User talk:Jackwolfroven

Ultimateria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am happy to help Wiktionary. Jackwolfroven (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

FrathWiki
You seem to be interested in conlanging, but Wiktionary isn't necessarily the best place to do it. We welcome your contributions, and your conlang subpages won't be deleted for now (and if they ever are, I can retrieve the content for you), but perhaps you might prefer to post them on FrathWiki, which welcomes such pages (and is where I store my conlang). Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful information. Jackwolfroven (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, may I ask about your conlang? What's it called? Jackwolfroven (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most certainly. The only fully developed one is Rigayavo (documented at but if you're curious to learn more, just email me). It has some weak points (the excessive case system, the unrealistic phonological development, the shoddy background) but a couple of features that I really like (Latin-based vocab, open syllables, unique system of abbreviation when an antecedent is present). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I personally like languages with exotic phonologies and inflections. Right now I'm in the process of moving my conlang over to Frathwiki . Jackwolfroven (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed. Do you intend your handle to bear similarity to the small Triassic therapod genus ? And was the exoticity the casus belli for attacking Ubykh and Greenlandic? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to your first question. It is a long, micropatrological story, but the central symbol of our micro-Republic being my favorite Triassic dinosaur is an inside joke, if you will. As for your next question, I have had a close admiration for Greenland and Kalaallisut since I was very little. Ubykh came about quite recently as my interest in the Caucasus appeared (I've studied Georgian, Armenian, and some Svan and Azeri). Anyway, the Silos language is a conlang I am developing with my friend. In terms of my own conlangs, Pollicatitunno is the most developed. It is agglutinative and has a tendency for long words (the longest as of now is the word for "dog bone": ciniingosomcoturennapoposoltrayvxaycalsoypepligoyxoxāviar). Jackwolfroven (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't help but take a liking to any who hath a saurian most close unto their heart. (Sorry, I've been writing imitation Shakespeare for an hour, and iambs are starting to feel natural.) I happen to prefer , if it comes to that, although as compared to later periods, the pickin's are a mite dry in terms of dinosaurs in the Triassic (if you extend this to "favorite archosaur", then I would... but that's a bit tangential). I'd call that more than a tendency... well, my interest in usability precludes such, er, monstrosities/gigantes. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used to know all about dinosaurs and prehistorical animals. ' is an interesting choice. By the way, outside of the Triassic, I also love ', ', and '. These guys would have developed civilizations had the KT event not happened. Jackwolfroven (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's what I'd like to get a career in, actually. I collect, as well — I have some semilegal specimina I unearthed myself from Cretaceous strata. I wonder if having an obsessional interest in Dinosauria is somehow related to the obsessional interest we seem to share in linguistics. BTW, I note that all your examples are carnivorous, and quite possibly my vegetarian habits push me to my aforementioned prosauropod choice. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, and that's awesome, that you want to make it your career. I also like ', ', ', ', ', ', and , to name a few. I think that having an interest in two fields of science as separated as paleontology and philology implies that one is a "polymath" who has a natural or acquired talent for understanding many fields of science. As for me, geopolitics, quantum physics, organic chemistry, linguistics & philology, paleontology, and astronomy have all come up in my life. Jackwolfroven (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * *Euoplocephalus Imagine the phonological structure of a language spoken by a breed of lambeosaurines with Broca's areas... that would be wild. But (among other things) science has taught me that philology does not count as science in most cases. The only other listed subject I share is geopolitics, although I reckon I could hold up with the chemistry. And I'm not sure that I, at least, can deserve the title of "polymath" when a good memory and an interest in learning do all the work. Perhaps you are; quantum physics, at least, requires a lot of conceptual maneuvrability. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Woops, typo. I love to imagine about dinosaur language. You never know; what if  used some sort of set of arbitrary calls to coordinate hunts? And I believe good memory and interest in learning define being a polymath. Jackwolfroven (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being on a dictionary site, I sought to disprove that via the entry polymath:, but it does not specify the source nor vessel by which said knowledge is deployed. So I am forced to accept your opinion or refute it. Hrmm. What about untrained, instinctive native intellect? Is not that more central to "polymathery"? For the sake of my ego, I have to claim a lack of this cog in the complex machinery of knowledge. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 08:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and reset the indent :) Now, I'm not sure what exactly "intellect" entails, but, trained or untrained, it seems to fit the idea of "polymathery", as long as it's applied in a widespread fashion. Then again, I am not an expert on psychological terminology. Jackwolfroven (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, what is your email adress? Jackwolfroven (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean a child prodigy, unschooled but instinctive in its acquisition of data. Id est, not me :)
 * You can email me (and any other user who has email enabled — as an admin, I am required to have it enabled) via Special:EmailUser/Metaknowledge, which is available in the lower lefthand corner under the Toolbox when on one of my user pages. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I figured there was some feature for emailing other users, but I couldn't find it. Thanks. Jackwolfroven (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I figured there was some feature for emailing other users, but I couldn't find it. Thanks. Jackwolfroven (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting
Thank you for your Kott entries! Quite an obscure lect. However, your formatting needs a good deal of work. Please look at hatu and uju now. Among the main things to note are:
 * interwiki links always belong at the bottom of pages
 * language sections should be seperated by  
 * The header 'Alternative forms' is for different spellings and pronunciations, not totally different words (that goes under 'Synonyms')
 * The header 'Related terms' is for terms that are genetically related; terms that are semantically related go under 'See also'

Sorry to be so nitpicky, but it's my nature and we Wiktionarians have a habit of imposing order on chaos to an excessive degree. Actually, the reason I noticed your entries is that I created hatu as a Rapa Nui entry, way back on the very first day of my time here, soon after I'd registered my account. Looking at the original form my entry took, I can see that I was rather weak on all this subjective formatting too. Anyway, thank you! (PS: If you have a list of all the Kott personal pronouns, perhaps we could make a table like the one at ?) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the corrections; I actually made the "Alternative forms" mistake unconsciously, my apologies. I completely understand Wiktionary's goal to impose correct formatting. I do in fact know all the Kott personal pronouns; I learned them on Wikipedia, actually:
 * ai
 * au
 * hatu ~ uju
 * hata ~ uja
 * ajoŋ
 * auoŋ ~ aoŋ
 * hatien ~ uniaŋ
 * I am not familiar, however, with much Wiktionary formatting, but I hope to learn quickly. Thank you, Jackwolfroven (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Our full page on formatting is WT:ELE, but it need not be perused too deeply if you can copy the format of other entries accurately. Re the pronouns: where is the 1st sing obj, for example? With the redlinks, it's hard to tell, but it seems like some are missing... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any separate forms for the objective case; I only know the case exists thanks to previously existing Kott entries. I do know that the second person singular has the same form for both, but I'm not sure about the others. Jackwolfroven (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have a question. In Kott, would the present form of the verb be acceptable as the "dictionary form"? Thanks, Jackwolfroven (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends. Decide based on previous scholarly tradition, and if there's an infinitive, choose it. I'm sure there's some report on Kott or a related language that has chosen a lemma form. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like Kott has personal verb conjugation, but I can't find any sources elaborating on it. Where can I find data/primary sources for the Kott language itself? Jackwolfroven (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Using {suffix} et al.
To ensure correct categorisation by etymology, we use the templates, , and (all those links lead to documentation on how to use them). For example, see this change I made to your etymology at montaje. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry! I still have a lot to learn about Wiktionary templates. Jackwolfroven (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia requirements
We are very grateful for your many contributions. However, it is against all wiki and scholarly rules to write versions only maintained by a minority of Indo-Europeanists - speaking of the Glottalic Theory. At least, this minority position has to be noted in each case, secondly, Wikipedia strongly awaits reliable sources. Thank You. HJJHolm (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't impose minority positions anywhere except on the section of my user page specifically devoted to that. I was not informed of the restrictions on content that is kept only on user pages. I have not led any content in the main namespace toward a tentative hypothesis. Jackwolfroven (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)