User talk:Sławobóg

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

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

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

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

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Slawobóg, are you cross-checking the etymologies and reconstructions which you are passing on *Sъvarogъ, *Xъrsъ, *Strybogъ, etc.? It seems like you base them solely on the idiosyncratic hypotheses of M. Łuczyński?

Note that there are some fundamental inconsistencies in his theories:

• *Strybogъ, for example, does not account for the palatalization of *-r- in Polish Strzybóg.
• Old East Slavic Сварогъ (Svarogŭ) similarly doesn't match *Sъvarogъ, although at least here one could explain the drop of -ъ- with Havlík's law.
• The derivation of *Xъrsъ from *kъrsъ also sounds dubious (both phonetically and semantically)...

Perhaps, a less biased approach towards controversial topics would be more beneficial. Безименен (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

PS Is the claim in wiki:Sventovit for the "prevailing view" on *svętъ as strong, mighty your doing? Who are the "many others" that assign to this view which makes it "prevailing"? Безименен (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen Polish Strzybóg is modern learned borrowing from OES, but PS *-ry- and *-ri- should be -rzy- and -rzi- in Polish so it is correct. So village Strzyboga can be used as evidence, even tho it is never used as material for etymology.

Old East Slavic Сварогъ (Svarogŭ) ultimately comes from the South Slavic language, and there is a whole scientific debate about it (Slavic translation of Greek text (Malalas' Chronicle) compares Svarog to Hephaestus). However the translation was probably added to Primary Chronicle pretty late, at a time when the yer was no longer pronounced. Most related terms (Old Polish zwarzyć, Czech svařit, Russian сва́рог (svárog, “fire”), Romanian sfarog support "fiery" etymology and it can't be explained in other way. Russian сва́рог (svárog) has also one meaning "one who goes from house to house and badmouths other people" can possible come *svarъ (“trouble, quarrel”) +‎ *-ogъ (as Bruckner stated), but that doesnt explain "fire", "forge" and "blacksmith god". There are no other etymologies possible, besides iranian which is pseudoscientific (svor- expected).

What is wrong with *Xъrsъ? K > X is 100% possible, cf: Ukrainian хохо́л (xoxól) : Slovak kochol (see *xoxolъ), Russian хлопоты (xlopoty) : Polish kłopot (from *klopotъ/*xlopotъ; see also Kashubian kłopot, chłopot, Polish cholebać, kolebać, Polish chełzać, kiełzać). This etymology is correct on phonetic side (-a- expected in Polish); it feels weird on semantic side (I gave *vetъxъ tho), but it can be explained as "waning moon". Pukanec's meaning "oak" is no better here. Again - iranian etymology is pseudoscientific and no better propositions exist.

Yes, I wrote the entire article, and when I was writting it I actually struggled to find sources that translated "svęty" as "holy", regardless of the country of origin of the author. I included all the linguistic studies (I ignored the opinions of religious scholars, etc.) that translate the word this way in the article. Łuczyński mentions such linguists who support that weird meaning: Bruckner, Unbegaun, Schlimpert, Rospond, Długosz-Kurczabowa. I found much more, e.g. Katičić, Loma; even Urbańczyk, who translates the theonym Svetovit, said: "Najbardziej może przyjęte jest znaczenie «silny i pan, bóg»"

I have been interested in Slavic theonymy and religious vocabulary for some time, and I am familiar with the various hypotheses and their proportions. Luczynski's book is decent, critically analyzing many hypotheses, although not all of them can be agreed with. I don't see any fringe theories in the entries, all of them, except for Svarog, whose etymology was explained more recently, were explained in more or less this way already in the 20th century. There are two dominant theories in the Stribog entry, and for Khors, only this one makes sense. Sławobóg (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do as you deem right, but note that inevitably you'll meet further critique down the road. When there are a ton of contradicting hypotheses, the usual scholastic treatment is to juxtapose them, not to intrude the most recent one and to label the rest "past views". And btw, in case you've never come across Lithuanian šveñtas, Avestan 𐬯𐬞𐬆𐬧𐬙𐬀 (spəṇta), Sanskrit शुन (śuna), check their meanings and etymologies. Безименен (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen some ideas are objectively better than others. E.g. the Iranian etymology of Svarog is completely nonscientific - Trubachev was aware of this, but as no one at the time had succeeded in creating a good Slavic etymology, the Iranian etymology was accepted. Same with Khors or Stribog. Perun's etymology is still complicated, however.

As for the word svęty, I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works: what is written there are not my views, but the views contained in books, Wikipedia requires strict use of sources. That a large number of researchers recognize the influence of Christianity I was able to confirm independently. I know the etymology of the word and do not agree with such an opinion, but I can not push it on Wikipedia, even when it is objectively correct. Sławobóg (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

K. Безименен (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you discussed this change with anybody? This is inconsistent with the currently established practices of Wiktionary. Безименен (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Bezimenen Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/Non-English#Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vьśь. Sławobóg (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so you haven't 👍 Безименен (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not my fault noone responded to what I said. 😉 Sławobóg (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea where your self-confidence comes from. You lack elementary knowledge even on the most basic topics in historical linguistics. I won't bother anymore double-checking nonsense that you add, because you are either too lazy or too ignorant to crosscheck. Безименен (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? Sławobóg (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sławobóg. It looks like these entries are not made in the way that is accepted on Wiktionary. Maybe they need to be normalized? ZomBear (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ZomBear yes, these should be moved to proper pagenames (r̥ > ъr, l̥ > ъl, stegn̥ce > stegnьce). But I think usage ⟨r̥⟩, ⟨ŕ̥⟩, ⟨l̥⟩, ⟨ĺ̥⟩ is more correct spelling. Sławobóg (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ZomBear: The correct reconstruction in all of these cases should be with *-Rьce, not *-ъR-. Sławobóg does not have formal education in linguistics, so you should not consult with him on such subtle issues. Безименен (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ZomBear Exceptionally he is right here, I didn't really look at the wordsword. So there are two errors in the title in the transcript (r̥ < ъr and ŕ̥ < ьr). Looks like all these words are not even Proto-Slavic and should be removed, unless we find more evidence for them. Sławobóg (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg:: The vocalic sonorants, which you are referring to, are Slawski's notation. They reflect PIE -R̥-. The given examples reflect the late outcome of resonant + yer (-Rь/ъ- > -R̥-). Stop pretending to be an expert on topics which you don't understand. You're only causing more confusion.

Well I didn't know what the author had in mind, I thought it is some weird way to write syllabic consonant, I didn't see that notation before for rь/ъ / lь/ъ. Gnosandes loves to make up rules. Idk what to do with these, they look Post-PS. Sławobóg (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Sławobóg. I put in order (made beautifully) the templates {{R:cu:ESJS|||}} and {{R:pox:SejDp|||}}. Do you have issues #16-19 of the dictionary "Etymologický slovník jazyka staroslověnského"? In PDF or DjVu format? Or are they on paper? You just know their titles from somewhere (sьde – trъtъ; trь – větъ; větъ – zakonъ; zakonъ – žьzlъ). ZomBear (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ZomBear no, I don't have other volumes. I got them from https://ujc.avcr.cz/o-ustavu/oddeleni/etymologicke-oddeleni/etymologicky-slovnik-jazyka-staroslovenskeho.html. Sławobóg (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg Yes, I also saw this site. But that site does not list "word spacing" in issues of this dictionary. Did you know them somehow... ZomBear (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ZomBear I don't remember exact source but you can check it here. Sławobóg (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg yes, looks like this is it. ZomBear (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what's your obsession to make absolute statements. The suffix *-janinъ is clearly not limited to geographical/territorial terms. If you are not happy with *mъlvěninъ, *dvorěninъ, there are also *ľuděninъ, *pъlčaninъ, *kričaninъ, *tъržaninъ, *běžaninъ, *stopaninъ... I'm sick and tired of you incompetence. Безименен (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Alleged *ľuďaninъ/*ľuděninъ is attested only in Church-Slavic/East Slavic (XVII cent.), definitely not Proto-Slavic word, Church Slavonic neologism
• Alleged *běžaninъ is attested in ORV only and it's suffixed with *-inъ
• Alleged Lua error in Module:links at line 380: The specified language Proto-Slavic is unattested, while the given term does not begin with '*' to indicate that it is reconstructed.... didn't exist, there is no Old Church Slavonic стопанъ (stopanŭ) (if there is, give primary source), theres only Bulgarian and Serbo-Croat dialectal стопанин and Macedonian/Serbo-Croat стопан, probably not even Slavic word
• Can't find *pъlčaninъ, *kričaninъ, *tъržaninъ which is weird, ESSJa should have something on *kričaninъ because they make up Proto-Slavic reconstructions for almost every Slavic word there is. Just like you. Thanks for wasting my time by making shit up, @Bezimenen. Sławobóg (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sławobóg (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sławobóg: Let me give you an advice on not wasting your time next time. Just say you refuse to acknowledge any refutation or counter-example to your POV. Basically, every argument you make can be summarized with this maxim.

PS For the abovementioned examples, check Трубачев (1980). PS2 When discussing the function of a productive suffix, it doesn't matter when a derivative is attested.

I don't see any of these reconstructions there, only some ORV words and as I mentioned before, бҍжанинъ is not derived from verb. Talked suffixes have close or exact Baltic cognates and these are from geographical nouns only. If for you every Slavic word has Proto-Slavic origin, then do not touch this language. ESSJa under Trubachyov pushed a lot of errors, a lot of them fixed by SP, and the fact that this suffix is added only to geographic names was stated by Sławski and Vasmer. Bye. Sławobóg (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I asked OpenGPT to translate your reply in Simple English. It returned: "I refuse to acknowledge any refutation or counter-example to my POV". 2A00:23C7:9C97:8201:45A2:B749:36B6:BA45 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Is there some reason why you believe terms like Proto-Slavic *mosędzь can't be borrowed from West Germanic? -- Sokkjō 18:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo terms which are of West Germanic origin always enter Proto-Slavic via Old High German and less often/less likely Old Saxon, not Proto-West Germanic. This is the traditional and common view of etymologists of Slavic languages. Sławobóg (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

My Germanic sources disagree, like {{R:goh:EWA|messing|pages=362-363|passage=gemeinslaw. *mosędzь < westgerm. *mas(s)ing-}}, in this example, where PG /a/ → PS /o/ must have occurred in the Proto-West Germanic stage, before i-umault. Proto-Slavic is also contemporaneous to West-Germanic, both ending around the 6th century. -- Sokkjō 18:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo /a/ changing to /o/ is normal in Proto-Slavic. And source you mentioned says West Germanic, not Proto-West Germanic, this is how I see it. Slavic dictionaries are priority to us. Sławobóg (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstand. I'm well aware of the P(B)S o/a-merger. What I'm saying is by the time of Old West Germanic languages, like Old High German, /a/ it has become /e/ through i-umlaut, which would have rendered PS **mesędzь. Seeing as that is not the case, the borrowing had to have occurred during the Proto-West Germanic period. -- Sokkjō 19:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @ZomBear. -- Sokkjō 19:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo Maybe it's worth discussing, whenever we should treat OHG borrowings (or some of them) as actually PWG borrowings? When was "Proto-West Germanic" language proposed and accepted? I think it's pretty new and during the writing of the dictionaries this language was not taken into account. If other users are in favor of it, I don't mind. Sławobóg (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo Ukrainian 1 and Belarusian 2 etymological dictionaries, which I looked at, indicate that this word is allegedly borrowed from Old High German massing. But as I see, there was no such form of the word in OHG. It seems that these dictionaries (published in the 1990s-2000s) simply did not yet know the term "Proto-West Germanic". It seems better to indicate that it came from Proto-West Germanic *massing. ZomBear (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does stand to reason that Slavic etymologies would be behind in Germanic linguistics, using OHG has a catch-all for borrowed terms. Given modern understanding, PWG seems a more chronologically plausible borrowing source. -- Sokkjō 06:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

For the record, "Proto-West Germanic" is not a widely accepted thing. I'm not against using it around here, but everyone should bear this in mind. Very few dictionaries use such a term, Slavic or otherwise. Now, the latest possible date for the break-up of West-Germanic is 500 AD. Is there evidence for contact between Slavs and West Germanics already in the 5th century? If not, direct borrowing from PWG into Proto-Slavic would be impossible. 92.73.31.125 16:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}}, {{ant}} and/or {{desc}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to ask you again about this, but there's one more case I forgot to mention with {{rsk-decl-noun-n}}. When a neuter noun ends in -сло (-slo), "locs=e" should give -шлє (-šlje). I've got an example up on масло (maslo), and I'll add число (čislo) later as well. Also, this is optional, but maybe you could add a "locs=ue" option as well, in case the -u version is more common than the -e version, which is true for масло (maslo).

Also have you done the -stvo words yet? And singulare/pluralia tantum? Thanks. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it tomorrow, I'll be busy today. Sławobóg (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 ok so -slo is now working. I'm not sure we need that -stvo thing, it will make template extra big for no reason really. How do you know which form is more common? I'm not sure about that either. Tantums would require separate template I guess, like {{rsk-decl-noun-n-sg}}. We probably should wait a little bit to get sure that all paradigms are installed so it's easier to copy it into tantum template. Sławobóg (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I've just tested -stvo and locs=e on толвайство (tolvajstvo) and it works fine. (-tve is the default and I think only locative singular ending for -stvo, -ctvo etc..) I guess it's not really necessary to add a separate thing since after all, let's be honest, it's just me adding the words anyway.

For tantums, right now my idea is just to keep the current table shape, but keep the first seven or last seven items on the table empty for each case. So singulare tantum would look like what I have on електрицитет (elektricitet) while pluralia tantum would look like the declension on людзе (ljudze). Another thing is, that setting/parameter on rsk-decl-noun-whatever should add the category of "Pannonian Rusyn singulare tantum" or "Pannonian Rusyn pluralia tantum". I already have it on людзе (ljudze) since I tampered with rsk-noun a little, but електрицитет (elektricitet) should be both uncountable and singulare tantum, and that second one I guess can be added in using the parameter.

Also, have you added support for rsk-decl-noun-f to have words ending in vowel + -я (-ja) yet? Especially important for words ending in -ия (-ija). Right now it gives *-иьох (*-iʹox) for the plural genitive, when it should be -ийох (-ijox). Shouldn't be too hard a fix I reckon, but I'm not savvy enough with the code. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 Tantum tables should have only one column. I'll make feminine table work today. As for masculine, I may leave that table like that, so it can be used for basic nouns. I'm worried it would be hard to make all declensions work. Sławobóg (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

лимунка (limunka) doesn't exist in Pannonian Rusyn. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 {{R:rsk:SRS}} p. 597, vol. 1. Sławobóg (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

лимунка (файта жовтей грушки або жовтого яблука)

limunka (fajta žovtej hruški abo žovtoho jabluka)

limunka (variety of yellow pear or yellow apple)

Doesn't seem like they're referring to the lemon colour here. In turn, this dictionary also doesn't have лимункови (limunkovi). A quick Google search for лимунка (limunka) doesn't yield any results for a "yellow pear or yellow apple" either. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not to mention Polish limonkowy refers to an entirely different colour. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Word exists, as evidenced by dictionary, and this etymology is only one that makes sense, -k- is not randomly added in Slavic languages, atleast in modern times. Serbo-Croatian лимунка exists as word for an apple. That means лимунка became word for yellow apple/apple tree (yellow like a lemon), and then лимункови was created from that. Looks like word existed in SH first, then was borrowed into RSK. I added Polish lemma because it's the same by surface analisis. Sławobóg (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 Also, I noticed you add Ukrainian etymologies sometimes, but Carpathian Rusyn makes more sense, I don't think Pannian Rusyns had contacts with Ukrainians. Also, it would be good if you keept stress and tones in SH etymologies. Sławobóg (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pannonian Rusyns had and have a lot of contact with Ukrainians, because they followed and still follow (yes, even in 2025) the Eastern Orthodox Church and the closest major Orthodox church physically is the Ukrainian one, so a lot of influence comes from the church, the Ukrainian Bible, and from the written Ukrainian language of the 17th/18th centuries.

There's also some loanwords that aren't explainable as anything other than Ukrainian, because they exhibit the /o/ => /i/ shift that (AFAIK) doesn't occur in Carpathian Rusyn. I'm especially talking about мрия (mrija) and чаривни (čarivni). I know Carpathian has /e/ => /i/, but from the Proto-Slavic entries I've looked at, pretty sure they don't exhibit /o/ => /i/. Not that I'd know anymore, since one of the main Carpathian sources used on Wiktionary is no longer accessible. Anyways, this historical connection also explains why in Serbia, an otherwise quite pro-Russian country, the Pannonian Rusyns are very vocally pro-Ukraine.

Also, looking at usage cases of doublets, I find that the Ukrainian-derived doublet tends to be used in more biblical or ecclesiastical scenarios, like тїло (tjilo) which I find very often in phrases like "the body of Christ", whereas цело (celo), the inherited Old Slovak form, is used to mean "body" more generally, like in the word процивцело (procivcelo) or the equivalent антицело (anticelo). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

What the hell are you talking about?

1. "The closest Eastern Orthodox Church is that of Ukraine" - Since when does the Serbian Orthodox Church not exist?

2. "Carpathian Rusyn doesn't have these shifts" - Yes it does, it has *o > ӱ, a vowel that lacks in Pannonian and would easily be borrowed as и. The fact the dictionary isn't as easily accessible to you is no excuse, find some other sources.

3. "Pannonians are pro-Ukraine" - First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand whatsoever, it's like saying that the Netherlands being pro-Ukraine proves they have a bunch of Ukrainian borrowings. And secondly, of course they are, because the biggest national minority of Ukraine after Russians are Rusyns.

4. "Микола" - maybe take a look what the name is in Carpathian and in Eastern Slovak, and then come back to me. Christian names are obviously older than the 18th century when Rusyns moved to Pannonia.

Pannonian Rusyn obviously has borrowings from Old Ruthenian, and it has borrowings from Carpathian Rusyn, but except for maybe a handful of postmodern protologisms, it's very hard to imagine a Ukrainian borrowing into Pannonian Rusyn. Thadh (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

For most of these points, fine, I'll do my own research. But on the first point, I'm talking about pre-migration Rusyns. Not entirely sure the Habsburg Empire had any such churches in the eastern Slovakia/far-western Ukraine region, so they needed to go a bit further east. One quick search on Ruske Slovo (the main source of Pannonian texts and quotations for me these days) gives plenty of hits for Святи Миколай (Svjati Mikolaj, “St. Nicholas”) and швето Миколая (šveto Mikolaja, “St. Nicholas Day”), very similar to the Ukrainian biblical form, whereas Свети Никола (Sveti Nikola) or *Никольдан (*Nikolʹdan) / *Никольдзень (*Nikolʹdzenʹ), the expected forms for if the Rusyns followed the Serbian Orthodox Church, give next to zero hits except in Serbian-language articles. And I don't think borrowing the East Slavic form святи (svjati, “holy”) rather than retaining the inherited *швети (*šveti) is particularly a coincidence that just happened to take place.

And names like Микола (Mikola) are definitely older, but I'd nonetheless argue that their usage is influenced by the Ukrainian scripture. Maybe not borrowed from Ukrainian, but I'd still put a "der" template in the etymology. In fact, I'd argue that for all the stuff that I've currently marked as Ukrainian-borrowed. Borrowed from Carpathian or Old Ruthenian, most of them only retained (and often displacing the inherited Old Slovak form) because of Ukrainian biblical influence. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Pannonian Rusyns following the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is also why you have Rusyns named with such Ukrainian-sounding names like Микола (Mikola, “Nicolas”) and Петро (Petro, “Peter”), both quite biblical names, as opposed to their Serbo-Croatian equivalents like Никола / Nikola and Петар / Petar (which some people do have, but AFAICT the Ukrainian form is dominant). Insaneguy1083 (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Carpathian has мрія (mrija), тїло (tjilo), Петро (Petro), Никола/Миколай/Николай (Nykola/Mykolaj/Nykolaj). Sławobóg (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you make it so every word that uses an apostrophe in Pannonian Rusyn (e.g. кон'юнкция (kon'junkcija) or под'жемни (pod'žemni)) gets the category Pannonian Rusyn terms spelled with ' ? Thanks. Also I tested, and the apostrophe works fine with the rsk-IPA template. And for the sake of standardization, I'm just using the same apostrophe as in Ukrainian words like ім'я (imʺja), which also happens to be the default apostrophe on my PC keyboard. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 it should work now. Sławobóg (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which source are you using for Pannonian Rusyn grammar? I'm trying to start a rudimentary version of rsk-conj, and I don't know if different dictionaries use the same classification system for verbs. The 1997 dictionary I use has 14 verb classes for example, but I don't know if other Pannonian grammar publications do the same. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

FYI, here are those categories translated into English, possibly for use in a future rsk-conj template. Insaneguy1083 (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Insaneguy1083 I only have Ґраматика руского язика за І, ІІ, ІІІ и ІV класу ґимназиї. but not sure which edition. Sławobóg (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't have access to it, so does your source divide the verb conjugations into 14 classes? Insaneguy1083 (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You can find this book on i.twirpx.link. Sławobóg (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply