User talk:Ssvb

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.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not adding the ł in the łacinka form, I was in a hurry when I made that (because someone was calling me), thus, I didn't pay enough attention to it, my bad. Rodrigo5260 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Should we add pronunciation to these entries? Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: My personal opinion is that such entries should preferably have just the bare minimum of necessary information and avoid duplications with the main entry if possible. There's WT:FORMS policy related to handling these entries. But if you have a better suggestion, then please let me know.

Regarding specifically pronunciations. If pronunciation of the official spelling does not really differ from Taraškievica for some word, then there's no need for having a duplicated pronunciation information in the Taraškievica entry. I'm talking about the words like госць/госьць (both have IPA^(key): ). BTW, here's an interesting pronunciation example video of "госці" vs. дзесьці vs. штосьці: https://youtu.be/QANZfzHsRl0&t=92

But if pronunciation actually differs, then having its own pronunciation section in the Taraškievica entry is perfectly justified. For example, for міф/міт, сімвал/сымбаль and many other cases like this. Ssvb (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's necessarily an obsolete and non-obsolete spelling with Łacinka, since it's not really standardized. There's a "most recent" usage, but not really one which people are required to stick to. People could use a Polish-inspired spelling if they wanted to. Plus, if we follow that government transliteration thing, then святло would be *sviatlo. No initial S with acute, since it's not transliterating Taraškievica. Not to mention that Taraškievič (1929) actually preferred W over V. Also I believe some variants of Łacinka use "ji" for word-initial Cyrillic "i". Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: The światło spelling is obsolete, because people stopped using the letter "w" and replaced it with "v" in books and other printed publications after 1939, slightly amending the older standard accepted in 1918. It's necessary to categorize spelling variants somehow, so I labelled światło as obsolete. Leaving śviatło as the current most up to date attestable spelling variant.

The government transliteration thing is irrelevant, because it had a rather narrow scope and had been always limited only to transliterating geographic names (without trying to use it for anything else). More importantly, it doesn't even exist anymore, since it was abolished in 2023 and the road signs with it had been already exterminated in some sort of a strangely urgent frenzy. The government surprisingly found it necessary to allocate money to pay for this activity. Anyway, before 2023 people could point their fingers at the street signs and claim that it was the very visible de-facto "Łacinka", ignoring the old books hidden out of sight in library vaults. But now this argument ceased to exist. Today only Google Translate still uses the phased out geographic transliteration for its romanization of Belarusian. The texts with the letter "ĺ" posted on the Internet tend to be produced by Google Translate, making their credibility even more questionable as far as Wiktionary is concerned. --Ssvb (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

But even still I wouldn't call it obsolete. I'm sure there's someone out there using W over V somehow. I know this is starting to get a bit pedantic, but maybe it could be classed as dated or even archaic rather than obsolete? Perhaps you could consult communities or organizations that continue to use Łacinka. That said, it's just my personal suggestion as a non-native Belarusian learner.

But also this doesn't necessarily answer the question of initial Ś. Do all contemporary Łacinka varieties follow Taraškievica in that regard? Or do any of them just use S, like one would in non-Taraškievica Belarusian Cyrillic? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: Distinct labels are still necessary to differentiate between śviatło, światło and possibly the other forms if they ever gain traction. The exact names of these labels can be probably discussed and agreed upon in WT:BP. --Ssvb (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: Regarding the initial Ś in "śviatło". It just happens that nobody is interested in the spelling variant with the initial S. The government officials are fighting against the Latin alphabet in any shape or form. The others dislike having the spelling variant with the initial S, because it's simply phonetically inaccurate. Littering Wiktionary with some extra artificially created entries is also not ideal. --Ssvb (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: Regarding the "ji" spelling, it's not directly related to Łacinka. It's just a case of non-standard pronunciation spelling. And the examples of it can be found in old Cyrillic texts as well. One can search for the words "їх", "йих" or something like "яна й" in the Belarusian Wikisource. The sound "j" appears as a break between the letter "i" and a preceding vowel. For example, have a look at the IPA and pronunciation of the Belarusian words краіна/Украіна, paying attention to the pronunciation of "i" after the vowel "a". And compare to the Ukrainian країна/Україна. Yes, the current official Belarusian alphabet doesn't have a dedicated letter "ї" unlike Ukrainian, but it's still implied after a vowel.

Here's another example, the Cyrillic "з іх" converts to Łacinka as "z ich" (Taraškievica 1918) or "ź ich" (Taraškievica 2005), but is actually pronounced as "ź jich":

• 2022, Arsień Kisliak aka AP$ENT, “Цемра”‎:

  Ды яны паўсталі зноў паляваць на жыхароў
  Ды смактаць з іх ранаў кроў.
  Цемра не палохае ўжо.
  Крыжык у руцэ, у другой ружжо.

  Dy jany paŭstali znoŭ paljavacʹ na žyxaróŭ
  Dy smaktacʹ z ix ranaŭ kroŭ.
  Cjemra nje palóxaje ŭžo.
  Kryžyk u ruce, u druhój ružžó.

  But they arose again to hunt the inhabitants
  And suck blood from their wounds.
  The darkness isn't scary anymore.
  Got a cross in one hand and a gun in another.

--Ssvb (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I posited this etymology for ахосал (axósal) sometime back and didn't get any meaningful response. I did also include an explanation of relevant Yiddish morphology through which I came to that conclusion. Do you think it could be legit? And could I put that etymology (maybe with a "possibly" before it) on the actual page for the word? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: I'm afraid that I have nothing useful to say and I'm not into etymology in general. I only know that https://verbum.by/ search also has the etymological and historical dictionaries indexed. But if there are no hits in these dictionaries, then I have no clues whatsoever.

Also I can't find "ахосал" or any of its possible declension variants in Wikisource or in Google Books via Quiet Quentin search configured for Belarusian. Except for that particular single quote from the example. So it may even have possible WT:CFI attestation problems.

If it's a part of direct speech, then various weird non-standard words can be found in books, including but not limited to Trasianka. For example, I can find "Ідзі, браток, лепш гешэфт мах" quote in Wikisource. This "мах" is unlikely to be a real Belarusian word, but more like an imitation of German machen or possibly Yiddish. --Ssvb (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re attestation, I found that initial usage on Slounik, and then subsequently found this forum thread which also discussed some alternate forms of the word (like I mentioned in the scriptorium, the -ал (-al) ending probably comes from ־ל (-l) /ɫ̩/, and so is prone to being spelt any number of ways) and its connotations. Nonetheless, extremely dialectal for sure and probably obsolete by now given the near-death of Yiddish in Belarus, but judging by the discussions on the forum, had definitely been used in Belarusian speech at some point in time. So personally I'd at least keep the entry online.

Re мах (max): I'm pretty sure it is in fact just German mach / Yiddish מאַך (makh), specifically in the imperative, so like рабі (rabi) in Belarusian. Literally translates to "make a better gesheft". Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there is a neuter Belarusian word to be added which features both forms that end in -я and -ё, which one should be made the "official" form and which one the alternative form? Looking at past form, it should probably be -я, but if I try to search for шчаня (ščanja) on Skarnik, it redirects me to шчанё (ščanjó). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: I don't think that it makes a big difference and you can pick either of them. Follow the Skarnik's preferred choice and nobody is going to complain. Also a simple search in Belarusian Wikisource: шчанё - 34 hits, шчаня - 9 hits (but that's mostly the stats from the books published roughly a century ago). --Ssvb (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that this is governed by the WT:FORMS policy, which currently says: "In particular, while some editors try to make the “main” entry correspond to the most common form —and some sysops actively encourage this— the official policy is that all the forms are equally valid. Thus, designation of a term as an alternative form of another does not mean it is in any way less valid (although care should be taken to see if the form is regional or obsolete, in which case it should be flagged as such)." --Ssvb (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

вяршкі (vjarški) already exists as an entry, I made смятанка (smjatanka), but does сліўкі (sliŭki) exist as a Belarusian word for "cream"? I looked it up and several sources returned "сливки (деревца)". What does little trees have to do with cream? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: The word слі́ўка (slíŭka) is a diminutive form of слі́ва (slíva) and слі́ўкі (slíŭki) is its plural diminutive form. That's where the "little tree" sense comes from. But I can also find "выпіў сліўкі" usage example in Belarusian Wikisource, which hints that it means "cream" there. Moreover, it's a translation of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", so we can probably look up the original English sentence for it. --Ssvb (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the auto-generated IPA in бязглузды, it seems that whoever came up with the be-IPA template forgot to fix the pronunciation for "г", which is especially ironic since even the audio sample on бязглузды (bjazhluzdy) pronounces it /ɣ/ as opposed to /g/. Not sure if you're the right person to ask about this, but if you could look into the bug on the template then that would be greatly appreciated. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: Indeed, looks like Template:be-IPA just finds the "зг" letters sequence and automatically transcribes it as /g/ without considering that, morphologically, in this case it's a prefix "без-/бяз-" attached to another word. I could just go and fix this. Or should I first request somebody's permission somewhere?

That said, I'm rather unhappy about the state of the Belarusian IPA support in general for various reasons and its Lua module even fails its own testcases right now. --Ssvb (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm? Does this mean that "зг" is usually /zg/ in Belarusian in other cases? Either way, I don't think you really have to get anyone's permission to fix it. One has the feeling most of the Belarusian modules and templates were just directly copied from the Ukrainian ones. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may or may not want to consider joining WT:Discord where I and many other Slavic editors discuss things. It would be useful to have a resident Belarusian! Vininn126 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: Thanks for the invitation, but I'm locked out of Discord. Some years ago it started to demand my phone number to login, but I'm refusing to give away this private information as a matter of principle. Is IRC a usable alternative? --Ssvb (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we have an IRC, so the website's means of discussion should be fine :P Vininn126 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps not necessarily related to Wiktionary as such, but what's the most common way in Belarusian to express the verb "to have"? Because despite the usage note on мець (mjecʹ), I've seen a lot of мае (maje) on Belarusian Wikipedia articles, rather than у яго (u jahó) or у яе (u jaje). And those wiki articles aren't necessarily Taraškievica either. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: There is a big detailed article on this topic here and the diagram listed in it claims that the split is around 45% vs. 55%. So these two ways are roughly equally common according to it.

Searching on Belarusian Wikisource, which admittedly largely represents older Belarusian texts: "ён мае" - 174 hits, "яна мае" - 81 hits, "у яго ёсць" + "ў яго ёсць" - 62 hits, "у яе ёсць" + "ў яе ёсць" - 15 hits.

Searching on Google Books: "ён мае" - 5410 hits, "яна мае" - 3420 hits, "у яго ёсць" + "ў яго ёсць" - 2540 hits, "у яе ёсць" + "ў яе ёсць" - 817 hits. --Ssvb (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So I guess the usage note on мець (mjecʹ) may be due a little rewriting, huh. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fine to keep the -ka form as the diminutive, because

1. that's what Polish dziewczyna does, and
2. semantically it does make sense - a little girl (female child) is after all, in a sense, the diminutive of a girl (female unmarried adult)

But who am I to say. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quote comfortable with the fact that дзяўчынка essentially becomes a stripped down soft redirect entry. Both дзяўчынка and дзяўчына are in the top 1000 most frequently used words, which probably makes them high importance entries in the dictionary. They both are a bit unusual, because they both have non-standard plural forms. Semantically дзяўчынка indeed looks like a diminutive form, but diminutive typically means an endearing, miniature, cute version of the original. However it's not an endearing, miniature, cute adult woman. It's nothing like the English girlie. The primary distinction is not the size or cuteness, but age. And дзяўчынка means a pre-teen child.

As for the Polish words, I see that they are also a source of confusion for some English speakers: https://www.reddit.com/r/learnpolish/comments/1cfh62w/is_dziewczyna_and_dziewczynka_not_the_same_thing/

Maybe @Vininn126 has some opinion?--Ssvb (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually after reading that Polish reddit page, now I see that дзяўчынка was just a red herring and the correct diminutive form of the Belarusian дзяўчына is дзяўчыначка. Also the correct diminutive form of the Polish dziewczyna is dziewczyneczka. --Ssvb (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb @Insaneguy1083 That conclusion is etymologically wrong, and more informed by semantics, so it's a bit confusing. Consider that dziewczyneczka is really from dziewczynka, not dziewczyna. As to the semantics, it can be hard to say. Diminutives can sometimes be endearing, but not always. I'd say that to use the template {{dim of}}, it needs to semantically be the diminutive (as opposed to etymologically, which is {{dim}}, used by some languages). So if speakers in this case do not perceive the word as the semantic diminutive, then it shouldn't be marked that way, unless sometimes it is, in which case you may need multiple definitions and/or a usage note. Vininn126 (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Going back to the "non-standard plural forms" thing though, Slounik disagrees on дзяўчынка (dzjaŭčynka), where they state that it just inflects like any other -ka noun. So you might wanna fix that, unless you can find some other reputable source for dziaŭčatki and so forth, in which case I still feel like dziaŭčynki should be listed alongside. Looking up дзяўчаткі (dzjaŭčatki), it seems to have become kind of its own thing, stranded from the original singular form *дзяўчатка (*dzjaŭčatka), and doesn't seem to really be linked to дзяўчынка (dzjaŭčynka) either. So I guess it means "girls" but isn't really considered the plural to дзяўчынка (dzjaŭčynka) if that makes sense. Honestly, doesn't to me, but maybe you can figure out a better explanation with usage notes or some such. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Добры вечар! Перадусім дзякуй за ўнёсак у беларускую лексікаграфію. Але заўважыў, што Вы як прыклад ужывання слова «цмок» падалі «смока», што не зусім слушна. Гэтае слова хоць і з’яўляецца фанетычным варыянтам «цмока», але не «цмок». Да таго ж ужо існуе артыкул смок, дзе б варта ўказаць, што такое слова бытае і ў беларускай мове з пазнакай «дыялектнае» («састарэлае»? «размоўнае»?). Як мне здаецца, такія асобныя артыкулы варта рабіць і надалей з усялякімі малпамі/налпамі, смачнымі/смашнымі, сонцамі/слонцамі, тады/тагды, дзе б былі пададзеныя адпаведныя прыклады. Так, ужо ёсць, напрыклад, асобна пададзеныя фанетычныя варыянты robak/chrobak з польскай мовы. Да таго ж існуюць асобныя артыкулы нават для правапісных варыянтаў (Роусь/Русь). Акадэмічныя слоўнікі таксама ствараюць асобныя артыкулы пад фанетычныя варыянты (Этымалагічны слоўнік беларускай мовы, Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы (тады/тагды)). Таму, на маю думку, варта пераймаць дадзеную практыку і ў дачыненні беларускіх слоў. Gleb Leo (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gleb Leo: Вітаю! Датычна словаў цмок / смок, мы маем справу з WT:CFI#Variant_spellings. Паглядзіце на артыкулы music / musick (гістарычныя варыяцыі), а таксама color / colour (рэгіянальныя варыяцыі). Адзін артыкул звычайна робіцца асноўным, а астатнія спасылаюцца на яго ў адпаведнасці з WT:FORMS. Таксама гэта не прыклады ўжывання, а цытаты. Для параўнання, артыкулы аб ангельскіх словах не цураюцца прыводзіць цытаты 17-га стагоддзя ("Muſick has Charms to ſooth a ſavage Breaſt" у артыкуле music). Менавіта для сучасных прыкладаў ужывання слова ёсць WT:UX са сваімі правіламі. Сам артыкул цмок на дадзены момант пакуль што не завершаны. Дзякую за цікаўнасць і прапановы, запрашаю прыняць удзел у стварэнні новых артыкулаў і паляпшэнні наяўных. Дарэчы, правілы афармлення артыкулаў для розных моваў не заўсёды супадаюць. Для беларускай мовы гэтыя правілы WT:ABE пакуль што не фіналізаваныя. Тое ці сёе можна змяніць. --Ssvb (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Спасыланне на асноўны артыкул практыкуецца і ў Тлумачальным слоўніку (з «тагды» перасылка на «тады» з падачай толькі прыкладаў ужывання), я супраць гэтага нічога і не кажу, але было б добра, як у згаданым Слоўніку, змяшчаць прыклады ўжывання нейкага варыянта слова ў артыкуле пра варыянт. Падобнае Вы ўжо самі зрабілі з сымбаль / сімвал.

Забыў таксама адзначыць, што паданне цытаты ў розных рэдакцыях — дзіўнае рашэнне, бо гэта тое ж самае проста ў іншым напісанні, што тут неістотна.

У WT:ABE магу параіць дадаць да засцярогі пра русізмы заўвагу і пра паланізмы, кшталту «Кеды пшыядэн і сёндэн на куце!» (Плач пакінутага каханай) або «Подчас баданя тубыльцув, осядлых на Всходніх Крэсах польскіх...» (Тутэйшыя), ды змясціць нейкі спіс дапаможных крыніц для пачаткоўцаў (слоўнікі, беларускі корпус) з засцярогай датычна некаторых аўтараў, чые ідыялекты даволі спецыфічныя (Янка Станкевіч, Станіслаў Грынкевіч) або перасыпаныя русізмамі (Аляксандр Пшчолка) ці паланізмамі (Баляслаў Пачопка) і не могуць быць пераканаўчымі без цытатаў іншых творцаў.

Ад больш актыўнага ўдзелу я, верагодна, устрымаюся, але рады ўсяляк паспрыяць. Gleb Leo (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gleb Leo: З цытатамі ёсць два магчымыя падыходы: можна іх усе дадаць у асноўны артыкул, або можна раскідаць іх па розных артыкулах адпаведна таму, як яны напісаны. Для словаў, якія маюць шмат значэнняў гэта можа быць праблемай. Паглядзіце артыкул для слова сліва з двума значэннямі: дрэва і фрукт. Там часткова прыведзены цытаты тарашкевіцай. Але калі гэтыя цытаты перанесці ў артыкул сьліва, то ўзнікае пытанне - валіць іх усіх без разбору ў адну купу, або таксама размяжоўваць розныя значэнні? І дзе тады спыніцца? Рабіць паўнавартасныю копію артыкула з малюнкамі і ўсім іншым супярэчыць WT:FORMS і патрабуе залішніх намаганняў. Мабыць ёсць сэнс задаць гэтае пытанне супольнасці.

Што датычыцца паланізмаў, то тут я не бачу вялікай пагрозы. Правілы вікіслоўніка WT:CFI фармальна патрабуюць тры незалежныя крыніцы і праблемай з'яўляецца тое, што для русізмаў і трасянкі такі бар'ер пераадолець вельмі лёгка. Але прыкладаў паланізмаў нашмат менш і яны збольшага адзінкавыя. Паглядзіце вышэй тэму пра "Theory of Belarusian word etymology" і пытанні пра слова ахосал (нейкае дыялектнае запазычанне з ідыш?). --Ssvb (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why two etymologies if they are the same? Having to stresses doesn't warrant that. Vininn126 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: I'm almost sure that I have seen a suggestion or guide in BP or somewhere else to use multiple etymology sections if the pronunciation differs in situations like this. But now it's going to be difficult to find this information again. I personally don't mind it either way as long as there's a clear official policy explaining how to handle such cases. --Ssvb (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That could be the case - especially since multiple pronunciation sections are discouraged. I think we have a good solution now, don't you? Vininn126 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vininn126: Yes, looks good. Thank you. There may be other articles with the same formatting issues and it would be necessary to fix them for the sake of consistency. --Ssvb (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The stress marker is in the wrong spot for падчас (padčas), although weirdly there's no issue with хэтчбэк (xetčbek). I seem to recall asking you to fix be-IPA issues before, so maybe you could check this out? Thanks. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083: Thanks for reporting things like this. I have added them to the testcases here. And I'll post a more detailed comment on this topic a bit later. --Ssvb (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although now that I look at it, хэтчбэк (xetčbek) looks a bit weird as well. Particularly the feels strange. Shouldn't it theoretically be ? Perhaps you can add that to your testcases as well. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Стыль фарматавання гэтага кітайца непрымальны! Ён губіць нашу мову на гэтым сайце, не спрабуйце рабіць выгляд, што гэта няпраўда! Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Не рабіце выгляд, што тое, што я кажу, хлусня, вы ведаеце, што гэта праўда. Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it is necessary to add the stress marks on them or just on book quotes? Наименее Полезное (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: Yes, it's useful to have stress marks in usage examples. Quotations are a bit special, because old ones are often using obsolete orthography. The normalized modern variant for quotations with stress marks as a bonus can be provided via an extra |norm= parameter of the quotation template. But usage examples are written by Wiktionary editors, so just a single variant with stress marks is the cleanest solution for them. --Ssvb (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you mark them as borrowed? They are completely natively formable, the most they could be is just a calque. Наименее Полезное (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't me. Or do you mean the Wiktionary community as a whole, when you are saying "you"? There's the Wiktionary_talk:About_Belarusian#Borrowed_from_Polish_vs._inherited_from_Old_Ruthenian topic, where we can discuss the desired policy. --Ssvb (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In your module you should definitely use Module:parameters to parse the arguments. You should also set template_default on the required arguments so there isn't an error thrown on Template:RQ:be:s, as there is currently. Benwing2 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thanks, I'll look into it. It's intended to be mostly a pass-through for the {{quote-book}} template, with just a minor transformation of a few parameters on the fly. I mean, I don't want to list and validate all the possible parameters of "quote-book". Does Module:parameters bring any value for such use case? --Ssvb (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you should use Module:parameters in all modules that accept parameters, instead of rolling your own. This ensures consistent handling of parameters across modules. Benwing2 (talk) 01:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW if you want to pass parameters through, you should use the third (return_unknown) argument to process(), so that it will validate certain parameters (the ones you specify) and return all the remainder unvalidated. Benwing2 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Thanks, everything should be fixed now. Is it preferable to eventually have a separate template for each individual book, similar to https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:English_quotation_templates ? --Ssvb (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule, but generally the advantage of having one template per book is that you don't have to worry about entering the exact URL (which may change). Benwing2 (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW I will fix the issue with these two; I think it was you who asked me about them. I've been traveling but am coming home tomorrow. Benwing2 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you. --Ssvb (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ssvb! Would you like to clean up this entry? You're better than me with proper nouns in terms of quotes, etc. Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Juliusmborris, @Наименее Полезное: I already left some comments at User_talk:Vininn126#Bordziło a bit earlier. Basically, the policy governing the addition of surnames is WT:CFI#Given_and_family_names. And here's the list of the current Belarusian surnames in Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Belarusian_surnames --Ssvb (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: I have done some clean up. But we even can't possibly know if the stressed syllable is correct. I presume that @Juliusmborris knows someone with this surname, so maybe they can help with updating the other details. --Ssvb (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know a lot of people under Бардзіла and its longer variant Бардзілоўскі. My name used to be Bardzilauskas from my ancestors, a Lithuanian variant.

What I put in the etymology is a {{rfe|en}}, and I’ll let anyone handle it if it’s not good enough. I know Belarusian from reading, but not so much from writing. Same thing with Polish.

Let me know for more information!

My best Juliusmborris (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Juliusmborris: Now that you mention it, a Belarusian entry needs {{rfe|be}} rather than {{rfe|en}}. But either way, it's still going to just sit there and nobody is going to do anything about it. You may have better chances if you start a discussion in Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium. --Ssvb (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for correcting me. I'll get into Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium when I’m able to. Juliusmborris (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Наименее Полезное (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you take care of this quote? It looks terrible Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: I just replaced this quotation with a few other quotations for the same word taken from books: diff

Yes, all Belarusian government decrees are in public domain and this one seemed to be hosted on Wikisource. But I'm not sure if these government decrees truly satisfy the "durably archived source" criterion of WT:CFI and that's potentially a big PITA. For example, I'm interested in the original unedited version of the "Об утверждении Инструкции по транслитерации географических названий Республики Беларусь буквами латинского алфавита. Постановление Государственного комитета по земельным ресурсам, геодезии и картографии Республики Беларусь от 23 ноября 2000 г. № 15 Регистрационный номер Национального реестра 8/4488" decree, but it isn't available at https://pravo.by/document/?guid=3961&p0=W20004488 (which also hints that only the "up to date text" can be found on another apparently paywalled resource). Why do I want this? The catalogue of the settlement names of Minsk region (published in 2003) used the classic Łacinka with the letter Ł for transliteration and referenced this particular decree as the basis for its transliteration rules. The transliteration rules changed multiple times after that, but I want to see exactly the original version from 2000. Anyway, if we can't be sure of the durably archived sources availability for the things like this, then we can't rely on the quotations taken from the government decrees in general.

I wonder if the Belarusian government decrees are by chance also published in some regular old school newspaper? Maybe @Gleb Leo could comment on that? --Ssvb (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Наименее Полезное (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

элемент у мяне ёсць яшчэ адна рэч, каб спытаць вас :p Наименее Полезное (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: I have converted this quotation to {{quote-journal}}. Unlike the other cases, the text of this law is at least available for download at the pravo.by website. It would be nice to also ensure that it's backed up by webarchive, but archive.org is currently down. --Ssvb (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again! I have no experience with citations yet so I like to ask for your help Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you provide quotes for the meanings of сінтэтычны? Наименее Полезное (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb Can you provide citations for at least half of the meanings please? :) цёмны Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

How do you think we can label these terms from the Skarnik dictionary? Наименее Полезное (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное, can you provide some examples of that? --Ssvb (talk) 08:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

штучны Наименее Полезное (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you take the automatic rhymes functions from Module:rue-pron and add them to ours? Наименее Полезное (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you stopped using Skarnik :( Наименее Полезное (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Наименее Полезное: Yes, we discussed this in Template_talk:R:be:Skarnik#Not reliable source and you seem to have dropped out of that discussion by its end. Skarnik is an old academic dictionary (Тлумачальны слоўнік беларускай мовы published in 1977—1984), but with some additional extra edits done by the Skarnik website maintainer and other contributors. And these extra edits are problematic for us, because all of them preferably need to be verified by attestable quotations. Skarnik even doesn't make it clear, which parts are original, and which parts had been edited. --Ssvb (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm so disappointed, that user apparently showed up here just to cause intrigue, mhm... Наименее Полезное (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ssvb. I tried adding automatic linking to a source on Archive.org whose URL page number and actual page number are offset by 49. Unfortunately, that attempt generates the error message “attempt to perform arithmetic on a nil value”, despite my use of the tonumber function (is it a function?) and the .ref1 argument in question being 138 (for which see Latin immiseror). I don't understand what I'm missing here. Seeing as you managed to code a perfectly functional page-offsetting mechanism into Module:R:be:NNP (see lines 193–207), could you instruct me on this facet of the arcane arts of Lua coding, please? 0DF (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't work because the tonumber Lua function is converting the string ".ref1" itself rather than treating it as a variable and working with its actual value. The Module:Quotations is responsible for parsing this ".ref1" variable and maybe it's best to contact its maintainers for help.

Another possible avenue is to use wiki templates for arithmetic expressions, see the {{R:be:RBS1928}} source as an example of implementing page offset this way. --Ssvb (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb: Thank you for your reply, and I apologise for the delay in my response. Re the alternative avenue down which you gestured, unfortunately, all {{Q}} does is invoke Module:Quotations, so employing wikicode's #EXPR: à la {{R:be:RBS1928}} would require alterations to Module:Quotations anyway. Therefore, I shall traverse die erste Straße —
@Theknightwho, Lunabunn, Fenakhay, Surjection, Catonif, Svartava, J3133: You are all the non-bot users who have edited Module:Quotations this year. Would any of you be willing and able to add a page-offsetting function to the module, please? 0DF (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@0DF May I recommend adding this yourself as a function in the language-specific module, i.e. MOD:Quotations/la? The core module is an untouchable mess and I'm not sure adding more features short of a full reimplementation would be a fruitful endeavor. 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 07:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@🌙🐇: Thank you for getting back to me. If that’s possible, I honestly wouldn’t know how to do that. Would you be willing and able to add that function to Module:Quotations/la/data, please? 0DF (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have applied the changes suggested by @Lunabunn. --Ssvb (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb: It does, indeed. You, sir/madam, are a lady/gentleman and a scholar! Thank you very much indeed for this. 0DF (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ssvb Thank you for getting to this before I could. Glad it seems to be working well. Cheers, 🌙🐇 ^{⠀talk⠀ ⠀contribs⠀} 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply