User talk:Wikitiki89/2014

Hi WT. I reverted you at apple, apologies…UK /a/ and US /æ/ are distinguished by many editors, since the difference in pronunciation is one of the key differences between US and UK English. The OED also takes this approach, and it's what we have listed at Appendix:English_pronunciation. Ƿidsiþ 20:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Appendix:English pronunciation didn't say that until you changed it recently. My electronic copy of the OED gives /æp(ə)l/ for apple. The GenAm and RP pronunciation of the short "a" is exactly the same. I watch British TV shows on a regular basis and I have never heard /a/ as the realization this sound, except by Scots. In fact some British speakers pronounce it even higher up closer to /ɛ/. The only place I've seen that transcribes this sound as /a/ is oxforddictionaries.com, which in case you didn't know is not affiliated with the OED. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow. OK…first of all the reason I changed it is because the page links to IPA_chart_for_English where, as you'll see, the UK pronunciation is given as /a/. As it in in the OED. I can only assume you are looking at the old 2nd Edition. The current (2008) version reads: ‘Brit. /ˈapl/ , U.S. /ˈæp(ə)l/’, more or less exactly as ours used to say before you changed it. This is normal in phonetic reference works and has been for several years: it's the normal form given in English Accents and Dialects, for instance. You can also check some of the references on that Wikipedia page. /æ/ is a very very old-fashioned pronunciation in the UK, it's the sort of thing people say in black-and-white films from the 1960s. "The GenAm and RP pronunciation of the short "a" is exactly the same." I'm sorry WT but this is just wrong, as you will see if you consult any good work on comparative phonetics. The difference between a Londoner and a New Yorker saying (deprecated template usage) man is instantly clear, and that difference consists mainly in the value of the vowel. So pretty please with sugar on top, can you change it back. Ƿidsiþ 07:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since the decision to transcribe this vowel as either /a/ or /æ/ affects a large number of words, I've raised the issue for a broader audience: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#using_.2Fa.2F_vs_.2F.C3.A6.2F_for_the_.27trap.27_vowel_in_RP. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 08:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Side note: I find it hilarious that IPA chart for English transcribes the vowel differently than English phonology#Vowels. Then again, it's not surprising: until I merged them, our own Appendix:IPA chart for English and Appendix:English pronunciation contradicted each other. - -sche (discuss) 08:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cheers. Yes, we definitely need more consistency. Ƿidsiþ 08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the "a" of words like "man" and "ham" can sometimes be pronounced differently than in words like "mad" and "had" amongst some American speakers. The "a" of "man" might be pronounced /eə/ instead of /æ/ in some American dialects, whilst the "a" of "mad" and "had" would still have the vowel /æ/, as in non-American dialects. In addition, Ƿidsiþ, the dialect of New York does not represent the dialect of Massachusetts (for instance) nor does either of the prior two represent the dialect of Florida. That would be like someone in America believing the speech of the Cockneys to be identical to the speech of the Geordies! Such presumptuous thinking is completely ignorant and naïve, and I see it present in the thinking of far too many people from England. It's this type of thing that has led me to no longer refer to myself as being from "the United States" when I'm asked where I hail from, and instead refer to the region I'm from (New England) instead. Geez... Tharthan (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This discussion was actually continued at the WT:Beer parlour. But /æ/-tensing is not phonemic, which is why we don't use it in phonemic transcriptions. We do indicate it in phonetic transcriptions occasionally. --WikiTiki89 19:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. When I checked my watchlist this morning, I saw that you had changed my audio file's descriptor from "New England" to "New York."

I am extremely insulted by this, as I am a proud and patriotic New Englander. My mother was born in Pawtucket, Rhode Island and my father was born in Fall River, Massachusetts. Due to a business opportunity, I was born in Alexandria, Virginia, but I lived there for only the first year of my life due to my mother becoming extremely homesick. I've lived in Warwick, Rhode Island since I was two years old.

My point is, that I am a New Englander, and that both /bɒstɨn/ and /bɔstɨn/ are used in New England.

Please refrain from making such changes in the future. Tharthan (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for telling me. That explains everything, because Rhode Island doesn't have the cot-caught merger. I will mark the audio as Rhode Island. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. And, actually, the phonetic realisation of /ɒ/ varies depending on the word and (in some cases) the person (though I've never run into anyone who has actually realised /ɒ/ as /ɒ/). For example:

"Dog" /dɒg/ is realised as /dɔ:g/, but "hog" /hɒg/ is realised as /hɑg/.

"Pop" /pɒp/ is realised as /pɑp/, but "Popeye" /pɒpaɪ/ is realised as /pʌpaɪ/.

"Florida" /ˈflɒɹɪdə/ is realised in one of three sundering ways (it has no consistent pronunciation). The first is /ˈflʌɹɪdə/, which is heard quite often from the elderly, and (oddly) many adolescents. The second is /ˈflɔɹɪdə/, which is heard in the speech of some adolescents. The final one is /flɑrɪdə/, which is heard in the speech of those born c. 1960-1980.

...It's the same deal with the "horse, hoarse" distinction. Some keep it, others do not. In many instances, one might hear one pair of words pronounced distinctly, but another not. It is irritatingly inconsistent. Tharthan (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That all is typical New England stuff. Rhode Island is the only place that still has /ɔ:/. --WikiTiki89 17:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to encourage you to reinstate your support for Kephir in Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2013-12/User:Kephir for admin in spite of your coming late to the vote. Ideally, you would indent your post like "#: {{support}}" so that it is not counting, and add "posting after vote closure" or the like to your vote. The vote closing date is a necessary evil, IMHO; the purpose of a vote should include finding out about support and oppose positions of as many editors as possible. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

See e.g. late votes at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-09/CFI and Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok done. --WikiTiki89 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wikitiki,

I saw your question about Ladino orthography in a tea room from Nov. 2012. I am a native speaker of Judaeo-Spanish and I am competent in both speaking and writing the language. Unfortunately there aren't many online sources that are proper. However, I am more than willing to help with any question or any problem what-so-ever.

About the spelling of Judeo-Español or Djudeo-Espanyol in Merubbá (Hebrew square letters), the correct spelling is: גֿודֿיאו-איספאנייול. However, sometimes, the rafe (line) over daleth is omitted for convenience or easier spelling, even though it's fricative.

Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

It's nice to know that we have a native Ladino speaker among our editors. I don't know much Ladino, but I do know that whoever added most of our Ladino entries spelled a lot of things wrong.

It would be very helpful if you edited some of the Ladino entries and fixed spelling errors.

From what you say, I understand that the rafe is used on the letter gimel rather than a geresh (for the "dj" sound). Is that correct?

Thanks. --WikiTiki89 08:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeap, that's correct. Rafe has always been used traditionally on gimel, daleth, zayin, pe etc.

Btw, I am also an admin in the Ladino Wikipedia. And I have started a Ladino Wiktionary project. For it to be realised, all MediaWiki messages of the interface should be translated... So, I'm doing those translations mostly in my free time.

About spelling in Ladino...Basically till 1850s, it was written in Rashi (printed) and Soletreo (cursive hand-writing) and usually Merubbá (square Hebrew letters) was used for titles in printed books. From 1860 and on, the Latin letters were introduced to most native speakers, through the French schools of Alliance Israélite Universelle. So French orthography became very common, let's say till the 1930s. However due to nationalism in most countries, different types of orthographies developed.

Today, there are at least 12 styles of orthography using Latin letters + 5 different non-Latin orthographies in use. Though out of these 17, 6 are the most common and most suitable to use in the Wiktionary: French orthography (Vidas Largas), Turkish orthography, Aki Yerushalayim orthography (simplest Hebrew transcription system), Multidialectal orthography, Old Spanish orthography and Hebrew orthography. Most speakers are over 70 years of age and it is very difficult to find proper sources online. Thankfully, I have books dedicated to this subject at home. I am also in contact with speakers from different parts of the world. For example, I've recently learned that (old) Spanish-based orthography (with some French and Italian influences) is quite common among the ex-Rhodes, ex-Congo Sephardic communities. Turkish orthography is quite common in Turkey, where I am from. Aki Yerushalayim (AY) is gaining popularity in some academic circles, it's a 30 years old orthography. Multidialectal one however is the youngest, it's around 6 years old. It's also called the United Orthography and in my opinion is much more developed than AY because of it's partially a deeper system (it makes use of some morphographic and multidialectal conventions, though it's a phonographic system at its base).

In no other orthography, you could differentiate between qué (what) and ké (dock), between carar (amount) and karar (decision), between vida (life) and vidda (screw) etc. Often times, the same word is bound to be written in many different ways in the same orthography but most often not in the multidialectal one. For example sueño is spelled suenyo, suenyu, s.huenyo, s.huenyu, es.huenyo, es.huenyu, esfuenyo and esfuenyu according to the pronunciation (dialect) of the speaker, and when spelled in the Aki Yerushalayim orthography. Fuerte is spelled similarly as fuerte, huerte, fuerti and huerti. Kereste is spelled as kereste, kyereste, kyeresti, chereste and chiresti. Hijo is spelled as ijo, fijo, isho, fiju and hijo. Muchacha is spelled as muchacha, muchache and mushasha. That's why I prefer the multidialectal spelling in the interface translation, because you can write a word one way and it could be read different ways (own ways), according to the origin of the reader. Writing muchacha and mushasha is like writing tomahto and tomeito for the same word.

It would be very nice if we could fix, different orthographies or spelling standards for the wiktionary, may be use only one of them in the translations, and give the most other common spelling as alternative spellings. May be I'll go ahead and do some corrections, however I'm not so good with templates.

Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here at the English Wiktionary, we require words to be citable. Since Ladino is a fairly small language, Ladino words only require one citation to be deemed "verified". This means that we should choose the orthography that has the most durably archived texts available so that we can verify whether the word exists. If we use this "Multidialectal orthography", which as you say is 6 years old, I am worried that there wouldn't be enough published books to get citations from. I found a description of the multidialectal orthography here and it seems interesting, but if we can't find citations in it, then we can't use it. See WT:CFI#Attestation and WT:LDL#Citations for more information. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah! I though citation rule was for Wikipedia..and usually I like to cite everything I add to the Wikipedia. However citing every Ladino word one adds, would be quite difficult, if not impossible, especially for each orthography. I have two Ladino dictionaries at home. One of them is a small Ladino-Turkish / Turkish-Ladino dictionary, where the Turkish system is used with small modification. The other one is the biggest Ladino dictionary present, but written especially for the Salonika dialect; from Ladino to French. However it uses a very unconventional system of spelling. So if I add a word from there but use a more common orthography (passing from one style/spelling to the other is quite simple actually), then how could I cite it? Would I need to cite, every word I add, in every spelling style (Hebrew, French, Turkish spellings etc.)?

Btw, I checked again and it seems I was wrong about the age of the multidialectal spelling. I think it's around 12 years old...But it wouldn't matter which orthography I use, it would be practically impossible to cite every word I add in its every form, let alone to cite each word itself. We should not forget that Judeo-Spanish is a highly endangered language, with most of its native speakers over 70 and not using the internet. There has been orthography change, at least twice or even thrice in the last 150 years. There used to be tens of daily newspapers and thousands of books published a hundred years ago. However it's not the case today. So, my grandparents' knowledge and some older publications and books are the best resources available. --Universal Life (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't actually need to cite every word. It just needs to be possible to cite the words. If someone asks for the word to be verified, then you will need to cite it. With languages like Ladino, people usually aren't very picky about verifying words. But I still think it is important that we use an orthography that would allow us to cite as many words as possible. Also note that citations are not the same as Wikipedia. Citations here need to be uses of the words rather than other dictionaries or articles talking about the words. Wikipedia is a tertiary source because it only cites secondary sources, but Wiktionary is a secondary source because we only cite primary sources. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you WikiTiki, now I'm relieved! I imagined that I would need to find secondary sources and proof that such word exists every time I made an entry...I was discouraged for a moment there, but now I understand what you meant by citation. I have misunderstood. Thanks for explaining :) --Universal Life (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

If there is anything I can do or any question or problem that I can be helpful with, about Judaeo-Spanish, please let me know. Thanks --Universal Life (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well there are a lot of things that you could do, depending on how much time you have to work on things:

• You could check the spelling of Ladino entries. A lot of them are wrong.
• You could add words that we are missing.
• You could add pronunciations, etymologies, conjugation tables.
• You could add citations. For an example of how to add citations, see the Hebrew word סופגנייה.
• You could add usage examples if you can't find a citation. For an example, see the Hebrew word נפגש.

Those are just some things I could think of off the top of my head. I myself don't work with Ladino a lot because I don't know enough about it. But if I had a text to work with, then I would be able to add citations. The only Hebrew-script text I can find in Google Books is a Ladino translation of the New Testament, which I think is probably the worst subject for quoting Ladino. I'm not even sure why the New Testament was ever translated into Ladino. I don't know if you happen to have any Ladino books at home, but if you do, that would be one of the best sources. --WikiTiki89 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I will see what I can do. --Universal Life (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pages are now showing module errors when a word begins with e-. —CodeCat 02:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I should have tested it more. But it's fixed now. --WikiTiki89 02:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the changes are done now. Could you have a look to see if everything is ok? —CodeCat 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Seems fine to me. --WikiTiki89 06:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure that wasn't spelled with yat? It had one historically. —CodeCat 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're right, my mistake. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It does, but it's not as practical. People could still edit the first section to put messages in the second, and that would make recent edits harder to follow. —CodeCat 20:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

But people generally won't do that. And the people interested in the second section are probably also interested in the first one. --WikiTiki89 20:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Are you sure that “valles” is both singular and plural ? On most latin dictionary valles is only a plural… In any cases, for the valleys of Valles Marineris most of the source say « Valles » is a plural ;)

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to our entries valles and vallis can both be the nominative singular form, while the nominative plural is vallēs. This might be a mistake, but I don't know. I will ask someone who knows more Latin than me. --WikiTiki89 18:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to fr:valles, it's only a plural . I'll wait for a answer…

For the pronunciation of Valles Marineris, TAKASUGI Shinji (talk • contribs) change ˈvælɪs ˌmɛəɹɪˈnɛɹɪs to ˌvæl.ɪs ˌmæɹ.ə.ˈnɛɹ.ɪs. I don't know well enough API to tell if this change matters or not, if it's right or not… Meanwhile, I've found some references for the pronunciation : VAL-less mar-uh-NAIR-iss, VAHL-lace mah-rin-EHR-iss, and this audio file.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with his change to the stress, but /mæɹ/ seems more correct than /mɛəɹ/. Metaknowledge (talk • contribs) has confirmed that the vallēs is an alternative nominative singular form of vallis. --WikiTiki89 18:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I understand what you mean, but several American online dictionaries disagree with your syllabication (see Dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster, for example). The actual most common GA pronunciation of the word is obsolete or nonstandard characters (ᵻ), invalid IPA characters (ᵻ). The phenomenon ("Canadian raising") can cross syllable and even word boundaries. Wolfdog (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just saw the note that you had reverted my edits on "bear", and while I was looking to see what you'd done and why you reverted more of them. I'm perfectly willing to discuss my edits, but would you please not revert edits while they're still being made? Say, wait an hour to see if the person is done? (Is there any instant messaging or instant alert functionality?)

I want to do this right - I have just retired from a full career as a linguistic researcher, most recently with the University of Pennsylvania - so I was working on the fixes and saving every so often. I saw the red "1" at the top of my page while I was in the middle of posting to the Tearoom, asking for a more experienced Wiktionarian to check my work and advise me on it. (I am, however, a fairly experienced Wikipedian.)

I need my supper. Afterward I will see your reply, I hope. --Thnidu (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if I interfered with your editing, but there is no way for me to know whether you were done or not. --WikiTiki89 01:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see the revisions that you and User:-sche have made to my edits, and I'm content with them. --Thnidu (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please look at these two categories: Category:form of/definite form Category:form of/definite. Perhaps you might want to change all of those in the second one, to be consistent. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. In that case I'm ok with "definite of" for now. But I will bring this up for wider discussion. --WikiTiki89 06:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Svann? svann? Could you give an entry please? --Back on the list (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

svunno mentions it. --WikiTiki89 13:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Entry created. Why? LA2 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I used it in this game. --WikiTiki89 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Поначалу я ставил ударение в русинском, особенно в тех словах, где ударение совпадает во всех восточно-славянских языках, но потом перестал. Ведь ударение может и не совпадать под влиянием словацкого и других языков. У тебя есть какой-нибудь источник с ударениями? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Нет, но я почти уверен, что ударение бы не менялось, особенно в таких словах, которые очень часто используются. --WikiTiki89 19:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Думаю, что это довольно рискованно. С уверенностью можно говорить только о правописании. В украинском ударения могут быть очень непредсказуемые для русского, который мало знаком с украинским: мали́й, стари́й, ко́лесо, дочка́, ідете́, и так далее. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Только что исправил собственную ошибку в переводе на украинский: дрова́ -> дро́ва (@firewood. Раньше ошибок было больше, но с украинским и белорусским легче проверить. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Да, но когда ударение в том же месте во всех языках, очень вероятно, что будет там же и в русинском. Когда в русском и в украинском ударение не совпадет, это обычно из-за изменения которое случилось именно в русском языке. На пример:

рус. ста́рый (stáryj), ук. стари́й (starýj), бел. стары́ (starý), русин. стары́й (starŷ́j)

рус. идёте (idjóte), ук. ідете́ (ideté), бел. ідзяце́/ідзяцё (idzjacjé/idzjacjo), и в русинском наверно тоже ідете́.

--WikiTiki89 01:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikitiki89 -- I'm sure your intentions are the best, but there are a couple of points you are missing:

1. The purpose of Silent Sam's original edit was to add a new term to the list of derived terms and rebalance the columns. Your reversions keep removing these improvements.

2. Inclusion of the POS in the "Derived terms" header has been good, accepted practice for many years by seasoned editors. DCDuring, for one, also routinely does it.

Please restore Silent Sam's last version. Respectfully -- · (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't realize that he added more terms to the list as well, I should have been more careful. Can you show me some examples of this "good, accepted practice" by "seasoned editors"? --WikiTiki89 00:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit on the pronunciation of -ing? 76.18.160.47 06:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Because you made it look like that was the only pronunciation in the US. --WikiTiki89 16:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

На арабские диалекты мало обращают внимание в викисловаре. Я думаю, не будет больших проблем в создание диалектных статей используя заголовок "Arabic". Проверь, пожалуйста ايش, добавь или измени регионы и удали "Arabic terms needing attention", если всё в порядке. Думаю, что перед тем как начать обсуждение в "Пивной" нужно создать несколько примеров. (Я практически не знаю диалекты, кроме некоторых распространенных слов, но имею только информацию о них и у меня есть разговорники и словари, при необходимости могу кое-что добавить из словарей). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я сам не эксперт в диалектах, но у меня просто глубокий интерес к Левантскому диалекту (особенно к Палестинскому/Израильскому) и его учу на Ютюбе. О других диалектах я в основном знаю только то, что читаю в лингвистических статьях, но это никак не помогает их понимать. Я согласен, что надо создать несколько примеров, я сейчас создал وين (wen), مين (mīn), عم (ʿam), رح (raḥ). --WikiTiki89 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я добавил شنو, ايه и то, что ты видел, плюс примеры использования. Я думаю, что структура для работы с диалектами практически готова, тем более для левантийского, которого до сих пор не было, под заголовком "Arabic". Нужно добавить региональные категории и постепенно перебросить туда существующие диалектные. Не думаю, что будет сопротивление. Арабские шаблоны (фусха) немного получше диалектных. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Писать МФА (IPA) очень хлопотно и я не силён в арабской фонетике на этом уровне. Что ты думаешь по поводу слияния حصان под "арабским языком". Разница только в произношении. Нужно ли добавлять транслитерацию (ḥuṣān) для египетского произношения или только МФА? Статей на египетском не так уж много, хотя займет какое-то время. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я не очень хорошо знаю египетскую фонетику. Лучше чтоб User:Mahmudmasri это делал. --WikiTiki89 06:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Хорошо. Надо убедить его в необходимости и в новых возможностях слияния.

Мне нравится такой формат:

• (Modern Standard Arabic) IPA^(key): /ħisˤaːn/ (transliteration: ḥiṣān)

• Audio:

  (file)

• (Egyptian) IPA^(key): /TO DO/ obsolete or nonstandard characters (T), invalid IPA characters (TODO) (transliteration: ḥuṣān)

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Да, мне тоже нравится. Проблема в таких буквах как ق (q), у которых даже в одном Леванте много разных произношений (/q/, /ʔ/, /k/, /ɡ/, и т.д.). --WikiTiki89 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Это не страшно. Можно добавлять известное произношение по регионам, например, IPA^(key): /первое/ replace е with e, р with p, о with o and в with ʙ, invalid IPA characters (первое), /второе/ replace е with e, р with p, о with o and в with ʙ, invalid IPA characters (второе), /третье/ replace е with e and р with p, invalid IPA characters (третье). Это всё равно проще, чем писать целые статьи. При вертикальном расположение раздела произношения можно добавлять сколько угодно и свернуть (collapse), если получится слишком много. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess I was requested to comment here since I was tagged and notified, but I don't speak Russian. The audio file sounded like , but with a weird rising tone. This pronunciation is also accepted in the Egyptian accent of Literary Arabic, in addition to . However, in Egyptian Arabic dialect, it is . --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri Actually, I didn't actually mean to ping you, but since you're here, what we wanted was to know how the word is pronounced in Egyptian Arabic (i.e. an IPA transcription). I basically said that I don't know enough about Egyptian and that you should be the one to transcribe it. --WikiTiki89 18:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It is often difficult for non-Egyptian Arabic speakers to speculate the exact vowel, additionally because it is a non-standardized language. To simplify things for you, use the a, i, u letters for the short vowels when transliterating/transcribing exclusively Egyptian Arabic words (in non-IPA transcriptions), however the shortened ē, ō should be transcribed as e, o.

Egyptian Arabic vowels summary:

• The short vowels in IPA: and word finally. However, the can be and some linguists prefer them as the main values over .
• The long vowels in IPA: . Notice that long vowels are usually in stressed syllables. Many words which end with a vowel are spelled with Arabic letters for long vowels, however when the last syllable is unstressed (which is very common), the vowel is pronounced shortly and should be transcribed as a short vowel.

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all unstressed vowels shortened in Egyptian, not only the final ones? Also, as a separate question, does مافيش have a short /ɪ/ or long /iː/? --WikiTiki89 16:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

مافيش is pronounced . Vowels in unstressed syllables are shortened if they were originally long, but there are exceptions especially in careful pronunciation of loanwords. The word itself is also spelled in Arabic letters as مفيش (without alef). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Mahmudmasri. I also have a question for you. What do you think of a unified approach for all Arabic varieties? The question was about a word that is spelled identically in MSA and Egyptian but pronounced differently, such as حصان, I think those just need a separate pronunciation section for dialects. We are aware that dialects can be very different from MSA but the actual number of words, which are spelled differently in the dictionary form is not so large. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

If the spelling is the same in Arabic text, then we shouldn't provide duplicates of the Arabic spelling, just the pronunciation, but we shouldn't merge the dialectal variation with the Literary Arabic pronunciation. حصان is pronounced the same by Egyptians in Literary Arabic, but differently in Egyptian Arabic (their daily spoken language). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good point. Can we then use Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Egyptian colloquial" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. for ḥiṣān and Lua error in Module:parameters at line 573: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Egyptian standard" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. and for ḥuṣān or something similar? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The situation is similar with Quebec French, where words are pronounced differently in formal contexts due to influence from French French. For example centimètre is pronounced /sɑ̃.tsi.maɛ̯t(ʁ)/ in the colloquial dialect, but /sɑ̃.tsi.mɛːt(ʁ)/ formally; compare this to /sɑ̃.ti.mɛt(ʁ)/ in France. --WikiTiki89 13:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

No! We can't use the labels colloquial vs standard (that would be extremely controversial) because Egyptian Arabic is not a standardized/literary language yet and the Literary Arabic cognate /ħɪˈsˤɑːn/ is not used colloquially. Wasn't my previous comment clear? Egyptians can use Egyptian Arabic in formal situations, not just informally. Literary Arabic is almost always used in formal situations and can't be used informally, unless you are extremely faking it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why not just use the tags, Egyptian and Egyptian MSA? --WikiTiki89 16:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. @Mahmudmasri, what do you think? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Egyptian MSA? When would we need that label? Egyptian is an implicit label. Egyptian Arabic is more specific. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, we are discussing this in the context of merging Egyptian Arabic with Arabic. --WikiTiki89 19:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Egyptian Arabic is not the same as Arabic. The word Arabic mostly means Literary Arabic. The use of spoken Arabic dialects is different and not merely a stylistic variation for Literary Arabic, as your merging suggestion implies. See that edit to understand what I'm trying to say. We don't merely switch to Literary Arabic contextually. When we speak in Literary Arabic, it's more like consciously speaking another language, more like when you consciously choose to speak English and not Russian. Each spoken Arabic dialect, including Egyptian Arabic, have their formal and their informal styles. You are misunderstanding that situation, thinking that Literary Arabic is the formal while all other Arabics are informal, which is false. When we want to show respect and when we speak to our boss, we do so in a formal style of Egyptian Arabic, which is very different from Literary Arabic, it differs from how we speak to very familiar people. Egyptian Arabic has slang, which is not used in formal Egyptian Arabic. Literary Arabic has no slang vocabulary because it is mainly a written language. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The gadget should work now. You can w:WP:BYPASS and try again.

Though I will note that I was hesitant to archive this particular discussion myself, because I am not sure whether Wonderfool's "Kept" closure had been correct. Keφr 20:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I realized that too, which is why I did not try again. It seemed that the consensus was to delete, but the deletion hadn't been fully carried out. --WikiTiki89 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It worries me a bit that so many things on this project turn out like that. A problem appears, people start discussing how to solve it, disagreements arise, some are dealt with, in the meantime we get distracted by other problems, discussions are left without a clear resolution, ideas are not implemented and ultimately nothing gets done. Or worse, people do not even bother to participate in discussions. I think the WT:RFD/WT:RFV backlog is where you can see it most clearly, but there are many other examples. Keφr 21:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed. Beer parlour discussions die out as soon as the next big discussion comes up. At least with RFV/RFD, each discussion needs to be eventually closed. --WikiTiki89 21:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, my understanding is that the three Hungarian templates are all redundant to general-purpose templates, but aren't actually harmful. One user plans to eventually add Hungarian-specific features to them, but as I commented on RFDO, it's been 4.5 years and that hasn't happened yet. So, they could be orphaned and deleted, but apathetic archiving of them wouldn't be a harmful outcome (just a neutral outcome). - -sche (discuss) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well I was just trying out (or trying to try out) Kephir's new archiving tool. There's no rush to archive that particular discussion. --WikiTiki89 22:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я добавил шаблоны, для того чтобы лучше видеть символы. Посмотри, пожалуйста, не сделал ли я ошибки. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо! Ошибок нет. --WikiTiki89 12:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо тебе! Как человеку не знающему иврит, мне кажется таблица очень непонятная, в том числе большинство комментариев, например что такое "a when gadol, o when katan", что такое "dagesh". Нет названий диакритических знаков или они упоминаются, но их названий нет в таблице (и букв) и, в отличие от арабского, разные знаки дают один и тот же результат результат. Нет примеров с שׁ (sh) и שׂ (s), как в Module:he-translit. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev Теперь лучше? --WikiTiki89 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Намного лучше, спасибо! Еще хотелось бы знать, почему есть варианты согласных, напр. כ‎ и ך и другие. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

כ, מ, נ, פ, צ пишутся в начале и внутри слова. ך, ם, ן, ף, ץ пишутся в конце слова. Не очень уж отличается от арабского. --WikiTiki89 01:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Я так и подумал (только не знал, какая в начале и внутри слова, а какая в конце). Дело в том, что арабский алфавит просто показывает отдельно стоящие буквы, они сами изменяются в зависимости от положения в слове, хотя ب можно представить в виде: ﺏ / ﺑ / ﺒ / ﺐ. А в иврите не так? Нужно выбирать буквы в зависимости от положения или они сами изменяют форму? Для полноты картины, в Wiktionary:About Hebrew не хватает того, что ты мне сейчас рассказал. И еще я упомянул бы буквы для записи звуков /p/ и /f/, как ты сделал с "шин" и "син". Кажется всё. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

В иврите только пять таких букв и у каждой из них только одна конечная форма. В арабском, почти у каждый буквы есть две или четыре формы, столько клавиш бы не поместилось на клавиатуре. И еще некоторые исключения: буква פ пушется в конце когда имеет звук "п", из-за того, что исторически в иврите не могло быть звука "п" в конце слова: טיפ (тип, “чаевые”). И еще в аббревиатурах, которые не произносятся одним словом не пишут конечные буквы: ח״כ (х"к, “член Кнессета”). Поэтому их нельзя выбирать автоматически как в арабском. (/p/ и /f/ объяснены в строчке о "дагеш") --WikiTiki89 02:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Всё-таки "шин" и "син" представлены лучше, на мой взгляд, с примерами (שׂ и שׁ). Pey dagesh (פ и ף) отсутствует в примерах. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

ש — единственная двойная буква (с библейских времен, вероятно что ח и ע тоже были двойными также как и в арабском ḥ/ḫ и ʿ/ģ, но потом слились как и в арамейским и в мальтийским). В отличие от них, буквы ב, ג, ד, כ/ך, פ, ת всегда считаются одной буквой несмотря на то, что их произношение меняется по контексту (немного как русская буква е/ё), например: פָּתַח (patách/pāṯaḥ, “ открыл”) и יִפְתַּח (yiftách/yip̄taḥ, “ откроет”) (сравни с арабским فَتَحَ (fataḥa) и يَفْتَحُ (yaftaḥu)). Я не думаю, что стоит перечислять все варианты этих букв когда все объяснено в строчке "дагеш". --WikiTiki89 08:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ладно, спасибо еще раз. Я добавлю в строчку дагеш примеры פ и ף. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikitiki89. I'm trying to cite the titles of two books, both of which begin with a bit of Hebrew (1–2 words each). My Hebrew is non-existent, so I'm not even confident that I have the right characters. Could you help me, please? The titles are:

1. Harmonia Michææ V,1. & Matth. II,6. — גה…? I can't even guess what the rightmost character is.
2. Porta Mosis — באב מוסי?

Feel free to tell me how far off the mark I am. :-) Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first one is a bit hard to read, but I'm fairly sure it says בגה which makes no sense to me at all anyway. The second one is clear, you got the letters right באב מוסי, but it is actually not Hebrew, but Judeo-Arabic for "the door of Moses". --WikiTiki89 20:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

A Google Books search for "Harmonia Michaeae" also finds one mention of "Haskamath ha-nevi' we-ha-mebashsher: sive Harmonia Michaeae". Does that give any clues as to what the mysterious word is? Could it be something related to נגה (and perhaps the typesetters of the book used the wrong diacritics / put them in the wrong place)? - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think if you look closely, you'll see that the Hebrew letters aren't actually pointed: what looks like diacritics is actually bleed-through from the other side combined with the dots at the bottom of each letter that are apparently used to mark the location of each letter before it's drawn in. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Chuck is right that the letters are probably not actually pointed, but I still don't know what it means. The first letter (from the right) is definitely too wide to be a נ, so the word can't be נגה. --WikiTiki89 04:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Does it help any to assume a prepositional prefix followed by a yod? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I considered that the ב could be a preposition, but גה is not a word. And I don't know what you mean by "followed by a yod", since there is no yod (nor could one have been dropped). --WikiTiki89 05:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I meant ב + יגה. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard of a yod being dropped in writing when a preposition is added, but either way, יגה could only be the 3rd person masculine singular future tense of נגה, a tense that I've never heard of taking a preposition. It might be an acronym, but I have no idea how to figure out what it would stand for. --WikiTiki89 16:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that was a bit of idle brainstorming on my part. It's been a long time since I've really studied Hebrew grammar, so I thought I'd see if there was anything useful hiding in some of the gaps in my memory. The other wild guess seems actually grammatical: בג + -ה, but it doesn't really offer much of anything semantically. The only other thing I can think of is some kind of abbreviation.

As for the subject matter: I'm not going to spend the time to translate the Latin, but it might help you to know that the verse in Matthew quotes the verse in Micah in order to establish that the Messiah would be expected to come from Bethlehem, so I'm sure it's a discussion of how well the Micah passage fits what the Matthew passage claims about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't seem to find any clues in Micah 5:1. --WikiTiki89 18:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Wikitiki89, -sche, Chuck Entz: Thank you all for your efforts to make sense of these two bits of Hebrew-script text.
First, regarding באב מוסי (“the door of Moses”), does באב (bābun) — which, Wikitiki89, I greatly appreciate you creating — only have the narrow sense of “door”, or can it be used in as broad a range of senses as its Arabic etymon, باب (bāb)?
And second, regarding that cryptic little trigraph, בגה, Chuck Entz is right about the purpose of the text, whose Latin title translates to " Harmony of Micah 5:1 and Matthew 2:6", and I too checked the Hebrew text for Micah 5:1, but found nothing that helped (granted, all I was looking for was that series of three letters; I'm sure Wikitiki could glean more (!)). Upon following -sche's lead, I found what appears to be the text's full title page, which begins with three words, which I make out as הסכמח הככיא והמכשר; are those (as I very much doubt) spelt correctly? Do they mean anything to any of you? And can you see any relation between them and בגה?
Again, thank you all very much. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure that באב has the full range of meanings of باب (bāb) considering that Judeo-Arabic is really just an ethnolect of Arabic. As for the full title, the letters here are much clearer: הסכמת הנביא והמבשר, which I interpret as הַסְכָּמַת הַנָּבִיא וְהַמְבַשֵּׂר (haskamát hanaví v'ham'vasér, “agreement of the prophet and the messenger”) and the transliteration given as the Google Books title confirms this. However, this sheds absolutely no light on the "cryptic little trigraph". --WikiTiki89 17:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, Wikitiki89; and that's OK — I'll just cite the long Hebrew title. Just to confirm, it's הסכמת הנביא והמבשר, yeah? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yep, that's it. --WikiTiki89 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Wikitiki89. I wonder if you'd mind helping me again: Is סגלה a Hebrew word? Many thanks for any help you can give. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym More context would help, since there are several things it could be. --WikiTiki89 12:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be glossed either by pānis or pecūlium. Does that help at all? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first definition in Even-Shoshan of סְגֻלָּה (s'gulá, səḡullā) is דְּבַר חֶמְדָּה, קִנְיָן יָקָר, אוֹצָר נִבְחָר., or roughly "desired thing, valuable property, select treasure", which may correspond to peculium. --WikiTiki89 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Thank you very much; you're a great help. And I see you've added the vowel points to רוּחָנִי, as well; you are fantastic. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: No problem. Hebrew vowel points are one of my favorite things! --WikiTiki89 21:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Wikitiki89. I recently quoted an English text that contains some untransliterated Hebrew, namely this 1986 source cited at Citations:Nasiraean; could you verify that I've got the right characters in the text I typed, please? Besides that, I am interested to find out whether there is an etymological link between the two Hebrew terms נָזִיר (nazír, “Nazarite”) and נָצְרַת (natsrát, “Nazareth”). The third-edition–OED entry for “Nazirite, n. and adj.” states that the former derives from (nāzar, “to separate or consecrate oneself”, “to refrain from anything”; in later use “to take the vow of a Nazirite”), whereas its entry for “Nazarean, n. and adj.” (used to mean both "Nazarene" and "Nazarite") traces that word's derivation from the Aramaic adjective (nāṣrāyā), which itself is stated to derive from (nāṣraṯ, “Nazareth”) (= נצרת?). Nazarene and Nazarite get confused a lot, at least from Latin onward, but does this conflation extend further back in their derivation, back into Hebrew and/or Aramaic? Are you able to apply your expertise here, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, also, would you mind creating stubs for יִפְרֶֽה, מִשָּׁרָשָׁ֥יו, וְנֵ֖צֶר, יִשָׁ֑י, מִגֵּ֣זַע, חֹ֖טֶר, and וְיָצָ֥א, please? I was wondering which one is closest in meaning to the Ancient Greek ἄνθος (ánthos). (The Hebrew words are those in Isaiah 11:1.) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is נצר the one I'm looking for? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, נצר. Many of those items you gave above have prefixes that aren't part of the words, so they're not suitable for entries. As for etymology, the place name is attested fairly late (not in the Hebrew scriptures, only as Greek in the New Testament, and not in the Talmud), so I'm sure the trail is a bit cold. My impression is that there are competing theories, but nothing that stands out as particularly compelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

See w:Nazareth#Etymology and The morfix entry for נצר. --WikiTiki89 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also note that there have been cases of interchange between ז and צ—see זוהר / זֹהַר (zóhar) and צוהר / צֹהַר (tsóhar) / צהריים / צָהֳרַיִם (tsohoráyim), but I do not find it to be very likely in this case. --WikiTiki89 17:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Thank you for the confirmation and for correcting my links. By that placename's late attestation, do you mean נצרת's? And is that in Hebrew, Aramaic, or either? I just need a scholarly "maybe" for a link; it needn't be very convincing.

@Wikitiki89: Thank you for making me aware of Morfix (now bookmarked), for correcting my links, and for pointing me toward the etymology section of that Wikipedia article. I've been reading up on Hebrew transliteration, so things are a little clearer to me now (I infer that nāṣrāyā denotes נצרי, minus vowel points, of course); but I'm still confused: Is Aramaic transliterated the same way (i.e., according to the ISO 259 transliteration scheme for Classical Hebrew), or is it treated differently? And how do I transliterate Hebrew and/or Aramaic without vowels? Should נצרי be transliterated n-ṣ-r-y or NṢRY, for example?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Edited. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't correct your links- that was Wikitiki89. As for the place name: I believe it's not mentioned in any form in any language before the New Testament. At least, w:BDAG (3rd English edition) states: "...the place is not mentioned in the OT, Talmud, Midrash, or Joseph". In the Septuagint, the only word starting with the letters "ναζ" is ναζιραῖος (naziraîos, “Nazarite”), which is from Hebrew ‏נָזִיר‎. As for the New Testament, the Greek has Ναζαρέτ (Nazarét) and Ναζαρά (Nazará)(though not all texts have the latter), and the earliest Syriac translations (4th & 5th centuries) have ‏נֹצרַתֽ/ܢܳܨܪܰܬ݂ (the pointing isn't from the earliest texts). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

In scholarly transliterations, Hebrew and Aramaic usually transliterated in essentially the same way (our transliteration of Hebrew is not scholarly and is based on modern Hebrew). The transliteration nāṣrāyā refers to the Aramaic adjective/noun נָצְרָיָא (“the Nazarite”), which is the emphatic (i.e. definite) form, and also the lemma form, of נָצְרָי (nāṣrāy). The Hebrew equivalent of this word is נָצְרִי (nats'rí, nāṣərī), with our Modern Hebrew transliteration and the scholarly one, respectively. The word נצרת is both Aramaic and Hebrew, the Hebrew likely having been borrowed as-is from Aramaic. As for transliterating without vowels, you should avoid this unless it is impossible to find the vowels, in which case any combination of hyphenated/unhyphenated and capitalized/uncapitalized can be used. --WikiTiki89 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: My mistake; I've now corrected my post. Thanks for the info. The third-edition–OED entry for “Nazirite, n. and adj.” mentions the "Hellenistic Greek Ναζιραῖος, Ναζειραῖος (Septuagint, only in Judges 13 and 16)", so I looked for it/them in el:s:Κριταί, but the nearest thing I could find was ναζὶρ (nazìr) in Judges 13:5. Where did you find ναζιραῖος?

@Wikitiki89: (First of all, thanks for correcting my links.) Thank you for all the explanations; they've helped me understand matters better. Would you be willing to create entries for נזר (at least in Hebrew, as נֵזֶר (“crown”, “wreath”) and נִזַּר (“deprive oneself ”), apparently) and נצר (in Hebrew: נֵצֶר (“stem”, “shoot”; literary “scion”), נָצַר (“keep or maintain”, literary “guard or save”, of weaponry “lock”), and נִצֵּר (“Christianize”), according to Morfix), please? Thanks for all your time.

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The Greek you linked to isn't the Septuagint. The w:Septuagint was the oldest translation (predating the New Testament by several centuries), but there have been others since. Here are all of the Septuagint examples, with KJV, Aramaic (translation) & Hebrew (original):

Oddly enough, ναζιραῖος is an adjective, even though it translates a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Damn! What have I been quoting, then? Thank you very much for the Septuagint quotes / OT verses in parallel translation. I've quoted the five Greek citations at Citations:ναζιραῖος. I took the quotations from Sacred-texts.com's Septuagint; is that a good and reliable source, or would you recommend a different reference for the LXX? I notice that, in Lamentations 4:7, ναζιραῖοι (naziraîoi) translates the Hebrew נְזִירֶיהָ; is that the plural of נָזִיר (nazír)? Again, thank you for the helpful quotations. — This unsigned comment was added by I'm so meta even this acronym (talk • contribs) at 04:21, 2 November 2014.

Actually, I think we're both right, and both wrong: the Sacred Texts site has versions from two different codices. My version matches the Codex Alexandrinus here, and yours matches the Codex Vaticanus , so they're both the Septuagint, but ναζιραῖος was right there in one of the sources you used, but you didn't look at both A and B versions. Still I shouldn't have overlooked the possibility of different versions- it happens quite a lot with biblical manuscripts. As for נְזִירֶיהָ: yes, it's the plural of נָזִיר (nazír), but it has a third-person plural pronoun suffix, so it means "her Nazarites" or "her princes" depending on which translation you use, and the vowels/ending are different because it's in the construct state. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: No, I did see that the Vaticanus ("B") version on there had ναζιρ (nazir), but only at Judges 13:5. Sacred-texts.com actually has four versions — it also has the version of Tobit from the Codex Sinaiticus and the Theodotion variants of three of the apocrypha. I realise more and more how little I know about Hebrew; how does נְזִירֶיהָ differ from נָזִיר's "normal" (i.e., unmarked, nominative, or whatever) plural form? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym I have added some sample noun declensions at Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech#Examples, which show how plurals and possessives work. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Thanks for that. So, is נְזִירֶיהָ transliterated neziireiha or neziireiho? Neither of those looks right to me, but that's what my perusal of w:Romanization of Hebrew#Table leads me to conclude. Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech#Examples suggests that to me that it's neziréha; is that any closer? The entry for נָזִיר says that that word's plural indefinite ("normal" plural) form is נְזִירִים; how far off am I in guessing that that plural indefinite form is transliterated nezirím? Also, regarding Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech#Feminine noun with internal changes, are a given noun's dual and plural construct forms always identical? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to our transliteration scheme (WT:HE TR), they are נְזִירֶיהָ (n'ziréha) and נְזִירִים (n'zirím). Using e instead of an apostrophe is not wrong, but it is not our convention. In the endings ־ֶיךָ (-ékha), ־ֶיהָ (-éha), and ־ָיו (-áv), the letter yod is just a relic of an older pronunciation and is ignored in pronunciation and transliteration. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The dual form is rare and usually limited to specific nouns that come in pairs (hands, eyes, lips, etc.). Often these nouns have different meanings in the plural and in the dual, and in these cases, the construct forms are distinct as well. Usually, duals are completely unused (for the first three examples, I only included them to show their forms). Except for some masculine nouns, the dual form is usually distinguishable from the plural. (Historically, the plural construct and possessed endings were borrowed from those of the dual, which is why it is סוּסֵי־ (suséi-), סוּסֶיךָ (susékha), etc. rather than *סוּסִי־ (*susí-), *סוּסִיךָ (*susíkha), etc.) --WikiTiki89 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89 Figuring you to be busy, I gave a shot at creating entries for the Hebrew terms נזר and נצר. I did my best, but I know they're deficient (for example, I don't know the nouns' genders, and I haven't the first clue regarding their "plural indefinite" and "singular construct" forms). I got the various transliterations from this tool, specifically the ones it generated in the "Sefardi (advanced)" style, in the hope that they would constitute the common Israeli transliteration scheme; are they accurate for that purpose? I am the most novice of novices when it comes to Hebrew... I'm certainly not at all confident when it comes to Classical transliteration; would you mind, therefore, telling me what the Classical transliterations for those five words are, please?

Thank you both for your help and instruction. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 04:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look. --WikiTiki89 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Thanks. BTW, here are my guessed-at Classical transliterations for those words: נֵזֶר (nēzer), נִזַּר (nizzar), נֵצֶר (nēṣer), נָצַר (nāṣạr), and נִצֵּר (niṣṣēr). Am I at all close with those? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Those are all correct, except for the fact that there shouldn't be a dot under the "a" of nāṣar (I'm not sure where you got it from). Also note that nēzer and nēṣer have penultimate stress, which may or may or not be indicated with an additional acute accent: nḗzer and nḗṣer. --WikiTiki89 20:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Although па-беларуску is an adverb in Belarusian, it can be translated as a noun in English. That's why I thought it best to add it in the translations for the English noun.

Here is an example of common use: Я размаўляю па-беларуску — I speak Belarusian.Vedac13 (talk)

There is a similar situation with Russian по-русски (po-russki), yet we don't list it as a translation of Russian. That information can be given on the entry for беларуская мова (bjelaruskaja móva) or беларуская (bjelaruskaja). We don't need to account for every possible situation in the translation tables; they just needs to point in the right direction. There is a similar situation with Russian по-русски (po-russki), yet we don't list it as a translation of Russian. --WikiTiki89 03:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

What Wikitiki89 said. "я размаўляю па-беларуску" literally means "I speak Belarusianly" or in Belarisan way. It's not just East Slavic way but it's a paradigm with a number of languages. E.g. Lithuanian translations of language names often have these weird translations with suffix -ai, since "lietuviškai" is the same as Russian по-ру́сски (po-rússki) or Belarusian па-белару́ску (pa-bjelarúsku). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps the following information could be put under the heading Usage Notes -

When using verbs expressing language skills, the adverbial form па-беларуску is used; e.g. я размаўляю па-беларуску ‘I speak Belarusian'.

A similar form could be used for languages using a similar system. What are your thoughts on this? Vedac13 (talk)

Usage examples are sufficient, IMO. As with по-ру́сски (po-rússki), lietuviškai or Czech česky. (Please note my changes, as I said before, you can fully use automatic transliteration for Belarusian, just need to add those accents. I noticed, you keep using "tr=" on Belarusian entries). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have just added Ukrainian украї́нською (ukrajínsʹkoju) and Polish po polsku, just for the heck of it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Having only the link - as in по-ру́сски (po-rússki) might cause some confusion for an English speaker new to the grammar - who would look at the the article русский язык (russkij jazyk) first and not see the function that по-ру́сски (po-rússki) has. I've tried the usage note thing with беларуская мова (bjelaruskaja móva) to give you an idea of what it could look like.Vedac13 (talk)

slovenščina might also be useful for a comparison. —CodeCat 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure you meant slovensko. I've listed some on User_talk:Vedac13#.28to_speak.29_.2B_in_a_language. I find them useful. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't. I was referring to the usage note. —CodeCat 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, OK, sorry. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've never heard the pronunciation /ˈviːˌlɒɡ/. Do you think you could point me to a video online where someone says it that way? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

google:veelog. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. After trying the first four videos that popped up, though, I'm still not convinced. In two of them, the speakers said /ˈvlɒɡ/, and in the other two, oddly, the speakers said both pronunciations in a row. In all four, the video descriptions used the spellings Vee-Log or veelog, not vlog. So I don't think they support the pronunciation of "vlog" as /ˈviːˌlɒɡ/. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

People spell it that way to indicate an alternate pronunciation. This spelling could not have existed unless vlog were pronounced that way first. The spelling itself is not very common, but it shows that the pronunciation exists. --WikiTiki89 16:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, makes sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wikitiki,

I was wondering whether you could help me clarify something. I assume you know about samizdat, but apparantly in the 1940s there was a poet who called the work he 'published' at home samsebyaizdat. This, along with the later samizdat, could be seen as a play on official publishing. I wondered whether you could tell me about the 'hilarity' so to speak of the word samsebyaizdat, because to me, it sounds as if the word is tautological. Is it tautological according to you and do you think some Russian speakers could find the word funny? A kind of strange question, but thanks anyway. 83.83.1.229 15:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Самиздат" means roughly "self-published", and "Самсебяиздат" means roughly "self-published-himself". It's basically a simple pun (or not even really a "pun", but I don't know what else to call it), and it's not tautological, it's just not 100% grammatical. I wouldn't say it's "hilarious", but it's the kind of joke my grandfather likes to make; it gives a chuckle at the right time and place, but that's about it. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please check my recent edit. Thanks!​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and, by the way, doesn't פֿאַר also mean "before" (in some sense(s) of the latter)?​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching the typo! As for "before", you're probably right. Since I'm going to be in the library today anyway, I'll double check it in a Yiddish dictionary. --WikiTiki89 15:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please note what's on the top of the page: Don't remove links for entries you define. But since someone else (= me) checked it now, it's fine ;) Longtrend (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Longtrend Ok sorry, that's just the way I've always done it. --WikiTiki89 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have actually physically updated the chart to have what you requested marked on it. For more details, read my latest response on -sche's talk page under the "I'm confused." header. Tharthan (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

pinging User:334a

Hi, you told me that the suffix -א/ܐ (-ā) never contained a glottal stop in Aramaic, unlike what we have in the pronunciation sections of most of our entries (I wanted to do more research and discuss it again, but I forgot), is your claim backed by any source or was it your personal judgment? I doubt that a bit because AFAIK, based on the words that I've encountered, unlike waw and yodh, aleph was not used as mater lectionis in Aramaic except in later stages of the language and in late borrowings, moreover the suffix -ē for emphatic plurals is written with aleph instead of yodh, which suggests it wasn't used as mater lectionis there (this may have been used to be distinguished from the constructive plural suffix, though). --Z 22:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@ZxxZxxZ I don't think I've seen a source really mention this at all, but I have read papers on the history of the definite article in Semitic that say that the Aramaic originated as the suffixed demonstrative hā (with the h elided). Incidentally, hā is also spelled with an aleph הא/ܗܐ (although it is spelled without one when used as a prefix: הָ־), so that in itself is not conclusive. But those theories also say that hā likely originated as an elided from of han or hal. I will try to find those sources again if you want to see them. As for the emphatic plural -ē: firstly, it was in fact also written as just a yodh, which is the usual form in Jewish texts, but then again, ריש (rēš) (from Proto-Semitic *raʾš-) is also written with a yodh even though it did originally have a glottal stop. Also, this suffix is from an earlier -ayyā(ʾ), written -יא, so the spelling with an aleph does not surprise me either way. Anyway, I think it is safe to say that the glottal stop, if it was there to begin with, was dropped at the same as the one in words like ריש (rēš), if not earlier, and so it makes sense to not transcribe it. It might also be useful to compare other words that end in aleph: Aramaic לָא (lā) is cognate with Hebrew לֹא (lō), and since Hebrew rarely has final alephs, I have always assumed that there was originally a glottal stop (although our Proto-Semitic entry *lā says otherwise); while Aramaic אֲנָא (ʾănā) is a clipping of Proto-Semitic *ʾanāku, and so could not have had a glottal stop at the end. --WikiTiki89 01:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@ZxxZxxZ One of the sources I read was “The Development of the Definite Article in Semitic: A Syntactic Approach” by Na'ama Pat-El (2009). --WikiTiki89 15:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the answer. I found this source which says: (OA = Old Aramaic)

" whereas in OA ʾ is still a genuine consonant and -ʾ in the emphatic state ending represents /-aʾ/, this is certainly not the case in IA, where the sub-standard spellings -h and -yh (masc.emph.), -th (fem.emph.), and -ʾ (fem.sg.abs.) demonstrate that -ʾ had lost its consonantal value and represents /-ā/."

So it's certain that in Imperial Aramaic (and therefore probably in later forms of Aramaic) it didn't contain a glottal stop (regardless the fact that whether it did contain in early form of Aramaic or not).

lā in PS possibly contained a glottal stop per STARLING (#3055), which has reconstructed it as *la(ʔ). אֲנָא (ʾănā) remains unexplained, although the word was normally written with a final he instead of aleph, at least in Biblical Aramaic. --Z 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've been working lately with Special:WantedCategories, and there's one batch of redlinked categories that you may be able to help me with. They seem to be generated by a template in Hebrew entries, and categorize for verb root type and binyan. I know enough Hebrew to recognize what they are, but I'm not sure what content should go in the categories, and how they should be categorized. If you don't have any ideas, or don't have time, that's ok: these have been around as redlinks for a while, and none of them has more than two entries- so it's not a big deal. Ideally, it would be nice to have a template to use in future ones, but any help would be apprecieated. Here are all the ones in the current Wanted categories run:
], ], ], ], ],], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]
Thanks ! Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz The existing categories, such as Category:Hebrew ל״ה pa'al verbs, use the template {{he-weakrootcat|ל|ה|bin=pa}}. I have just created the categories you listed with this template. --WikiTiki89 04:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perfect! that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Bear Flag sense is a proper noun, not a common noun, for the same reasons Democrat is a proper noun. Please do not revert again, and please discuss at Talk:Oso. Neither you nor Ungoliant have provided a cogent reason as to why it isn't a proper noun. Purplebackpack89 16:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please stop. You do not have a consensus for what you are doing. You have yet to point me to the discussion that says you do, and you have yet to participate in the BP discussion I have started about this issue and your edits. Purplebackpack89 17:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Purplebackpack89 I actually do have a consensus. This issue has been discussed multiple times throughout Wiktionary's history. My memory is not so detailed that I can point you to all of them, but the most recent one was this month, on the same page as the new one you just created. --WikiTiki89 17:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I started going through the Yiddish request category trying to find words of Hebrew origin with varying pronunciation but got sidetracked and started adding transliterations to words that had been done automatically, just to get rid of the category. With the exception of words I found with incorrect transliterations, in hindsight it was rather pointless, more precisely it was אַ ביסל טױג אױף קלאָגן. In the future i'll only be amending transliterations that truly need it. !אַ געזונטער דאַנק Sgold84 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that makes sense. It doesn't matter that much, I just didn't know you were doing that. --WikiTiki89 19:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So, what must I do to get back the use of my user page ? --Jean-Louis (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Create it again. And make it more useful to us that it was before. — Keφr 08:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

What is it for? It doesn't seem necessary at first glance. —CodeCat 20:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

See Module:he-links. It basically makes a few changes to the args and then calls Module:links/templates. I didn't want to duplicate all of the argument finding that the l_term_t already does, and apparently modifications to frame:get_parent().args are not actually stored back to the parent frame. If you know a better way to do this, by all means go ahead. --WikiTiki89 20:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, the purpose is to make Module:he-links accept the same parameters that {{l}} does? There are several ways I can think of:

1. Use frame:callParserFunction. It might not be the ideal solution, but it's basically equivalent to calling {{l}} from within another template, which I'm sure several of our templates already do.
2. Separate out the part of Module:links/templates that gathers the parameters, and call that.
3. Just copy the code. This is not great for maintenance, at least if you want the new template to always mimic the old one.

Option 1 seems best for now. Option 2 is probably a better long-term solution, because we would be able to use it for other templates like the form-of templates that use the same standard set of named parameters. But it would need more thinking out so it's not as good in the short term. —CodeCat 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was considering #2, but I decided fakeargs would be better. What problem do you see with it? --WikiTiki89 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem I see is that it makes it a bit harder to make changes to Module:links/templates because there is now an extra module that is "tied in" to how it works, rather than having only the templates to deal with. The function was explicitly made to be invoked only by those templates. With callParserFunction, that principle is not strictly broken because this counts as an invocation too. Importing and then calling the function doesn't, on the other hand. —CodeCat 21:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I wrote it to be tied as little as possible. As long as the line local args = fakeargs or frame:getParent().args isn't changed (which is unlikely because this is how all Lua template modules get the template args), and as long as the way positional arguments work isn't changed (which would require changing every link on Wiktionary), everything will be fine. --WikiTiki89 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you meant frame:expandTemplate()? I would choose number 3, despite the disadvantage mentioned. Especially that the module is language-specific (copying opens the door to language-specific specialisation), and likely to be overlooked anyway when Module:links/templates is changed so fundamentally that all users need to be updated. — Keφr 21:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

It already does language-specific specialization. That's the whole point. The way I've done it, it is resistant to any change to Module:links/templates, as long as the positional parameters remain the same. --WikiTiki89 21:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I meant callParserFunction, which would probably be slightky faster here. —CodeCat 22:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lua reference manual: "Whenever possible, native Lua functions or Scribunto library functions should be preferred to this interface." --WikiTiki89 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. And the native Lua function is Module:links#full_link. Module:links/templates is exclusively an interface to templates. — Keφr 11:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I understand that, but Module:links/templates does a lot of argument processing, which I don't want to duplicate. --WikiTiki89 11:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you drop the compatibility mode (and inputting the language code for that matter), it simplifies to something trivial enough to be plainly copied. — Keφr 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

But I would have to re-copy it every time a change it made. I want it to function as an exact clone of {{l}} and {{m}}, only with the additional of two Hebrew-specific parameters. It's sort of like a pre-processor for the {{l}} and {{m}} templates. I would have done it by just modifying the args in the parent frame, but I don't know whether that is possible and fakeargs is a nearly invisible robust workaround. I expect other modules may want to do the same thing, and having multiple copies floating around is much worse than having two copies, regardless of the simplicity. --WikiTiki89 12:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I disagree; I find it quite fragile actually. I am sure the arguments table was not intended to be written into, and as I see you discovered that too. If one day, say, Scribunto implements __newindex metamethod on the arguments table to guard specifically against this kind of abstraction abuse, Module:he-links will stop working. Second, if we ever decide to change the syntax of {{m}} and {{l}}, say, implement gloss as the third parameter as requested some time ago, it is possible that we forget about {{m/he}} and {{l/he}} during the migration completely. They would break after the change is done. If you do template argument processing yourself, the worst that happens is we end up with some syntax discrepancy, but at least existing users of the template do not break. If functionality is added, on the other hand, existing users of {{m/he}} and {{l/he}} will not need it immediately; having these templates lag behind a bit does little harm. Third, if forbidding this kind of "pre-processing" discourages people from creating new special-purpose linking templates, then this is a feature, not a bug. We already might have too many linking templates. — Keφr 13:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

If Scribunto implements __newindex to block changes to the args object, that will break a lot of other things I have done, and presumably others have done, in other modules for completely unrelated reasons. Anyway, I doubt they would do that. You're right that implementing glosses as the third parameter would break my code, but it would also break a lot of other things; if this happens, a lot of systematic changes would need to be made all over the place and updating Module:he-links would just be one of them (and that would still be the case even if I used frame:callParserFunction). I don't understand what you have against special-purpose linking templates, but I wouldn't be against allowing some sort of language-specific pre-processing for {{l}} and {{m}}, making Module:he-links unnecessary. --WikiTiki89 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"that will break a lot of other things I have done, and presumably others have done, in other modules for completely unrelated reasons". Examples please. And I will argue anyway that it is their fault, they should not have done that in the first place. I cannot even find a single example of you doing such a thing yourself, other than here. Against special-purpose linking templates I have the same thing that I have against any other superfluous template: each makes maintenance a bit harder. This is a burden that has to be weighted against other burdens of course, but if doing something with fewer templates is possible and feasible, we should do it so. — Keφr 16:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Module:ru-noun for example is full of args = bar. --WikiTiki89 17:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

pretty sure that the Talmud is a part of religious Judaism. Pass a Method (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Pass a Method Yes, but if you read the sentence it is talking about the history, not the laws. --WikiTiki89 19:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good morning, is a standard pronunciation or nonstandard ? 138.229.21.208 15:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the US and Canada, it's standard. Are you User:Fête? --WikiTiki89 15:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are right, I'm Fête, but I just want to know that it's standard or not, because and are very different. 138.229.21.208 16:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In American/Canadian English, as well as in some other dialects, the /t/ and /d/ sounds are merged between vowels into . In America/Canada, people only say if they are trying to enunciate very clearly. --WikiTiki89 16:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is patently unfair. I've been called a "lying illiterate troll" by another editor, and you want to block ME? Purplebackpack89 23:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You are the one starting all of these antagonizing discussions. --WikiTiki89 23:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will collapse the discussion, on two conditions. One, a block or any other kind of sanction is off the table. Two, you ask Kephir to not refer to me as a "lying illiterate troll". Deal? Purplebackpack89 23:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "off the table". If you don't give me a reason to block you, I won't; if you do, I will. I will admit that User:Kephir should have used his better judgment and not called you a "lying little troll", since all it does is stir you up further, but your reaction to it is completely unreasonable. --WikiTiki89 23:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not really. He's been giving me hell for months. In the past 48 hours, he's called me a troll twice and wheel-warred over my rollback and autopatrol provisions. I honestly think things would be better if he stopped harassing me. And he harasses me in ways I can't (no mop) or don't (I don't plow through other people's mainspace contributions). Purplebackpack89 23:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have collapsed it. Now will you please have a word with Kephir on his talk page about the inappropriateness of calling other editors "lying illiterate trolls", and removing other editors' rights without a consensus? Purplebackpack89 00:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Plowing through through other people's mainspace contributions" is not harassment; they are public property. His removal of your privileges without discussion may have been a little hasty, but it is something many people here would support, given your behavior. I do not need to need to have a word with Kephir on his talk page, as I am sure he is aware of this discussion right here. --WikiTiki89 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

In regards to the two points you make:

1. Plowing through mainspace edits to fix typographical errors is perfectly fine. Plowing through a particular editor's edits in an attempt to trip him up is harassment.
2. The last official "vote" on me having rights, in June, came away with a consensus that I should have the rights, and I haven't really used rollback at all since then. I didn't use it in the edits Kephir used as an excuse to take it away.

I'm sorry, but I just think Kephir has some "in" for me, major beef, whatever you want to call it. And I want him off my back, particularly if he does in the next 48 hours what he did in the last 48. Purplebackpack89 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't get what you mean by "plowing through a particular editor's edits in an attempt to trip him up". He can't "trip you up" by looking through your edits, he can only find edits where you have already tripped up. And if those are enough to take some sort of disciplinary action, then whose fault is that? You've done a lot more antagonizing since June. Also, may I ask that you link me to the vote (it's not that I don't believe you, it's that I would like to read it). --WikiTiki89 00:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/June#Purplebackpack89. FWIW, the whole shebang was started by Kephir, using diffs that were mostly innocuous; that discussion is one of the pillars of my belief that he has been plowing through my edits. Purplebackpack89 00:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh right, that one. Just to be clear, there was 6-3 support for a one-month block, even if not for rights removal. --WikiTiki89 02:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The changes you made are causing some errors. Proto-Finnic pages no longer automatically get * in the headword, and there's also a few script errors to that effect. —CodeCat 22:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can you link me to them? I'll revert for now and debug. --WikiTiki89 23:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat I figured out what the problem is, but to fix it I need to know where the asterisk is added too the headword (or at least where it is determined that the asterisk needs to be added). --WikiTiki89 00:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's in part of the code you edited. It seems that you removed it somehow. —CodeCat 00:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see. I accidentally pasted over it after editing the block of code in a separate editor. --WikiTiki89 00:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious though, what were your changes meant to do? —CodeCat 00:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's very clearly explained in the edit summaries. For example, I noticed that auto-linking on an entry like tomayto, tomahto linked the comma with the first word. My changes basically make it recognize more word boundaries other than just spaces. See User:Wikitiki89/multi-word head, and head's (and heads') tests. --WikiTiki89 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Looking through the set of all entries that use mid dots (because a number of English and Translingual entries use them in some creative, undesirable ways), I noticed that there were only two Hebrew entries that use mid dots, מלבד and אמונתך. Can you take a look at them? I'm guessing the first one (which uses the dot in its transliteration) should be using something else; the second one's dot may be fine (IDK), but it seems to have a stray ]. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first one was using them as syllable breaks in the transliteration, which we do not normally do. The second one was using them as punctuation in a quotation of a prayer, but prayer books vary widely in their punctuation, so I changed them to what I feel is more common. --WikiTiki89 01:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so reverting Mulder1982's whole edit may have been overkill, but I was a bit irritated after seeing him make the same easily-avoidable mistake twice in a row that I had already talked to him about. Is it too much to ask for him to check for module errors? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Oh, sorry. I didn't realize there were module errors. --WikiTiki89 16:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

My intention is not to make a distinction. We recently renamed most of the request categories, and that left the main request categories almost empty. Your change has basically repopulated many of those with just one page, which is rather pointless. We should abandon the request categories altogether. The reason I showed the link was to demonstrate that there were only a few of these categories left. —CodeCat 15:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat Has this been discussed? --WikiTiki89 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No. —CodeCat 11:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat Perhaps you should start a discussion, before other editors start complaining. If I understand correctly, your intention is to migrate from "Requests (Language)" to "Language entry maintenance"? --WikiTiki89 22:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I reverted your last edit to *andaswarō, the German Antwort, et al. belong to another root *andawurdiją, which also yielded Old English andwyrde. Leasnam (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I moved your edit there. Leasnam (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Leasnam Thanks, I knew something seemed a bit off! I have added *andawurdiją to the etymology sections of Antwort, et al. --WikiTiki89 14:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

You should keep in mind that some categories you delete won't stay deleted unless you orphan them, too. MewBot checks Special:WantedCategories and automatically creates any categories with what it thinks are well-formed names that have members. There were a few of these that I finally killed for good just now by doing null edits on all the remaining members and deleting the empty categories.

I'm not sure why you created this, as we don't really need it. Can it be deleted? —CodeCat 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It simply serves as an interface to one of the useful functions that you have hidden away in the module structure (ideally, almost every module function should have a template interface). It is actually very useful and I can definitely see myself using it in future templates. For now, it is only a workaround for the fact that Module:usex does not language-ify links within the usage example. --WikiTiki89 23:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fixed that now. So we don't need it anymore. —CodeCat 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

But as I said, the template is still useful and I plan to use it in the future. If you don't like the name, that's a different story (it stands for "language_link"). --WikiTiki89 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I still don't know why it's needed. —CodeCat 23:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anything you can use it for from a module, you can now use it for from a template. Simple as that. --WikiTiki89 23:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or you can just use {{l}}... —CodeCat 23:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not when you already have surrounding formatting that you don't want changed, or if you want to feed it back into another module. One specific hypothetical example I can think of is multilingual text:

Мы долго сидели, пока Вовик не воскликнул «Ну що, поїхали?»

My dolgo sideli, poka Vovik ne voskliknul «Nu ščo, poixali?»

Using {{l}} would pass formatting information through as well, which would go through the transliteration module and screw up the transliteration, among other things:

Мы долго сидели, пока Вовик не воскликнул «Ну що, поїхали?»

My dolgo sideli, poka Vovik ne voskliknul «Nu ščo, poixali?»

Sometimes the nesting of formatting itself is a problem, such as when the size is enlarged, putting {{l}} would cause it to be enlarged twice (or more): א ב ג --WikiTiki89 00:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

In your example, the Ukrainian text still gets marked up as Russian if you use {{ll}}. — This unsigned comment was added by CodeCat (talk • contribs) at 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC).Reply

But that's usually irrelevant. What matters more is the visual formatting and links pointing to the right place. --WikiTiki89 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's very relevant. Furthermore, you may notice that the Ukrainian text gets transliterated as Russian. The letter ї doesn't even get transliterated at all. Clearly neither {{l}} nor {{ll}} is satisfactory for multilingual text. —CodeCat 00:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The transliteration can be overridden manually, that isn't the issue. The issue is that sometimes you want plain links with no formatting without having to type the #Ukrainian part manually each time. You can create more templates to solve the other parts of this issue. The problem is that one template that does everything, while convenient in the majority of cases, makes it difficult to pick and choose what you want it to do. Thus, it is better to additionally have the simple templates that can be combined as building blocks. --WikiTiki89 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at Talk:נגד‎? The IP is definitely correct about the mismatch between the entry and the Strong's Concordance entry linked to in the entry. What I'm not sure about is whether all the other senses should go there, or be in various forms tied to a root entry (as they may be already, for all I know). I notice that הגיד doesn't refer to this entry at all, but I believe it comes from the senses referred to in the Strong's Concordance entry. It needs attention from someone who knows how the Hebrew verb entries are organized. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Привет,

Почему ты не делаешь новые статьи на иврите или не добавляешь транслитерацию к статьям, переводам? Мне кажется, иврит не очень хорошо представлен в викисловаре. У меня такое впечатление, что все знающие иврит мало делают для улучшения статей на иврите. Трудно или неинтересно? Не думай, что я пытаюсь, оказать давление. Просто мне кажется, ты больше уделяешь внимание дискуссиям (хотя они тоже нужны), а не самому словарю. Без обид, ладно? Просто спрашиваю. Я тоже мог бы делать больше для русского, но больше трачу время на хобби. Еще корейский добавился, хожу на корейские курсы. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

У меня просто такая процедура: Я проверяю Watchlist, где большинство изменений — дискуссии, я читаю эти дискуссии и если надо добавляю свое мнение. И потом если есть время я исправляю или добавляю статьи. У меня сейчас нет много времени, я занят и учебой и работой и жизнью каждодневной. Мне кажется, что даже и так я вкладываю больше в сам словарь чем в дискуссии. Я вот недавно стал добавлять слова на идиш потому, что у меня появился словарь идиш-английский. У меня просто нет времени сидеть целами днями добавлять систематично слова. --WikiTiki89 15:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you check Appendix:Hebrew parts of speech? I added an example of an adjective in construct. Esther is also described as יפת תאר, and the cantor pointed out that such a construction occurs in various places in the Torah, including the latest parshah where it's used to describe Rebecca. PierreAbbat (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I made a few changes and also noted that the construct state is rare for adjectives. --WikiTiki89 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was referred to the Beer Parlour by User:Atitarev. Why did you remove my comment? I have some legitimate gripes with Kephir's actions: he undid edits I made to another editor's talk page, and marked threads I posted on his talk page as vandalism. I find those unacceptable and I want him to stop doing them. Zeggazo also has complaints with Kephir's actions. I can't hash it out on Kephir's talk page because he wrongfully deletes anything I post there as vandalism. What are we supposed to do for recourse? Purplebackpack89 13:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you weren't so difficult to deal with, people would be more likely to help you. Yes, Kephir may have been wrong in a few of his reverts, but in the end, you are the one making him (and many others) angry. Many editors including me have tried many times to explain to you what you're doing wrong, but you don't seem to get it. --WikiTiki89 13:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

And that entitles Kephir to do what he's doing how exactly? He's an admin, he's supposed to be a paragon of what a good editor is. Instead, he takes pot shots at me whenever he can. I don't see why this is about me; this is about Kephir bullying me in an attempt to either get me so pissed off I leave the project, or that I do something he sees as justifying a big, long block. Kephir shouldn't be angered just because of the votes I make on RfD and the misunderstandings I have on templating. Neither is justification for what he's doing. Oh, and FWIW, we probably should get that user conduct noticeboard if we're disallowing user conduct discussions on Beer Parlour. Purplebackpack89 14:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

We could use Vandalism in Progress for that. Maybe there isn't a need for WT:Courthouse. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 11:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not all blocks have to do with vandalism and not all cases of vandalism are still in progress when being discussed. WT:Vandalism in progress is like a 911 call to stop vandalism as it is happening. Anyway, why do you bring this point to my talk page rather than to the general BP discussion? --WikiTiki89 12:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for adding IPA to سلطان; would you mind adding IPA to سلاطين as well, please? BTW, could you explain why you've added -u endings to both those Arabic terms, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

In formal Arabic, all nouns (well, all words really) have an ʾiʿrāb ending. For most nouns, this is -un, but for some it is -u. In this case, from what I have recently learned, both the singular and plural end in -u. I did not add the ending to the pronunciation, since they are elided in most spoken varieties of Arabic and before a pause in Standard Arabic. --WikiTiki89 00:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good God! Arabic seems so intimidatingly difficult… :-S You're learning the language, I take it?
Thanks for the explanation, and thanks for adding the IPA to سلاطين. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm learning it. It's not really that difficult. Every language has its strange quirks. --WikiTiki89 03:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm sure you're right. I feel far less baffled by Hebrew than I used to, thanks largely to the guidance you've given me on your talk page. Arabic is a language I'd like to learn some day. Good luck with your study of it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I meant to remove just Category:Calendar terms, but I accidentally removed Category:Holidays. Purplebackpack89 00:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok, that's more acceptable. But is it not a calendar term? "Christmas" is often used as reference date independent of it being a holiday. --WikiTiki89 00:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Calendar term" seems to me like it should be a container cat. If something is a more specific calendar term, like a holiday, it should be diffused to that. Purplebackpack89 00:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The issue of how many cats to include in an entry is anything but clear-cut. Remember that categories are a navigation tool more than anything else, so they should be calibrated to include as many of the terms people would think of when viewing a given entry, and as few of ones they wouldn't. The choice of categories needed to get as close as possible to that goal for as many people as possible is more of a nebulous, arcane art than a cut-and-dried black-and-white no-brainer. In a heavily-represented language such as English, I agree that narrower categories are better- long lists of terms can be intimidating. The main questions to ask are: if someone is looking through Category:Calendar terms for non-holiday terms, will they also want to find holiday ones at the same time? and: if someone is looking through holiday terms, will they be looking for non-holiday calendar terms at the same time? There are currently 198 terms in Category:Calendar terms, and 48 in Category:Holidays, though a surprising number of entries are missing topical categories, so those could be potentially much higher.

In a very sparsely-populated language, the decisions are different, because you want to avoid restricting things to one- or two- member categories. In such a language, I may add a narrow category with just a couple of members- but only if I also add a broader category, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Chuck, the reason I believe that things should be moved from Category:Calendar terms to subcategories is that I don't really think a lot of people are going to look through that particular category, and they are much more likely to look through subcategories. Calendar terms is not as elegant or as common a term as its parent time and its daughter Holidays, who recently was given the siblings of Observances, Centuries and Decades. Purplebackpack89 04:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

First off, I don't ignore all policy, I just think CFI should be demoted to a guideline (and I will probably propose a vote on such in the coming weeks). Second, what's the pervasive need for a lot "binding" stuff? You, Equinox and DCDuring seem to believe the project will go clear to heck and gone if we don't absolutely follow CFI and "standard practice" absolutely to the letter. I don't. I think CFI and "standard practice" constrain what I want the project to be, which I coincidentally is what I believe the average Wiktionary reader wants the project to be. And there's not really anything wrong with me thinking that. Purplebackpack89 03:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a CFI. I'm saying it shouldn't be a be-all, end-all. I don't want to throw out verifiability, just SOP. You may want to read my fundamental theorem comments on my user page as to why. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I find your collapse non-neutral and in general unnecessary. I am tired of you guys claiming I'm "disruptive" when I speak my mind. It's not disruptive to be fed up with deletionists. If you want to deal with some disruption, how about that? And by a mop, no less. Purplebackpack89 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

The collapsed section was irrelevant to the RFD discussion. I considered completely removing your comments, but decided that keeping that as a record of your behavior would be better. --WikiTiki89 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Removing people's comments is unacceptable unless they are vandalism or on your own talk page, dude. Collapsing was also inappropriate, IMO. How would you like it if I collapsed every comment I found disruptive? As for "record of behavior", there's no behavior violation there. Commenting on RfD violates no policy and should generate no blocks or sanctions whatsoever. I'm frankly tired of people trying to parley comments I make in RfD into a block or sanctions. If you're looking for someone to sanction, sanction Kephir. He removes my comments on community noticeboards and other user's talk pages for shits and giggles. Purplebackpack89 22:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not simply because they were disruptive, but specifically because they were irrelevant to the discussion. I would have said that if you want to ban bad arguments from RFD (which would effectively be banning yourself from RFD), then you should start the discussion at the WT:BP, but that would be too disruptive to the BP. --WikiTiki89 22:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dude, that discussion is going on right now. It's been going on for two weeks. It's Renard's CFI-only-for-RfDs vote. And I wish you'd stop throwing around "disruptive"...it's a wholly subjective judgment. You find my comments disruptive; I find DCDuring's perennial "what about article B" argument and your collapsing disruptive. BTW, you haven't responded to my comment about Kephir yet. Purplebackpack89 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say anything about CFI. In fact I left your CFI-related arguments uncollapsed. Do you disagree that the collapsed comments were irrelevant to the discussion? As for Kephir, he doesn't disrupt discussions. He may have a bit of a temper and thus may act wrongly when it comes to you, but only because you deserve it, which is why everyone ignores his mistakes. --WikiTiki89 22:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's no such thing as "deserve it". It's wrong for Kephir to do what he's doing to any good-faith edits, regardless of who they're from. It's equally wrong for him to do it to me as it would be for him to do it to you. And it's especially wrong since he's an admin and therefore supposedly a paragon of behavior. As for the collapse, I believe that the comments shouldn't have been collapsed regardless of the perceived relevance. I think collapsing any good-faith comments is a bad idea for the exact same reasons I think removing them is a bad idea. Purplebackpack89 22:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think collapsing good-faith comments is totally acceptable when they are irrelevant to the discussion. In fact editors often collapse or use <small> tags on their own off-topic (although usually such comments are either either productive about a different but related topic or just humorous, not questioning another editor's right to comment). I have already admitted that Kephir's actions are often wrong. What more do you want? --WikiTiki89 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

What more do I want? I want somebody he'd listen to to tell him they are wrong, ask him to stop doing them, and maybe remind him that there are ramifications if he doesn't. I've tried, but he insists on deleting every single comment I post on his page as vandalism (which, while not a violation of any talk page rules, is just pedantic). Purplebackpack89 23:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply