User talk:Cicognac

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:


 * Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
 * Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
 * If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
 * The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
 * A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
 * If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! — justin(r)leung { (t...) 22:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Intermediate reconstructions between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Italic
Hi! Thanks for contributing to Latin etymologies! I noticed that lately you've added additional intermediate reconstructed forms to many entries, e.g. *molgejō to, *θoɣʷejō to , ɸlējō to , etc. I currently feel a bit wary of whether this is a good idea as a general practice, and so am wondering if before moving forward, we could discuss my concerns here (or in the Beer Parlour if you want to have a discussion with more people involved). First, I'm unsure whether some of the forms are accurate: an example is. Deriving it from *θesternos requires an irregular (although not impossible) change from original *θ to h-; is there actually evidence though that PIE word-initial *dʰǵʰ ever passed through [θ] on the way to Latin (as opposed to being simplified to ǵʰ and then developing regularly)? Is there any commonly used source that can be used as a reference to check these forms, the way De Vaan can be used as a reference for Proto-Italic reconstructions? Second, in some cases it seems like the reconstruction uses different symbols from its immediate ancestor or descendant in a way that appears scarcely more than a notational variant, which doesn't seem ideal to me: e.g. the difference in between Proto-Italic *hortos and *xortos makes it look like we know that the Proto-Italic phoneme was a glottal fricative, but I don't think we can really date it to that stage: I think Proto-Italic *h might just as well have been a velar fricative phonetically. Does what I said make sense? Urszag (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, colleague! I follow the distinction between early Proto-Italic VS late Proto-Italic both in pronunciation and notation (but I keep ɸ as 'f' except in an earlier version which contains some extra information, that's why I never use ɸ every single time); I learned that these mutations are automatic. I don't remember if De Vaan follows this distinction (I should find my copy of his dictionary, lost somewhere in this pc). I've almost finished (only a handful of words is left, the Proto-Italic section here on Wiktionary is tiny), then I'll probably work on somebody else if I have some spare time if I'll have any. The only reconstruction that I found a bit difficult was the one you mentioned, 'hesternus', which contains a cluster. I think I forgot to put the other version in which 'gh' drops instead of 'dh' (I have been trafficking a lot of pages and processing a lot of information for hours, LOL). You can keep 'f' instead of ɸ both in later and earlier reconstructions, this is a minor issue. Cicognac (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In 10 minutes I rewrote "f" everywhere (I keep track of most of the edits of course) and added the second earlier version that I forgot in 'hesternus'. The transcription of 'f' is a minor issue that could be discussed at any moment ("ɸ" reflects the original pronuntiation better but that's just notation), I preferred to keep "f" almost everywhere since it's more readable for those who still don't know either Proto-Italic and IPA well. I preserve "θ" and "x" since they represent a more archaic stage and a different pronunciation ("f" remains unchanged since it's always /ɸ/): θ > */ɸ/ and x > */h/ in late Proto-Italic; not every linguist follow this distinction since they prefer to focus on the later stage; by contrast, I prefer to focus on both. If you find mistakes and you're an expert in the field, just make your amendments (even if I am graduated in Languages, I am just a super-passionate amateur). Thanks for your feedback and good night (here in Italy it's 1:00 AM). Cicognac (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just added a tiny note to specify that the distinction 'H vs earlier X' belongs to those who differentiate between early and late Proto-Italic plus those who think that the shift *x > *h is not post-Italic; I also added more explanations in 'hesternos' to point out the regular development (*x > Latin h) better. As I told you, I have almost finished (something like 10 verbs starting in T- and W- to check are left). All the rest will remain untouched until my culture about Proto-Italic won't be greater (I love this proto-language, I'll probably study more of it in the distant future through academic research). Cicognac (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's great that you are planning to do more research on these language stages in the future, but if you're not an expert yet, I think it's better to hold off on adding so many details. I'm not an expert either so I can't necessarily check whether what you added is right or wrong.--Urszag (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't panic, around 80% of it is copied since some complete etymologies from Proto-Indo-European were missing (the complete one is copied from the 'derived terms'), the rest is a pair of mechanical changes (*f < *th < PIE *dh; *h < *x < PIE *gh with or without labialization) that were missing in many etymologies. I have never invented anything and, even if I were an expert in this field (I only have both a university and personal background in this field), I wouldn't invent anything. Cicognac (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to discuss with two Italian colleagues (Catonif and Nicodene) about the issue of early Proto-Italic VS late Proto-Italic plus how we can manage the whole Proto-Italic section here on Wiktionary (including the transcription, e.g., f VS ɸ). At least we can (try to) put some order for present and future editors. My dream is to put the whole etymological dictionary by De Vaan here in the future. I'll update you after the whole discussion. Cicognac (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Block
specifically what "disruptive edits" was this user blocked for? It seems unfair to immediately hit a new user with a block without giving them any warnings. Ioaxxere (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I wrote an email to mr. PUC, I have been a member of Wikipedia for years and years and this is the first time I got blocked, I was simply and mostly editing some pages by copying and paste complete etymologies from Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Italic (I have a background in historical linguistics and languages). I even wrote the longest article of the whole Italian Wikipedia! I am not a vandal! Cicognac (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're indeed not a vandal, but you're making a mess of things, I'm sorry to say, and I had to get your attention. Your additions to Latin etymologies are poorly formatted and someone - hopefully you - is going to have to fix them all. And why did you remove ? The question has been left unanswered. I'm going to unblock you, but please take a step back and look at how etymology templates work before proceeding further. Also, I would like for you to discuss with and  about your Proto-Italic additions; I myself am wholly unconvinced they're useful. PUC – 22:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was mostly a problem of formatting? If it's only that, I can fix it by copying and paste the correct formatting in the next few days (if I'm not too busy) since I keep tracks of my edits. The etymologies are mostly copied and many of the earlier forms in Proto-Italic were already there in a considerable number of pages. According to my background in this proto-language, I can confirm (to say it better, scholars think this) those mutation in the early forms. Of course, we are talking about a reconstructed language, it's not like English. By the way, nice to meet you (even if we met during an accident). Cicognac (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed that string of formatting due to a mistake, I usually avoid touching things I don't know since I don't want to create a total mess. In that case I would be a real vandal. Furthermore, this is the reason why I always click on 'Preview' before saving a page after all the edits. Cicognac (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that copy pasting information between different articles isn't always a good idea. If the same information is spread across different articles and someone wants to change something, they would have to find and change several articles. More often than not, editors don't do this which can result in different entries being out of sync or even contradicting each other. For this reason, one edit you made which I would consider counterproductive was adding the etymology section on honos. We have to balance both reader satisfaction (easy to find information without clicking through many different articles) and editor satisfaction (easy to make changes). I recently wrote about this problem, in the context of etymology sections, in the Beer Parlour. Ioaxxere (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Damn, so if I see a 'hole/void' in an etymology section, I should ignore it even if this hole is filled elsewhere and even if the reconstruction resonates well in my mind? That's a bit sad, but I understand your point, you run the risk of copying and spreading mistakes even if in bona fide, to use a Latin expression. I needed in particular to copy a whole word in Proto-Indo-European since most articles only show the root but not the entire word shaped after the root. The average question of the reader will almost surely be "Ok, but why don't you tell me the whole word in PIE? I can't see it". Are you then suggesting me not to copy the whole word in PIE and leave only the root? (P.S. I am going to discuss with Catonif and Nicodene how to improve and standardize the overall Proto-Italic section on Wiktionary) Cicognac (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * An approach like yours leads to the vast majority of Proto-Italic content on this site being extrapolations based on the few real Proto-Italic reconstructions - the ones made by actually applying the comparative method to a Latin word and one or more Italic cognates. Not a desirable state of affairs. Nicodene (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hence, no early *θ < PIE *dʰ should be reconstructed, not even mechanically and not even to distinguish *θ and *xʷ since they merged into *f [ɸ] in late Proto-Italic (as an established fact, they were two different sounds in early PIt), unless the mutation has a source (e.g., an etymological dictionary or an academic paper). Then, almost every instance of earlier PIt forms before my edits should be deleted until it is not sourced. This is something I can do, but I'm waiting for your reply before erasing the unsourced early PIt forms. We can continue the conversation with Catonif on his talk page if you have suggestions to standardize and improve the PIt section here of Wiktionary. Cicognac (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The average reader of any attested language does not visit its entries to learn about Proto-Indo-European; if he is interested in it then he surely knows to spy into those places where he finds the proto-form; the mental process itself then is an academic, not casual approach.
 * I have to stress the maxim of keeping links stable. Victar has followed the aggressive approach of cutting everything after the first blue even; myself I always have the idea of likelihood and reliable attestation by which I navigate the dictionary. But noisy presentation can interfere with any idea emerging. Fay Freak (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your point even if I don't know the user you mentioned (until some days ago, I was more focused on Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary). The suggestion you're giving me is interesting, my only fear is that people who want to go back to Proto-Indo-European root will have to navigate quite a bit (by the way, I have just learned I am an above-average reader, I always go to the PIE root and complete form of every single word, LOL). I can either follow the "aggressive" approach or make a compromise, which is keeping the first immediate reconstructed/attested form of the word and the PIE root. I saw this approach in almost every page I visited; this compromise is extremely useful especially where the first immediate reconstructed/attested form is still a red link (i.e., a missing page, pointing to nothing and nowhere). Cicognac (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)