User:Nicodene

I mainly deal with entries in Romance languages and (when relevant) Latin.

Agenda

 * Recategorize all 1099 Catalan words that are claimed to be ‘inherited from Old Occitan’ as either inherited from Old Catalan/Latin or borrowed from Old Occitan. ✓
 * Remove hundreds of fake Mozarabic words added by Romandalusí, often through thirty or so different IP's. ✓
 * Sort through categories for Romance words claimed to be ‘inherited from Latin’ and remove the ones that clearly weren't.
 * Catalan ✓ 15/08/23
 * Franco-Provençal ✓ 08/06/24
 * French:
 * Italian:
 * Neapolitan
 * Occitan:
 * Portuguese:
 * Romanian
 * Spanish ✓ 03/09/22
 * Move all 'Reconstructed Latin terms' which are in fact attested (in the appropriate time period) to the mainspace, with citations.
 * Recategorize all ‘Terms inherited from Medieval Latin’ as one of the following:
 * Inherited from Early Medieval Latin (attested up to ca. 10th c. AD)
 * Borrowed from (later) Medieval Latin (attested 11th c. and later)
 * Inherited from a reconstructed ‘Vulgar Latin’ term (unattested anywhere prior to 11th c.)
 * Neapolitan clean-up:
 * Fix/check metaphonic plurals ✓
 * Fix IPA transcriptions
 * Relemmatize verbs to ⟨-re⟩ spellings ✓
 * Franco-Provençal overhaul:
 * Move all lemmas to ORB spellings ✓
 * Add Swadesh list words ✓
 * Add pronouns
 * Fix the verb conjugations
 * Add references to AIS/ALF/FEW wherever applicable
 * Add altforms per DFP/LTA/FEW

Miscellanea

 * Mozarabic kharjas
 * Italian terms inherited from Latin
 * French terms inherited from Latin
 * Survivals of the Latin nominative in Romance
 * Latin terms with variable monophthongization
 * Italian terms with voicing of Latin /-p t k-/
 * Sardinian terms with /e/ for Latin /i/
 * Late Latin prepositional compounds
 * Catalan masculine forms with -o
 * Georgian terms with /f/
 * Early Medieval Latin

Phonological pet peeves

 * If a language has phonemic stress, its presence or absence should be indicated in monosyllabic words, not omitted for the sake of typographical convenience. Consider the minimal pair ::, that is /ˈæn/ :: /æn/. Representing both as /æn/ would fail to account for the differences in surface realization.
 * There is no such thing as contrastive syllable division or contrastive secondary stress in any of the languages with which I am familiar. Any claimed example falls apart once one accounts for morphology.
 * Night-rate :: nitrate = ⫽ˈnaɪt+ˈɹeɪt⫽ :: ⫽ˈnaɪtɹeɪt⫽ > [ˈnaɪt.ˌɹeɪt] :: [ˈnaɪ.ʧɹeɪt]. In other words, the reason they sound different is that the former (but not the latter) has /t/ and /ɹ/ split across two different morphemes, night-rate being a transparent combination of night and rate.
 * Reagan :: raygun = ⫽ˈɹeɪɡən⫽ :: ⫽ˈɹeɪ+ˈɡʌn⫽ > [ˈɹeɪ.ɡən] :: [ˈɹeɪ.ˌɡʌn]. That is, the latter (but not the former) is a transparent combination of two nouns, ray and gun, each with their own underlying stress.