User talk:Greenismean2016

Greenismean2016, your entry for lacking sources and reconstructions and is not ready to become a mainspace entry. I recommend you move it to User:Greenismean2016/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kelh₂- while you work on it, otherwise I'm going to recommend it for deletion. Perhaps you can try and use some of the well-sourced entries in Category:Proto-Indo-European roots as a template. --Victar (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Greenismean2016, the last PIE entry you created was deleted. Please heed my advice above. --Victar (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Cyrillic and Latin
Hi. Another thing: beware that Vasmer often mixes up Cyrillic and Latin characters; you should be very careful with copy pastes. ; ; ; . Per utramque cavernam 09:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, please be careful with this., , . Per utramque cavernam 11:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Descendants
Hi. I've noticed this. Please don't remove the bor parameter again; it's an important distinction. Per utramque cavernam 09:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also this : please keep the template formatting. – Jberkel 07:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

der and inh
Greenismean2016, you need to better familiar yourself with how to use the der and inh templates. Please read their documentation. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe you were warned about this, but if you use etyl again in etymologies like you just did, you're libel to get slapped with a block. --Victar (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go back and fix all your entries that use etyl. --Victar (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that -- Greenismean2016

Baltic cognates
Please don't change "Cognate with" to "Baltic cognates include". "Cognate with" is a formatting standard. --Victar (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Understood -- Greenismean2016

Alternative reconstructions
I noticed you added a lot of alternative reconstructions to PSlv and PBS entries. Those each need to be sourced as well, and if they cannot, please remove them. --Victar (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Wrong inheritance
Please, ensure that the language mentioned in the category fits with the language of the lemma. If a term belongs to "Proto-Balto-Slavic terms inherited from Proto-Indo-European", then all the terms should be reconstructed Proto-Balto-Slavic. Kwékwlos (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

αἶρα
It is critically important that create correctly spelled Ancient Greek entries with all appropriate diacritics in the page title. If you are unsure, or unable to tell the difference, this is a sign that you should not be making Ancient Greek entries. See WT:AGRC for more. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

communismus
Do not add descendants just because they look right. Only add them if they actually derive from the word in question! Your Latin entries are not well defined, and the descendants you are placing on them are probably not correct in many instances, like this one. There seems to be a trend of carelessness in your entries, and if you can't be careful, you shouldn't be making the entries. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The idea of combining the roots commun + -isme may have originated in French, but the roots themselves are from Latin communis + -ismus as are the roots of: Italian: comune + -ismo, Portuguese: comum- + -ismo, Spanish: común- + -ismo which is why I put them here. The Italian, Portuguese, Spanish words are definitely not borrowings from French, but if they don't belong under Latin, then where do they belong?. And also, the roots communis + -ismus, from which communismus is composed, could not have been borrowed from French as they were attested long before the French language existed, but you listed it as a borrowing from French. Greenismean2016 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW Are there any other of my Latin entries with problems?
 * The bulk of what you have just said does not make any sense. The word was coined first in French, and transferred to other languages (a process called borrowing) but modified to fit the form of that language. The modification to fit existing affixes does not negate it being a borrowing. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

So would this be called a "learned borrowing" then?
 * No. That terminology is typically used for a descendant borrowing from its ancestor. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *dьbrь
Hello Greenismean2016, you askedː "Shouldn't Proto-Slavic *dьbrь be under PIE dʰubʰr-i- instead of dʰubʰr-o-?"

Sourceː Kapović, Mate. et.al. The Indo̠-European Languages, Second Edition, Routledge Language Family Series, London & New York, 2017, pp.16
 * dʰub(ʰ)r-o- should be the proto-form, as Kapović derives dьbrь from <*dъbrъ.

head= without any extra information
I noticed that you are specifying  in the headword line even when the given form is exactly the same as the page name. What is the point in that? —Rua (mew) 14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic *čelnъ
Greenismean2016, are you sure that is an adjective? I think it's just a noun. I'm going to correct it. Probably, you meant ? Bezimenen (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

That was a mistake, thank you for catching that User:Greenismean2016

PIE entries
Greenismean2016, I reverted your edits to Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/kʷer- because 1) you don't cite any PIE sources reconstructing this alleged root, like R:ine:LIV or R:ine:LIPP, only secondary sources, and 2) there are no verbs associated with this root, which, though possible, are very rare and demand extra scrutiny. -- 16:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact, all the PIE entries you added in that past few days lack any primary PIE sources and are generally very poorly formatted in that most alleged descendants are just all thrown under "unsorted formations", illustrating a poor understanding in each of those languages and PIE itself. --  16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point about the primary sources. I know that the one you mentioned R:ine:LIV is often referenced by the sources I've been using. However, I don't understand the basis for the claim that my entries are "generally very poorly formatted in that most alleged descendants are just all thrown under unsorted formations". I only provide reconstructions that I can find a reference for and if a word is mentioned, but a reconstruction isn't given, I put it under "unsorted formations". The only entry in which I put most of the terms under "unsorted formations" is *weth₂- because the references I could find gave several different reconstructions for the same term. Here is a list of all the PIE entries I have created:, , , , , , , , , (3),  (2), , , ,  (2), , , , ,
 * I have also made edits to the following: ,
 * I've tried to mimic the style and formatting of the PIE entries that other people have created. If I've been making mistakes or you think I shouldn't be making PIE entries I will follow your advice. -- Greenismean2016 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I the entry you created for . Instead of creating new entries, please go back and fix your entries above adding primary PIE sources and properly attributing and sorting descendants. If you need help with that latter, please ping us. I recommend you also read About Proto-Indo-European which can help you in your formatting. --  00:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see much point in attributing descendants to sources. I find it more valuable to place sourcing in the etymology of the descendants. —Rua (mew) 10:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

-
Greenismean2016, you've been doing - in many entries. The only time this should be done is 1) for languages that shouldn't be reconstructed, like Proto-Armenian, 2) for dialect lists, ex. , 3) for script lists, . Never do grk-pro, for example. --  21:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)