Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary talk:Polish entry guidelines, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Not addressed yet
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{{pl-verb}} supports values of |a= which mark this sub-aspect classification.
Verbs taking objects in cases other than accusative, and verbs taking multiple objects; pożyczyć means either "to borrow" or "to lend" depending on the grammatical case of the object.
Derived/Related terms and also Impersonal verbs only in the 3rd
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@BigDom, Shumkichi, KamiruPL, Hythonia So I was talking on the wiktionary discord. I was wrong, we shouldn't be using {l} node for derived and related terms, and also apparently we should be using {der3} or something similar. Now, I don't know about y'all but I find that table to be really, really aesthetically displeasing. We should settle on a format. We could list multiple {l} nodes like we were doing before. Sorry for the confusion. I misunderstood something told to me.
A second note, we should discuss a way to save verb conjugations that exist only in the third person. Someone suggested using the verb header template, which I really like. Can that template take slots for past/future forms etc? Vininn126 (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@BigDom, @Hythonia, @KamiruPL @Luxtaythe2nd added bośmy today, which has brought my attention to the fact that we probably need a better way of handling these conjunctions with the particles attached. gdyby has a small table on it, but there's nothing systematic. I think these forms should not be considered lemmas, but rather an inflected form. We may also have to update the Module:category tree. Vininn126 (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
(Notifying Hergilei, Tweenk, Shumkichi, Wrzodek, KamiruPL, BigDom, Hythonia, Tashi): I would like to create a system wherein we can denote the alternative forms that existed before certain spelling reforms. I'd like to create a standard verbiage to put into {{alt}}, something like you can see on пёс#Russian with ro-PRO, but we would need more probably. I'd also like to create categorizing templates a la {{ru-pre-reform}}. Does anyone have a comprehensive list of spelling reforms in Polish? I believe we might need at least two, one for Linde's time and his forms (e.g. abdykacya) and then one before the 1936 reform (e.g. in Słownik Wileński and Warszawski, e.g. aljans). Middle Polish forms are probably too unpredictable, but we could probably create something like {{Middle Polish form}}, as of now I'm using a label and {{obs form}}.
The only thing I would need help with is the naming - I think we can model the Russian verbiage; I just need a list of relevant reforms.
There's also the matter of how much information to include - I think we should make these as simple as possible - no etymologies for example. We should avoid pronunciation sections in Middle Polish forms, what about the others? For Middle Polish only attested declined forms should be given, but what about the others? Vininn126 (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
So it seems that the first major reform was in 1827 after Linde's dictionary where to represent /j/ was deprecated, the removal of á, and a few other changes. I believe forms found from before this time can have a template like pl-pre-1827 for {{alt}}. Forms after this time are found in Słownik wileński - this can be pl-pre-1877, as after that reform we find the forms found in Słownik warszawski. There seems to have been another reform before modern norms were adopted, but it seems it didn't take, so we might only need these templates - Middle Polish form, pre 1827 (Linde-like), wileński-like, and warszawski-like. Vininn126 (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
@Hythonia @BigDom @KamiruPL (as you three seem to know the most about this group) I've been thinking a lot about how these lectsare currently handled/grouped. I recently updated w:Middle Polish, and I've been wondering in my head if we shouldn't split Middle Polish off as an L2 as opposed to a label. Reasons for doing this include the fact that Middle Polish did have some fairly significant sound and grammar changes, and also we currently treat Silesian as an L2, which would give Middle Polish two descendants.
There are many ways to group it, but splitting Middle Polish off is something I've been thinking about a lot. I'm not sure if I'm for or against it, and I would really like some input. Vininn126 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Other thoughts:
One reason to NOT split Middle Polish would be that it could be too semantically similar to Polish, creating a lot of unwanted duplication. I'm not sure if it's dissimilar enough, but sometimes I do get that impression.
If we decide we shouldn't split it off as an L2, would there be merit in having it as an ety-only language, and then having Silesian be a descendant of Polish? There are strong political implications to this, and I'm not sure I'm a fan. Vininn126 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Ety and col-auto cleanup project
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Find any pages missing etymologies entirely and tag them with {{rfe}} for easier tracking
Find any pages using only {{m}} and tag them with {{etystub}} and use an appropriate template.
Change any instances of , a {{calque|pl|FOO|BAR|nocap=1}} and any variants there of to . {{cal|pl|FOO|BAR}}
For #1 and #2 there would probably be a ton of them, it's something we would chip away at.
Are there any other etymology changes we should make? I'd like to add Old Polish and dates to everything, but for now I think this would be a huge step forward. I considered having a bot tag any borrowings with {{etystub}} so we could get sources on them, I'm not sure if that'd be a step too far.
For Derived/related terms, I am wondering if a bot could check any pages with instances of {{col-auto}} without a title and separate the terms into difference instances of {{col-auto}} by part of speech, alphabetized by part of speech. Vininn126 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support! We're gonna have tons of lack of etymology but at least we're gonna have them in one place. As of {,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply
Point #2 looks reasonable, I don't feel strongly about #3. For #1 I'd note that some pages, like abbreviations and acronyms, don't really need etymology sections. (What etymology would kpk have, for example? The "etymology" is already in the definition.)
Regarding the derived/related terms change, I'd also maybe change all instances of {{col-auto|pl|title=noun}} to {{col-auto|pl|title=nouns}}, and so on? I've been adding the titles like in the former example, because I've seen others add it like that, but thinking about it now that doesn't really make sense: the section can be expanded anyway, it doesn't need to be singular for tables that only have one derived term in the part of speech (we already call it "Derived terms," not "Derived term"), and it only gives editor more things to pay attention to for no real benefit. Hythonia (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
These are all fair points - especially about the acronyms, we can skip them. I also prefer to have plurals in the titles, another good point. Vininn126 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 It depends on what the requests are and how easy they are to carry out. For example, of the 3 requests you made recently, #3 was easy, #2 ended up easy but I had to ask some clarifying questions, and for #1 I had to ask several clarifying questions and the actual task is not so easy; that's why I haven't done it yet. For bot requests you need to be as specific and detailed as possible as to what you want carried out; ideally I shouldn't have to ask a lot of clarifying questions to figure out the task. For bot requests that were previously done by User:JeffDoozan you might ask them to repeat them again since they already have the scripts written and at hand. Benwing2 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Sure. My only concern would be that this would add a fair amount of noise to the entries but if you're planning on fixing them up soon afterwards it makes sense. Benwing2 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Can you point me to any online grammars of Polish, any Polish equivalents of Sloworz (i.e. Polish dictionaries with inflection tables) and any other Polish dictionaries that have inflection info in them, even if it's partial? Benwing2 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 WSJP is definitely going to be your best bet - they have inflections for all inflectional words. I also have a few dictionaries with patterns in them. The Wikipedia article is okay, but I think that one book is going to have the most patterns. Vininn126 (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Thanks. What is the URL for WSJP? Also any other URL's for other online resources would be great even if they aren't necessarily as good; it's good to be able to cross-check things like this. Benwing2 (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Dang your fast! I see you have passive participles as taking ablaut by default, but zielony/czerwony (and their compounds) without; I think zielony should have the -e-/-o- ablaut alongside the ablautless version. Otherwise I see you have all the vowel/consonant alternations that take place in the virile, and the rest should be regular and easy. Overall Polish has much fewer vowel alternations than Kashubian or even other Lechitic ethnolects, so this should be easier. Vininn126 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 You're saying we should generate two forms for nom virile pl for zielony and compounds, one with -oni and one with -eni? What about czerwony and compounds, same? What about słony? BTW what is missing? It should be possible to do jeden just using <decllemma:jedny>, I think. Overrides including for short forms are already present. Benwing2 (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 For ten/tamten, try <decllemma:ty> and <decllemma:tamty> respectively. I haven't implemented <decllemma:...> for Kashubian adjectives but it should be easy to do. Benwing2 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 I have added all the irregular forms that use {{pl-decl-adj}} (some of which BTW have incorrect declensions currently). Hopefully there are no more issues. Let me know if you find any. At some point we should switch over to using this new module. Benwing2 (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Hmm, I will add an option for that. What is it exactly, is it dat masc/neut sg and should it just be an additional form in the same slot, with the appropriate footnote? Which adjectives use it? Benwing2 (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 OK. I implemented it for now as an additional form in the same slot with a footnote (see User:Benwing2/test-pl-adecl) as that's how other archaic and rare forms are generally handled, but if you would prefer it as a separate line at the bottom I can do that with a bit more work. Benwing2 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eh, being with dative is probably fine. With the bot replacement we should check for any existing olddat parameters as some might be faulty. Vininn126 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 OK, sounds good. BTW I have started on the Polish noun module. I'm using the code in the current Module:pl-noun to get an idea of how to decline the different types of nouns, and following the structure of Module:cs-noun. Hopefully I can get something up and running in a week or so, although it will take longer to work out all the kinks. Benwing2 (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I imagine. I remember that ugly site had tons of patterns for specifically nouns as well. I think the Wikipedia article on Polish morphology has a more condensed version. When would you be willing to send your bot to replace the old adjective module? Vininn126 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 See User:Benwing2/pl-decl-adj-auto-olddat. This lists all the occurrences of |olddat=. Can you take a look? There are 504 entries so you don't need to review every one, but please scan them. Almost all are adjectives in -ski/-cki/-zki but there's also prosty at least. Some of them say |olddat=1 or |olddat=yes but a lot say |olddat=ku and several (esp. near the bottom) contain an adjective form as the value. Some of these adjective forms look wrong to me as they end in -ki or -cy instead of -ku. Benwing2 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ One other thing concerns short forms like wesół. Currently they have an associated declension table that lists the short form as the lemma and otherwise declines like wesoły. I'm thinking rather we should list wesół as the short form in the wesoły declension table and not include a table under wesół. This is consistent with how short forms are handled in Russian, Czech, etc. See User:Benwing2/test-pl-adecl under wesoły (somewhere in the middle) for an example. What do you think? Benwing2 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 agreed, except for some where there is only a short form, of which there aren't many. As to zamężna, it's by far the more "lemmatized" form, but WSJP only has zamężny. We could give a note saying "chiefly in the feminine". I have a question - is it possible to give notes about particular forms with this and future modules? Anything with -ki or -cy should be removed. Anything with olddat=ku and I suppose 1/yes should be kept. Vininn126 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 For "notes about particular forms", in general yes. Can you give a use case? You can attach footnotes to overrides using e.g. {{pl-adecl|<nom_mp_pers:weseli:wesoli.short:wesół>}}, which would override the nom_mp_pers (= nom masc pers plural = nom virile plural) with two values and attach a footnote "archaic" to the second one. You can also attach a footnote to all forms using {{pl-adecl|<>}}; this is mostly useful using the alternant syntax where you specify two declensions and put a footnote by the forms of one of them (usually the second). Some inflection templates also support an <addnote:...> syntax to make it easy to add a given footnote to an arbitrary set of forms based on Lua patterns. This isn't currently implemented here but if you think it's useful I'll add support for it. Benwing2 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 BTW I ran the conversion script and converted everything with -ki or -cy to use regular <archdat>, ignoring the unusual value; this is what the old template did. Let me know if you want the <archdat> removed from these terms. Benwing2 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 That's fantastic, thank you. being able to do multiword adjectives is also nice - could you generate me a list of such entries so I can apply the new formatting? Vininn126 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Yes, it will do adj+noun, noun+adj, adj+adj+noun, etc. combinations; you specify a <+> after the adjectives and it inherits the gender, number and animacy of the closest noun. Benwing2 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 BTW that ugly-ass site with its obnoxious pop-up ads is super helpful with its inflection tables showing all the different possibilities for noun inflection. Hopefully once it comes to Kashubian I can get pretty far by looking up the Kashubian equivalent of the nouns in the table. (It looks like a lot of the patterns aren't properly handled by the current noun module, though.) Benwing2 (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also can you help me understand the difference between the plural MW and Mx rows in ? These appear to be masculine personal nouns, where the M here means "nominative plural" and the endings are different, but I'm not sure why. There's a comment in the containing page that reads this: "WARNING: In the adjective declension the coloured nominative plural forms (Mx) remain clearly theoretical in general and are not used at all, similarly like in some other cases, e.g. chłopce, dziadzie." But sometimes the MW row is missing, as with nierób, głodomór, kiep and pędziwiatr. (The corresponding Polish text says "UWAGA: W deklinacji przymiotnikowej formy nacechowane mianownika liczby mnogiej (Mx) są w zasadzie czysto teoretyczne i w ogóle nieużywane, podobnie jak i w niektórych innych przypadkach, np. chłopce, dziadzie" which seems to mean the same thing.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also I notice on karzeł that (a) it seems to be using the anim gender to mean animal, which is incorrect (there is an anml gender for this purpose); (b) according to the meanings, this term can be either personal, animal or inanimate, and presumably they have different declensions and should be split into three sections. (Or at least, this is parallel to how Ukrainian is handled, which seems the closest Slavic parallel as it also has a three-way animacy distinction that affects several parts of the declension. In Russian there's only a two-way animacy distinction and it only affects the accusative singular and plural, so "bianimate" nouns can be handled in a single table with separate animate and inanimate rows in the accusative.) Benwing2 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ahahaha, your first comment made me laugh.
I believe he's referring to what we call the "deprecative" form, in which a masculine personal noun is "downgraded" to a masculine animal noun - a lot of words, especially derogatory ones, won't have that personal ending, and will only have the animal ending. I think we should have it on by default for masculine personal nouns - it's falling out of use but it is part of the standard.
Well in Polish linguistics it's often called "męskozwierzęcy", literally "masculine animal", as the largest semantic class following this group is animals (but also some games, dances, brand names, among others...) Vininn126 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Vininn126 Please see Module:User:Benwing2/pl-noun-examples.lua. I compiled this based on the tables in Grzegorz Jagodziński's ugly site. For each noun I list all the unpredictable forms along with an English gloss. This helps me tremendously in figuring out the extent of variation of stem and ending alternants and how to structure the declension module. We need to do something similar for Kashubian; not necessarily as detailed but it needs to cover the corresponding variants as much as possible. Can you help me with this? As a first step can you find the Kashubian cognate of each Polish term (to the extent one exists)? That way we can look up the term in Sloworz and/or your Kashubian dicionaries. Thanks for any help you can give. Benwing2 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 I am looking through SGJP, which BTW is an awesome resource with even more sets of tables than Grzegorz's site. One thing I'm curious about is "neutral" vs. "characterized" endings in the fem gen pl. For example, podłóżhere is indicated as having only a neutral gen pl, but lożahere has only a characterized gen pl 'lóż'. Meanwhile Maja (the female name, not "Mayan") here is given with both a neutral Mai labeled hom. and a characterized Maj labeled char.. From the names of the variants I take it this is some register distinction but I'm not exactly sure what. Can you help explain and do you know whether we need to include both forms (to the extent they both exist)? Benwing2 (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! BTW I expanded Module:User:Benwing2/pl-noun-examples.lua with a list of all the types of feminine cons-stem nouns in SGJP along with their counts (look at the end). I did this originally to determine whether to default the nom pl to -e or -i (it seems it should be -e always except for nouns in -ość) but in the process I added a column for how the indicator spec would look like in the new {{pl-ndecl}}. This should give you an idea of how the specs look like for different sorts of nouns. In general the gender is optional, but most of these specs need the gender specified as otherwise it will probably default to masculine (but there will be a rule that nouns in -ość default to feminine as there are 64,000+ of them). You can see the use of gender indicators like f, the plurale tantum indicator pl, the reducibility ("fleeting e") indicator *, the ó/o and ą/ę alternation indicator #, override indicators like insplmi (use -mi in the ins pl) and insplami:mi (use either -ami or -mi in the ins pl) and the use of decllemma:... in conjunction with cześć (which has irregular reducibility). Note also the following indicator: ((Wielkanoc<f>,Wielka<+>noc<f.>)). This says that Wielkanoc declines either as a regular feminine consonant-stem noun with gen_sg Wielkanocy, or an amalgamation of Wielka (declined adjectivally) and noc (a regular feminine consonant-stem noun), where the latter is rare. The syntax ((...,...)) is called an alternation and lets you pack two arbitrarily different declensions into a single table. The one thing I'm not certain about is the handling of plurale tantum nouns. Even though the agreement pattern is only virile/non-virile, it seems to me their actual declension is different depending on whether they are related to singular nouns that are masc, fem or neut, so for now I am requiring that a gender be specified. This made total sense for Czech where the agreement in the plural really is different for masc animate, masc inanimate, fem and neut but here it's more murky. This probably needs rethinking. Benwing2 (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Complicated! And I have a lot of work ahead me for Kashubian (it might take me a while to figure out these patterns as I don't think anyone has sat down with these patterns before).
If I understand correctly, the module will be able to mostly predict the gender from the pagename without any supplied parameters? As for plurale tantum nouns, I wonder if it might be best to give an argument |pl-m-pr=, |pl-f= or something like that. I think they will be harder to predict from the page name. Vininn126 (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Yeah, it is a bit complex but Polish declensions themselves are rather complex, and I think you will find the new system quite logical once you get used to it. I do appreciate any work you can do for Kashubian. As for plurale tantum nouns, it sounds like what you're proposing is essentially what I'm planning on doing, which is to require the gender to be specified for them along with an indication that they are plurale tantum nouns. Benwing2 (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I'm sure it will be - a complicated system needs a complicated solution. And I'm really not sure there's another way to tell the code otherwise - it will still be better than what we have now. The problem is that tant. pl. nouns can look like nominative singular forms, and there aren't really a ton of patterns for them. One that comes to mind is that -alia when tant. pl. is almost always neuter. Vininn126 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 OK, if that's the case I can make those default to neuter, similarly to how I will make nouns in -ość default to feminine (in Russian we have similar defaults but require gender to be specified for plurale tantum nouns as well as nouns in -ь except for those with certain recognized endings, e.g. masculine -тель, feminine -ость, a few others maybe). The analogous thing for Polish would be to require gender to be specified for nouns ending in a soft or "formerly soft" consonant such as ń/ś/ć/ź/c/ż/j/l/cz/dz/sz/rz, again with certain common endings defaulted. I don't know if this makes sense to do. Benwing2 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126, Benwing2: I’m not entirely sure, but having skimmed over their Theoretical Basics I think they mean that Mai in gen. pl. is homonymic with Mai in gen. sg. (ie. they mark pl. forms homonymic with their sg. equivalents). As for Maj – it’s generally not used in colloquial speech, so I guess it’s just marked rarer literary form. Cf. the paradigm for aksjomatyzacja with gen. pl. arch. char. (archaic characteristic/marked) aksjomatyzacyj // Silmeth@talk10:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
„Mianowicie w dopełniaczu liczby mnogiej niektórych rzeczowników żeńskich występują warianty (często o ograniczonej wymienności): możemy użyć formy homonimicznej (uniforemnej), która jest synkretyczna dla tego przypadka oraz kilku przypadków liczby pojedynczej (hom, np. funkcji, teorii, kopalni), albo formy charakterystycznej (nieuniforemnej, char, np. funkcyj, teoryj, kopalń). Opozycję tę nazywamy uniformizmem.
Funkcje tych wariantów (jeżeli istnieją) są różne. Dla wielu rzeczowników są one używane wymiennie (np. głuszy — głusz, kniei — kniej). Dla niektórych są zróżnicowane i zdarza się, że jeden z nich jestprzez normatywistów oceniany negatywnie (np. alej). W wypadkach najbardziej wyrazistych staramy się pokazywać takie uwarunkowania.
@Silmethule OK thanks! I ran this through Google Translate and they seem to be saying sometimes the two forms are interchangeable but sometimes one or the other is proscribed or has some sort of register difference (e.g. literary vs. colloquial), and sometimes they will indicate this. I guess that's what aksjomatyzacyj means with its arch. label. The old module does indicate for nouns in -Cja, a regular gen pl form in -Cji and an archaic form in -Cyj, and I am planning on keeping this functionality if you guys think it makes sense to do so. Otherwise this might require overrides (for which footnotes can be supplied) to indicate the rarer variants. Benwing2 (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Keeping the stylized archaic forms would be good - basically every normative dictionary does this too. Otherwise yes the ability to override and add footnotes for exceptions would be great. Vininn126 (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Just FYI I am chugging along. I have gone through all the SGJP declension types, which helps me work out what the default endings should be for which case/number combinations, whether to make a noun reducible and how to implement reducibility, etc. (There are a ton of patterns, esp. for foreign nouns; Polish here is similar to Czech in trying to decline every damn foreign noun according to its pronunciation while keeping the original spelling as much as possible. In Russian this is much less of an issue, because terms gets transcribed into Cyrillic and those that don't fit an obvious existing Slavic declension pattern get made indeclinable.) Benwing2 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Nice. Anything I can do? I'm working on the Kashubian patterns - I've gotten through masculine nouns and I'm having someone double check my work. I don't think we're gonna need instrumental plural since -mi is a pretty rare ending in Kashubian - I do think we might need to check nouns ending in a velar, but I think the altneration of cz/dż > k/g will be entirely regular, too. Vininn126 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Thanks for your work on Kashubian patterns. I don't think there's anything you need to do for Polish right now, though. I'll let you know as I make further progress. Benwing2 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments2 people in discussion
@Vininn126 BTW I ended up copying all the patterns from SGJP into comments in the declension module I'm working on, with various case forms (e.g. for masculine nouns, the gen_sg, loc_sg, nom_pl, nom_pl_depr and gen_pl). This took a lot of doing (e.g. there are 640 masculine patterns not counting the adjectival ones, which may be another 50 or so) but it really helps in understanding the sort of variation I need to account for. In particular there is an awful lot of variation in the masculine personal/virile nom_pl and in the gen_pl. It seems to me the most common endings for masculine hard-stem nouns are -owie in the personal nom_pl and -ów in the gen_pl but soft-stem nouns are trickier and I haven't yet worked out what the defaults should be. I will also need to come up with a way of handling foreign nouns with silent letters (e.g. Jacques and software), which seem to take an apostrophe before most case endings, and acronyms (e.g. HTML, GUC, CAD), which seem to take a hyphen before most case endings. I ran into this issue in Czech as well and the solution there has a bunch of special casing that doesn't work in all circumstances, but with the benefit of the SGJP patterns I should be able to come up with a general solution.
On another matter, I think we should do a bot run to change all uses of the "animate" (an) gender code in Polish to the "animal" (anml) code. The "animate" code is intended for languages like Russian that have only a two-way animacy distinction (animate/inanimate); languages like Ukrainian and Belarusian that have a 3-way animacy distinction use personal/animal/inanimate, and it seems to me Polish should do the same.
Also I have been thinking how to handle neutral vs. deprecative forms in the masculine personal nom_pl as well as neutral vs. marked forms in the feminine gen_pl. I am thinking the former will be handled using a separate row; essentially the nom_pl for virile nouns will split into two rows, with the neutral form above the deprecative form. However, I think the gen_pl distinction is better handled using just one slot, with two values in the slot when necessary along with a footnote on the marked one indicating that it's marked (or archaic/etc. as the case may be). The reason for this is that all or almost all masculine personal nouns seem to have both neutral and deprecative forms in the nom_pl (although sometimes they are the same), whereas many feminine nouns are missing either the "neutral" or "marked" form, and in such a situation it's not obvious it makes sense to maintain the distinction. Benwing2 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Nicely done. I'm slowly chipping away at the Kashubian forms with some help. I've noticed a lot more ending leveling.
For soft endings you see -i/-y a lot but also -(i)e. I'm not sure which is more common. As to foreign borrowings, your understanding is correct.
I agree to switching to animal, and this might also apply to some other Slavic languages.
WSJP handles deprecative forms similarly, but they also add the archaic/stylized genitive plural on a separate line, but I also understand your reasoning. This is mostly a stylistic thing that might be best to see first and then decide. Vininn126 (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Cool. Note that WSJP imports their declension tables from SGJP so it's not surprising they use the same layout. As for "animal", there are 13 languages in Category:Personal nouns by language. Besides Belarusian and Ukrainian (which already use "animal") and Polish, this leaves:
Carpathian Rusyn (3 animate nouns, 2 of which are actually personal);
Kashubian (88 animate nouns);
Masurian (3 animate nouns);
Old Czech (already handled correctly; 18 animal nouns, no animate nouns);
Old Polish (no animate nouns);
Old Ruthenian (110 animate nouns);
Old Slovak (5 animate nouns, all of which are actually personal);
Pannonian Rusyn (21 animate nouns);
Silesian (45 animate nouns);
Upper Sorbian (5 animate nouns, most of which are actually personal).
@Benwing2 With Old Polish, part of my concern is that it's hard to be 100% sure about the animacy of a given noun. We could probably "reconstruct" it based on the children, but these things change with time. A lot of inanimate nouns become animal in colloquial Polish for example. Otherwise I have no problem switching to animal. An easy fix would be to simply change the appropriate modules/templates so that the abbreviation m-an gives "animal" instead of animate. Vininn126 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 For various reasons I'd prefer to just fix the genders to use anml rather than adding a hack like you propose: For one it's just as easy, for two it doesn't work to hack the modules/templates in cases where {{head}} is called directly instead of the appropriate lang-specific template. BTW I already did this for Upper Sorbian as well as added missing animacies (working currently on Lower Sorbian), and partly did this for Old Ruthenian, with some {{attn}}'s added in places where I wasn't sure the animacy, e.g. if a particular word means both "fox" and "fox fur/fox pelt", is it anml for both or is the "fox fur/pelt" meaning inanimate? Similarly if a word has both the literal meaning "sheep" (anml) and the figurative meaning "Christian follower", is it personal in the latter meaning? I assumed yes in the second case (it's personal) but no in the first case (it's still animate). There are {{attn}}'s everywhere I wasn't sure. Benwing2 (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
BTW I have discovered that Lower Sorbian "simplified" their adjective concord in a way that, paradoxically, requires that animacies be assigned to nouns of all genders, whereas for Upper Sorbian, like Polish, only masculines need animacy assigned. Benwing2 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago52 comments3 people in discussion
@Vininn126 Just FYI, I wrote a unified Lechitic headword module that should eventually handle all Lechitic languages and I'm currently debugging it. It currently supports Polish, Kashubian, Silesian and Masurian and makes them (as much as possible) have unified interfaces for the various headword templates. It is based on Module:pl-headword with lots of fixes. The participle support is currently Polish-only as I don't know much about how the other languages handle their participles. When I get to using it for Polish there will be a few changes to the headword syntax, most notably that {{pl-verb}} will require the aspect to be put in |1= instead of |a=, for consistency with how other Slavic languages handle this. It will also support biaspectual verbs (code |1=biasp or |1=both, as with Russian). Benwing2 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Oh man, I've been thinking of exactly this for a long time. This is a dream come true. I don't think participles should be in the headword. Verbal nouns could be for Kashubian, Masurian, and Old Polish, but Polish verbal nouns and potentially Silesian ones are 100% regular (or at least derivable). Let me know when you deploy it. Also something similar for Old Polish would be nice. Vininn126 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
It supports nouns, proper nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and (for Polish) participles. Participle support is based on the existing Module:pl-headword, which supports classifying them as adverbial vs. adjectival; for adjectival participles, active vs. passive, and for adverbial participles, contemporary vs. anterior. It autodetects the participle type from the ending if not given. It's in Module:zlw-lch-headword and deployed for Silesian currently. Other than issues with participles, the particular way of forming superlatives and periphrastic comparatives differs from language to language and maybe the possible genders do as well, depending on how animacy concord works with adjectives esp. in the plural. For the moment I'm assuming all languages work like Polish. There isn't yet support for verbal nouns but this can be added. Benwing2 (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've deployed it for Masurian and Kashubian as well. Polish is on its way. Documentation for the various templates for the deployed languages is up-to-date. Note a few syntactic changes:
In place of b or bardziej or whatever to indicate a periphrastic comparative, use peri.
Aspects for verbs go in |1=, |g2=, ...
For nouns and proper nouns, in place of vr and nv, use vr-p and nv-p.
Comparative qualifier params |q=, |q2=, ... have been removed in favor of inline modifiers.
@Benwing2 Ah, I see. Well, both adjectival participles exist Pan-Lechitically, but typically only Polish has the anterior adverbial participle. As for setting up each comparative and superlative, Masurian might be somewhat tricky as there is an East-West split. It would be nice if we could set up a way to automatically supply both based on a single parameter.
There's also the issue of Slovincian, but that whole thing needs an overhaul and I'm slowly reading what grammars exist for it so I think any changes can wait for the future.
How do we supply the aspectual pair for a verb, and also can we handle things like frequentatives and the like?
@Benwing2 Also I see support for the femeq, but we should add support for the marginal, and currently Polish-specific neuter equivalent. I have at least one term supported by quotes and there are definitely more that could be added. Vininn126 (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 I'll do Old Polish after I get Polish converted. The aspectual pair for a verb is specified using |pf= for perfectives, |impf= for imperfectives, |freq= for frequentatives, etc. It should be documented in {{szl-verb}} etc. Currently the East-West Masurian comparative split is specified using qualifiers, e.g.
Eventually we should make this easier but I think that would be done as part of implementing code to autogenerate the synthetic comparative form, as is done for Russian. I'll enable the participle code for the other languages but only allow anterior adverbial participles for Polish, if that makes sense. I'll still need info on how to autodetect the participle type based on the ending, i.e. what the typical endings are for active adjectival, passive adjectival and adverbial participles. I'll also add neuter equivalent to nouns, that should be easy. Benwing2 (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Would it be possible to distinguish a relative adjective parameter and possessive adjective parameter for at least Old Polish and Kashubian for noun headwords? Vininn126 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 I deployed the new module for Polish, after trying to fix all the errors that would appear. In fact the errors are now appearing as fast as I can fix them but hopefully they should all be flushed out soon. Can you take a look at zabiegły and legły? Not sure what's going on with these participles. Benwing2 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 rozkurwić is correct. I see you caught abdach. architekt can be feminine - quite a few words can be both, but the feminine is then indeclinable. wynegocjować is perfective. umurzać is perfective. marudzić is imperfective. tor is inanimate. I'm not sure about fizol - it could indeed be animal and not personal, but I'd suspect personal. Vininn126 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I forgot about that ending - a few passive adjective participles end with -ły, we'll have to update the module. It will be -ły in Silesian and Polish, and -łi in Kashubian and Masurian. Vininn126 (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Going to sleep now but I will add participle support for the remaining langs in the morning. A couple of questions:
What about Old Polish? How does it form periphrastic comparatives (like Polish bardziej) and superlatives (like Polish naj-)? What are the participle endings (if you're not sure we can just omit participle support for now)?
I notice Masurian above has -óncÿ for active adjectival participle but -ónc(ÿ) for active/contemporary adverbial participle. This means -óncÿ is ambiguous. Is this correct? (And should it be "contemporary", as we have it currently, or "active"?) Benwing2 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I cleaned up the other gender requests for Polish - we might want a way to mark an unknown masculine gender for Middle Polish.
I'm not sure for the periphrastic constructions, the superlative was either na- or naj-, but rare. Most of the time unattested, and I don't think categorizing adjectives and adverbs as not comparable is the best idea since we just simply don't know a lot of the time, as the comparative just simple wasn't attested. We also normally only have the comparative, not the superlative. So we need a lot more flexibility. This might be a good idea for Middle Polish too... I'm also not sure about Old Polish participles, they'd largely be the same except the adjectival would be -ący and adverbial would be -ąc(y), so the same ambiguity.
That's correct, and for Kashubian as well. I think "contemporary" might be slightly better - we already call the other one "anterior" and also that's what most grammars call it, and that's what it's used for, marking contemporary actions. Vininn126 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Having talked with some editors on the discord, it seems Slovincian and Polabian (the other two remaining Lechitic languages) generally need all the same things too (to be honest I think all Slavic languages). I'm not too sure of their orthographical versions of things, especially for participles and adjectives/adverbs, but for nouns and verbs I think we could safely include them, unless you think that's a bad idea. Vininn126 (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 I've added the other three languages although I haven't yet converted the templates to use the unified module because I need to review the lemmas of each language beforehand. Adjectives already support |indecl=1 although it's not properly documented. Benwing2 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Done. Ultimately we should maybe think about unifying other West Slavic languages (and even South Slavic/East Slavic) but there are lots of additional issues that come up. For now we have a unified Sorbian headword module and a unified Ukrainian/Belarusian headword module but otherwise things are separate. Benwing2 (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I definitely agree and I know other editors agree. This is a step towards that and it's definitely something I appreciate, as the main Lechitic editor. This simplifies my life significantly and I've already been enjoying the results of this. Vininn126 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Also, adjectives and adverbs now have a |sup= parameter to explicitly specify superlative(s). You can specify the value + to request superlative(s) that are derived from the comparative(s); this is the default. Benwing2 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Note that there are no Slovincian headword templates currently so nothing in the way of creating them using the new module, but since Slovincian has free accent, it might make sense to use 1= for specifying the head including the accent (this is not in the pagename). BTW Friedrich Lorentz seems to have gone really crazy with the diacritics; I'm sure with a bit of thought he could have reduced their number. Benwing2 (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 BTW I missed part of your comment above about Old and Middle Polish. Note that by default, the new {{pl-adj}} and {{pl-adv}} don't add to 'LANG uncomparable adverbs/adjectives'; this only happens if you explicitly specify |1=-. Also the support is now there for specifying the superlative separately from the comparative and in Old Polish the superlative isn't generated by default from the comparative. If it would help, I can add a way of suppressing default superlative generation for Middle Polish. As for your comment "we might want a way to mark an unknown masculine gender for Middle Polish", I think you're referring to unknown or unattested animacy? Note that Module:gender and number currently has a spec ?! that displays as gender unattested and doesn't currently categorize (either in a request category or any other category). We could make a similar thing for unattested animacy, aspect, etc. Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also I am making progress on the Polish declension module although it's slower than I would have liked; Polish declension seems even messier than Czech. For example, I looked into the form of the genitive plural for soft feminine nouns: either (a) -i ending only ("neutral"); (b) null ending only ("characterized"); (c) both. To make sense of the variation I ended up having to distinguish 8 different subtypes of soft feminine nouns:
in a; those in -ja are preceded by a vowel;
in -ia where -i- just indicates palatalization after ;
in -ia where -i- indicates palatalization of the preceding consonant + /j/ and the dative is in -i, specifically after a labial ;
in -ia where -i- indicates palatalization of the preceding consonant + /j/ and the dative is in -ii; specifically after a labial , a velar (k/g/ch), or ; rarely in -cia (only Garcia, pron ), rarely in -czia (only glediczia, welwiczia), rarely in -dżia (only feredżia, lodżia); none in -ia;
in -ia where -i- indicates /j/ following a hard consonant, specifically after ; rarely in -cia: only dacia (pron ), felicia (pron ), lancia (pron );
in -ja where -j- indicates /j/ following a hard consonant, specifically after ;
in -ua;
in -ni.
Do you know if there are references (even in Polish) that discuss this sort of thing in detail? The Czech IJP site https://prirucka.ujc.cas.cz/ has a ton of useful discussion about Czech, e.g. such things as which nom pl endings tend to occur with which sorts of endings in masculine nouns. This made my life a lot easier when writing the Czech declension module. Benwing2 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 For something with that level of detail is something I'm not sure, unfortunately. I'm not even sure if papers on that exist - they could, would have to do some digging. Vininn126 (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Most books I have on morphology only go into the basic stuff - the most detailed reviews of classes would unfortunately be SGJP and that ugly-ass website, but if they don't have further detail I'm not sure. Most dictionaries I have also don't go into such detail. Vininn126 (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I'll have to go through Old Polish nouns next and do the same as for Middle Polish. Perhaps in some cases it might make sense to "reconstruct" based on the child languages, but I'm not always a fan of this as gender can change over time. Vininn126 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 Since Slovincian had free stress, then logically Sobierajski orthography should have a way of marking the stress; otherwise we'll have to add it ourselves as it's important. Then the only consideration is whether to include the stress mark in the pagename (which is possible but contrary to the way it's done for other Slavic — and Baltic — languages, although AFAIK we do include the stress mark in the pagename of Proto-Balto-Slavic and PIE terms). Benwing2 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 That's another good point - stress is another aspect, so having a parameter IMO makes sense. I suppose we can change it later if we decide not, but I don't think that's gonna happen. Vininn126 (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 @Vininn126 Sobierajski gives only place of stress (bjalˈawy, biḱ GEN bˈika) and Lorentz gives 5 types of stress/tones (bjalãvï, bḯḱ GEN bï̂kă). Polish scholars reject Lorentz's tones, but Moscow Accentological School (not sure about that) accept it (compare *sǫditi). We can't really tell who is right here, we probably should keep Lorentz's tones somewhere (and Lorent'z notation without link). Sławobóg (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Having an alternative head could be interesting. One problem is Sobierajski's dictionary only went up to C (but it did have some derived terms), so spellings would be intuited based on the system. Vininn126 (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 His intention was to be as precise as possible for various reasons, I think as a point of pride. His orthography is incredibly narrow, Sobierajski is much more broad and phonemic. Vininn126 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 I'm currently working on reworking the Wikipedia article for Slovincian so we can have a better understanding of it. That means at the moment painstakingly translating Lorentz's work and then making sense of it, and then adding other existing sources. I'm about 1/4 through Lorentz's grammar. Once that's done we can look at Sobierajski's dictionary and switch over existing entries. Vininn126 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126 OK great, sounds good. Note that I did some more work yesterday evening on Polish feminine nouns and I think I've worked out exactly what needs to be done. Words that end in -ia preceded by a labial or n and take gen/dat in -ii (e.g. fobia, mania) will use an indicator <stemij> because in my view they have an underlying stem ending /ij/ that compresses to /j/ ~ /i/ (spelled <i>) in the nom sg. Those ending another consonant + -ia won't need this because whether the gen/dat is -i or -ii can be autodetected. There will also be appropriate defaults for whether the gen pl is neutral, characterized/marked or both (I have worked these out but they are a bit complex and maybe can be simplified). You can override which gen pl form appears by using one or more of <+fneut>, <-fneut>, <+fchar> or <-fchar>, or by overriding the gen pl directly. Internally there will be separate slots maintained for the neutral and characterized gen pl, but they will probably get combined into a single gen_pl slot (with appropriate footnotes if both forms exist) before they are displayed. I am aiming to do feminine nouns then neuter then masculine, since the masculine is the most complex. Benwing2 (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 That would make sense, as those nouns were originally -ija/-yja in Old/Middle Polish (and still are in Masurian and alternatively in Kashubian), but underwent contraction in Polish. Vininn126 (talk) 08:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago15 comments4 people in discussion
(Notifying KamiruPL, BigDom, Hythonia, Tashi, Sławobóg, Silmethule): and also @Benwing2 and @Skerillion I propose we set Polish dialects to be LDL's and mention that on this About page and also WT:WDL, much like how Middle Polish is. I will be making many templates for dialectal dictionaries and then I will organize them at Category:Polish reference templates. I also propose we modify Module:labels/data/lang/pl to match w:Dialects of Polish, i.e. we have Krajna, which when added as a label, adds the page to Krajna Polish and also Greater Polish (as a dialect group). I also want to modify Module:zlw-lch-IPA to be able to handle regional pronunciations the same way that Middle Polish is handled, i.e. no rhymes/syllabification. I don't see any issues if we want to allow audio for these, however, as remote of a chance that is. Similarly, we could modify the future Template:pl-pr to have {{{nostandard}}} so that we don't have 1000x templates. Some dialects should also get the standard pronunciation as well, however. I think most Urban dialects, for instance. Also in the near future I want to make something like Template:Polish regional forms or something like that that will go in the Alternative forms section, which will display a map with dialect boundaries. You will be able to type, for example, |Kociewie=FOO and that form will display over the Kociewie dialect region, etc.
All this is to say that I'm still not sure how to best handle Goral, or at this point Masurian. These will require a future discussion at WT:RFM, but I also know that Skerillion wants to further expand my, admittedly, brief overview of Goral dialects on Wikipedia. My hope was to just try and create a general overall system that we can expand upon.
I have another issue that I forgot to mention: there's also the problem of normalization. Given the fact that dialectal sound changes are sporadic, and for some dialects some changes are stronger, but for others it can vary by speaker, how should we handle normalization? I think that spelling phonetically using a few additional letters, like I gave in the Wikipedia article, might be best. Vininn126 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've updated WT:About Polish and WT:WDL to say that dialects should be considered LDL's (except urban dialects, which seem to be more like Standard Polish).
The next steps are going to be dealing with pronunciation, declension, and the maps.
For pronunciation, I think I'll be able to update the module with the appropriate information? But also we need 1) the ability to turn off Standard Pronunciation (and in doing so, turn off rhymes and syllabification), 2) Organizing of dialects by dialect group 3) auto-collapsing when there are too many on a page (as in theory you might dialectal pronunciations alongside standard, etc.).
Declensions are going to take some time and work. But generally we shouldn't be using Standard Polish declensions for dialects, I feel.
The maps are also going to take some time, and are my second priority alongside pronunciation.
Why do we need the ability to turn off the Standard Pronunciation? I believe standard pronunciation should be given in every entry possible unless it's not attested or was attested in MP only. Tashi (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstood. The presence of a dialectal form does not automatically turn of standard pronunciation, we just need to if it's only dialectal. Vininn126 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I whole-heartedly agree with the idea (of relaxing inclusion criteria for historical non-standard language), but this all does not mean that if something is not in a labelled dialect, it is not LDL, and your whole approach, @Vininn126, of increasing inclusion but then restricting it to what you identify from dictionaries you know (and more casual editors don’t, and I am casual in Polish, unlike other languages, which does not mean I “under-research”, noting what I usually do), is contradictory.
If man goes backwards in time, there are various criteria to check whether something is, and decrease the likelihood of, a ghost word. The reading has to be certain, but people in former centuries did not care as much about naming dialects, and even if they did then it might not align with our current conceptualizations of them.
So just if a form is repeatedly written or traceable etc. – the research looks like “I go through multiple Google Books pages” possibly with various inflections and related search terms; it’s weird that you assume I have one “source”, it would not be satisfying – then I might add ten different ones for difficult words, and how many manhours would it take to pin their regions down, and still be unsure about the wording of the results? This is a frequent problem with plant-names, heck even in English for regional Usonian phytonyms, often worth putting somewhere, with little reason to believe them made up. We just have not focused that much on them, though some day one could.
For another comparison of what we see outside, of the real world via the descriptive resources and corpora we can access, I have yet to see Russian берёзка(berjózka) used anywhere on the internet or in its corpora for bindweed, but I actually, in the meatspace, talked with an actual gardener calling it that way, and at least some synonym lists mention it. Organism names regularly end up to be of no known provenience, it’s just called this way, I don’t know, the gardener will say. Aren’t regions over-rated? It also depends on the production of literate people within a culture. Add a bit of Balkanization: in Serbo-Croatian, Macedonian, and Bulgarian your approach is peculiarly doubtful. See the twentieth-century pome fruit cultivar shipova, a few times discussed in relevant languages from what we see on the net and oftener, but with greater distance to the happenings, in English, and in the original language the form looks lost even though the inventor might be still living. Or where was телти́я(teltíja, “saddle blanket”) used? I only know, and proved, that it was, and in the quoted case the quote author was an expat.
A side quest I wanted to raise awareness about. There is a dichotomy between a few myriads of words for items from everyday life, which already had many dialectal variants, and specialized vocabulary from less-often chosen trades and husbandries, yet in the less-often chosen occupations variants were equally normal, but then regionality could not be seen. The distribution of technical terminology looks different, with some reason it lacks in major dialect dictionaries. We are lucky enough to take hold of it, let alone research it thoroughly, which is not imaginable in the same way, indeed necessarily will never have the same success. A certain amount of ”incompleteness” and “unfinishedness” is always given, and better than nothing. Fay Freak (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Forms are still subject to rfv - if presented as standard each would need 3 quotations, otherwise if provable as dialectal fine, but dialects should be marked. The state the entry was made in was sloppily handled and I added sources and information, which is part of the wikiprocess. That's all I have to say. Vininn126 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: It technically was not wrong either – I made sure not to jumble multiple languages – and led you further, while its being open about its unfinishedness made it more reliable for the dump it was, since what certainly is unreliable are etymology claims in many references – they gather all forms as in that sample and pick or suggest their favourite one with little respect to chronology, distribution and frequency –, as well as what dialect and chronolect something belongs to: most commonly it is silence, otherwise they would not just make random derivations. Very good to know now that the Old Polish is from Czech; had I not written down these forms, you would not have solved this part of the story, and the community would be more clueless.
Do you really believe I was equipped to achieve the same perfection as you, who frequently has the now added sources at hand, and that I should not have paved the way, as I have done, for someone like you successfully further tracking down the matter? I think I did the right thing, exactly as sloppy as it was; somewhere variant forms are kept, and if I have had some diligence, I don’t need to be silent about them. But you exercised even more diligence and yet have stayed silent about, and swept under the carpet, some forms that you should have seen mentioned in some sources and had enriched the “sloppy” page. We have not sussed out where this difference in attitudes hails from. A different tolerance to recognizing the validity of chaos, central coherence tuning. Fay Freak (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
There were readily publicly available sources - you don't need to add all the quotes I did, but Doroszewski and SJP1900 are both available and easily accessible, at least for the etymology. Vininn126 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Polish Cyrillic
Polish. Another case of Kwamikagami having no idea what they are doing, doing essentially no research and only checking a poorly sourced Wikipedia article without actually checking if this was widely used (clue, it was not). This user is only making further messes. I think a permanent ban is in order soon, as well. Vininn126 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it was not widely used. We could add 'rare' to 'obsolete'. But I went to the original source to verify that the coverage is correct, and we have lots of things on Wiktionary that are/were not widely used. The only criterion I'm aware of is rather minimal. Is there something more stringent for obsolete usage? And how is this creating a 'mess' that can't be handled with simple deletion? It doesn't impact anything else, and plenty of words are deleted for not meeting attestation requirements without calls to ban the editor.
I like contributing obscure things that are under-covered. I think Wikt should be as complete as possible, and AFAIK that is not a problem. kwami (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The calls for the ban are in reference to the fact you have been warned multiple times about low-quality entries like this without fact checking anything. You are leaving major messes and never take responsibility, which is so clearly demonstrated by your response in this thread. Vininn126 (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's an assumption on your part, one that you've made before, and an incorrect one. I did fact-check, and AFAICT the entries are accurate. Your objection above was that they're not notable. How are they 'low quality'? There's not much to say other than what's there. There's no 'major mess' here: if they're deleted, nothing else needs to be changed. If they do not meet eligibility criteria, fine, but AFAICT there is no factual problem with them. kwami (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it's not. Cyrillic for Polish was never widely used at all, simply by a small group of especially non-natives trying to Russify Poland. But that's not in the Wikipedia article, is it? Vininn126 (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If it was never used for publication, only in proposals that were never implemented, then I would agree these are not notable. Rather like the Cyrillic script for Esperanto. kwami (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I found that it was at least used for scripture. That would seem to be adequate use; many orthographies are not used for anything more than that. kwami (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Can you provide the actual texts where it was used, instead of just claiming it? And if it was written by non-natives, I see no further point in including it. Vininn126 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The only thing I'm pulling up now, with the first words in Matthew, is in a series of texts under the heading Общеславянская азбука from 1892, a few decades after the WP alphabet ref. That may be the same thing I found earlier. I can't judge if it was written by natives, but since it's just a transliteration of the Latin, there's no reason to think it was. kwami (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This really demonstrates how little entryworthy these are and how little research you did, and how low-quality these edits are. Time and time again you have repeated this. Vininn126 (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That may be fair about them not being noteworthy. There's also Лаврентiй Iванович Похилевич (1864) Сказания о населенных мѣстностях Киевской губернии или статистическия, историческия и церковныя заметки о всѣх деревнях, селах, мѣстечках и городах, в предѣлах губернии находящихся, fn p 97-98. I can't tell if that's quoted or transliterated for the help of readers who only know Cyrillic, but it uses the same orthography. kwami (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
"Felician Wołodkowicz Arcybiskup M.C.R." looked Polish to me. Though, again, it might have been transliterated for the footnote. kwami (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I really support the initiative, but maybe we need more examples from documentation. There are runic inscriptions of modern Norwegian and Swedish, but I usually avoid to mention them, because they are often very short and useless. But Polish Cyrillic has hundreds of examples with long sentences and consistent spelling. So its a project to go for, but it needs a good quotation. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tollef Salemann Not in this particular alphabet. There's a Polish Cyrillic used in Belarus that is very different from this set of letters brought up. The letters made here were made without checking how used they were. Vininn126 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, am talking about this concrete alphabet. The problem is that there are many private photos of it with all kinda texts, but no independent source or a pdf-document. Some examples are to find on Wikipedia, but thats all. The only solution is to order scans from Poland, Russia and Belarus, but its hard to do without even knowing which libraries to ask. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Vininn126: I think Polish Cyrillic words should be kept if attestable (three times!) in non-descriptive works, but letter entries are pretty useless anyway, and in this case, I don't see the point of them at all. This seems better suited for Wikipedia. Thadh (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the main issue is determining whether this is some kind of conlang. I'm not sure how to differentiate a constructed orthography for a natural language from a constructed language. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Orthographies are usually constructed; we're actually more likely to reject an ad hoc orthography, like texting Latin script for Arabic or Hindi.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think our Polish editors will be able to distinguish between a Polish text and an Interslavic/Pan-Slavic one - those are quite different in both morphology, phonology, and much more. Thadh (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
We do. In English, pertussal has only a quote from non-native English speaker Vladimir Nabokov, who, like non-native English speaker Joseph Conrad, is one of English's great authors. Also, Indian English is mostly written by non-native English speakers, and it's a large body of text that is important to document. Post-Roman Latin, 19th century Hebrew, and Esperanto are other bodies of text that we at least in theory try to cover, but is written by non-native speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that. Those are also somewhat exceptional situations - a few Russians trying to convert a group of people that never accepted a script isn't really the same. Vininn126 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mostly agree with Vinn here. If this is just a proposal that was never used for independent Polish texts, then I agree it's trivia and does not meet our inclusion criteria. If in practice it was only ever used as a transliteration scheme for Russian-speakers, as is possibly the case in my last example , then even if notable in that usage it would IMO need to be identified as Cyrillic transliteration in practice if not in intent. On the other hand, if there was publication in it independent of the Russian language, then IMO it wouldn't matter if the publishers were Russian, any more than it matters for orthographies of other languages of the Russian empire, where we don't apply a native-speaker test. kwami (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
(agreement or aside, I prefer Vin over Vinn :P)
I think the creators do definitely matter. If I were to create my own alphabet and publish 2-3 books in it while something was already established, I'm not sure that would be noteworthy.
All this is to say that some Polish speakers use Cyrillic nowadays in Belarus, but that's completely separated from the letters in the given thread. Vininn126 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not something practiced by most of the rest of the site and most people are generally against that. That's not an argument; even if it's true, which there's no evidence of, it doesn't mean we should do that.
If it's in "use in durably archived media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year"WT:CFI, then it doesn't matter if it's Poles or Russians or what their motives are. I don't think this is exceptional; nobody checks to see who is a native speaker or not, and it would be a lot of work for the random non-notable English or Spanish author. We include abhorrent slurs created and used for evil motives.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's not really the issue on RfD, is it? You can pick and choose what you want to work on, and there are scholars who work on contact dialects all the time, so the interest is there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am against deletion of such stuff, because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic. There are muuuuch more Polish Cyrillic texts than Swedish Dalecarlian Runic. Also, even if some crazy priests and wizards in the Swedish and Norwegian forests used runes in modern times, most of Scandinavians didn't. Polish Cyrillic is also obscure and wasn't liked by Polish people, but it has historical value. Just some weeks ago i accidentally found a photo of a paper with Polish Cyrillic and was pretty surprised by it before I understood what language it was. Also, Polish Cyrillic was a state-supported writing system, while runes were not. Compare now Lacinka for Belarussian, which also was state supported during the both German occupations of Belarus, and wasnt supported by all people, but we still do have it on Wiktionary. Tollef Salemann (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
"because it may be usefull for reading Polish Cyrillic" except the crux of the issue is there isn't enough of that for the given letters. Vininn126 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
