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Evan Lee. I'm sorry for the delay, I've been buisy for quite some time. As far as I remember, I was not the one who wrote this etymology in the first place. If I'm not mistaken, I merely added the source of the first attestation, which is 마경헌집. You can check at 우리말샘 → 좆 under 어원 (etymology) section in order to confirm that the original form of 좆 (jot) was indeed 졷, and that it is attested in 마경헌집 for the first time, at least so seem to assure the authors of the dictionary. Unfortunately, neither I have the original manuscript, nor a photocopy of it.--Sorjam (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your work on Kartvelian reconstructions, however I must ask to you stop using/relying on R:ccs:Starostin. Starostin is incompetent at Kartvelian languages. Contorary to some of the pages you created that contained "alternative reconstructions by Starostin", such things never existed in the first place. Starling is quoting outdated Kartvelian sources, namely, R:ccs:Klimov:1964 (!!!) and Fahnrich-Sarjveladze:1990. When the root contained at Starling is substantially different from modern reconstructions, that simply means that it's quoting R:ccs:Klimov:1964. Next is the issue of Starostin copying words from R:ccs:Klimov:1994 without checking if they made the cut as reconstructions in R:ccs:Klimov:1998, he does so while blatantly showing his incompetence and completely ignoring Kartvelian vocalism which is (no offence) obvious even after the most rudimentary reading. The next and most important problem with Starling is that it contains "reconstructions" made by Dolgopolsky, Bomhard, and Illych-Svytch. In all their years of meddling with Kartvelian languages neither Dolgopolsky nor Bomhard managed to provide traditional Kartvelian sources with a single new reconstruction of their own. Illych-Svytich at least managed two.

In any case this template should only be used if it contains new and original examples of lexical interactions with other language families. კვარია (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Khwarezmian was written in many script, not just Arabic. Unless you can confirm what script a particular word was written it, you shouldn't create an entry for it. --{{victar|talk}} 03:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The word in question, rwbs “fox”, is mentioned in a manuscript of the Muqaddimat al-Adab (Zm. 51-52), which is written in Perso-Arabic script. I don't have access to the original document, of course, however, if we take a look at Benzing (1968: 44), we can see that the translation of this word is given in Arabic as ثعلب (ṯaʕlab, “fox”). Now, I don't see why the scribe of this particular manuscript should write the entire text using the Arabic script, but switched to Khwarezmian, Sogdian or Pahlavi scripts just to write down the Khwarezmian entries. Anyway, if you want to remove the entry for rwbs from Wiktionary, I'm fine with it, but, as I've said, I think there is a case to be made that this word was indeed written in Arabic.--Sorjam (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply