User talk:Tweenk

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.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

Regarding Special:Diff/28998160 — noun phrases are treated as nouns for all intents and purposes, in all languages. The "phrase" header is only for expressions which cannot be easily classified as belonging to any part of speech (e.g. full sentences). — Keφr 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I corrected most of this. Shouldn't there be a separate "noun phrase" category? --Tweenk (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It can be done, but I am not sure it is worth it. For some languages the division is not very clear anyway: English has many nouns which may be spelled either with or without a space in them (post card vs postcard, file system vs filesystem, etc.), so the distinction may be arbitrary at times. Polish has a much finer distinction between these two categories, but it still feels somewhat like splitting hairs. You can bring it at WT:BP of course, but I would not argue for it myself. — Keφr 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could a template be created for Polish nouns ending in -cie (such as kopnięcie or odkrycie, or even singular-only bezrobocie)? If so, I think I have a name for it: {{pl-decl-noun-cie}} --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. It is based on the pl-noun module, so you can make the declension singular-only by adding the parameter tantum=s or plural only by adding tantum=p. --Tweenk (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh! that was quick. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

When you edit modules and/or the parts of templates that invoke them, you should always check Category:Pages with module errors (If you're doing 27 edits in a row, it doesn't have to be after each of the 27, but definitely before you quit editing for the day). Also remember that there's often a delay between edits and the propagation of those edits to transclusions, so check for at least a day or so.

You'll notice five templates on that page that have been there since you edited them and the module they invoke a couple of days ago. I'm guessing it's because you have the module looking for parameters that don't exist on the template page itself. I would appreciate it if you could fix those so it's easier to spot new errors that pop up in that category in the future. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

These errors are caused by error detection in the module. The declension templates support only some word endings, and the template description page is invoking the module with a nonsense parameter value such as {{{2}}} in place of the word ending. I guess I could make this value an accepted word ending to silence the error. --Tweenk (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

This problem should be fixed now. --Tweenk (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I had to do null edits on the templates (click "edit", then "submit" without changing anything) to get them out of the category page, but they're clear now. Thank you! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are 6 more module errors resulting from your edits that have been there since yesterday. When you edit a module, you really need to check Category:Pages with module errors before you quit for the day. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, fixed now. I migrated all the nontrivial patterns to Module:pl-noun already, so it shouldn't happen anymore. --Tweenk (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you check the declension that I added for cenobita to see if it's accurate? Thank you in advance. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it looks OK. The template should be correct for every masculine noun ending in -ta, except for satelita, which is not personal. --Tweenk (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I also added feminine counterparts to entries of masculine -ca nouns such as nadawca, which you could tell by reading my list of contributions. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I forgot about nouns ending in -ca. I made a new generic template {{pl-decl-noun-masc-pers-a}}, also available as {{pl-decl-noun-m-a}}, to cover all -ca, -sta and -ta masculine personal nouns. --Tweenk (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I came across the word nomada, and it looks like {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr-a}} needs a new consonant. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added. I had to do some additional research, since I thought the word should actually be nomad - turns out that nomada is correct and nomad is a nonstandard form. --Tweenk (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also came across monada. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell this noun is feminine, so the declension is different that nomada. Another masculine noun ending in -da is inwalida. --Tweenk (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

{{pl-decl-noun-masc-pers-adj}} isn't working on święty, for some reason. Esszet (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should be fixed now. --Tweenk (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You seem to know a lot about writing code for modules; can you take a look at Module:la-verb and try to edit it so that the imperative header doesn't appear for verbs that have no imperatives (such as volō and mālō)? Esszet (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done, I hope I didn't break anything. --Tweenk (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, I couldn't figure out how to do it, so I placed a request in the tea room, but no one answered it. It had been that way for months. Esszet (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

' is not the IPA stress marker, ˈ is. — Keφr 12:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I like your list. I find Slavic false much more interesting though, zapomnieć (forget) - запо́мнить (memorise), krzesło (chair) - кре́сло (arm-chair), dynia (pumpkin) - ды́ня (melon), etc. :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there are many such interesting pairs between Russian and Polish - I still remember some back from when I learned some Russian at school :) However I don't have a Cyrillic keyboard yet, so entering them would be really tedious... Probably I should buy one. --Tweenk (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not to worry, because when you click on the section of Special Characters after you click on edit, look under Cyrillic. But maybe you found out about that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know about these, but clicking on them one by one is still slow compared to using a real keyboard. --Tweenk (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can use by typing in Roman letters. Standard Russian keyboards have a different layout but I'm using a phonetic keyboard, so I don't have to worry about stickers or virtual keyboards. Just recalled some more - заточи́ть (sharpen) - zatoczyć (encarcerate?), пу́кать (fart) - pukać (knock), а́нгельский (angel's) - angielski (English), вонь (stench) - woń (fragrance), дива́н (sofa) - dywan (carpet), разбира́ться (sort out; understand) - rozbierać się (get undressed). --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can also enable a ULS IME. The gear icon on the left sidebar. — Keφr 09:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The ULS made me aware that there is a phonetic Russian layout that I can use in Ubuntu. Болшое вам спасибо :) My only problem now is that I don't know how to type the stress mark. Unicode input (Ctrl+Shift+U) does not seem to work with the Russian layout. --Tweenk (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Пожалуйста (большое not болшое) :). Word stress is missing on standard keyboards. I'm using Character palette plug-in for Mozilla Firefox. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nie umiem sobie wyobrazić przykładu do sensu czwartego (zaprzestać karmić piersią). odstawić pierś/od piersi owszem, ale goły czasownik już nieszczególnie. PWN też nie podaje takiej definicji. Jak to ma wyglądać? Jakieś cyctaty z książek? — Keφr 17:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fakt, takie znaczenie jest chyba tylko w tej frazie, usunąłem. --Tweenk (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I filled in the orange link to the Polish word precel. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks OK to me. Needs a category for baked goods or something similar, though I'm not sure how it's called. --Tweenk (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tweenk. Could you list more placenames formed by suffixation with -ów for me please? Preferably places with a long history, if possible. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'll try to find some and translate the info on etymology from Polish Wikipedia. --Tweenk (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hello again. Are Czernihów (“Chernigov”) and Krnów (“Krnov”) derived from this suffix? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but in these cases I haven't been able to find where the root word comes from. Czernihów seems to be ultimately derived from *čьrnъ, but there may be an additional layer of meaning, see e.g. czernina. Krnów is also called Karniów in Polish and may be derived from the surname of a prince, but it may also be the other way around. --Tweenk (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for getting back to me. Just to explain, I'm asking about these placenames because I have a working hypothesis that Polish placenames ending in -ów are Latinised as -ōvia (e.g. Kraków → Cracōvia, Raków → Racōvia); Czernihów is Latinised Czernihōvia, whilst Krnów becomes Carnōvia, but the evidence is inconclusive so far. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether this is an explicit rule, but this pattern of Latinisation is indeed very common. The suffix -ovia is also used with other possessive place names, e.g. Warszawa is Latinised as Varsovia. --Tweenk (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The suffix is definitely of Slavic origin, cognate with Russian -ов, Ukainian -ів, Belarusian -аў (unstressed)/-оў (stressed). Its meaning is possession, analogous to English 's. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added your information about cognates to the entry on -ów. I don't think Meta was suggesting that -ów comes from Latin -ovia, only that there is a pattern of converting -ów to -ovia when borrowing place names into Latin. --Tweenk (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okey, sorry, I didn't read carefully. Thanks for the edit on -ów.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Tweenk, Atitarev: Thank you both. Tweenk is right in his interpretation of my hypothesis: at least one source for the Latin -ōvia would, I think, be the Polish -ów (Latinised -ōv-) + a Latin -ia. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cześć,

Znalazłem jeszche jednego ciekawego fałszywego przyjaciela: podczas - подча́с (podčás) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added to the table. AFAIK the correct Russian translation is во вре́мя (vo vrémja), which is something else than во́время (vóvremja). I also found the pair uwierzyć - уверить.

Shouldn't there be tables like this for more pairs of languages? I guess we could put them in Appendix:False friends/English and Polish, Appendix:False friends/Polish and Russian for example. (Same almost-alphabetical order as with language sections in entries.) --Tweenk (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes, во вре́мя (vo vrémja) is the Russian translation of the English "during" and the Polish podczas and во́время (vóvremja) means "on time" (pl.: "na czas"). Well, this kind of tables is a bonus, value added by editors, not a requirement. You don't have to do it, if you don't want to. I only suggested a pair because you already have a table, sorry. :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's not what I meant :) I am sometimes too goal-focused and unintentionally sound dismissive. Thanks for your suggestion, it was very useful. I just think this table could be part of the "official" Wiktionary, not just something I put on my userpage. --Tweenk (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can always make an Appendix entry, an appropriate category seems Category:False cognates and false friends (+ (foreign) languages involved) with a single appendix there: Appendix:Spanish false cognates and false friends with English. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 15:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Another one for you - Russian младе́нец (mladénec) (baby) vs młodzieniec (young man). :) --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please check Category:Pages with module errors: there are currently 5 Polish entries there- apparently due to your module edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed now. It takes a while for pages to show up in that category, so they weren't there when I first checked. --Tweenk (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to find them in Category:Pages with module errors with all the Italian entries, but there are module errors at bliźniak, młot, Nowak, and waćpan that need to be dealt with. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Please defend your insertion of this item into Wiktionary. Best to do with erudite etymologist's scholarly writing, not slang that you failed to mark as contemporary Polish expat slang. --Mareklug (talk) 06:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had to revert your edits because you made a total mess of things, and because the {{delete}} template is only for completely obvious, non-controversial cases. As for your dispute: I think you misunderstood the etymology. It's not saying that coleslaw came from Polish, but that the colloquial pronunciation of the Polish term was influenced by the similarity to the the name, and the alternative spelling reflects the colloquial pronunciation. It's very poorly worded, but it's not self-evidently wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand the complaint. I admit that this entry is original research, but it is not expat slang. You can walk into any KFC in Poland, say this word and receive the correct thing. The written form with "k" and "ł" is common on the Internet. I added the "colloquial" marker and made it explicit that the etymology section explains the origin of the spelling / pronunciation variant, not the origin of the word's meaning. --Tweenk (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thank you for greatly simplifying the process of generating inflection-tables for Polish nouns on Wikionary; you've reduced the number of templates for that to just a few, none of which needs any parameters at all. I have found a minor issue, however: the ó –> o mutation for masculine nouns cannot be overridden, even for words like ból, by putting the correct form of the stem as the first parameter in the relevant template call. I also think even more templates can be added to the list of ‘almost never useful or obsolete’ templates at Category:Polish noun inflection-table templates, but I'll address that once the issue with the ó –> o mutation is fixed. Esszet (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, forgot about nouns like this. Should be fixed now - ó mutation is turned off if the stem is specified explicitly. --Tweenk (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, it is. Now, as for templates I think are (or could easily be made) obsolete:

• {{pl-decl-noun-log}}: this has actually seemed obsolete to me for quite a while; just use {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}}; the -log ending can be added to list of defaults for the nominative plural in the module
• {{pl-decl-noun-nin}}: just use |genp= and |accp= when the genitive and accusative plural end in -ów
• {{pl-decl-noun-zm}}: don't see at all why this is needed; just use {{pl-decl-noun-m-in}}
• {{pl-decl-noun-f-softcons}}: I see why this is needed at the moment, but if you change in the main feminine declension section in the module the fourth parameter to nomp_ending (I don't think the fourth parameter in its current form is used anywhere at all) and change the defaults so that softens endings can be used when the first three parameters are blank, this template would be completely obsolete
• {{pl-decl-noun-n-soft}}: again, I see why this is needed at the moment, but it would be completely obsolete if -e endings could be used when parameters are used Esszet (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Did you see this? Esszet (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

{{pl-decl-noun-zm}} and {{pl-decl-noun-log}} are indeed not necessary. I am a bit conflicted about {{pl-decl-noun-nin}}, since merging it with {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}} would require you to specify the same form twice. I think I could try to make it so that if |accp= is specified for a masculine personal noun, then |genp= is the same and vice versa. {{pl-decl-noun-f-softcons}} and {{pl-decl-noun-n-soft}} can indeed be merged since we can use |lemma= to override the lemma form to be different from the page title. I'll get this done once I have some time. --Tweenk (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thank you. Esszet (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you must have a bot account for bot edits. See WT:BOT --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Most of my recent edits are not exactly bot edits, since I have to manually specify the animacy for each word (I use pywikibot as an interactive script). Is a bot account still required in that case? --Tweenk (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can't you figure it out from the declension table, if nom=acc? Seems like a waste of cognitive resources to do it manually though. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some entries do not have a declension table (between 10 and 20% of Polish masculine nouns) and each entry takes only 2-3 seconds. Since the script shows some context for each edit, I caught several errors this way (e.g. neuter nouns tagged as masculine).

Anyway, I will request a bot account since I also wanted to take care of the Turkish form-of templates. --Tweenk (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you do it interactively I suppose it's harmless. For the 100% automated edits create a separate account and ask for the bot flag. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, brother, do the changes you've made to deista and deizm merit paralleling at pandeista and pandeizm? Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. --Tweenk (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I could be wrong, but it looks like you "cleaned up" some declension-pattern names that were still in use. See Category:Pages with module errors. — This comment was unsigned.

Yep, I forgot about a few deprecated templates and about f-adj. Should be fixed now. --Tweenk (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

FYI, this seems to have happened again to a few entries, e.g. osoba fizyczna (Category:Pages with module errors). - -sche (discuss) 07:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fallout from removing a parameter, should be fixed now. --Tweenk (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why Kephir put "=IPAchar" in {{pl-IPA-auto}} in those entries, but the fact remains that your edits to the template and or Module:pl-IPA resulted in exposing the template's parameters to Module:parameters- with predictable results. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had no idea you could have a named parameter whose name is an empty string... This was apparently a workaround for the lack of {{pl-IPAchar}} and lack of support fo multiple prons in {{pl-IPA}}. --Tweenk (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you confirm this edit? We have an entry for boski, but not for Boski. If that edit is correct, my guess is that boski is used for divinity in general and Boski for things relating specifically to Bóg. Am I right about that? --WikiTiki89 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

The edit seems wrong. These phrases are practically always spelled with lowercase b, as one can see on the Polish Wiktionary and in Google results. Capitalized forms Boski, Boży, etc. refer specifically to a monotheist personal God; they are only used on their own in religious literature as a sign of reverence. Such works would never use phrases like "na litość boską". They can also appear in capitalized phrases, such as in church names, but that would not merit a case form entry. --Tweenk (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks! --WikiTiki89 18:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

On the declension of one in polish I were by the shot, because was repeating this declension and passing of the line.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please rephrase that: "by the shot" and "passing of the line" don't mean anything in English. As for your edit: in most languages, pronouns are irregular, so you shouldn't guess. Don't add content in languages you don't know. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please can you check the Polish translation of cup-tied? It seems rather useless, although it may be correct --Zo3rWer (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It may be two words too long, but I can't find any short phrase for this rule. However, I'm not even close to a football expert. --Tweenk (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Then I would say there is no translation. We shouldn't translate terms with full sentences unless those sentences are actually idiomatic. --WikiTiki89 15:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Before we actually put Module:pl-verb to use, don't you think that using it would be easier if, instead of having one big conjugation pattern with eight mandatory arguments, we split it into a series of conjugation patterns with at most three or four arguments each? We can use this as a guide, and if we create a separate pattern for 1st conjugation verbs, for example, it would need only one mandatory argument: the third person present singular: czytać, czytam, czytają, czytałem/‑łam/‑liśmy/‑łbym etc., czytaj (-my/-cie), etc. etc. Most of the inflectional changes that the current setup is designed to take into account would be much better handled by a series of conjugation patterns; for fourth conjugation verbs, for example, you'd just enter the infinitive without -ować, and you'd get: pracować, pracuję, pracowałem/‑łam/‑liśmy/‑łbym etc., pracuj (-my/-cie), etc. etc. Other conjugations would be more complicated, but I think it would be easier if we did it that way. What do you think? Esszet (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The plan is to have common patterns and as much guessing as reasonably possible. The two patterns you've mentioned are already available as {{pl-conj-ai-am,asz}} and {{pl-conj-ai-uję}}, and I want to preserve that. The page from Polish Wiktionary is very useful, I'll use it when creating the patterns. --Tweenk (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Note, these specialized patterns should call the generic template with appropriate parameters instead of duplicating all the code. --Tweenk (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright, I added a few more that do that as well as changed II and III so that they do that as well. By the way, are you sure past adjectival participles (imiesłowy przymiotnikowe przeszłe), at least outside of conjugation III, end in -ły and not -ny or -ty? The conjugation appendix on Polish Wiktionary seems to say that they're formed like passive adjectival participles but exist only for perfective verbs. Esszet (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

See here. The Polish Wiktionary appendix apparently mixes up past active participles with passive adjectival participles of perfective verbs. Past active participles are usually archaisms and exist for some perfective verbs only, e.g. upaść → upadły.

I'm not sure what happened here: it appeared shortly after a completely unrelated edit by Mewbot, which must have caused the application of an edit already in the edit queue from weeks before. At any rate, I'd appreciate it if you fixed this. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --Tweenk (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you edit Module:pl-IPA so that word-final ‘ę’ (as in zwierzę) is denasalized? Esszet (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done --Tweenk (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a look at IvanScroge98's recent edits to Module:pl-IPA? He added some phonemes (e.g. xʲ, lʲ) that don't seem to me to exist in Polish. Esszet (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

When I try to say words such as "marchia" or "emalia" it seems the relevant consonants are soft/palatalized, so maybe these changes are OK after all... --Tweenk (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of the Wiktionary Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

In a recent discussion about the possibility of the consolidation of Latin noun declension templates, a user pointed out that Ancient Greek nouns are handled by a single, unified template: {{grc-decl}}, which deduces the correct declension pattern from the nominative and genitive singular alone. I was thinking how we could create a similar template for Polish nouns, and my idea is as follows:

1. Use the page name as the lemma (as the current Polish noun declension templates do)
2. If possible, take the gender (and animacy, when necessary) from the headword line, and if not, deduce it from the nominative singular ending and create an |an= parameter for masculine nouns and a |gen= parameter to override the deduced gender when necessary
3. Deduce the correct declension pattern from those two things alone, create |adj= and |phrase= parameters for neuter and feminine nouns that decline like adjectives and noun phrases, respectively, and retain only four (or maybe even two or three) positional parameters: the first two (or maybe only one, if possible) for major irregularities in the stem (dąb/dęb-, czerw/czerwi-, orzeł/orł-, and, since you made stem-final ó → o mutation standard for masculine nouns (and I just did for feminine nouns like sól), ból/ból-), the third for the genitive singular ending for masculine inanimate nouns, and (possibly; not sure if it's necessary) the last one for the nominative singular ending for feminine nouns that end in a consonant in the nominative singular. Many more minor peculiarities are already handled by the module, almost all other irregularities can be handled by the individual form overrides you created, and I don't know why we haven't done this already, but highly irregular nouns (such as brat, rok, ręka, etc.) can simply be written as irregular nouns into the module.

What do you think? Is it worth doing, or should we just leave the templates the way they are? Esszet (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, and I suppose a |gen= parameter should be created for use with |lemma= if the gender can be taken from the headword line. Esszet (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any way to pass the gender from the headword line into the declension template, so I think it will need to stay at least as a parameter. --Tweenk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the very long delay, I wasn't feeling well for a while, and then I started doing other things. I guess I'll start by just writing highly irregular nouns into the module, and, if you're interested in creating a unified template, we can take it from there. Esszet (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I managed to do that, but I couldn't figure out how to suppress the module error on the template page, so I'd appreciate it if you could just do that. Esszet (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I wish to you and all users of Wiktionary Happy Easter.

Leonard Joseph Raymond (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Special:Diff/40574302

Any source proving it's derogatory? PiotrekD (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Example of derogatory usage: --Tweenk (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

And? That's not a dictionary. That's just Fronda, a portal known for poor quality. PiotrekD (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. If people use the word in a derogatory manner, then it is derogatory. You can find several more instances of derogatory use by googling for "ateusze". --Tweenk (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Whatever happened to Module:pl-verb? No one's touched it in almost two years, did I mess something up the last time I did? Esszet (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your edits seem fine, I just didn't find the time & motivation to finish this yet. --Tweenk (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cześć, back in 2015, you have removed a number of senses in diff, which I don't agree with. E.g. a Russian translation Ре́чь Посполи́тая (Réčʹ Pospolítaja) doesn't refer to the modern Poland but to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, also called "Rzeczpospolita", even though the English name is less common than the Eastern European cognates. I'll start a tea room discussion. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I re-added the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" sense. Not sure about the other ones. --Tweenk (talk) 00:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm wondering if you would be able to expand the Polish declension template {{pl-decl-noun-m-pr}}. I get an error message with certain surname endings (-ła, -la, -ka, -sa, -wa, -za, -zia, -cia, -nia, -na, -o). For example, see https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Bary%C5%82a&oldid=49175834 Although I can type out some declensions manually, this does take more time and I'm worried about making errors (my knowledge of Polish grammar is spotty). Please help. Hergilei (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The example you linked is a bit unusual in that the surname "Baryła" actually has feminine grammatical gender even when the bearer of the surname is male. For example, the dative of "Marek Baryła" would be "Markowi Baryle". In cases such as this, I would just mark the surname as having feminine gender and show only one declension and perhaps add an usage note that this declension is used for both men and women. --Tweenk (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The plural column, however, will show only the feminine plural forms. I thought that for men the plural forms should be -owie, ów, etc, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Hergilei (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, you're right, the plurals are different for couples and men ("państwo Baryłowie", "bracia Baryłowie") and for women ("siostry Baryły"). This is sufficiently dissimilar from normal noun declension that it might need a new surname declension template. --Tweenk (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

With respect to Module:pl-headword, is there a difference between durative and iterative and semelfactive and frequentative, or is it really just jednokrotny (concrete) and wielokrotny (abstract)? Esszet (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a difference. Frequentative verbs are verbs such as bywać, jadać, czytywać, which imply habitual action. Concrete verbs are płynąć, biec, jechać and abstract verbs are pływać, biegać, jeździć. --Tweenk (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I looked online again, and it appears the usual terms are "determinate" and "indeterminate", so we should use that instead. Polish Wikipedia groups both iterative and frequentative together under wielokrotny, so although there is an obvious semantical difference, we can probably describe them both as "indeterminate". "Iterative" and "frequentative" should just go in the definition itself. Esszet (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did you see this? Esszet (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

I saw it now :) I'm a little confused about which description you would use for which verb? Is the following correct?

• czytywać - frequentative
• nieść - determinate
• nosić - indeterminate

--Tweenk (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly, I meant something like this:

chodzić impf indet 1. (iterative) to go, walk

chadzać impf indet 1. (frequentative) to go, walk

Esszet (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Did you see this? Do you have problems with your notification system or something? This seems to happen a lot. Esszet (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, you there? Esszet (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Sorry about that, I was rather busy recently and only dropped by for the occasional edit.

I'm not so sure about the label solution. Frequentative verbs appear to be a subset of indeterminate verbs, so we could simply auto-add "indeterminate" to all "frequentative" verbs. I went ahead and implemented that in Module:pl-headword and removed the dubious aspects that had only a few words in the corresponding categories; you can now use a=det, a=indet and a=freq for determinate, indeterminate and frequentative verbs, respectively, and they will automatically be marked imperfective. Frequentative verbs will be marked as both indeterminate and imperfective.

The only remaining problem is that there are no boilerplate categories for "determinate" and "indeterminate" verbs. The corresponding concepts in Russian use the term "abstract verb" and "concrete verb". I'm not entirely sure whether we should create new categories in the category tree, or reuse the names from Russian. Reusing the names from Russian would reduce confusion and increase consistency within Wiktionary, even though there is no agreement in the external literature on what these categories should be called. What do you think? --Tweenk (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

First of all, are determinacy and aspect the same thing? If not, det, indet, and freq should obviously be arguments of a |d= parameter in {{pl-verb}} and not |a=. Second, it seems that "determinate" and "indeterminate" are used in Russian as well and are actually more common than "concrete" and "abstract" (google it and you'll see what I mean), so yes, they could be used as boilerplate categories. Third, "determinate" and "indeterminate" (or whatever we can agree on) should also be added to Module:gender and number to make it easier to provide determinacy in headword lines ("frequentative", however, would best be left as an additional descriptor because frequentative verbs are simply a distinct class of indeterminate verbs). Fourth, I added |det=, |indet=, and |freq= parameters to Module:pl-headword to be used with {{pl-verb}} so that you can have things like:

• pojechać pf (imperfective determinate jechać, indeterminate jeździć)
• jechać impf det (perfective pojechać, indeterminate jeździć)
• jeździć impf indet (imperfective determinate jechać, perfective pojechać)
• czytać impf det (perfective czytywać, frequentative czytywać)
• czytywać impf indet (frequentative; imperfective determinate czytać, perfective przeczytać)

This, however, raises the question of what to call stative verbs like być and mieć. Is it indeterminate stative, or just stative, or what? We'd have to know for something like:

• bywać impf indet (frequentative; indeterminate stative (?) być)

Esszet (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I just added an impersonal conditional form for an imperfective verb, yet the link says that the page does not exist (at abonować). While the link states this, it still accesses the page. I did the same for the perfective form and the link functioned normally. Can you figure out why this is happening? İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 14:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

It works for me now - I can click on "abonowanoby" and it takes me to the correct page. Maybe there was some kind of cache malfunction? --Tweenk (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to tell you that it did work for me after a few hours; it was only temporary and apparently random. İʟᴀᴡᴀ–Kᴀᴛᴀᴋᴀ (talk) (edits) 03:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Siema, tak piszę tylko, żeby dać znać, że ręcznie pokategoryzowałem wszystkie męskie rzeczowniki, więc twój bot może wykreślić se to z listy zadań do zrobienia xd Ta kategoria: Category:Polish masculine nouns without animacy jest już niepotrzebna w takim razie. Naprawdę się dziwię, że nikt tego wcześniej nie zrobił, jak to było tak banalne, że każdy native by to z zamkniętymi oczami mechanicznie zrobił. Anyway, widzę, że te starsze entries są w masakrycznym stanie; do tej pory skupiałem się tylko na tych najnowszych (sprzed ok. 2 lat do teraz) i całkiem ładnie je uporządkowałem i zedytowałem do poziomu uniwersalnego template'u, nieskromnie mówiąc. Ale widzę, że te starsze też wymagają edycji, i to natychmiastowej, bo są o dupę potłuc często w porównaniu z obecnym poziomem. Shumkichi (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ekstra 👍

Ten bot to tak naprawdę nie jest bot, używałem tego konta głównie z takim interaktywnym skryptem który pokazywał mi słowo i pytał jaka jest żywotność rzeczownika, ale to było dawno temu. --Tweenk (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You should probably compare some of the differences we've made on recent pages so you can make your entries more in line with that. Vininn126 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that {{pl-p}} now generates the pronunciation section and a bot adds the "Further reading" section, anything else I should be aware of? --Tweenk (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nvm I see there are also some new conjugation templates and a {{uxi}} template with different formatting. --Tweenk (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I also added a bunch of derived terms on chałturzyć. In short, a lot of improvements have been made to Polish over all xd Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The bot does not add that, we do. It only added that on pages without it. We should be more careful of {{also}}, as we should technically be adding any diacritics, including forms like siara - siarą - Siara - Siarą. We have more verb templates, no need to do those manually. WSJP provides decent etymologies, and if it's an affix we use {{af}}. If you can, derived and related words using glosses for POS, but we're probably gonna switch to {{col3}} in the near future, check out my user page and this conversation. Don't forget to check audio on the commons. Also alternative forms. Transitive/intransitive/other labels for verbs (or really any part of speech). Vininn126 (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why aren't you using {{pl-p}} or adding further reading sections? Vininn126 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You also need to add four ----'s between L2's. Vininn126 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to reply to this - I thought that these links are added automatically by a bot, so there's no need to always add them manually. Was the bot turned down? I've seen several entries with these links that don't actually go anywhere (i.e., the term is missing in the target dictionary). Tweenk (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Deadlinks should be removed. Vininn126 (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Your usage notes are usually superfluous to the entry. Like on rozum i godność człowieka. The information it is usually sarcastic might be better as a label or something. Vininn126 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, noted. I'll try to add this section only when there's more to say. Tweenk (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply