User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan/Archive 1

Do you know if there is a word like ordzik'/orcik'/orjik in Modern or Old Armenian? I think it should have a meaning like testicle (ամորձի). —Stephen 12:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

There is no such word in Modern Armenian. However, there is vordz/ordz (որձ) meaning male --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. How about Armenian "hun", possibly meaning something like path, road, or sea? —Stephen 13:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking "hun" means "riverbed". But figuratively can be used also for "path" or "road".

Is is spelled հուն? Also, is there a word like "han" that means something like "ring" or "grandfather"? —Stephen 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it's spelled հուն. "Han" means nothing, but that's the root of the verb "hanel" (հանել) - "to extract, pull out".--Vahagn Petrosyan 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Then how about "orcam" (something like "I spit") or "berem" ("I carry"). If they are words, how are they written? —Stephen 14:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know about "orcam". "Berem" is written բերեմ and is the conditional form of the first person of the verb "berel" (բերել).

Thanks a lot. Just one more question if you have time. Do you know if there is there an Armenian word similar to Russian рыгать (to belch)? —Stephen 14:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, "bġkal" (բղկալ).

Hi, Vahagn. Do you know of an Armenian word like "arbi" that means something like "drink" or "syrup"? —Stephen 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There is no such word in modern Armenian. There is the verb "arbel" (արբել) - "to get drunk". --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is ռուբլի correct or is it ռոիբլի? Or both? —Stephen 19:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Only ռուբլի is correct. Someone must have confused the letter ւ with ի. They look similar. Can you delete the wrong ռոիբլի? I moved it to ռուբլի.--Vahagn Petrosyan 20:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is there a word like մալ that means something like sheep or lamb? —Stephen 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just created the մալ article, look at it. By the way, the word is rare, haven't known before looking it up in the dictionary today.--Vahagn Petrosyan 12:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Beautiful. Thanks. —Stephen 13:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vahagn, is there a word like դուրգն that means something like potter's wheel? —Stephen 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC).Reply

There is. I added it: դուրգն. Besides, you were asking about the word հան (han). Turns out there is such word, I added it too.--Vahagn Petrosyan 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that’s perfect. —Stephen 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wow. A person with Armenian background who knows PIE as well. Awesome. Thanks for all the help with Armenian cognates, and please feel free to make use of Wiktionary:Requested entries:Ancient Greek. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another puzzle for you. Is there a word like կասկ that might mean chestnut or something similar? —Stephen 07:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here: կասկ.--Vahagn Petrosyan 15:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Great. I wonder where they come up with these rare forms? —Stephen 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vahagn, if you like I can nominate you to a position as admin. Then you would be able to delete your own typos, etc. —Stephen 13:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be great, thanks. However, does the adminship suppose any obligations? I can't be one in that case. I'm lazy.--Vahagn Petrosyan 15:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, everybody does it his own way. Some people like to patrole for vandals, others just like to do certain kinds of work. But there aren’t any obligations. —Stephen 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, there is another request for an Armenian word like անդ, perhaps meaning flower or grass. —Stephen 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done: անդ. You must have meant Etymology No. 3 (field).--Vahagn Petrosyan 19:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You should now have some new buttons. Cheers. SemperBlotto 10:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you check this? It says that it’s a pronoun. It seems to me that it should be an adverb. —Stephen 16:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I checked Armenian dictionaries. They vary between pronoun and adverb. Don't know which is right, can't help here. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vahagn, you should go to Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2008-12/User:Vahagn_Petrosyan_for_admin to accept the nomination. I said that there were no obligations, but you do have to enable emailing in your user preferences if you haven’t already. Hope that’s not a problem. —Stephen 20:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's very nice to see Armenian cognates in etymologies, but these should, whenever possible, be Classical Armenian and not modern ones (unless there's no difference between those)—like what we've been doing for Greek, Ancient and Modern. Now, since my knowledge of Armenian is just about next to nothing, I was wondering if you could tell me how much difference is there exactly between the Grabar and modern Armenian? Are these texts much different from modern equivalents, and are they intelligible to modern Armenian-speaker? There are separate ISO codes for both Middle and Classical Armenian, but if they're not that different we might as well all put them under ==Armenian== and treat older forms with context labels or something. --Ivan Štambuk 18:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly, there is no difference between Classical Armenian (Grabar) and Modern Armenian roots. The only difference is that Grabar used Traditional Armenian orthography (Mashdotsian orthography), while modern Armenian has implemented the Spelling reform of 1922-1924. This is why I do not specify the period of language when I add Armenian cognates: it does not matter. The main difference between Classical and Modern Armenian is in the inflection and syntax: while I perfectly understand every word (except for obsolete ones) of Grabar texts from your links, most often I don't understand the sentences as a whole. I don't think the difference in grammar earns separate place for Grabar in Wiktionary. We can add Grabar spellings of roots as alternative spellings under ==Armenian== (see, for example, ազատություն) and add obsolete forms with a context label. Not sure about Grabar inflections though. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that you've been adding Armenian cognates to a lot of entries, and I have some thoughts on that. Bear in mind that these are very speculative thoughts, and I'm quite open to discussion, but I thought it important to share nonetheless. Generally, within entries themselves, a brief, focused list of cognates is important. The proto entries themselves should certainly contain everything, as that is one of their primary purposes, but I think we need to be more selective within daughter entries. Now, because of the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, I certainly want to see Armenian cognates on all the grc entries (and I'm very appreciative of all the work you've done in making this happen), and I presume that they're generally wanted on Sanskrit as well, per the Graeco-Aryan hypothesis. Additionally, grc and sa generally want Latin as well, as these three are the big classical IE languages. Finally, I think we generally want ang/en cognates whenever possible, as this is the English Wiktionary, and English speakers will find them particularly interesting/useful as mnemonics, etc. Additionally, I generally prefer the closest cognates possible. So, when a PIE verb gave rise to a specific nominalization, a reflex of that nominalization is better served with cognates from that same PIE word, over and above those from the initial root (see the discussion Ivan and I had, for example). Certainly there's a healthy balance to all the aforementioned criteria in most cases. So, all else being equal, a Latin word might be better served by a Celtic cognate than an Armenian one. Now, of course there is no official policy on this, and it's rather poorly formed even as my own opinion, but I thought I'd throw it at you. I'd be interested in your opinions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with most of your thoughts, Atelaes. Armenian cognates are wanted in Ancient Greek and Sanskrit entries, plus the Iranian ones. The reason I have been adding Armenian cognates to Latin and other further related Indo-European entries is because the largest part of proto-entries has not been created yet. If they were, like in the case of *ḱwṓ, a user looking up canis could easily access then the list of other PIE cognates. But the user looking up, say, pons, has no way of finding other PIE cognates if he wants to, unless he somehow stumbles upon Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots. Thus, adding not-closely related PIE cognates in daughter entries is a palliative measure, until complete proto-entries are created. I do not insist on this policy and would be happy to confine Armenian cognates to grc, sa, Iranian and proto-entries, if other users find this more beneficial. By the way, do you know if the appendices Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European roots and Appendix:List of Proto-Indo-European nouns are the bases for the creation of proto-entries? I’ve been wikifying Armenian cognates already present there and adding Armenian script, so that they are included in the future proto-entries and daughter entries’ cognates lists. Where do you look for grc cognates, for example?--Vahagn Petrosyan 12:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ivan's been writing the majority of the proto entries, and my impression is that he uses a variety of sources, the aforementioned appendices being only one of many. Beekes is my primary source (although I have a few others that I check him against), and is most often the source of my cognates, although I do sometimes check our appendices. However, I worry that sometimes they are a bit out of date, and perhaps a little over eager in assigning genetic relations. They are useful, to be sure, but I wouldn't count on them to create proto entries. Most importantly, they sometimes include native spellings, something that other sources generally lack. The fact that they have a lot more Armenian spellings is especially useful. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, then I'll be adding Armenian scripts and Wiktionary links to the available Armenian cognates in those appendices. Maybe Ivan and you could use them when creating proto-entries and adding daughter language etymologies.--Vahagn Petrosyan 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that is very much appreciated, and will be made use of. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Someone had an Armenian translations of Tallinn in the wrong alphabet. Please can you add the correct Armenian translation(s). Thanks. --Jackofclubs 13:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done.--Vahagn Petrosyan 14:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Could you have a look to what I did to the Armenian translation during this edit: . I'm not entirely sure that it's correct, but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as Hayeren script. No idea what that refers to then. --Polyglot 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since Vahagn seems to be gone for the day, I'll field this. Hayeren is a transliteration of հայերեն (hayeren), the native term for Armenian. Currently, {{Hayeren}} is a redirect to {{Armn}}, so sc=Hayeren is functionally equivalent to sc=Armn, although the latter is certainly preferable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Почему вы изменили заголовок с Aramaic на Syriac? Я уже дрался с одним участником здесь, защищая исконность алфавита Эстрангело. Независимо от того, признается ли Эстрангело основным алфавитом этого языка, раз вы видите Alternative spellings и другое письмо, то нужно сделать вывод, что речь идет об одном языке - на основном ассирийском диалекте и на иудейском. Поэтому я намереваюсь восстановить заголовок, но только ознакомившись с вашим мнением. Bogorm 09:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Здравствуйте. Я случайно наткнулся и подумал, что это обыкновенное typo. А как насчет ܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ и ܣܒܪܐ?--Vahagn Petrosyan 10:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Я спрошу 334a, который создал их. Он гораздо сведущее меня. Bogorm 11:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any idea about erbuc in φάρυγξ? —Stephen 15:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

It must be երբուծ "brisket". --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Я только что узнал, что английскому quell и немецкому quälen родственно армянское слово kelem, которое согласно Online Etymology Dictionary означает "я пытаю". Это правильно? Вы могли бы добавить здесь армянское письмо? Спасибо заранее. Bogorm 22:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Сделано. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Вы могли бы добавить армянское письмо в этимологию слова wane (которому unain родственно). Оно означает пустой, не правда? Bogorm 14:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Все правильно, добавил. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is the lang code for Old Armenian the same as for the modern language (as with Latin)? If not, then the ISO code also needs to be ged. --EncycloPetey 02:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, it's xcl. I fixed it. --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Note: The WP article on Old Armenian (or at least the article I found on it) does not give the ISO code, which is why I had to ask. --EncycloPetey 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem.--Vahagn Petrosyan 03:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

A couple thoughts on this. First, I think it an excellent idea to distinguish between the two. However, if the lang code listed on a term is xcl, then the language preceding it should be "Old Armenian", not "Armenian". Additionally, if a word is only found in Old Armenian, then its L2 should be Old Armenian, not Armenian with an obsolete tag. Clearly there will be plenty of overlap (as there is with Ancient Greek and Greek), and writing an Armenian entry does not require writing the Old Armenian if the same spelling occurs (I almost never write the Greek entry for a word). Also, this is not something where we need to go back and fix everything urgently, but its probably best to get into good habits now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The overlap will happen 99% of the time. This is why I have been reluctant to create L2 entries for Old Armenian thus far.--Vahagn Petrosyan 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

- Also, don't you think that "Old Armenian" is preferable to "Clasical Armenian"? We don't have any "Classical X" language here, and "Old Armenian" would fit into our naming scheme for other ancient languages. We don't have to blindly follow Ethnologue in naming schemes and terminology, as it has proven to be in many respects full of amateurish errors and anachronisms. --Ivan Štambuk 08:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you not have other Classical languages? No entries in Classical Chinese (Wenyan)??? There was a pretty different syntax in comparison to Mandarin, so the particles had different meanings... But it must be no doubt included as a separate section in the Translingual entries for Traditional Chinese. Not a single word in it? Bogorm 14:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Changed back to "Old Armenian". By the way, I decided to start distinguishing between Old and Modern Armenian after all. But only when there are spelling differences, like in case of չորք/չորս (čork'/čors) and սիսեռն/սիսեռ (siseṙn/siseṙ).--Vahagn Petrosyan 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Я хотел бы поблагодарить Вас за те осетинские слова, о которых вы добавили статьи. Мне этот язык особенно близок и я надеюсь, что буду в состоянии внести свой вклад в наращивании осетинских статей в будущем. К декабрю 2008 здесь была только одна статья, даже категория существительных совсем недавно возникла. Удачи Вам. Bogorm 20:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо! --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Вы могли бы добавить армянское письмо, я нашел это словo в M-W? Спасибо заранее. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I added the script and expanded the etymology a bit. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have the Japanese kanjis for the word grand, but I don't know what kind of word it is can you help me? Thank you.

This is a list of kanji for the word GRAND: 壮麗な, 尊大な, 壮大-grand yuuen, doudou, gurando, gurande, soudai=grand

Can you decipher them accurately? Thanks. Steel Blade 02:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see you've already been helped by a more knowledgeable person in Japanese. Good. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, I changed the style a little bit, mostly the colors. The other major change is that the transileration (with the {{{2}}}) will only show up if it's specified in the article. Check out հոսել and քայլել to see the difference.I'm not sure I really dig the brown, though. Do you think greys (like the Lithuanian templates) would be better? — opiaterein — 17:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like what you've done, very good. Let the grey stay. By the way, there are some verbs in Armenian which conjugate slightly differently: so called suffixed verbs, like տես-ն-ել, թռ-չ-ել, հագ-ն-ել. I made a separate template for them - Template:hy-conj-suf-ել. In {{{3}}} and {{{4}}} it takes the verb stem without the suffix and its transliteration. I also added a functionality to both templates for irregular imperatives: {{{3}}} and {{{4}}} {{{5}}} and {{{6}}} in Template:hy-conj-ել and {{{5}}} and {{{6}}} in Template:hy-conj-suf-ել, needed for words like բերել and տեսնել. --Vahagn Petrosyan 03:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Update) On the other hand, for the sake of consistency, it's better to have one template. I added the functionality for suffixed verbs to Template:hy-conj-ել. Now {{{1}}} is the verb stem, {{{2}}} its transliteration, {{{3}}} verb stem without suffix, {{{4}}} transliteration, {{{5}}} irregular imperative, {{{6}}} transliteration. The same is true also for Template:hy-conj-ալ. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

One thing I've been wanting to do is make a base Template:hy-conj so that both hy-conj-ել and hy-conj-ալ can link straight there and have the same layout without having to change the appearance of both templates when we make changes to one. (Template:lt-conj is one example that you can see in use on Template:lt-conj-1). — opiaterein — 11:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

On (yet another) note, does գյոթ have no plural or declension? It's one of those words I've been trying to add to, but I can't seem to find anything about it. — opiaterein — 11:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the inflections. As concerns your first note, you can always make a base template, of course, but I don't think we are going to make many changes in appearance. It's good already. --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but I want it to be so beautiful that anyone who sees it would instantly want to learn Armenian :D I really like the way the Lithuanian templates came out. I always enjoy looking at them lol

Գյոթ is looking great now, thanks :) — opiaterein — 11:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Vahagn. Вы написали, что это слово было заимствованно из аккадского языка, а не из турецкого и я тут же заинтересовался. Я взглянул в Аккадско-русский словарь Липина, но там слово известь не встречается. Вы могли бы указать, с какого именно аккадского слова произошло это понятие (не надо заботится о письме, если это помешало вам написать его, можно написать латинскими буквами и вставить{{rfscript|Akkadian}}), я волнуюсь теми заимствованиями из турецкого в болгарском, которые собственно не турецкие, а имеют свои корни в других нетюркских языках. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Bogorm. Unfortunately my Armenian etymological dictionary says the form of the Akkadian word is unknown. The dictionary is old, however, and this Turkish dictionary claims kireç is from ~ Persian girac = Aramaic gīr = Akkadian gīru ~ Sumer gir. So gīru might be the word after all, but I'm not sure.--Vahagn Petrosyan 09:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation, unfortunately I have no access to Aramaic dictionary and in the Akkadian it is not mentioned. I thought, I could address you in Russian, because I can practise my English with other (not-Russophone) users, but if you think my Russian is clumsy, you may tell me freely. I also thought it may have considered English more appropriate in order to attract more collocutors in the issue. Regards The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Конечно же можете обращаться ко мне на русском, с которым у вас все в порядке. Ну, кроме ...я волнуюсь теми.... Так не говорят :) Наверняка калька с какого-нибудь языка. Кстати, можно на "ты". А что касается достоверной этимологии kireç, я спрошу у User:Dijan, может он знает. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Redhouse Ottoman Turkish dictionary claims Ottoman Turkish كیرج (kirec, “lime”) is of Turkic origin. The closest word in Persian that I have found is گچ (gač, “lime”). I have not found girac in Persian. --Dijan 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have also found Persian کرس (kers, “quick-lime”), and that is a variation of Persian کلس (kels, “quick-lime”) of Persian origin. --Dijan 03:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since {{os}} is "Ossetian", our de facto "policy" is thus that Ossetian should be used as the L2 header (and in all other situations) instead of Ossetic. I'll thus be changing all your entries to Ossetian. Now, whether {{os}} actually should be Ossetian or Ossetic, I most certainly will not comment on, as I know nothing about the language (Ossetic does seem to be a bit more common). If you start a discussion and get {{os}} changed, I'll happily change them all back. By the way, thanks for all the help with the etyl|el --> etyl|grc switch. It is a very large project, and I am grateful for any help with it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know we use "Ossetian". I noticed that after creating maybe less than 20 entries. After that I put them under "Ossetian", so luckily there is not much to do. As concerns the Greek switch, I will indeed turn to that from time to time. --Vahagn Petrosyan 09:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to butt in. I noticed your dscussion. I also used "Ossetic" but if this is no good, I will change to Ossetian but I don't have any preference or opinion about it but please let me know what you decide. Anatoli 22:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are 2790 Google hits for "Ossetic language" and 2710 for "Ossetian language". I don't think either of them takes precedence, but as Atelaes mentioned our de facto policy for {{os}} is "Ossetian" and that's the designation I have been using thus far. So, for the sake of consistency let's stick to "Ossetian". --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bear in mind that the policy of Ossetian is quite easily changed by a discussion and edit to {{os}}. If anyone has qualms about this, by all means voice them now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please look at this deletion about a deletion of an Armenian category and see if you can shed some new light on the issue? --Jackofclubs 09:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

My Persian and Turkish dictionaries confirm that the Persian word and its derivations come from Arabic توت. Can you tell me where you found the Aramaic etymology? Thanks. --Dijan 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

My Armenian dictionary claims the mother form of all those words is the Aramaic. Also, Vasmer's dictionary says "see Hubschmann 155 on Aramaic origin". I suspect the source of the Armenian dictionary is again Hubschmann. This Turkish dictionary agrees on Aramaic origin. I wouldn't know if they're right, so if you're sure Arabic is the ultimate source, please make necessary changes. --Vahagn Petrosyan 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Iranica in the Achaemenid period (ca. 550-330 B.C.)" by Jan Tavernier (2007) states that the word existed in Persian during this time period, but it is unsure if it comes from the Semitic languages or the other way around. There's another source I looked at earlier (can't remember now what it was) that also says it is more likely that the word was transmitted westward (Persian > Aramaic) and not eastward (Aramaic > Persian). --Dijan 05:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks like the etymology beyond Persian توت is disputed. I will now change the etymologies to reflect this. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Привет, Vahagn. В этимологическом словаре сербскохорватского, которым я пользуюсь, упомянуто армянское слово airem со значением сгорать. Вы могли бы добавить армянское письмо на и vatra#Etymology и ватра#Etymology и исправить перевод, если нужно? Там есть и санскритские и авестийские родственные слова. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Сделал и немножко отредактировал. Кстати, осетинский арт из той же серии. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It might be helpful to split them back up, even if it takes extra space. Someone trying to be helpful might end up adding definite forms of words in cases definite forms aren't used in... What a nightmare that would be... — opiaterein — 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't join them to save space. After doing a lot of research over the internet, I realized the number of cases in modern Armenian is disputed. As far as I can see, modern linguists favor the 5-case system, different for personified and non-personified objects. This nice books explains it. Unfortunately it's in Russian. In short, there are not 7 cases, but 5 case forms. The first one is called direct form or more traditionally Nominative case (for persons) and Nominative/Accusative case (for things). The second is the indirect form, or traditionally Genitive/Dative (for persons) and Genitive/Dative/Accusative (for things). The Ablative, Instrumental and Locative do not differ from traditional division. This division is well-thought and makes sense to me.

Anyway, can you show me on the example of ծաղիկ which definite form you meant does not exist? I suspect it's ծաղկին. Indeed, the genitive case does not have a definite form, however, our definition says it's definite articulation of a genitive/dative case form, not genitive. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about the genitive definite, which someone actually did try to add today... lol. Do you think, for the sake of clarity on that point, that it might be better to have a side colum that points out the "direct forms" and the "indirect forms", like {{lt-conj}} points to the indicative forms? — opiaterein — 21:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You mean after splitting? You want to split into 7 cases and group "direct forms" and "indirect forms"? I don't want to add an additional column. Look at աշխարհագրություն, you think we can squeeze one more column there? Maybe an asterisk sign, and an explaining line below the table?--Vahagn Petrosyan 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I see, you were talking about շաբաթ. You know what would be really awesome? If we could make Inflectobot populate the tables immediately after we create the entries. Then no one will be tempted to enter incorrect definitions. Can you teach him that? I have no idea how bots work, so I can't make one myself. --Vahagn Petrosyan 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think an asterisk explaining that the definite forms aren't used with genitive meanings would be the best, aside from splitting the 7 cases up.

I'm not the best with bots, either, the Inflectobot is only semi-automated. I still prepare the files on my computer, but Lithuanian is kinda complicated... I'd have to ask someone else how to make an automatic program. — opiaterein — 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think the asterisk idea is good (similar things have been done with Finnish verbs). 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

An asterisk it is. I added a note to Template:hy-decl-noun. Hope this is less confusing. If not, let me know, I'll try to rephrase the explanation. BTW, the asterisk means we are treating Genitive and Dative and Accusative as separate cases and not some complex Genitivodative or Genitivodativoaccusative or so-called Indirect case, after all. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The way I hear this ending pronounced, it kinda sounds like a "ts" sound rather than an aspirated t... could you clear that up for me? :) — opiaterein — 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

-ություն is pronounced as by Armenians of Armenia and ex-USSR, as if it were -ուցյուն. And not only colloquially, but on TV too. This is against normal pronunciation rules, and clearly is influenced by Russian: is palatalized into before . In Old Armenian and Western Armenian it's , as it should be. And this isn't the only case of Russian influence. The last name Կարապետյան, for example, is pronounced : is palatalized into before . մատյան -> , արևմտյան -> .

Anyway, you can add both transcriptions, if you want. certainly is not wrong for Eastern Armenian, but too academic. --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I haven't added the pronunciation recently, since Armenian pronunciation seems to be more involved than I was led to believe... the question was more for personal knowledge and betterment of my speech :D Thanks! — opiaterein — 12:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please, do add pronunciation even if you're not sure. You're transcribing according to what textbooks say, which can't be wrong. Maybe too academic, but not wrong. Besides, I'm watching everything Armenian through this feed and can fix what only native-speaker would know and isn't included in textbooks.

It's sad I'm the only one doing Armenian. Well, and you, of course, occasionally editing dirty words :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dirty words are fun :D I used to add more, but it can be hard to find good resources on Eastern Armenian. I'm glad you're around to help, though - it's not often that I devote a lot of time to a language that has other strong contributors. Maybe I can start working more on Armenian now that I have someone to help correct my mistakes :D — opiaterein — 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am not going to create πολυ- nor περι-, and I thought I'd explain why. The English concept of prefixes is not terribly useful when addressing Ancient Greek. I don't believe that Ancient Greek had a prefix πολυ-, but rather had the adjective πολύς, which was combined with other words, as many others were. πολυ is simply the stem of πολύς, sans any morphological endings. περι- is slightly more complicated. Ancient Greek prepositions did seem to have some meanings specific to the combined forms. However, I think it much more useful to the reader to have all the information in the same page, and I think it reasonable to do so based on the precedent of πολύς. περί is currently lacking, and I will attempt to expand it. Expect something along the lines of διά. There are a few Ancient Greek prefix entries which include dashes. ἀ-, ἀν-, and δυσ- do because they are not attested in isolation; they only exist as prefixes. ἀρχι- is almost simply a prefix form of ἀρχή or ἀρχός, but there is an iota which I cannot account for. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting then always using a πολύς + smth, or περί + smth format in all etymologies like polymer or perineum. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I should eventually write up something about Ancient Greek combination, to explain to people how πούς combines to form ποδο or why the sigma disappears when πολύς combines, and how the accent works (something I still don't fully understand myself), so that it can be referred to. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be carfeul in editing etymologies. In this edit, you categorized a non-English word as an English word. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Здравствуйте. Я всегда думал, что это слово белорусское - бульба, Хотя, конечно знаю Тараса Бульбу. Я не уверен на 100%, но мне кажется, в украинском оно употребляется под влиянием белорусского, как в и в русском, в общем-то. Оно звучит забавно, хотя другие белорусские слова в украинском и русском известны меньше. Например, русские могут употреблять некоторые украинские и белорусские слова, которые им нравятся. Интересно, какой у вас источник.

В любом случае, стоит добавить белорусский вариант статьи.

Please let me know if you prefer to talk in English. Anatoli 05:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Привет. Украинский я конечно не знаю, но более чем уверен в правильности моего определения бульбы. А взял я его из этих словарей, входящих в Lingvo X3:

1. Украинско-русский словарь. © 2004, Ижакевич Г.П., Калюжная В.Н., Паламарчук О.Л., Пилинский Н.Н., Скрипник Л.Г., Черторижская Т.К. 65 тыс. статей.
2. Большой толковый словарь современного украинского языка. © Издательство "Перун", 2005. 250 тыс. слов и словосочетаний.
3. Большой украинско-английский словарь. © 2005, Попов Е.Ф., Балла Н.И. 160 тыс. слов и словосочетаний

Причем все три словаря сходятся в значении "картошка" с пометкой диалектное слово. Думаю и в русских диалектах оно используется независимо от белорусского влияния. А белорусский добавить конечно же надо, что я и сделал. Получилась статья-конфетка :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо за исчерпывающую информацию и за работу! Кстати, я добавил некоторые столицы северокавказских (и не только) столиц российских республик и сами республики. Если не трудно, дайте перевод на грузинский и армянский. У меня в планах закончить крупные города Китая и Японии, если знаете перевод, подключайтесь:

• http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Russia

  http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:China

  http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Category:Japan

Anatoli 23:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Про грузинский не обещаю, но с армянским помогу. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо за помощь! Anatoli 00:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I moved the original {{ru-noun}} to {{ru-decl-noun}} so that we could use the former for inflection lines. You can see it used at оргазм, and it has a talk page to describe how to use it. Enjoy :) — opiaterein — 16:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to do the same but the number of articles linking to {{ru-noun}} scared me. Good thing we have Inflectobot to do the grunt work. --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

How predictable is the stress placement of Russian nouns? I might be able to do something like I did with {{lt-decl-noun-stress}} that shows it automatically, if it's relatively simple. — opiaterein — 14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I mean, I know of course where to put the accent, but I do it unconsciously. Give me more time to study the formal patterns. If you want, you can ask Stephen in the meantime, he might know. In any case, at first sight the patterns are not that predictable. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, I figured it out. There are 6 stress patterns in Russian and 8 declension types. 8x6 = 48 templates. x2 for animate/inanimate equals to 96. Some stress patterns may not go with all declension types, so hopefully the actual number will be lower. I'll start making them now by using {{ru-decl-noun-stress}}, thanks for the idea. Hopefully, everything won't become too complicated in the end. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I ended up having to make Category:Lithuanian noun declension templates because there were so many :) That category still looks messy, so at some point I have to make a list of all the templates organized by declension and stress pattern... I think the Greek templates have a similar situation, but in Greek the stress is always shown in writing, so I think it's a little simpler for those. — opiaterein — 13:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Somethin' red is going on in the declension section D: — opiaterein — 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Damn, I thought I fixed all broken links. It's all because of splitting initial Russian templates I made into 6 separate ones, for different stress patterns. According to my estimates there will be 140 templates. Well, x2 for countable/uncountable, 280... --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a damn lot of templates...haha... Wish I knew Russian so I could help you out some. Maybe one day — opiaterein — 12:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Mike H got me all into adding stuff to this entry... could you add the Armenian equivalent? :) — opiaterein — 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. And corrected Russian :) --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) — opiaterein — 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm trying to re-vamp Index:Russian. Firstly, is the list of redlinks under Index:Russian/а useful and should I move it to Requested Entries before I start? Secondly, what is the convention for sorting. At the moment I have an alphabet that looks like:

а б в г д е ж з и к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я

But ъ ы ь only list themselves. Should I move those into the "symbols" section or leave them as letters, and when sorting - is the order above correct? Thanks for your time. Conrad.Irwin 18:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for the questions. As far as I can see, the redlinks under Index:Russian/а are the more or less important words which every complete Russian dictionary must have, including us, someday. If you move them to Requested Entries, it will be flooded and become unusable. Especially if you move also Index:Russian/б and Index:Russian/в, which too have many redlinks. Instead, you can move redlinks into another place, maybe somewhere under my userpage. It's nice to have a guiding list of priority Russian words needing an entry. As for sorting, this is the alphabet and order which all my Russian dictionaries use:

а б в г д е/ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я

Thus, you only need to add Index:Russian/й and sort Index:Russian/ё together with Index:Russian/е, like ...егерь, еда, ёж, ежевика, езда... Next, ъ ы ь are treated as separate letters and not as symbols. Their position is right in your alphabet, and, yes, they will list only themselves. Although, I may add a couple of strange words under ы, like ызмалу.

By the way, I plan to make an index for Armenian now that we have several thousand entries. Is there a way of doing that apart from copypasting the list starting from Special:AllPages/Ա? --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you tell me how to sort it, I can add it to the list of indices I already maintain with little effort. Thanks for your help with Russian, I'll try and make those changes now. Conrad.Irwin 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Given that there was nothing yet there, I've tried trusting to caseless unicode sorting for now (for Armenian). The Russian pages are moved to your userspace as requested. If you spot any problems, or want something tweaked, let me know here or my talk page. Thanks again. Conrad.Irwin 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added the fixes you made to Armenian to User:Conrad.Bot/info/Armenian. If you want to make further changes, that's the place to do it. Thanks for all your help. Conrad.Irwin 14:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, thank you. All is perfect now. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Vahagn. Can you please check the declension part of "бессмыслица"? Thanks a lot in advance! Best wishes! Sinek 10:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your message and decided to intervene. I fixed two forms, note that 1) -ов is never used in genitive plural for feminine nouns and 2) об with б is only used when the subsequent noun begins with a vowel, else о (or обо, before мне). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bogorm did everything right. Only we now have almost complete Russian declension templates which do the work automatically and display an accent in the table. So I added one of them to бессмыслица and expanded it a little. --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

But for now, the m= and f= will only work if pl= is also specified. Is that alright? — opiaterein — 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, that way I could have done it myself :) I hoped you could come up with something clever. Don't worry, I have a brute-force solution that should work without pl= specified. Thanks anyway! --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure I can do it without pl=, but I'm lazy haha... look at it this way, it'll force you to add pl= and make it more complete! ;) — opiaterein — 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you added the IPA for (deprecated template usage) solecism, you used the wrong symbol for English "short-i". It should be ɪ. Also we usually put the English IPA inside / / rather than because we are giving a broad transcription rather than a narrow one. We also distinguish between the UK and US prounciations. The pronunciation you gave is correct for the UK, but not for the US, where /ɒ/ is almost never used. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clearing this up. --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

If these are Georgian numbers, then they are symbolic forms and should be listed as "Symbol" rather than "Cardinal number". If these are words, then they should not be in Category:Georgian numbers. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I know. These are words and should be in Category:ka:Cardinal numbers. Will see to it soon. --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can also use Category:Georgian numerals, although there is not community consensus on using "Numeral" for the part of speech. --EncycloPetey 05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Category:ka:Cardinal numbers will be a subcategory of Category:Georgian numerals. Like Category:hy:Cardinal numbers are a subcategory of Category:Armenian numerals and Category:fi:Cardinal numbers of Category:Finnish numerals. --Vahagn Petrosyan 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vahagn, sorry, I've been away for a while and couldn't use the Internet, so I've just seen your message. OK, I can add some dirty words like siktir, and other derivations of sikmek and the others. (By the way, thank you very much for your care on the Russian entry I created) Best wishes! Sinek 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Waow! The templates look perfect now! I tried to do so, but I'm really bad at this, and all the thing I could do was making them look worse xD So thanks a lot.. Hmm ok I'll take a look at them, too. Annd, another dirty words xD It's a kind of funny to work with the dirtiest words in a serious way xD Anyway, see you soon! Best wishes! Sinek 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, "veren" means "the one who gives", imperative of "vermek" (ver) and suffix "-en", which makes adjectives from verbs. I don't know if it's suitable for a dictionary entry. Sinek 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! :D I could have sworn I fixed that, but apparently I would've lost whatever I had bet :D — opiaterein — 20:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. And thanks for Georgian declension templates. Too bad I don't know enough Georgian to use them. Where did you get the declension patterns, if not a secret? By the way, we already have an Appendix:Georgian transliteration. Perhaps only it or Wiktionary:Georgian transliteration should be kept. And why the modification of ḡ > ġ for ღ and ǰ > ĵ for ჯ? --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is why I wish the transliteration stuff were standardized dammit lol

I got the patterns from Wikipedia:Georgian grammar :) There are a couple more, but they're a little more complicated than the one I made, so I think I'll leave them alone, since I really don't know any Georgian.

I made those changes because the older characters aren't all standard enough to be attractive in more common fonts. — opiaterein — 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, you can't change established transliteration systems just because their characters aren't standard enough :) Particularly, it is important to transliterate ჯ as ǰ, because that's how Armenian ջ is transliterated and also the equivalent in various Middle Iranian languages in linguistic literature (and these languages borrowed from each other extensively). So, if you don't mind I'll merge your table with Appendix:Georgian transliteration. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know which of these is the proper suffix? I would figure both, but I tried to take the initiative to make the category for Polish nouns suffixed with -ność to be shot down and told that only -ość is a proper suffix. Since -(n)ość and -(н)ость are cognates, I figured I'd ask you before I plow ahead with yet another project :D — opiaterein — 00:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I didn't pay attention before, but they are quite different suffixes according to the biggest Russian dictionary. You'll have to know which suffix is used every time you use {{suffix}}. For example, бледность is from -ость, not -ность. And I will have to tweak our entries -ость, -ность later someday today to explain the difference. --Vahagn Petrosyan 00:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw that the Polish words were generally adjectives that ended in -ny, kinda like бледный. Maybe that affects it? — opiaterein — 00:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The ones derived from an adjective belong to -ость group: смелый - смелость, благой - благость, бледный - бледность, коварный - коварность. The н in the last two is left over from the adjective, so they has nothing to do with -ность. Words composed by -ность are, e.g. погрешность, принадлежность, провинность - not from adjectives. So, yes, the derivation from adjectives is one way to tell apart -ость/-ность. --Vahagn Petrosyan 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

How'bout words like гетеросексуальность? It appears that гетеросексуаль is an adjective, but I clearly don't speak good Russian :D — opiaterein — 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's from an adjective гетеросексуальный + -ость. --Vahagn Petrosyan 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I changed the definiton of -ность and -ость to show that they are different suffixes. Hope this helps. --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in Turkish there is a word "çatlak", which may be used for not only "crazy, mad" but also for "crack". But there is not a word like pilakyan, merdiven means stairs, ladder. By the way, manyak, çatlak, deli, çılgın could be used in a same way. Cheers! Sinek 11:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source to cite for the macron over the "e" that you put into this entry? The sources I have don't show it, and I wouldn't expect a macron there, but my most reliable sources for Latin macron placement do not include this verb. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Dvoretsky's Latin-Russian dictionary. Here.

2. Ausführliches Lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch von Karl Ernst. Here

3. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, Ernout, Meillet, in the etymology of aboleō. --Vahagn Petrosyan 05:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you add a full citation for these to the entry? Given that English-published sources don't seem to mark the macron there, such citations will be useful to other readers. Perhaps you could create reference tempates similar to {{R:L&S}}, if these soucres are likely to be cited often (although I'm beginning to think such references for Latin ought all to start with "R:la:...") --EncycloPetey 15:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the references. Will think of creating such templates if I find myself quoting those dictionaries frequently. --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fleshing out the articles on Russian words that I started. Should I keep adding missing words, even though my limited knowledge of Russian precludes me from composing richer articles? --Joti 16:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, yes, continue adding Russian words. Especially when nothing you added was wrong. It's much better to have modest entries than no entries at all! Just don't forget to transliterate and link the translations. Good luck! --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean Russian . . . SemperBlotto 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yep. I already noticed and was going to change. --Vahagn Petrosyan 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply