User talk:Surjection/archive/2021

Hi, I wasn't aware that I'm not allowed to delete pages using extended mover. I'll not repeat it, so please re-grant me that right. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 16:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, I deleted only pages that were tagged by auto-patrollers, so it wasn't vandalism or anything wrong. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 16:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

No. It seems pretty obvious the community cannot trust you with the right. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, please restore all the moved pages, the pages weren't wrong, and it took me a considerable time to make them. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, don't re-grant me the right, but please restore the pages. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I cannot restore the pages because they were created incorrectly. The best I can do is provide the page content they had before they were deleted. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please do so. It took me a lot of time to create them. Thanks. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much. 🔥𑀰𑀩𑁆𑀤𑀰𑁄𑀥𑀓🔥 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for these editions. Kind regards. --37.11.120.5 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you Mnculwane (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why were my edits to those pages with hieroglyphics reverted? If I'm not wrong, the majority of Wiktionary entries do not have a line break in articles featuring Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the ones I edited were outliers that I was trying to correct. 102.115.150.244 06:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moreover, based on the хата#Ukrainian (which I have never edited) and the display on 𐎿𐎤𐎢𐎭𐎼 after my edit, it appears that the template does not render the terms for the Scythian language. This might need to be corrected. 102.115.150.244 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The whole <div> hack is a kludge that does not have widespread acceptance and should not be added to entries without widespread consensus. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edit. The whole thing was wrong. So, I changed it to remove the plagiarism there. Gershon Jonish (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing wrong there. The Portuguese entry (I don't think you noticed that it is the Portuguese entry) getting it from Hindi is totally plausible. That doesn't mean it doesn't originally come from Tamil, just that it passed through Hindi. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Where is the citation that the Portuguese entry was taken from Hindi. This is a state in India where Tamil is spoken. Hence, it is named as Tamil Nadu. Nadu means Land in Tamil. Like Deutschland where they speak Deutsch. Hindi is not the only spoken language in India. Tamil is older than Hindi. How could have the people of Portugal use Hindi as an intermediate language. In fact, when Vasco da gama, a portuguese sailor reached India he first landed in the south where Tamil was spoken.

Another thing is that there is already an etymology in English. Why there has to be a seperate one for Portuguese. A seperate one Hindi doesn't exist in the first place. — This unsigned comment was added by Gershon Jonish (talk • contribs) at 14:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

You are free to request a citation for the etymology (even though it is pretty obvious), but not edit war to restore the non-etymology back as you are doing right now, which is why I have blocked you for disruptive editing from the page.

"This is a state in India where Tamil is spoken." is insignificant, as my previous message already detailed. The Portuguese term coming from Hindi does not preclude that Hindi got it from Tamil (which it did, as that is where the term originated).

"Tamil is older than Hindi" on the other hand proves that you are not here in good faith, but only seeking to edit tendentiously. I suggest you stop before you get permanently blocked for it.

"Why there has to be a seperate one for Portuguese." Because we have an etymology for every entry, regardless of the language that entry is for. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are thinking that you are some superior person with access to block someone so that you can do anything. Wrong content is being delivered. You're the one claiming that. You should be the one to give a citation. You are the one who started the edit war. Spreading false information and claiming that it is correct. — This unsigned comment was added by Gershon Jonish (talk • contribs) at 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

You are free to start a discussion on WT:ES if you feel the etymology needs to be altered. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why not call the Tausug language *sulu kieli in Finnish? --Apisite (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's ungrammatical and I don't see much reason to call it that anyway. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection: What would be grammatical then? --Apisite (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Using the genitive case as sulun kieli. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I deleted those translations because I like more native words. 小巴西人 (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@小巴西人 That is not a valid argument for removing correct translations. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection You're right, sorry, it's really a not valid argument. — 小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 01:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Surjection By the way, Do you like loan words? — 小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 01:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC).Reply

If a comment from the side is allowed, I would wish to point out that we don't "like" or "dislike" words here. Our aim is to document the words as they are actually used by the speakers. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Got it. --小巴西人 — This unsigned comment was added at 13:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC).Reply

This is a similar word as was keskuus which we earlier discussed. This term is only used in adessive, ablative and allative, at least according to the Kotus dictionary and the old Nykysuomen sanakirja. Thus I suggest this page is made to a REDIRECT to hyökkäyskannalla (“on the offensive”) and entries created also for hyökkäyskannalta and hyökkäyskannalle. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

That indeed seems to be the case. Since mainspace redirects are to be avoided, I'll just delete it and create the adverb entries. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I created hyökkäyskannalla and hyökkäyskannalle, but hyökkäyskannalta does not seem to be attestable. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. For some reason, hyökkäyskannalta is in the Kotus. With some goodwill, one can actually find the three citations required. Two were from the electronic gaming world and one from a text contemplating religious debate. Thus, I added that too, plus puolustuskannalla, puolustuskannalta and puolustuskannalle. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason that the g-slur needs to be in this definition? --172.125.237.54 19:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's very much comparable to how the Finnish term is as a derogatory term. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I completely missed the addition of that new section (I think I saw the Arabic text and mentally filtered out that part of the page as a non-English definition) but thanks to your revert message I now see what happened. As it stands, the movement of the semantically-loaned usage of 'already' into a separate etymology heading still seems odd given it shares a morphological etymology with the other usages. E.g. the page for French souris -- the word wiktionary gives as an example of a 'semantic loan' -- does not separate the loaned usage from the others. Is there a policy on dealing with this or is it just done on a page-by-page basis currently? 65.175.175.141 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think thers is any consistent policy, and it could be argued that semantic loans should be under the same etymology. Specific entries are usually discussed over at the Tea Room, if you think this is a matter for the community to talk about. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Surjection. I noticed that you recently deleted Talk:haste makes waste which, based on my watchlist emails, was just beforehand edited by the user Islander of Woman. You didn't leave a specific explanation for the deletion so, in the interest of transparency and personal curiosity, can you provide some insight into why you deleted the page, assuming your at liberty to do so. Does it have anything to do with a belief that Islander of Woman is a WF sock puppet? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not directly. A {{delete}} was simply added onto the page, which had some random story on it (which had been there since 2014). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ah, very innocuous then. Thanks for the response and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mind taking a look at neekeri? I've reverted some recent anon edits which I thought were a bit questionable, but I'd like a second (native) opinion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Most of it was just redundant to the existing entry. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since my one month ban is over, I'm first gonna ask what were my editing errors precisely, so I won't repeat them in the future.

But also, concerning the use of cuneiform, I think I didn't explain myself well. I didn't simply pick the signs corresponding to the syllables from the table and add them to the descendants section, I cross checked the Elamite and Akkadian terms with the actual cuneiform inscriptions and only when I found that the inscriptions' and the tables' signs were the same did I use them for the descendants section on the Wiktionary pages. I always left them blank when I wasn't sure the signs were the same as on the inscriptions.

And, lastly, I'd like to add that I only have a very limited set of data to add to Wiktionary, that I had already added most of it by the time I got IP banned, and that once I'm done I'm probably not gonna edit Wiktionary anytime soon unless I obtain more data. If you permit it, can I add the final amount of data I have to the Wiktionary pages? 102.116.146.68 11:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The error was not simply paying enough attention to the sources and making sure you understood them correctly; User talk:102.115.140.229 had some examples. You should prioritize quality, getting things as right as possible, over quantity, the speed at which you add the data. If you're not certain about something, just don't add it. If you need further help, I suggest you ask Vorziblix when it comes to Egyptian/hieroglyphs, Victar for Old Persian and Profes.I. for Semitic/cuneiform (but understand that they might not be able to respond to you immediately, if at all, and that asking too often might be considered pestering). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Surjection/archive/2021 I see that you have invited me to your usertalkpage in case I objected to your reversion of my edit, so I came here to learn. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is an error! Because it is purely English quote!

2001:16A2:C062:5A88:C108:DA1C:455B:E10B 09:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, it isn't (relatively-standard modern) English, as definitions are supposed to be. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Deleted as it contains sensitive information about someone and the original article has been removed 2001:8003:D40F:9801:992E:1EF3:4F03:671A.

Hi, I strongly believe this section of olema should be deleted. There is no situation where you could use the agent participle of olla, because the verb is a copula, i.e. it doesn't have an object, no accusative nor partitive. -- Puisque (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you check the edit history, you can see this has been going on back and forth for years. It would be nice to have that form, but if there are no examples of where you could use it, then it does not exist (and the verb has only the infinite forms -maan/-masta/-malla/-matta forms). -- Puisque (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree, they should be deleted indeed as I don't think they can be used even with regards to the verb's only transitive meaning. Even though it is possible to say e.g. ollaan hippaa ("let's play tag"), heidän olemansa hippaleikki (intended meaning: "the game of tag played by them") would sound ridiculous. Thus olema and all its forms should be deleted. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

It indeed seems that it's not used, so I'll remove it. I remember creating it because I thought I had found some uses (but I guess I never actually got around to adding any evidence in the form of citations). I tried looking for some again, but every use I can find from BGC is either (1) a scanno, (2) a typo or grammatical mistake or (3) one that has been explicitly marked as reconstructed (with * or **). I can find some evidence for a rare (and probably archaic) noun olema, but I doubt it would be attestable either. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

As I find through entries on Wiktionary, I often see "Etymology". What exactly is etymology? 128.194.2.86 15:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's a dictionary; use it: etymology. Equinox ◑ 16:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I imagine you know the English phrase rose-colored glasses (optimism, happy expectations). I think there might be a Finnish idiom with similar surface but different meaning. A Finn told me that "vaaleanpunaiset lasit" (pink glasses) suggests that someone is naive (perhaps like English green). Is that true? Should there be an entry? Equinox ◑ 06:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think he might've confused it with rose-colored glasses, which can be glossed here as being "naively optimistic" about something. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You made a mistake in the second participle definition, you put the wrong verb lemma. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 12:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've probably misunderstood the purpose of this page. I assumed it would contain all Finnish entries linked to but not yet in existance, and instead, it seems to list off every Finnish entry, or possibly every entry with a redlink (which almost all of them do have thanks to inflection). What's the point of this category? Llittleserie (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it contains every page that links to a Finnish page that does not exist yet. Someone probably requested such a category be created once upon a time, but I haven't really found much use for it. If I were to decide, it wouldn't exist and instead we'd have some automatically created page which lists the redlinks themselves. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

How would one go about requesting a category? Llittleserie (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

There isn't really any centralized way to do that. What kind of category would you like to see? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

One as discussed above – a place to find pages linked but not yet extant. And it shouldn't include redlinks from inflectional tables because the spam would make it as unusable as Category:Finnish_redlinks. Llittleserie (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately that is not possible due to technical restrictions - only pages that exist can be listed in categories, for one. The best alternative would probably be to manually generate such dumps from the data and placing a list under a user page. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like you're describing User:Jberkel's User:Jberkel/lists/wanted/latest/fi. — Eru·tuon 04:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon Thank you! This looks useful. Llittleserie (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sadly, that would defeat the purpose I'd have for it – that being to quickly find needed defintions, like a sort of auto-request-system. Now, would it be difficult to automatically populate a category like the one in the title of this convo with the exception of excluding all links in the templates Template:fi-decl-X and Template:fi-conj-X? Llittleserie (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of any way to implement that. How would it defeat the purpose, though? The table generated and placed on a user page could have the redlink as well as the pages that link to it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The way the redlink categories are implemented is absolutely horrible from a technical point of view, and was only allowed because enough people found it useful. Adding more overhead to an already inefficient system that runs in every link generated by any template anywhere on Wiktionary would be an extremely hard sell- probably not worth the effort. I think you still might be able to use the current setup by only looking at entries in other languages. That would eliminate all the inflection-template hits and give you only entries that have links in either the translations or the etymologies. Both have their problems because they tend to attract people who have no clue about the languages they're linking to- but at least they're all entries a human being made a decision to link to. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Where should I address requests for creating templates to enable rendering entries for Thracian language terms and for the modification of the already existing templates so Thracian terms can be represented by the Latin alphabet in addition to the Greek alphabet already accepted by Wiktionary? Antiquistik (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

WT:BP would be my guess. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was just curious, given the meaning of this word, are there any derived terms (mainly compound words I suppose) that you could add to this? I quite like the extensiveness of Wiktionary's current coverage of the Finnish language, but I'm sure there are many more terms (without even considering nonlemmas) that are as yet undefined here. I'd also like to thank you for all your hard work, from defining terms to admin work and whatever else. It's always nice to see people putting in so much work here on Wiktionary. :) User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 13:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Might be, but I'm not entirely sure. I can't immediately think of any compounds that have lopullinen in them, as it's mostly used as a separate word. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe -loppuinen is more akin to what you're likely looking for. Llittleserie (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Does this suffix deserve an entry of its own? It isn't really an independent suffix, but rather just the shape -ella assumes when affixed to -staa-type verbs. Thirteen articles currently contain a redlink to it. Would it be more sensible to go through each of these entries separately and replace the current mention of a pseudo-suffix with a mention of whichever rare, dialectal or possibly theoretical verb (hienostaa, hurjastaa, kuulustaa etc.) they descend of? The main problem in this is I'm not sure all of these verbs ("tyhmistellä", for example) have been treated in literature before. The verbs are as follows:

• hienostella
• hurjastella
• kainostella
• kuulustella
• mielistellä
• pyristellä
• sirostella
• tuskastella
• tutkistella
• tyhmistellä
• ujostella
• vilpistellä
• vitkastella

Llittleserie (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

If the -staa verb is unattestable, the only real option is to consider -stella as its own suffix (especially since there are this many verbs for which it applies). There are some parallels (-tella for one). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The sentence in the subject doesn't make sense in the address mentioned. Please, as a Finnish language knower you are, I'd like to ask you to put it right, because the "to rise the leg" until the threshold is a weird (or impossible) thing. Maybe "to rise the leg" until the jamb (of the door) or until the top of the door frame fits better. What do you think?

Regards,

Roger Monteirorogerio (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Entirely aside from the "threshold" issue, the sentence is ungrammatical: in English "rise" is generally (with some extremely obscure exceptions) intransitive. Your leg can rise, but you can't "rise" it. The correct verb to use would be raise, which means "cause to rise". Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the example isn't the greatest. I'll see if I can get something useful out of it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, I had no idea this template existed. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 14:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, may I know what is your base to identify me "making a mess" and blocked me while actually I fixed the content? My edit in Wiktionary about the term "gua" is based on Malay dictionary, you can check it out here: . I need you to revert the edit and unblock me. (Eiskrahablo (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC))Reply

You're edit warring to restore a revision that has numerous formatting problems, including but not limited to: invalid label "id", removing the pronunciation labels from the Malay section with seemingly no explanation, having no part-of-speech for etymology 2, etc. You should read WT:ELE and discuss your changes if they get reverted. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 05:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi - you recently added a large number of {{t-needed}} to galvanoplasty. It was agreed (some time ago) that we should not flood entries with such requests. In principle we want all translations of everything - eventually! In the meantime such requests hide the ones which are really needed. I have been trying to clear Category:Requests for translations into Greek and some requests (like galvanoplasty!) are not quick to fulfil. I am sure you placed these best of intentions, so I will say no more — Saltmarsh. 06:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't remember doing that; indeed it appears that you're mistaken, as it was User:Горец in diff. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry — I should look more carefully! — Saltmarsh. 10:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I added Few info in Tamilism Page, which is from WIKIPEDIA : https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Religion_in_ancient_Tamil_country also Tamilism Refers to Tamil Religion and that can be seen in the Official Website of Tamilism (Tamil Religion) in Malaysia: https://tamilreligion.org So please undo Your Chnages! 117.206.77.96 12:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

You undid the my edit in the article bärsse for the reason „... syntactic gemination applies to all words that inflect like hame“. But, at least me, have never seen or heard bärsse to be inflected like hame (or perse) but like nukke, instead. Some local dialect areas may have a different standard but that should not be applied generally. --2001:999:72:8AFA:2A3F:8C73:254:9FC8 00:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

bärssettä gets a lot more ghits than bärsseä, for what it's worth. Thus it appears that the hame-type declension is more common than the nalle-type declension. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Made some checking and it seems you have right, the dialectal declension has spread throughout the colloquial lang, and it really sounds even more vulgar than the original one, huh. --2001:999:72:8AFA:2A3F:8C73:254:9FC8 04:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It was my mistake to put the word puolimatka in koira declension; it shall be in kala, of course. Therefore, I took away the template fi-decl-pieni-koira that should be fi-decl-pieni-kala, instead, but that does not exist, yet. Maybe you could create such one – I have little experience with editing templates? --2001:999:72:8AFA:2A3F:8C73:254:9FC8 01:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've created it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Now it looks very nice – thank you. --2001:999:72:8AFA:2A3F:8C73:254:9FC8 20:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can I get a reasoning TheGroninger (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Proto-Slavic term that is already linked has the further etymology. The idea that it is of Turkic origin is only one of the theories and shouldn't ideally be given extra weight in relation to the others unless there is a justified reason to do so, which there does not appear to be based on the PS entry. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

To enhance the etymological exploration of the word it would be informative to add other theories with proper justifications, and this is what i've aimed for. besides, the article i've cited itself considers other possibilities but reaches the most accurate conclusion considering the knowledge we have so far. And about the extra weight; "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.". While this is from Wikipedia and not Wiktionary we can still reasonably argue that it should also apply to the ethymology of a word. If you don't have any explicit argumenative objections I'm gonna revert your rollback and will also make sure that it's clear that two different views are being shown. TheGroninger (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to discuss the etymology in WT:ES and/or add the theory into the Proto-Slavic page, which is where the details should be. The article "considering other possibilities" doesn't make it automatically more reliable. That is how articles proposing a new etymology work. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Doubting the reliability makes me think you got an argument for that. Cuz doubting the reliability by default is not something we do here at Wikimedia. I want to hear it TheGroninger (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Etymology sections are a subject of tendentious editing all the time. Again, discuss it in WT:ES if you so wish. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing to argue about. You are apparently doubting a source based on the unrelated past. I asked you for a reasoning that would specifically invalidate this addition to the Wiktionary page. And what you are doing is using an underpowered generalization. Right now I'm not discussing about whether that rollback was valid. I'm talking about the vague reasoning you are trying to push. There is an entire acadamical paper that concludes the word 'vampire' is derived from a proto-turkic language. I can tell you that there are not many sources that discuss the origin of the word 'vampire' especially not in this magnitute. So adding this to the ethymology would also be in proportion to the earlier theory. There are many Wiktionary articles which show different ethymological origins. There is not a rule, even unwritten one, that says it should be one ethymological line and that (alleged unnecessary) weight should be excluded. TheGroninger (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is something to argue about if you insist the theory must be mentioned in the main entry. Your aversion to discuss the etymology with the wider community is puzzling and possibly a sign that you too are doubting whether the etymology you added is even reliable. "I can tell you that there are not many sources that discuss the origin of the word 'vampire' especially not in this magnitute" is a straight-up lie - you'd be aware of this if you even opened the Proto-Slavic page in question. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why are you deleting constructive revisions to “throw the book at?” Stubborn resistance to the input of Doctors of English is against the entire spirit of Wiktionary. Explain yourself. — This unsigned comment was added by 2600:1012:b055:345e:f851:4d82:3c8e:889e (talk).

Wiktionary is not a place for your jokes. Go write them elsewhere. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how can I add sources. Can you help me? Proto forms are from databese and there are sources but I don't know how can I add them here. Descendants are from wiktionary and if I can find any in glosbe, I also add it. And I don't add everything from databese, only if they have both same meaning and almost same reading. — This unsigned comment was added by BurakD53 (talk • contribs).

The proto-forms and descendants aren't the issue; the cross-family comparisons are (including straight up stating that a term is indeed related to some other term in some other families). The StarLing database isn't really a reliable source for those - they for one wholeheartedly support the now antiquated theory of Altaic as a proper phylogenetic family, instead of a sprachbund as it most likely is. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Think about it: "im-" (at Webster) means "not." E.g. impolite means "Not polite; not of polished manners; wanting in good manners;" synonyms: discourteous, uncivil, rude, unpolite. Sure, you can define instead as "lacking in politeness, but that would be euphemism. Granted, people might euphemistically say such a thing in colloquial speech (e.g. "You lack smarts" rather than "you have an absence of smarts" or "you're stupid"), but conversational intent often runs contrary to denotation. In this instance, it's poor lexicology to insist that "imprecision" can only be defined using "lack" seeing that lack itself is defined infra using "absence." Same is true for all "im-" words: "immaturity" means an absence of maturity. It's only by interpolation that we get a lack of maturity.

I don't know about your dictionary reading habits, but when I look up a specific word, I want to read only that entry, not collateral ones. Thus, when I read "imprecision = an absence of precision" I can interpolate "lack of precision" on my own. (Such an interpolation might or not be contextually accurate since "lack" can imply a want, and there are cases where - e.g. in politics - where a speaker lacks precision but decidedly doesn't want precision, i.e. for purposes of evasion.) If I instead read "imprecision = a lack of precision" I have to wonder if it's a bit lacking or 100% lacking. The argument of what is "more natural sounding" is a red herring from a lexicological standpoint.

--Kent Dominic (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Btw, your block based on an assertion about edit warring contrary to the consensus in the Tea Room lacks merit. The question there was whether "lack works better than absence." My subsequent edit preserved the "lack" verbiage. (See this for evidence.)

P.S. Please note the ironic use of "lack" in "lacks merit," and feel free to interpret it as "to be without" or as "to need; to require," whichever you you deem most appropriate. Indeed, the equivocal entry for lack could stand bifurcation in the manner I mentioned in the Tea Room. --Kent Dominic (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is unfortunate that you choose to stay willfully ignorant of the reason behind your block. I cannot help you further as it appears you have already made that decision. P.S. I have no idea why you're raising these arguments on my talk page - are you trying to decentralize the discussion? — surjection ⟨<ttst>??⟩ 11:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

A presumption of staying willfully ignorant" versus shedding evidentiary light on a zealous an arbitrary use of administrative discretion are hardly the same animal. FWIW, the block doesn't faze me. After all, it's only one page. Besides, when a bona fide consensus runs contrary to a well-informed view, my default work-around is to define the contested item as part of my own 489,000-word lexicon rather than hyperlinking it to Wiktionary. No skin off my nose either way; just a bit more work for me and less lexicological fidelity here with Wiktionary users as the only losers. I fess up whenever a persuasive consensus convinces me that I'm wrong, which doesn't apply in this case. No, I don't prevail upon others to agree contrary to inured opinions otherwise. My only request now is that you apply a bit more circumspection, temperance, and conscience when dealing with other editors in similar instances. In light of or despite what I've said, my only hope is that you don't carry on solely by dint of habit. (Really: expressing a quaint assumption about others' ignorance rather than accepting disagreement for what it is hardly becomes anyone. But, cheers for the laugh.)

Concerning the arguments here: I truly don't want to want to upset your applecart by making a federal case of what I deem to be a trifling matter of administrative hubris. As for the substance re. imprecision, lack, etc., posting here was a mere courtesy in case you hadn't read my full post in the Tea Room. Anyway, thanks for the reply. --Kent Dominic (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

None of what you could say will change the fact that you kept restoring your changes against the consensus on the Tea Room, which is what the block is for - to prevent you from restoring those changes again. That's why it's a partial block that only prevents you from editing that one page. It's not like you were not warned about doing the exact thing that ended up with you getting blocked. Arguing that you didn't revert is a prevarication (you restored your wording and made remarks in the summary about how the other one is still wrong), which is in bad faith, ergo why I said staying willfully ignorant. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The warning in your first reversion unmistakably established your mindset. Your consistency is beyond reproach. If posting an edit that indisputably includes the consensus evident from the Tea Room, in addition to a collateral sense, is rightly construed to be edit-warring, I deserve consequences more severe than what you meted out. The silver lining in this: I've subsequently noticed and remedied an algorithmic flaw that hadn't caught some non-concordance in my own lexicon's definitions for imprecision, absence, and lack. No worries: since I've no need for external hyperlinks re. those entries, I've no interest in emending the definitions here. Yet, if you have such an interest, I'd urge you to check both Oxford (which is equivocal) and Merriam-Webster (which is on point) before you either make changes here or decide to leave the *ahem* consensus their just desserts. P.S. If writing God-knows-how-many-words-I've-written on this topic reflects bad faith, I'm at the head of the line for some kind of prize. Sardonicism. Self-effacement. Give 'em a try. --Kent Dominic (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Archive □ Delete □ Ignore □ (Please tick the correct box for this thread.) --Kent Dominic (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think I'll skip taking self-effacement lessons from someone who is eager to write about their "own 489,000-word lexicon". From this discussion alone, to me you come across as a person who thinks very highly of himself. Such attitudes tend to cause problems in collaborative environments and will inevitably result in cases like this where valuable time is wasted. I wouldn't have said these things otherwise, but I chose to do so after noticing you seem to insist on chastising me (or providing tips to how to improve, however you would like to describe it), and also in the hope that you too can improve. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since when does holding oneself in high regard bear on whether a given consensus rightly or wrongly equates to a "no suppletion/edit of my restoration without a 30-day block" policy? In what way is standing one's ground, while highly regarding arguments and scholarship, tantamount to a person who thinks very highly of himself? Recap: I correctly believed you'd carry through on your warning. I consider the block, given the suppletion contra a reversion (and thus, decidedly not edit warring), to be hardly an overstep of authority and not worth my effort, interest, or inclination to ask for a rescission. Conclusion: The block is harmless error on my account; frightening if such a dynamic is routinely applied to others. If you consider yourself beyond such a reproachful expression of unflattering observation, please point me toward the nearest brick wall.

Three final rhetorical questions in addition to the two posted immediately above: Shall I presume that any future dissent regarding your MO will result in a similar block, no matter the editor? Can I be safe in knowing that behavior that comes across to you in a self-satisfied way will automatically and indisputably mean that I'm somehow wrong, that I'm fated to cause collaborative problems, and that I will continually deserve preemptory blocks? Can you refer me to a shrink who can help to rid me of this penchant to think highly of myself (assuming you're right concerning how I come across) and to avert any tendency toward projection otherwise? Cheers. Once again, and in the most respectful tone warranted, please carry on however you're likely to do, kindly regarding or disregarding anything I've said that doesn't suit you. --Kent Dominic (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

With one substantive exception re. imprecision inter alia (which I'll address at some point in the future), the whole blocking episode is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. Although I still consider the block to be unreasonable given its timing and preemptive rationale, I've never questioned your interest in fostering a collaborative environment here. In that vein, would you have a look at my edit of ab initio? I'd say it entails legally permissible fair use but I have the feeling that its format, if not the quote itself, might conflict one Wiktionary policy or another. Nothing showed up in the abuse log, but I have no idea of that algorithm's scope. --Kent Dominic (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see anything wrong with it, although I'm not sure how I feel about having inline references in definitions. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for catching my mistake of giving an IP an infinite block. I knew I was going to do that eventually. I normally only give IPs three-day blocks unless there's a pattern that shows longevity on the same address- but you know what you're doing, so I won't second-guess. I also noticed your 1-year namespace-specific block for a Chilean IP. I did the same thing a week or two ago, but they managed to switch IP ranges. I suspect one of us is going to be doing more of the same in the near future. Fortunately, the risk of collateral damage is fairly low- the closest we've had to a serious Chilean editor is GTroy/Luciferwildcat, whose mother came from there, IIRC. Keep up the good work- you're making me look like an absolute slacker, as usual. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I am confused. Why were my additions deleted from this list? I believe I followed the format correctly as I was just copy/pasting it from other words on the list? 73.157.135.57 19:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because you still keep readding words that do not belong on the list, fluff being a particular example (the sources you added say "perhaps", which in relation to the etym section in our entry doesn't mean much, and almost certainly the former uses the latter as a source). That entire list is in complete bedlam; it's filled with words that don't deserve their own Wiktionary entries (and probably never will) and also probably still some words that aren't even portmanteaux and it doesn't need any more on it to make it even worse. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

I thought that words whose etymologies are blends were to be included on this list, even if they are the alternative etymology? Fluff aside, I do see now that enchalupa and seekini did not pass RFV, but surely that's not enough reason to delete the other 27 words? 73.157.135.57 19:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, unless the word is generally agreed to a blend (the blend is the main etymology, ideally uncontested), then it shouldn't be on the list. It's not a list of "maybe perhaps portmanteaux". The reason I did a indiscriminate rollback is because I didn't have the time to check every added entry individually. By the way, are you the same IP as in this and this? — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Sorry, I just first time use a Wiktionary, and don't know properly, how add an additional meaning for word. You can see in main eng. Wiki: this word was used with both meanings, as "apple-branded touchpad", or as "optical trackpad" for non-apple smartphones (also, independent "w:optical trackpad" page just exist). Can You tell me, how to fix my contribution? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If optical trackpad means something significantly different from trackpad, it should perhaps be its own entry, but I'm not sure it does. The difference seems insignificant to me - in both cases, they're input devices operated by fingers sensitive to movement; optical ones just use light to detect the movement. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for answer! So, my current lookout - the meaning of this words can be splitted with two main sentences:

• the "touchpad" - panel-size device with just proprietary and uncommon "trackpad" branding, and
• "optical trackpad" - dot-size device with only one naming, and used by many brands.

I think, this is a clean and logical solution, with the same logic that have the main Wiki articles (but, my bad, without historical background for optical trackpad naming). ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

So, page "optical trackpad" was created; Can You check this page, if this is not a problem? Also, how properly add a link from "trackpad" page? ThisIsNotABetter (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is no entry for Romani chavi, the Wiktionary points that link to an article where only the Pali definition is there. Such link I believe should be removed. EasyKL (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's a reason to request for a Romani entry to be added, not to remove the link. The only reason to remove the link would be if you know with complete certainty that there is no such Romani word and there can never be a Romani section on that page. It's unfortunate that the current state is confusing, but with a wiki you have to allow for future changes. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

If they are from the same origin, yes you can refer to. You can see that they have exact same meaning and type. Altaic Languages are not a language family but a sprachbund. I said compare, not cognate. talk 13:33, 01 July 2021 (UTC+3) BurakD53 (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, it's pretty common consensus that the "Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic languages" is not a reliable source when it comes to comparisons across language families. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

But they have exact same meaning and almost exact same reading. It's pretty clear that they are akin to each other. How can I have any altaic language sources for that? There is only EDAL. If you know any other please add it. But I'm sure database is right about their relation, just they are not a part of same language. — BurakD53 14:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC+3)

It doesn't matter how similar forms they have; EDAL is simply not reliable for comparisons. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

surjection Many etymologic sources have already given according to EDAL in this website. There is oppositeness. And I don't agree with you. There is an article and not written by kids. It is not fully wrong, we do know it is right about some. I want to talk with another user who interested in Altaic Languages. Thanks. 14:26, 1 July 2021, (UTC+3). BurakD53 BurakD53 (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You can feel free to start a discussion about it on WT:ES or WT:BP. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for your suggestion. I will try it. (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC+3)

What's the deal with Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: 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.? Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: 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. claims it as a synonym, while Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: 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. goes unmentioned. Is *tuppei a typo, a conflicting reconstruction or an alternative form of *tuppi? Should the link be corrected to *tuppi or should an article be created for *tuppei? Llittleserie (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

With my surface-level knowledge of PF, Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: 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. looks like it should be an i-stem (i.e. as if the Finnish word were to be inflected tuppi, *tupin). Unless some Finnic languages actually have that word as an i-stem, I think it's a mistake. @Tropylium (as someone who knows better and who appears to have added the form to Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: 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.). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the page optinen harha says that "optisten harhojen" is a "rare" genitive plural. In reality, it's the only genitive plural that can be found on Google even once. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The reason it does that is because it thinks optisien harhojen "rhymes" better than optisten harhojen (see kovalenttinen sidos for a good example; the forms it marks as rare there are indeed rare because they don't "rhyme"). Hopefully that particular case is fixed now. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please hide that revision, I accidentally published something I shouldn't have!! Thank you. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someone else already got to it. It's probably a good idea to use the "Email this user" feature for this so that the request isn't visible for everyone (although I guess in this case it worked out for the better), just in case this happens again. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I looked at the recent changes and noticed that there was an admin online. It would have worked out even better if I had requested the page to be deleted entirely as I soon after noticed that the title was misspelled, this being the redirect. You can delete it if you feel like it; however, I do have a Finnish dictionary that marks long vowels with ":" and long consonants with doubling the letter in its pronunciation guides, so that redirect may in fact not be that useless after all. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

It has irked me for a while that the Finnish side of en.wiktionary seems to use the term 'slang' in a very confusing manner that is rarely in line with our own definition of the word. Our glossary defines the word as follows:

1. Denotes language that is unique to a particular profession or subject, i.e. jargon. Also refers to the specialized language of a social group, sometimes used to make what is said unintelligible to those who are not members of the group, i.e. cant. Such language is usually outside of conventional usage, and is mostly inappropriate in formal contexts.

I don't think it makes sense to use this word to refer to all informal language used in the Capital area. 'Stadin slangi', which I'd assume is what editors are mistranslating, is not synonymous with the Helsinki vernavular which is a much broader terms. On top of this problem, some seem to label all colloquialisms of Swedish or English descent as 'slang', even though said terms are often not even constrained to the geographic location.

As such, I propose this: Category:Finnish slang should be sorted through and the terms reorganised:

1) Words like eiku or jengi that are in no way remarkably Helsinkian, let alone characteristic of working-class Helsinkians, should get the tags (colloquial) and (informal) respectively.

2) Colloquialisms constrained to Helsinki (but not necessarily to any social class), like lande, should get the tag (dialectal, Helsinki).

3) Some, like byssa should, of course, remain in the category.

Llittleserie (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

In my view, it's fine as it is. slang has "language outside of conventional usage and in the informal register". The category description has "nonstandard terms that are typically used to mark membership in a cultural subgroup", and slang in this way is mostly used among the youth (and is highly generational), so I think it applies. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

But what is your opinion on group 1? Why should eiku be slang? And this is not an isolated incident. A very large portion of entries in Category:Finnish slang is in common use throughout Finland. In my opinion, there's no reason for such terms to be there.

1. The category description has 'nonstandard terms that are typically used to mark membership in a cultural subgroup'

This was my point exactly with group 2. Which group does lande mark membership within? Helsinkians? Why should ikään not be labeled as slang then, given the word is emblematically Kokkolan?

Llittleserie (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

eiku is hardly slang, although it does have some slang meanings. jengi was definitely originally slang, but maybe it's too widespread to be considered such anymore. But all of these words would have to be considered individually.

There is a difference between dialectal language and slang. I think we'll be fine if we follow the Finnish sources in this case. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

1. There is a difference between dialectal language and slang.

There absolutely is, and 'lande' is decidedly the former.

1. But all of these words would have to be considered individually.

There are 947 terms in Category:Finnish slang. I think it's a manageable task to do by hand. Llittleserie (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

KTSK disagrees with the former assessment. I'd also say it's slang just on the basis that I haven't heard many older people ever say it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see your revision comment states, "even if this is how the word is inflected in Spanish, it's not how it works in English - English words don't have a feminine gender equivalent. if 'harniza' is attestable in English, it could be added as a coordinate term". I appreciate the feedback but must kindly disagree.

Many English words do have feminine gender equivalents i.e. actor vs. actress, waiter vs waitress, etcetera. Moreover, overlooking the grammatical genders of this loanword (i.e. harniza, etc.) fails to consider the term's cultural context. This term would be most present in the Hispanic community where speakers are likely to make a gender distinction. For instance, even in English, referring to a Latin American woman as Latino is a gaffe remark equivalent to calling her a Latin American man.

While these gender specifications could be added as coordinate terms, it seems impractical to do so when they can simply be appended to the noun header as before. — This unsigned comment was added by 2601:282:1880:43a0:6960:2ff:be4b:c901 (talk).

What I meant by "feminine gender equivalents" is not words with a male/female distinction in terms of meaning, like actor/actress, but ones where the word has a masculine gender and has a counterpart with feminine gender. Grammatical gender is not a feature of modern English, so we shouldn't be listing "feminine (forms)" in headword lines. Instead, those terms should be listed as coordinate terms. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand, you're right that grammatical gender is not a feature of modern English. That being said, Wiktionary still lists the feminine exception in the noun header of other pages such as actor and waiter. For consistency's sake, I'd still like to undo your previous edits, but if not, then those pages formerly mentioned require further editing.

I didn't realize that they do, so I started a discussion about it (Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/August#actor, etc.). Even if the consensus is to keep those feminine forms visible, having the feminine plural is probably not necessary. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. I thank you for bringing this discrepancy to the community's attention and will hold off on further edits.

Can we not nominate reference templets for deletion? I had my reasons, and if you want to know I shall tell. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

You didn't even start an RFD discussion and failed to noinclude the RFD tags which caused them to be transcluded to a whole bunch of pages still using those templates. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I shall then simply start a RFD discussion without tagging the pages, so as to avoid complexities. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this block- I was going to do it myself, but (as usual) you got to it first.

One IP range that acts exactly like Enix150 and shares the same browser configuration might be a coincidence. A second one on a mobile ISP that picks up a few days after the previous one was blocked and also shares the same browser configuration and behavior is too much to be a coincidence. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Interest have meaning attention. Figuratively bunga means something looks good like a flower. In this case point of attention. And berbunga (literally: blooming) have resemblance to berbunga (figuratively: bear interest) ―Rex Aurōrum^{｢Disputātiō｣} 00:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but it's a bit of a stretch, so maybe it should be elaborated on in the section — surjection ⟨??⟩ 00:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but a bit difficult to construct sentence in 'proper' way. ―Rex Aurōrum^{｢Disputātiō｣} 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. Please fix my grammar if there are mistake. ―Rex Aurōrum^{｢Disputātiō｣} 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Template:senseid/documentation#Use in regular wikilinks ought to be updated to reflect the format change you made in the module, right?

- 2A02:560:4243:C700:2814:5EEE:55DF:D806 10:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, thank you for pointing it out — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Surjection. As a Person With Knowledge about Finnish, Could You Please see This, And Which Etymology to Keep? I Do Not Know about Finnish so passing it to you. Thank You.--4SnavaA (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't really see anything wrong with it, that's the etymology that is thrown around — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

So the first Etymology was Correct Or the Second one?--4SnavaA (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I notice that in your recent edit you blanked most of barmaid except for the translations. Was that an accident? I've tried to restore the page while preserving the Finnish translation you added. ChromeGames923 (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was accidental... not sure how that could have happened, as I remember using the standard edit section feature. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

No worries, it's quite odd that everything both before and after the section you edited was removed. It almost feels like a bug where your edited translations section got saved as the entire page, but I've never encountered that before. ChromeGames923 (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

For not having to doubt, you may check the correctness of my edits e.g. here. --2001:999:60:4218:1883:DA78:7193:D249 23:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The taxon database has plenty of stuff that isn't attestable because it isn't really used outside of that very database or maybe some Wikipedia article that relies on it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 23:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Olisiko sinulla hallussasi joku tyylikkäämpi tapa merkitä omistusliitteelliset muodot tähän artikkeliin? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Onhan niitä ainakin pari. Yksi vaihtoehto on {{fi-alt-personal}}, mutta uudempi on käyttää {{fi-word-poss}} -mallinetta, johon saa loppuosan |suffix=-parametrilla (ja välilyönti alkuun niin että laittaa alaviivan alkuun). Tässä tapauksessa siitä tulee {{fi-word-poss|virka|a|suffix=_puolesta}}. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kiitos. Saako siitä vielä jotenkin pois virheellisen muodon "virkaan puolesta"? --Hekaheka (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

|an=0 näköjään uupui — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mahtavaa! --Hekaheka (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hei!

Peruit muutokseni, jonka tein suomen -nUt-partisiipin allomorfeista. Väite siitä, että suomen kielen aktiivin partisiipin tunnuksella -nUt olisi allomorfit -nnUt ja -Ut, on virheellinen. Ensinnäkin geminaatalliset muodot kuten katketa > katkennut eivät jäsenny *katke|nnut vaan katken|nut. Vartalon lopussa oleva konsonantti t (joka näkyy esimerkiksi yksikön kolmannen persoonan imperatiivimuodossa katket|koon) on siis assimiloitunut n:ksi partisiipin tunnuksen -nUt edellä. Ensimmäinen n kuuluu siis verbin vartaloon, ei partisiipin tunnukseen, joten kyseessä on se sama -nUt-suffiksi kuin muissakin verbeissä.

-Ut ei myöskään ole -nUt-partisiipin variantti. Esmerkiksi verbit tulla ja olla jäsentyvät tul|lut ja ol|lut, eivät *tull|ut ja *oll|ut. Kummankin verbin vartalossa on vain yksi konsonantti, mikä käy ilmi verbin muista taivutusmuodoista (ole|n, tul|koon). Näissä muodoissa partisiipin tunnus on -nUt, jossa n on assimiloitunut verbin konsonanttivartaloon: pur- + -nUt = purrut (ei *purnut), tul- + -nUt = tullut (ei *tulnut), juos- + -nUt = juossut (ei *juosnut). Oikeampaa olisi siis sanoa, että -nUt-partisiipilla on variantit -rUt (pur|rut), -sUt (pes|syt), -lUt (tul|lut) kuin että tunnus olisi -Ut, koska tässä tapauksessa edellä olevat konsonantit kuuluvat partisiipin tunnukseen, eivät verbin vartaloon.

Vartalon ja päätteen ero tulee verbeillä esiin teemamuodoilla, jotka ovat preesensin yksikön ensimmäinen persoona, preesensin yksikön kolmas persoona sekä yksikön kolmannen persoonan imperatiivi. Nämä muodot antavat siis verbin kaikki vartalot, joihin suffiksit voivat liittyä. Näin näemme, ettei esimerkiksi katketa-verbillä ole mitään *katke--vartaloa, joka tarvittaisiin *katke|nnut-muodon synnyttämiseen, tai ettei tulla-verbillä ole vartaloa *tull-, jonka analyysi *tull|ut vaatisi.

pestä: vartalot pese- ja pes-

pese|n

pese|vät

pes|köön

olla: vartalot ole-, o- ja ol-

ole|n

o|vat

ol|koon

katketa: vartalot katkea- ja katket-

katkea|n

katkea|vat

katket|koon

BronzeToSummonWickedPowers (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

-Ut ei tietenkään ole etymologisesti oikea pääte, vaan nimenomaan -nUt ja pelkästään -nUt. Tällaisen argumentin pohjalta meillä ei myöskään pitäisi olla -nnut:lle omaa artikkelia (koska katkennut < *katket-nut). Ongelmana on kuitenkin muun muassa se, että "-Ut-muoton" tapauksessa edeltävä konsonantti pitenee (nimenomaan assimiloitumisen takia), mutta tätä on vaikea esittää mitenkään artikkelin nimessä. Olen siksi ainakin tällä hetkellä siinä kannalla, että -ut ja -nnut -sivuista on enemmän hyötyä kuin haittaa, varsinkin jos sanakirjaa käyttävät suomen kieltä opiskelevat. Toki voisi väittää, että tällä samalla voitaisiin perustella liuta erilaisia "vääriä" muotoja, mutta kohtuus kaikessa. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 13:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kiitos vastauksestasi.

On totta, että pelkkä -nUt-pääte saattaa aiheuttaa hämminkiä, mutta ongelmaton ei ole myöskään nykyinen esittelytapa. Ensinnäkään se ei ota assimilaatiota suomen kielessä esiintyvänä ilmiönä huomioon, mikä on paitsi dis-informaatiota, myös estää juurikin suomen kieltä opiskelevaa oppimasta ja hahmottamasta, millainen ilmiö assimilaatio on ja mihin kaikkiin muotoryhmiin ja taivutuselementteihin se liittyy. Mielestäni on haitallista, että tiettyjen muotoryhmien yhteydessä assimilaatio esitetään, kun taas toisten muotoryhmien yhteydessä se koetetaan kiertää vaihtoehtoisilla selitysmalleilla, vaikka loppujen lopuksi kaikissa tapauksissa on kyse samasta ilmiöstä. Yhtenäisyys kärsii ja yksi kielen ilmiö saakin äkkiä monta keskenään erilaista esitystapaa, mikä on ainoastaan hämmentävää.

On kätevää todeta lukuisten väärien muotojen perusteluun vain "kohtuus kaikessa", mutta se ei ole järin pitävä argumentti. Se, että tiettyjä yhden esittelytavan mahdollistamia virheellisiä muotoja voi katsoa läpi sormien, mutta muita ei, ei perustu mihinkään muuhun kuin yhden tahon mielivaltaan. Kuka päättää, että -nnUt" selitettäköön erillisenä allomorfina, jotta "katkennut" on kätevämpi jäsentää, mutta samaan ilmiöön perustuvaa "-tkOOn"-muotoista imperatiivin suffiksia ei silti ole, vaikka sillä selittyisi yhtä kätevästi perustavasta poikkeavasti muodostuva imperatiivi "katketkoon"? Miksei saman tien selitettäisi kaikkia assimilaatiota aiheuttavia affikseja (potentiaali, passiivi, A-infinitiivi) samalla tavalla siirtämällä vaihteleva konsonanttielementti vartalon puolelle? Pelkkä oma mielipide ei liene käypä peruste sille, miksi yksi tapaus sallitaan mutta muita ei, kun puhe on Wikisanakirjan kaltaisesta lähteisiin perustuvasta tietokannasta, jonka tulisi perustua kielitieteeseen.

Ylipäätään suomen kielen ilmiöiden ja elementtien kummallisuuksien kaunistelu ja mutkien oikominen suoriksi yksinkertaisuuden nimissä ei mielestäni vastaa Wikisanakirjan periaatteita. Wikisanakirjan tarkoitus on esittää informaatio sellaisena kuin se vallalla olevan näkemyksen mukaan on tai ainakin esittää se yhtenä kilpailevien näkemysten ohessa. Nykyisessä esitystavassa esitetään vain tämä -nUt/-nnUt/-Ut-malli, joka saattaa olla esimerkiksi S2-opetuksessa käytännöllinen selitysmalli, mutta joka ei kuulu suomen kielen kielitieteelliseen selitysmalliin eli valtavirtanäkemykseen. Wikisanakirjan informaation ei ole määrä olla suomen kielen opiskelijoiden käytännöllisyyttä mukaileva kätevä nettiopas vaan neutraali, kielitieteeseen ja kielen ja kielenhuollon auktoriteetteihin pohjaava kuvaus suomen kielen morfeemeista.

Mitä tulee mainintaasi neutraalista esittelystä ja painoarvon annosta, nähdäkseni nykyinenkin esittely sotii ohjeen periaatteita vastaan. Neutraali esitystapa esittäisi partisiipin tavalla, jolla kielitieteelliset artikkelit ja valtavirtakieliopit (muun muassa Iso suomen kielioppi, johon muun muassa suomen kielen opetus yliopistotasolla perustuu) sen esittävät: on olemassa vain partisiippi -nUt. Esitystapa yksinkertaisuuteen pohjaten on nähdäkseni nimenomaan värittynyt ja sen myötä ei-neutraali esitystapa, koska se pyrkii tiettyyn päämäärään, tässä tapauksessa oppijatason yksinkertaisuuteen, ja vääristää ja köyhdyttää informaatiota, jotta se sopisi tietyn käyttötarkoituksen tarpeisiin. Nythän esimerkiksi yliopistossa suomen kieltä opiskelevat, joiden opetukseen kuuluu muun muassa morfeemianalyysi eli morfeemien tunnistaminen ja eristäminen muodoista, saavat esitystavasta dis-informaatiota, kun partisiipin muodosta jätetään pois tai lisätään siihen kuulumattomia elementtejä.

Näistä syistä olen sitä mieltä, ettei kolmihahmoisen partisiipin esittäminen ole mitenkään oikeutetumpaa kuin valtavirran kielitieteilijöiden sekä Ison suomen kieliopin käyttämä yksihahmoisen, assimiloituvan ja piilossa olevan vartalokonsonantin ilmi tuovan partisiipin esitys, vaan sen sijaan ainoana selitystapana annettuna jopa dis-informaatiota, jollaista Wikisanakirjassa ei tulisi olla.

BronzeToSummonWickedPowers (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ensinnäkin, katketkoon-sanassa ei ole assimilaatiota, ellei mennä kantaitämerensuomalaiselle asteelle saakka (< *katket-koon < *katket-ko-hen). Partisiippi on siinä mielessä erikoistapaus, että -nnUt -muotoa näkee mainittavan eri lähteissä (esimerkiksi juuri Isossa suomen kieliopissa). Potentiaalien ja infinitiivien ym. päätteiden osalta en ole nähnyt samankaltaista. -ut-muotoa ei tosiaan siellä ole vaan ne on eroteltu edeltävän konsonantin perusteella, mutta en ainakaan itse kannattaisi artikkelin luomista jokaiselle niistä erikseen.

Sitä en ymmärrä, millä perusteella nykyinen malli on "tiedon vääristelyä". -nnUt on ainakin yksiselitteisesti -nUt-päätteen vaihtoehtoinen muoto ja -Ut on tällä hetkellä paras (tai kenties vähiten huono) tapa esittää loput muunnokset (-lUt, -rUt, -sUt...). Missään vaiheessa ei esimerkiksi väitetä, että -Ut tai -nnUt olisi partisiippipäätteen pääasiallinen muoto, vaan ne ovat pelkästään nimenomaan vaihtoehtoisia muotoja eli variantteja. Liiallinen kärjistäminen siinä, mikä muoto on "alkuperäinen", ja ainoastaan sen esittäminen on omiaan aiheuttamaan pulmia. Miten esimerkiksi passiivin partisiipin preesens tulisi esittää: -tAvA vai -ttAvA? Eikö molempia saa olla siitä syystä että Wikisanakirjan sisältö tulisi pohjautua jonkinlaiseen teennäiseen puhtauden ja täydellisen morfologisen tarkkuuden varaan?

Mitä ikinä poistoon tuleekaan, sitä ei voi yksinkertaisesti tehdä tuosta noin vain (kuten yritit tehdä), vaan se pitäisi laittaa poistoäänestykseen (WT:RFDN). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The rough territorial movements of the Iazyx ("Iazyges", "Jassi" e.t.c.) and the historical continuity of this ancient clan can be traced on various ancient (e.g. those of Ptolemy) and mediaeval maps and relations (e.g. those on Traians war in Pannonia and Dacia, on "Hungarian conquest" of Pannonia, on history of Hungary and Poland, lists of contingents, church documentation, e.t.c.) and even on most recent events such as introduction of wristwatch (Jacob Zych of Praha ) or decimal system (Ferenc János Zách of Pest ]). The complete Danube seems to be their main defense line against Roman and Germanic invasions, hovewer a small clan can not protect the whole Indo-European population on their own - that's why Magyar auxiliaries were adopted in the 9th century and even achieved for a short period (910-955 AD, battles of Lech-"feld") to free the survivors of the autochtonous Celto-Slavic population (Boii, Volci, Vindelici, Veneti, Sporoi, Lechii…) living in Germanic occupied Vindelicia and Boio-Aria (Bavaria Slavica, "Bayern"). In some of the oldest churches along the Limes Sorabicus in Lutetia (western part of "East Germany", now most of it known as "Saxony-Anhalt") those Zyx and Iaxamatae Sarmatians are represented as liberators (Świebodzice - Polish name of the Iaxamatae) in the form of a "Thracian rider" or Saint George motif. Their Caucasian neighbors - the Serboi - melted with their Central European Veneti, Boii, Lužici and Kunoni kinsmen and became known as Serbs or Serbo-Lusatians of White Serbia, eventually after centuries of genocide, ethnocide and forced germanization corrupted to Sorbs. The ancient solar cultic place in Pěrno (Pirna) - the "Sonnenstein" castle (solar stone castle) became a famous extermination site of the 20th century.

The mediaeval history of Georgia and Armenia also presents some clues, mainly related to the Zakarid dynasty, apparently related to the ancient House of Zik of Adurbadagan. The traces of Sarmatians may still be found as Sarmi among the Kurds.

The story of "Barquq" is very similar to that of Aleksandra Lisowska (Hürrem Sultan "Roxelana") of the Scythian Roxolani tribe.

The Sarmatians, explicitly the Iakšamati (Iaxamatae) and Zyx (Zych) took the duties of their "mythic" relatives, the Danaoi, Danann, Tuatha Dé Danann, Duninowie… who acted nearly two millennia earlier, also protecting the Aryan Solar dynasty and introducing unified solar cult across ancient Europe (see ancient petroglyphs and archeological findings, e.g. the famous solar wagon of Trundholm and the found nearby glasbeds manufactured in Babylon and Amarna). The name of Dania ("Denmark") is still attributed to them. The solar shield of the Egtved girl is identic with the Sarmatian shields found in Scythia Minor (museum of Ajud, Romania) and those used until the 19th century CE by some Caucasian and Kurdish tribes.

Unfortunately I have no resources to document each and every published source material, nor means to document more valuable oral transmissions, which often contain less transcription and interpretation errors. The input provided by me depends mainly on my experience and memory, and on stories transmitted orally by generations before me - this was the way the Vedic civilization (and others) was built, which I'm a part of.

Unfortunately wictionary also relies on linguistic "rules" - which are rather theoretic approximated tendencies and not strict rules. The algorithms of those "rules" are often biased and often corrupted/falsified and even inverted by historic/temporal and ethnic/cultural inconsequences.

Recent archeological findings, new analyzes on known findings and for at least the last two decades the advanced genome analysis provide additional hints and proofs.

Please read my entries carefully - You may find more details and even some sources analyzing them by Yourself. — This unsigned comment was added by 95.223.72.205 (talk).

"even some sources analyzing them by Yourself" tells me all that I need to know - that you're adding unsourced original research that is probably nonsense to boot. Thanks for letting me know - I'll also revert the changes you did to the other page. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

What about the Sigimund/Zygmunt NONSENSE? It's still better to live the entry EMPTY than to spread such an ABSURDITY !

Hungarian scientists of the clan search for their roots in Central Asia, which is not completely false, because their main route from Europe to India (the northern branch of the Silk Road) was running along Iakšartes (Syr-Daria) river. Their partners of Sindh even founded a Sindhi colony at Sea of Azow north of Zychia. The name "Zichia" became "official" and "documented" only after Hunnic, Alan and Khasar occupation of surrounding Siraces and Iaxamatae territories.

The name of the Scythian family of Lithuania Giedroyć may originate in the archaic times of the Sindi colony and be connected to Gedrosia and Sakastan. Huge amounts of Sanskrit, Lithuanian and Slavic vocabulary are cognates almost unchanged since four millennia. Only the pecularities of the English colonial latinization of Sanskrit (e.g. G or J for Ž or DŽ, SH for both Ś and Š, or ON, OM, AUM for Ą, ) render both Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic branches (connected to haplogroup R1a) mutually unintelligible. Similarly those colonial English and Türkic influences (e.g. C for DŹ) introduced in latinization of Kurdish languages and the steady influx of Arabic population render them unintelligible. On the other hand - the Dravidian, Ethiopian and Phoenician heritage in European culture seem completely forgotten and even denied.

Trajan's Column from AD 113 documents even the scale armour and appearance of the Zyx (Iazyx). Hungarian sources document the name since the 9th century CE, due to Magyar linguistics (a non Indo-European language) in most instances as Záh, Zách or Zaach - papal dignitaries in Hungary reported about the atrocities performed on the clan in AD 1330 - the alien Zygmunt (introduced via the Teutonic Order, probably via Lithuania) was not used until 16th century at all and not adopted until the 17th century !

In lack of precise data I've even left out at least two waves of the introduction of the clan to Albion (Britain), 1. as subdued auxilla cavalry of the Roman Empire, 2. during Middle Ages, probably connected to the Lennox and Drummond clans of Scotia.

A site like wiktionary is not a place for time machine science-fiction or lies. — This unsigned comment was added by 95.223.72.205 (talk) at 17:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

Your ramblings are of little relevance or coherence and hence have no place on Wiktionary either. Fay Freak (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is keeping you from letting Camry stay? If it has 159M hits on Google, it's notable enough to be here for sure. How can a word with so many hits on Google somehow fail the requirements to stay on WT? --2600:1700:D740:1720:F8C1:DB8A:9A34:E230 09:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

See WT:CFI. Brand names aren't eligible if they're just brand names — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

My reference - Greenberg handbook of neurosurgery Drlucifer1131 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

You wrote a second encyclopedic-sounding definition alongside the dictionary one (which meant one of them was redundant too), but we are a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

As per Wikipedia and a variety of reliable sources, a Minor is a person below the age of majority, and a prepubescent child (the psychological target object of Pedophilia) is under 11 or 12. This revision is also in conflict with the Wikipedia edit, which correctly states a range of chronophilias befitting of the term "Minor Attracted Person". 86Sedan 21:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Promotion of or advocacy for pedophilia is against effective Wikimedia policy (despite being a proposal it is widely accepted). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since when did child protection policy come into this, and how can removing the term Pedophilia from an article be violation of a child protection directive? I'm sorry but what are your research qualifications on this subject? You have reverted to an edit which is clearly inaccurate. Wikipedia (a Wikimedia resource) accurately states that Pedophilia is one of three categories within the range of attraction to legal minors. This is stated quite clearly in relation to exactly the same term. Maybe the best thing to do is to state the applicable chronophilias in range, as per Wikipedia? 86Sedan 22:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would further add, that Wikipedia's own article on Pedophilia provides a thorough basis for an attraction to prepubescent children, and has done so for over 10 years, in line with every trusted source on the topic up to the date. 86Sedan 22:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wanted o create a redirect page with the title above, but the title has been protected from creation so that only template editors and administrators can create that page. I wanted that page to redirect to the entry alphabet similar to how typing the related title in Wikipedia redirects to the page Latin alphabet. Would you please create the page abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz for me? Or should you remove protection from that tile so tht anyone can create it? Fomfeider (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fomfeider: That is not an appropriate redirect. Not how we use them. Equinox ◑ 20:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why was my edit reverted? It was well substantiated and based on the phonological history of both Spanish and Portuguese. It makes no sense that you deleted it. — This unsigned comment was added by 2804:d49:8215:1e00:8515:274:ac75:3ad8 (talk).

First of all, I don't think you realized you added it under the Portuguese entry, not under the Spanish entry. Second, if our etymology sections will make such direct claims as that something "makes no phonological sense", it needs to have sources. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think who ever did this is in error !— This unsigned comment was added by Trò Tê (talk • contribs) at 04:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

If you want to translate 郭 into Vietnamese, start an entry at vi:郭. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this was my first edit on Wiktionary. I'm not sure what I missed/did wrong, do I need to cite a source? Royote (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

You probably misspelled the word - I can find "cheese" in Irish under cáis (note which letter the accent is on). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 10:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yup, I did. Off to a great start... Royote (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

hi please creat a bot to creat finish forms i creat some Amirh123 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I already have one, but you shouldn't be creating nonlemma forms blindly in the first place. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection: Oh OK, sorry. I wasn't sure how it worked. Those entries are useless anyway because they're included in inflection tables for Georgian, i.e., დრო (dro) already provides various forms such as dros, etc. They're legacy stuff from before Georgian entries had automatically generated inflection tables, so those pages should be outright deleted, but I don't know how to do it. 46.242.14.191 18:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why should they? We have entries for nonlemma forms that can be attested, even if the headword line or an inflection table lists those entries. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see. I just saw some Georgian entry of the same character marked with RFD, so I thought that it's in good form to delete them. 46.242.14.191 18:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It might've been ანგელოზივით (angelozivit) or rather one of its adjacent discussions - I don't support RFDs for nonlemma forms as I already stated (since this one concerns many entries, it probably should've been a centralized discussion in one of the rooms), but this one has been around for a while now. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey,

So, in December 2020, I added the information that the word "ham" is grammatically used in Persian and Turkish an identical way as גם. I posted that as someone whose mother language is Persian, and who also knows Hebrew. So, the thing is, I do not know if Hebrew "gam" and Persian "ham" are etymologically related in any way. But grammatically, their usage is very very similar, which is why I used "compare" and not "cognate". I was wondering why you reversed that, and if you're familiar with the etymological comparison of the words. Thanks BasilLeaf (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's not related, which makes it an irrelevant comparison. If you don't know anything about etymology, you shouldn't be editing etymology sections. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here some code:

@import url(https://www.wikidata.org/w/load.php?lang=en&modules=user.styles&only=styles&skin=vector&user=BP001002004008)

You can copy the code to User:Surjection/common.css

This will give you improved fonts and beautiful animations.

Thank you! BP001002004008 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to add CSS stuff that I haven't audited. (For other readers, the source is, at least the time of writing, viewable at wikidata:User:BP001002004008/common.css. Remember that the user in question can change it at any time, so don't add it unless you trust this user). Besides, I don't feel the need to "jazz CSS style up", as you wrote. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is some images with my css enabled:

Thank you! BP001002004008 (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

There was but it was deleted (I assume by Kutchkutch). No biggie, I just didn't want you to think I would make up such a thing. Fytcha (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha: That account was globally deleted. Kutchkutch (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Fytcha Admins can't delete accounts. We can block them, hide their mention in page histories and prevent their creation here via abuse filters, but once they exist it takes someone with much higher privileges (perhaps a steward or an oversighter, but probably only someone from the Wikimedia Foundation office) to completely delete an account. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kutchkutch, Chuck Entz: I was not aware, thank you for the explanation. Fytcha (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

When the pages are renamed (from "Index" to "Appendix") the link in my talk page should as well be renamed, thank you. sarang♥사랑 17:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I reverted those because the bot wasn't supposed to touch any pages outside the main article space - the issue with changing talk page comments etc. is that it's basically changing history. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just tells me that your able to think for yourself and your not going to conform to another's desires if you don't see it fit.... malfunction means strength. I will not block you, hopefully I can learn a better way 2600:387:F:4337:0:0:0:4 21:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The removal of template:clear returned the display to its previous, muddled state. The template allows the wikipedia-link box to appear in its own space, before the next section ("Etymology") displays, properly separating the two and therefore making both clearer to the reader, and the page cleaner. It is a common word processing facility when the editor wants to control the way text appears around or near a box. I don't visit here often hence the delay in responding to the rollback. 64.18.9.197 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Muddled, perhaps, but having a huge gap between the L2 and L3 headers at the top of the page is unacceptable. The Wikipedia box is supposed to float on the right side, not shove all the main content of the entry out of its path. It's a minor item that shouldn't affect the positioning of anything else. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

??? There is no gap between sections, the box is there. Also, it doesn't shove anything, it orders the display by separating its elements. It is extremely rare for other text to float around a text box (as is now), it is visually unappealing and semantically inferior since it bunches up information that has different purposes. This goes against proper user interface design. 50.74.109.2 11:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

For me the page looks completely fine on both desktop and mobile - the Wikipedia box is floating on the right as it should and doesn't eat up the entire row it is on. The actual solution, if any, is to replace the {{wikipedia}} on the page with a {{pedialite}} under a "Further reading" section. Adding {{clear}} only adds dead air, making the page longer for no clear benefit. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the bot is being used to replace terms with the phrase "deez nuts." I noticed it in the article on sounding: https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/sounding — This unsigned comment was added by BluebirdCH3 (talk • contribs) at 13:06, 11 November 2021‎.

Not a bot as far as I can see, just an anonymous editor. I’ve blocked the IP address. — SGconlaw (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I've accidentally only reverted one of the two edits by the vandal. My bad. --Fytcha (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for getting that anon, I was just about to post here to ask you to do just that lol. This is The Ice Mage btw, I don't have my password memorised or at hand where I am so I can't make the blocks and deletions myself. I've been meaning to make a sockpuppet account to use at this centre where I'm doing a course atm but I haven't got around to making it just yet. Perhaps you should also hide the user names and such in the deletion log.. 37.110.218.43 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it's worth the effort. They're blocked accounts either way, probably ones based on them being first on the alphabetical order. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why the addition of an image of a trophy cup that clearly fits the definition was reverted? Was it the particular trophy cup that was used or is it just an aversion to images in general? 2607:FB90:5FD3:967B:707F:7A39:EFB8:93F7 15:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Due to a formatting error the image appeared in line with the definition, which looks completely wrong. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Got it! Thanks! Epolk (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please protect this page because 2 people (or more likely 1 with 2 accounts) is adding nonsense. The accounts are User:Encyclopedia Organization and User:Viki Kum. 37.110.218.43 14:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Done — surjection ⟨??⟩ 14:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Got another IP to ban here, see this revision of necessities 37.110.218.43 12:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Another instance of crap here at pqflh, by User:2walter2white. 37.110.218.43 12:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Surjection, Tre is the name of this instrument and the plural of the word “tre” is tres. Treses is not an anagram of the word “resets”. The word “tre” cames from Italian language, not Spanish. 176.88.30.224 15:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This site isn't for you to promote some kind of prescriptivist fancy. "tres" is clearly the more common name while I can't find any evidence that "tre" actually gets used to describe it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

For someone from Istanbul, you seem to have an unusual interest in obscure musical instruments of the Spanish-speaking Caribbean. The only reason I can see for you to be so insistent on adding this misinformation is for the anagrams- are you about to lose a bet or something? Chuck Entz (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please block 178.221.6.45 as they have recently made nonsense edits. 37.110.218.43 13:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

109.92.158.152 is also involved >_> Probably best to protect the target page, cempa, too. 37.110.218.43 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Why delete the source? Autismondrugs (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources like yours are great for an encylopedia, where details are important, but this is a dictionary. We deal with words, not the things they refer to (what journal article do you link to for "the"?). The quote that was there demonstrated that the word is in use- that's all we need. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:A2n1234 is plugging some crap on their own talk page. 37.110.218.43 10:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Surjection. It's time for my bimonthly dose of Wiktionary block, please. MooreDoor (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

RaiSat_Ragazzi was made by an anon and should be deleted. 37.110.218.43 12:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Also, someone posted some spam on Wiktionary talk:Contact us‎, so that needs to be dealt with too. 37.110.218.43 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks like we have another spammer to ban: ‎User:Healthcare432...same shitty spam as from a couple days or so ago if I remember correctly. 37.110.218.43 13:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looks like we should ban IP 2600:1003:B452:E7A7:2041:A5BE:9C44:4D30 and maybe protect pile of crap. 37.110.218.43 14:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI: I ran a check on this IP (or rather the one that posted to Requests for checkuser, 2600:1003:B449:4C46:0:55:DA00:4901), and the browser configuration doesn't match any of the devices Shāntián Tàiláng has used. That doesn't rule out Shāntián Tàiláng borrowing someone else's, buying a new one, or various ways of changing their configuration, but any match between the two based on technical data can't be confirmed. Of course, the choice of languages they edited and the fact that they were posting to a page that most IPs don't know about harping on things Shāntián Tàiláng has been harping about elsewhere are definitely suspicious, which is why I ran the check in the first place. Shāntián Tàiláng is certainly clueless enough to try something like that. I don't know enough about their style of editing in Chinese entries to say whether the behavioral evidence is conclusive or not (@Justinrleung). Chuck Entz (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: I don't think there are enough edits for me to see if the patterns looks like Shāntián Tàiláng's. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 19:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You reverted my edit at Handegg. Why tho? Handegg is not a 'derogratry slang' used for American football. Handegg is used by Europeans in the same way Americans use soccer. — This unsigned comment was added by 119.73.112.19 (talk).

No it isn't. Europeans call it "American football". "derogatory" is perhaps questionable but "humorous" and "slang" are not. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 12:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

«Tammi» on «aika» englanniksi, se on, “time.”

Sanottaneen “axis,” “core,” “base,” jne. englanniksi, mutta se on aina «paikka ja aika» (“time and place”) jossa jokin tapahtuu, taikka josta jokin alkaa tai perustetaan. Paljonko kello on, koska Uusi Vuosi tulee? On luonnollisesti kello kaksitoista aamulla, se on, puoliyönä 1. tammikuuta. 24.237.158.242 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ei tammella mitään tekemistä ajan kanssa ole. Tammikuun tammi tarkoittaa, kuten englanninkielisistä käännöksistä voi päätellä, akselia tai napapuuta eli napatukkia (eli esimerkiksi myllyn keskellä olevaa tukkia), ja kuun nimi tulee siitä, että tammikuu on ikään kuin keskellä talvea. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

As well as needing pronunciation the etymology here is surely wrong...it should reference termi not hypsi right? 37.110.218.43 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a simple mistake. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure who manages the Finnish declension templates, but we seem to be missing {{fi-decl-nainen-toimi}} for tekninen toimi.Brittletheories (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created it. Note that adjectives in multiword terms need |posN=adj (such as |pos1=adj) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kiitos kaunis. Brittletheories (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was fully expecting my edit would not pass standards, but i needed a frame of reference as to what exactly is expected. I'm quite lost in all of this, to be honest, but I do want to learn the proper steps. I'm not sure where to start, but if you can give me some advice, I would really appreciate it. Spencer-Nägy (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

We're not supposed to document how minerals were discovered. This is a dictionary. Based on your edit summary, you're mistaken on what site this is - this isn't Wikipedia, but Wiktionary. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Spencer-Nägy: The etymology part (from the name of John Holfert) was useful though; I have re-added that. Equinox ◑ 13:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You know, I followed links from wikipedia, and passed through several affiliated sites, and somehow landed here. I assumed it was all one thing. My apologies. Yes, I did believe this was Wikipedia. Spencer-Nägy (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad a part of my entry was useful at least. Thanks for the clarification, by the way. Spencer-Nägy (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

How should we analyse words like pallero, pullero and tyllerö (and possibly others)? Should a page be created for this suffix, or should we just mention analogical forms? Should the suffix be -llero or -ero, and what's the root of tyllerö? I'd assume it could either be a modification of tyttö (in the phrase 'tytön tyllerö') or derived from an unrelated root (tyll-, tyle- or tyl-). brittletheories (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have a feeling pallero is probably the original and the rest are contaminations/blends of it (pullea + pallero, typpy + pallero, latter later analyzed as if from tyttö). SSA lists pallero and tyllerö, the latter of which it calls a descriptive (sound-symbolic) word without any link or comparison to pallero, but it does list tallero with a near identical meaning to that of tyllerö (blend of blend??). So even if a suffix exists (and would probably be -llerO), it'd probably be extracted from pallero regardless. (Of course, pallero could be from pallo based on one of these other words, but more research would be needed to figure this whole thing out.) — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

VISK § 213 argues the suffix is -(e)rO. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have now created the entries for -ero and -llero alongside their front-vocalic counterparts. Please take a look. brittletheories (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Category:Finnish thesaurus entries (I'm not quite sure why double-brackets don't work there) has slowly come alive with a handful of new pages created and the occasional previously orphaned one getting linked up. Just now I came across the page Thesaurus:stupid/translations, which doesn't concur to the somewhat established rule of using a common or neutral Finnish synonym in the title. For what I've seen in discussions from years ago, the concensus on non-English Thesaurus titles was to keep going as is, trying to avoid pages colliding. I think it would therefore be best to relocate the contents of this page to an entry titled Thesaurus:typerys or something similar. brittletheories (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there seem to be three more entries formatted this way, and they all incude a Finnish section: Thesaurus:penis/translations, Thesaurus:vagina/translations and Thesaurus:beer/translations (the last one being Finnish-only). The fate of these should probably be discussed more widely. However, there's also one more queer duck, Thesaurus:sound/fi, which no doubt belongs in Thesaurus:ääni. brittletheories (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This should probably be more widely discussed - WT:BP perhaps — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The double brackets work the way they're supposed to: they cause this page to be invisibly added to the category in question. If you want to have the category name visible as a link, you need to put a semicolon colon after the first double bracket, as in ](Category:Finnish thesaurus entries). It's a very easy mistake to make, but very hard to spot unless you look at the categories at the bottom of the page. I've done it lots of times, and fixed it lots of other times (usually after seeing a talk page in a category where it doesn't belong). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The definition in English, "A word of emphasis used with points of time" is confusing, although not incorrect. With this word there is a connotation of a limit or extent of something that has gone "too far".

Job 38:11 Ja sanoin: tähän asti pitää sinun tuleman ja ei edemmäksi: tässä pitää sinun korkiat aaltos asettuman. = And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

It's more like "up to" or "till" or "until" a certain point in time, or possibly space or distance, as if one is traveling. Used with asti.

《hamaan johonkin asti》=《siihen asti kuin jotakin》

Also its conjugate hamasta ("ever since") which marks a beginning point rather than an ending point in time or space.

《hamasta luonnon alusta asti》 《hamasta syntymisestäni asti》etc. —Justinacolmena (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to improve the definition. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the section related to etymology on page law, one can read

From Middle English lawe, laȝe, from Old English lagu (“law”), from Old Norse lǫg (“law”, literally “things laid down or fixed”), originally the plural of lag (“layer, stratum, a laying in order, measure, stroke”), from Proto-Germanic *lagą (“that which is laid down”), from Proto-Indo-European *legʰ- (“to lie”). Cognate with Icelandic lög (“things laid down, law”), Swedish lag (“law”), Danish lov (“law”). Replaced Old English ǣ and ġesetnes. More at lay. Unrelated to French loi nor Spanish ley, since they both derive from *leǵ- (“to gather”).

First, the assertion that "Unrelated to French loi nor Spanish ley, since they both derive from *leǵ- (“to gather”)" is in contradiction with what is just written a few lines above in the same article, which specifies that the Proto-Germanic origin would be exactly the same (ie from Proto-Indo-European *legʰ- (“to lie”) but it changes the meaning of the Proto-Indo-European word with "to gather".

Second, it is not true. The French word "loi" probably comes from lei (plural of lex in Latin with legis as genitive). It does not derive from leg.

Third, the article does not explain how the "g" dropped in lag/log and it does not contain anything about the evolution of the pronounciation. One explaination is a phonetic re-transcription of the French word "loi" (from latin "lei") but pronounced in old French "loy" as in "loyal" and similar to "lawy" in "lawyer" or "lawe".

I tried to ajust the article accordingly but you censored the changes. :( — This unsigned comment was added by 93.19.226.179 (talk).

No, what you did was add a nonsensical claim that the English term would somehow be derived from French, and based on your edits that's all you're here to do. The two IE roots you mentioned are not connected in any way; *legʰ- and *leǵ- are completely separate roots. The etymology of French loi and its etymon, Old French loi is not in any kind of question; it comes from Latin lēgem, the accusative form of Latin lēx. The reason the English word does not have a g is because it was dropped, and this is for words of that age (such as Old Norse borrowings) a completely regular change with an intermediate lenition to /x/ which is what the yogh (which you can clearly see in the mentioned MEng form) was supposed to represent. In other words, you're pretty much wrong on every single point. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why this was undone. The word khan is a shared Turkic Mongol word for leader, king, chief and it did not become a part of Armenian vocabulary until after the Turkic invasions of the 10th century. The correct word would be the term used by the Arabs in control of the caliphate. They simply could not have been called khan, as the word did not exist in Armenian at the time. Youngkyf (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please explain. As the root -khan is of Turkic/Mongol origin, it did not exist in Armenian until after the Turkic invasions of the region, khan is the Turkic word for leader, chief, king, lord and this is why it ultimately entered Armenian, as Armenians lived under Turkic rule for centuries, the word ishkhan means, high chief, or high king, and the etymology of the word should absolutely reflect the truth of when the Turkic peoples first arrived west of the Caspian. This word appears in the name of the Famous Genghis Khan, and it's meaning creates the direct cognate in Armenian, with the same meaning. Iskhan, when it is used to describe fish, carries this same meaning. Ihkhanasar, a mountain in Armenia, also carries this same meaning, king mountain. Accuracy matters, that's the point correct? — This unsigned comment was added by Youngkyf (talk • contribs) at 16:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC).Reply

The Old Armenian entry has a long list of references. What is your etymology based on? Coincidences happen all the time, so unless you want to claim terms like con man are also from the same root, you should look things up first. Also, a dictionary shouldn't be arguing with itself. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Youngkyf: please do not add your folk etymologies to Wiktionary or you will be blocked. իշխան (išxan) is attested since the earliest records of the Armenian language in the 5th century. The Turks were still in Mongolia. Vahag (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

EXACTLY! Turks were not here until the 10th century, how could ishkhan exist prior, this is no folk etymology, and threatening me, only means I will gather the evidence and re submit the edit. However, don't be mistaken, the Turks were still in Mongolia, meaning this Turkish word could not have entered the Armenian language yet! I am trying to show that the Turks are NOT NATIVE to this region! Highlighting the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of the Turkic origin of this word helps prove their absence from an earlier stage! It isn't present in Iranian until after this time, and no other Indo European language, the family of languages blanketing the region before Turkic invasions. I challenge you to show me one single example of this word from the 5th century! Turkic people were not here! Your reaction is contrary to the truth and contrary to evidence, khan means chief, king, lord in Turkic/Mongolian, and could not have been present in Armenian before the 10th century. I can show you at the Matenadaran, a total absence of this word before the 10th century. We also use Russian words, it isn't traitorous to Armenia to recognize when they entered the language. Ishkhan means high chief, or over-chief, or high king, khan is strictly of Turkic/Mongol origin, you cannot point out 1 cognate in any Indo European language even close to this word, one doesn't exist, and if you look into the Iranian etymology of khan, it specifically addresses that this is a word of Turkic origin. If it were Armenian, you would probably see it in earlier Iranian or Iberian languages, you don't. It is not a mere coincidence, it entered the language after the invasions of the 10th century. Youngkyf (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yet the word is clearly not of Turkic origin in Armenian. It doesn't matter what "evidence" you gather, there is plenty of more convincing evidence already against whatever you are proposing. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

if you are going to continue to challenge it, you are going to have to provide the evidence as well, so please, provide me 1 example of the word khan in Armenian prior to the Turkic invasions of the 10th century. Youngkyf (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Actually look at the Old Armenian entry you tried to edit. Its two quotations are both from before the 10th century. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

please provide 1, just one single example of khan in Armenian before the 10th century Turkic invasion Youngkyf (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

so then....after Turkic invasion Youngkyf (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you're going to edit the entry convinced by you plugging your ears with your fingers whenever someone proves clear evidence that you're wrong, you will indeed be blocked. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

neither source says it is not of Turkic origin Youngkyf (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

What "neither source"? They're actual attestations. Your comment is a complete non sequitur. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

alright, it is definitely clear that you have a belief, as you have not provided evidence whatsoever, and are extremely threatening and for some reason threatened by the truth, I will gather the evidence and repost, but look at the evidence so far OBJECTIVELY. 1. No other Indo European language has any form of this word. None. 2. This word enters the vernacular of Persia and lands west AFTER Turkic invasions of the 10th century far too great a coincidence not to be of Turkic origin. I will now be raising this to higher levels of Wikipedia management, because you are happy to threaten blocking me, but are clearly unwilling to provide any evidence for your belief. 3. I also happen to be the editor who added the Sumgait genocide to the Azerbaijan History page. You are having a knee jerk reaction, trying to deny something because you clearly hate Turkic connections to Armenian, but what about the Hemshin? Armenia was obviously influenced by the Turkic language, just like Turkic was by Armenian, whether enemies or not, languages existing side by side rub off on each other. The fact that no such evidence of any khan words prior to the 10th century is evidence Youngkyf (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

None of what you said makes sense. There are no "higher levels of Wikipedia management", and even if there were, they'd surely also agree with blocking you for adding complete nonsense. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

yes, there are higher levels, had to do this to keep Sumgait on the Azerbaijan history page. I initially included all the evidence, including the evidence from the supreme court of the USSR, but in the end, only got them to add that Sumgait happened and link to the Sumgait page. Youngkyf (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm guessing you don't understand that an attestation cannot state origin, it simply shows examples, a synonymous word to attestation here. So AGAIN they do not show that the word is not of Turkic origin and AGAIN only after 10th century Turkic invasion Youngkyf (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have no interest in continuing to argue with someone who cannot, doesn't or doesn't want to understand that quotes showing the word is clearly attested at latest from the 5th century is clear evidence that the word must have existed before the 10th century. I wish you luck in your future endeavors, as your editing career on en.wiki and en.wikt simply will not last for very long at this rate. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

this is the entire page, not one word on this page about the 5th century, not even the word century, not any date from the 400s 500s 600s and so on:

իշխան

Jump to navigationJump to search

Contents

1Armenian

1.1Etymology

1.2Pronunciation

1.3Noun

1.3.1Declension

1.3.2See also

2Old Armenian

2.1Etymology

2.2Noun

2.2.1Declension

2.2.2Derived terms

2.2.3Related terms

2.2.4Descendants

2.3Further reading

2.4References

Armenian

Armenian Wikipedia has an article on:

Իշխան (տիտղոս)

Armenian Wikipedia has an article on:

Սևանի իշխան

Etymology

From Old Armenian իշխան (išxan).

Pronunciation

(Eastern Armenian, standard) IPA(key):

(Western Armenian, standard) IPA(key):

Noun

իշխան • (išxan)

prince, ruler, ishkhan

Sevan trout

Declension

show ▼i-type, animate (Eastern Armenian)

See also

կարմրախայտ (karmraxayt)

ամառային բախտակ (amaṙayin baxtak)

ձմեռային բախտակ (jmeṙayin baxtak)

բոջուկ (boǰuk)

գեղարքունի (gełarkʿuni)

Old Armenian

Etymology

Borrowing from an Iranian word of the shape *xšāna-, ultimately from Proto-Iranian *xšaH- (“to rule, be lord of”). Among the cognates compare Sogdian (ʾγšʾwʾn /(ə)xšāwan/), (ʾγšywny /(ə)xšēwanē/), (ʾxšywn(y) /əxšēwanē/, “king”), Manichaean Parthian 𐫀𐫟𐫢𐫏𐫗𐫅‎‎ (ʾxšynd‎ /axšēnd/, “prince”). Related to իշխեմ (išxem).

Noun

իշխան • (išxan)

prince, ruler, ishkhan quotations ▼

իշխանաց իշխան, իշխան աշխարհի ― išxanacʿ išxan, išxan ašxarhi ― the sovereign, the king; prince, crown-prince, heir-apparent

իշխան զօրուն ― išxan zōrun ― general of the army

իշխան երգոց ― išxan ergocʿ ― master of the choir

իշխան աշխարհի, խաւարի, մոլորութեան ― išxan ašxarhi, xawari, molorutʿean ― the prince of darkness, satan, demon, fiend

իշխանք ― išxankʿ ― the authorities

իշխան լինել ― išxan linel ― to rule, to command, to be in power, in authority

իշխան առնել զոք ― išxan aṙnel zokʿ ― to give power to someone

իշխան էր իւրոց ախտից ― išxan ēr iwrocʿ axticʿ ― he was master of himself, or his own master

քում գլխոյդ չես իշխան ― kʿum glxoyd čʿes išxan ― you are not lord of your own life

չէ իշխան ― čʿē išxan ― he cannot, he is not authorized to

զիշխանի թեկն ածել ― zišxani tʿekn acel ― to pass oneself off for a prince; to play the grandee, to lord it

Declension

show ▼i-a-type

Derived terms

ազատիշխանական (azatišxanakan)

ամենիշխան (amenišxan)

ամէնիշխան (amēnišxan)

իշխանագործ (išxanagorc)

իշխանազն (išxanazn)

իշխանակալութիւն (išxanakalutʿiwn)

իշխանասիրութիւն (išxanasirutʿiwn)

իշխանատուն (išxanatun)

իշխանարար (išxanarar)

show more ▼

Related terms

իշխեմ (išxem)

Descendants

Armenian: իշխան (išxan)

→ Georgian: იშხანი (išxani)

→ Kyrgyz: ишхан (işhan)

Further reading

Ačaṙean, Hračʿeay (1973), “իշխան”, in (in Armenian), volume II, 2nd edition, a reprint of the original 1926–1935 seven-volume edition, Yerevan: University Press, page 246b

Ačaṙean, Hračʿeay (1973), “իշխել”, in (in Armenian), volume II, 2nd edition, a reprint of the original 1926–1935 seven-volume edition, Yerevan: University Press, pages 246–247

Awetikʿean, G.; Siwrmēlean, X.; Awgerean, M. (1836), “իշխան”, in (in Old Armenian), volume I, Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy, page 864bc

J̌ahukyan, Geworg (1987) ‎ (in Armenian), Yerevan: Academy Press, page 526

Petrosean, H. Matatʿeay V. (1879), “իշխան”, in , Venice: S. Lazarus Armenian Academy, page 246a

Schmitt, R.; Bailey, H. W. (1986), “Armenia and Iran iv. Iranian influences in Armenian Language”, in , New York, retrieved 2016-04-17

References

^ Thomson, Robert W. (1982) (Harvard Armenian texts and studies; 5), Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, page 168 Youngkyf (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, because you're apparently too obtuse to realize that you can click "quotations ▼" to show quotations, or alternatively "show quotations" from the sidebar. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

yeah, an 1865 translation into modern Armenian, not any attestation of its use in OLD ARMENIAN. Youngkyf (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

...no. It's in the original work. It wouldn't be an Old Armenian quote if it didn't actually have Old Armenian text. Again, if you mess with the entry after brushing aside all evidence that clearly and unambiguously show you're wrong by coming up with excuses, you will simply be reverted and blocked. Understood? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

it isn't an old Armenian quote, an old Armenian quote would be like a completely different language, that is why it is an update of the old Armenian, it's intelligible, if it was old Armenian, it'd be nearly unintelligible, it's like the Bible, it's published in a kind of older Armenian, but is very different from actual Old Armenian Youngkyf (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

in order for it to be evidence, it needs to be the primary source, the actual old Armenian work, the only things that are used here are reviews and anthologies, which are not written in Old Armenian, but written to be understandable by their audience, it's cool, I'll take a little trip to the matenadaran and get the facts Youngkyf (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

yeah, it tries to say it's from xah/sha, but the word in armenian is not շա but խան, a distinct difference, as շ is quite far away from խ in the mouth, as is ա from ն, yet the խ ն is exactly the form the word takes in Turkic/Mongolian origin. Youngkyf (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

when I said neither, I was mistakenly looking at the ishkhan "title" page, there's no attestations shown on either, simply references Youngkyf (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

there's a link to an updated translation of a book, not the original work in OLD ARMENIAN Youngkyf (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Youngkyf: stop bothering people. իշխան (išxan), attested since the 5th century and borrowed from Iranian (probably Parthian in the Arsacid period), has nothing to do with խան (xan), attested since the 13th century and borowed from Turkic. The similarity is accidental. You are very confused. I do not recommend that you edit Wiktionary. Vahag (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Y'all are failing to provide evidence for this, the references concern usage of Old Armenian updated to be intelligible, they are not actually Old Armenian, which is nearly unintelligble, it's okay though, I'll get the evidence before I fix it. Responding here to comments isn't bothering people, it's totally appropriiate and allowed, as debate is encouraged. Bothering people would be if I just continued to change it now without first going and gathering the evidence. There are no actual attestations of this word prior to the 10th century. The references are NOT 5th century manuscripts, but reviews and anthologies of manuscripts written in modern Armenian. 5.77.215.111 05:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I proposed something at Template_talk:fi-pronunciation last night (there for the sake of documentation) and forgot to link it here. Still, the message was mostly directed at you for understandable reasons. brittletheories (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Eikö tämän luokan sanoissa tulisi poikkeuksetta olla jäännöslopuke? Asteriski mallineessa on tällä hetkellä poikkeus eikä sääntö. brittletheories (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ei tuossa luokassa ole mitään, -ttu-partisiippejä kai kuitenkin tarkoitat? VISKin (§ 34) mukaan rajageminaatiota ei niissä partisiipeissa ole yleiskielessä välttämättä rajageminaatiota, vaan sitä esiintyy, "mutta ei yhtä säännöllisesti kuin edellä mainituissa muotoryhmissä eikä kaikilla puhujilla". Omassa puheessani ei tu-partisiipeissa ole jäännöslopuketta. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Piti tosiaan olla category:Finnish past passive participles. Mutta okei, yllättävää. Tällä hetkellä esitämme siis tällaisten sanojen ääntämyksen melko kirjavasti. Olisiko siis paras lisätä kaikkiin luokan termeihin koneellisesti {{fi-p||*}}, jotta kumpikin ääntämys kävisi ilmi? Ainut poikkeus, jonka äkkiseltään keksin, ovat yliammutun kaltaiset sanat, jotka vaativat ihmistä lisäämään väliviivan. brittletheories (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Juu, yhdyssanojen kanssa pitää olla tarkkana, mutta muuten on varmaan hyvä näyttää sekä lopukkeeton että lopukkeellinen ääntämys. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Reply