User talk:Martin123xyz

Your Macedonian entries
Thank you for taking the time to add all these. There's a few things that you probably want to fix though: Could you fix any entries you already created or edited so far? It would be much appreciated. 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The parameter for languages on context labels like "transitive" is, not.
 * When adding "impf" or "pf" to verbs, could you do it like this instead?
 * Thank you for fixing these. I noticed a few more things:
 * When you edit an existing entry, sometimes there are links to the same word in different languages right at the bottom of the page. Those should stay at the bottom, so if you add a new Macedonian entry, it should go above those, not below.
 * We normally separate sections for each language by putting .  13:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got that wrong, the parameter is .  14:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, you could indeed modify the templates with Lua. That would be quite useful, for the adjectival participles too. As for the "noap=1", I think I understand how to use it. Thank you for that. Martin123xyz
 * I've just created a template for athematic verbs. It also works for imperfective verbs ending in two vowels, such as "блуе". However, on the template list, it appears under M rather than under E. Could you fix this? Could you also check if everything is all right with, since it was I who made it? I think it needs some sort of documentation and categorization too, whatever that may mean. Martin123xyz
 * See the changes I made:, . I also created the documentation page and put the category there instead: Template:mk-conj-е-∅/documentation. I'm just not sure about the character ∅ that you included in the name. It looks nice, but it's very hard for people to type. I think we should limit ourselves to common Latin and Cyrillic characters in the template names so that people can add them to entries more easily. Do you have any suggestion for a replacement? 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that - it's lovely. As for the character ∅, it is customary in denoting an absent phoneme or morpheme - I don't know what we could replace it with. Do you think it really matters that it's hard to type? People won't be typing the names of the templates - they'll simply look for entries and view the ready tables. I don't see how the symbol could affect them in any way. The only problem may be if they are trying to enter conjugations for verb entries that don't already have it, in which case they can just copy paste the entire code from the ready entries, which is what I do all the time as I add entries. However, if you insist on replacing ∅ with something else, maybe a 0 would do? Or a /? Martin123xyz
 * I think 0 would work best. / has a special meaning in template names (it indicates divisions between subtemplates), so we should avoid using it for anything else. 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian сув
I came across the Macedonian word сув via Proto-Slavic *suxъ. Could you fill it out? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. However, I don't have any adjective templates at my disposition at the moment, so I'll improve it at a future date. I'm currently busy with improving verbs (and entering nouns).
 * I understand. Apparently, is a declension template instead of a headword template. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. it also redirects to . --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add Macedonian noun бол, from Proto-Slavic *boljь. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Headword-line templates for Macedonian
I updated the current templates in Category:Macedonian headword-line templates. They're still very basic, but they can be improved if needed. Could you use these from now on? 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I will. I was planning on editing all of my verb entries to add the forms of the opposite aspect anyway, and these headword-line templates make it convenient to do so. However, could you explain how exactly I'm supposed to use them? I don't understand what to do with the list of parameters provided. I tried writing "pf=касне" for "каса", but nothing appeared on the screen when I submitted it. Martin123xyz
 * You can see what I did. I could add parameters to the other templates as well, if there is a need. For example the comparative forms of adjectives, or maybe the plural forms of nouns. I'm not sure what would be the most appropriate for Macedonian.  12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I understand how it works now. Thank you for the illustration. As for adjectives, comparative and superlative forms are fully predictable (one simply adds the prefixes "по-" and "нај-" respectively), so I don't know if these are necessary. As for nouns, we'd certainly need plural forms, as these are often irregular. However, wouldn't that fit better in an inflection table for nouns rather than merely the headword-line template? Martin123xyz
 * They're predictable, but they are still separate words, so there should probably be some kind of link so that users can get to them?
 * Concerning inflection tables, you are right. But for many languages, we include inflection tables for all the forms, but also include a few selected forms in the headword line. Often those are forms that help users figure out the declensional pattern more easily (the "principal parts"). For Slovene, for example, the genitive singular of nouns often tells you the general type of declension, and likewise for Latin nouns. For Latin verbs there are also four principal parts (see ). So it comes down to whether we consider the plural form of nouns important enough to include it on the headword line too. 12:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right - I think that we we should have noun plurals in the header too, in that case. As for the adjectives, I think it would be fine if they were to remain only in the inflection tables. Martin123xyz
 * I've added a plural parameter to now. It's the second unnamed parameter, after the gender.  15:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway for that parameter to automatically fill itself according to some rules of thumb that pertain to the plural formation of nouns? Whereas there are many unpredictable plurals, there are also many that are regular. For masculine nouns, there is too much variability, but feminine nouns in "-a" almost always form the plural by replacing the final "а" with "и". Likewise, neuter nouns ending "-о" almost always form the plural by replacing the "o" with "a" and neuter nouns ending "-e" almost always form the plural by replacing the "e" with "-иња". If the parameter could fill itself based on this whereas I could overwrite it with something else should it be necessary, that would be lovely. Come to think of it, it would be also convenient if masculine nouns had some default plural - "-ови" would be most appropriate, as it is the most common suffix. Even though I would have to alter very many masculine nouns, more than half would already be done. What do you think about this? Martin123xyz
 * It's possible to do this (but again, looking at letters inside words requires Lua support), but it may not necessarily be a good idea. The problem is what if someone comes and wants to add this template to an entry but doesn't know the plural? If it's automatically generated, then it might not be correct. If there is no default, then it's more work, but less chance of mistakes. 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may lead to mistakes, but this can be circumvented if instead of having the plural automatically generated, one could have the option to type in "std" for "standard" in a particular parameter. Whoever knows the plural (and sees that it's regular) would just type this in - then an appropriate plural would be generated depending on the specific noun (relying on Lua support). Whoever doesn't would leave the parameter blank and there would be no mistake. Martin123xyz
 * It is a bit like how the Dutch and Afrikaans templates work. For Dutch, there are two main plural endings, -en and -s. If you want the -en plural, you can type: . But you can also type in the full word. It just recognises the "-en" as special, and handles it differently than normal. Something like that might work for Macedonian too? 16:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you mean. Are suggesting creating a parameter where you can simply write the suffix such that it will be automatically added to the stem? If so, I suppose it would work in some cases, but many (masculine) nouns undergo elision or palatalization in the formation of the plural - here, merely adding suffixes would obviously be undesirable. Martin123xyz
 * A template is free to interpret the text you give as its parameters in any way it likes. So it's possible that means "add и", while  means "add ови". And there could be some other special value like  which means "add и and palatalise". Something along those lines?  21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. However, would the program know how to palatalize based on the "-'и" function? Could you program it to turn a final "к" into a "ц", a final "г" into a "з", and the like? Also, how would you program it to trigger elision of the final syllable's vowel? Or would that be resolved by filling in the entire word, as in the case of the Dutch entries?
 * With Lua that could be done, yes. As long as there are fixed rules then it could do it automatically. But it would mean it would apply it to all nouns ending in those consonants, unless there is a rule that says when not to apply it. It's all about rules. :)
 * Can you give an example of elision of the final vowel? 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's all about rules, that's very convenient. Anyway, the rule is that if a masculine noun ending in "к", "г" or "х" is pluralized with "и", palatalization will yield "ц", "з", and "с". As for elision, examples would be "орел" > "орли", "агол" > "агли", "метар" > "метри", etc. It happens with "е" much more than anything else (when it comes to nouns - in the case of adjectives, the elision of "о" is also quite common).
 * Ah, like that. I don't think the template would be able to handle such cases automatically, not even with Lua. Because there are probably nouns where this doesn't happen even though they look like it could, correct? The template has no way of knowing when to remove the vowel and when not, it's unpredictable. So in those cases you'd just have to specify the whole word, there's not much that can be done about that.
 * The palatalisation of masculine nouns is predictable so that can be made automatic. But the template would need to be converted to Lua first. So for now, it's best to just specify the whole plural always. 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, but when are the templates going to be converted to Lua? For verbs, it seems that we need Lua only for the adjectival participles (the one's with "-т"). I intend to merely continue entering nouns, adjectives and adverbs, with only their meanings included, and then go back to verbs to add conjugations and corresponding aspect pairs. By the time I'm done with that, would it be possible to have Lua templates?

Links in templates
I noticed you made. Generally speaking, you don't need to include the  inside the template parameter, when the template already links to the term normally. So you can just leave them out for this particular parameter (impf= and pf=), which I've done in the edit following yours. Also, when providing things like synonyms, derived terms, see also and such, could you link to the terms using ? The template automatically formats the word for Macedonian and includes a transliteration as well, so it's much preferred over the plain links with just. 20:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I will stop including double square brackets. I wasn't aware that the links would still work. I will also start using - I wasn't aware that this existed. Martin123xyz

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum
I am confused as to what I should write for Macedonian nouns that are singularia or pluralia tantum. Where and how do I mark this? I also have a specific question about the word "луѓе". It means "people", but doesn't have a singular form (it uses the words like "човек", "личност" or "лице" as singular forms, but these are evidently distinct words). Meanwhile, Macedonian nouns don't distinguish gender in their plural forms, so "луѓе" turns out to be a genderless noun, in fact. How do I mark this and where? Then again, in BCS, the cognate word "ljudi" is masculine, which is easily deducible, given the fact that BCS has a well-developed gender system in the plural. Based on this, should I treat "луѓе" as masculine? To complicate matters further, "луѓе" actually takes singular neuter suffixes for definiteness, e.g. "луѓето", "луѓево", etc. Martin123xyz
 * If a noun has no plural, use . A common convention in Wiktionary templates is to use "-" when you want to disable something.
 * If the noun is always plural, you specify a plural gender, like . But if there is no gender distinction in the plural, I can change it so that you use just instead.
 * For, is it not just the (irregular) plural form of ? 21:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations. However, only writing "p" where there is no gender distinction in the plural doesn't seem to work. It produces a question mark. Could you look at "луѓе" and fix this? Anyway, "луѓе" is indeed the irregular plural of "човек", but only in meaning. Etymologically, they are two distinct words. Thus, "луѓе" isn't necessarily masculine just because "човек" is a masculine singular noun. That was my dilemma.Martin123xyz
 * I didn't add that in yet. Right now, the template accepts m, f, n, m-p, f-p and n-p as valid genders. Should I change it to m, f, n, p? 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think that m-p, f-p, and n-p should stay too. Is there no way to keep all three of them plus a general p?
 * Ok, I've done that. But if the plural doesn't distinguish genders, what is the use of m-p, f-p and n-p? 12:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The use is to be able to denote what gender the singular of that plural noun would be, since not all plural entries would be pluralia tantum. For example, "скали" is most often used in the plural to mean "stairs", but a feminine singular noun "скала" also exists, meaning a single stair, among other things. Martin123xyz
 * On Wiktionary we distinguish between "lemmas" and "forms". The lemma is the form of a word that contains the main entry and the definitions, while forms only contain a small definition that contains a link to the lemma. Templates like would only be used on lemmas, not on forms. So if скали is the plural of скала, then it would link to it and it wouldn't use  itself.  14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, could you fix "скали" so that I can see how that is supposed to work, i.e. what code needs to be written? I thought that "скали" deserved its own entry because it's meaning is somewhat more than just the plural of "скала". Anyway, I suppose that we can still reflect this through the definitions, even if we don't give it the status of a lemma, so it would be distinct from all other form entries that a bot may generate, right? Martin123xyz
 * I've changed both скали and скала. 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian бол
Since I thought that no response was ever bothered to me made, I thought about creating the Macedonian entry myself. All you may now do is add the gender and corrections, then it's done. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't create "бол" because I am not familiar with the word. I don't know what gender it's supposed to be either. When some other Macedonian speaker who is aware of it comes by it, s/he can modify it accordingly. I myself am only familiar with "болка".
 * So how about (owl)? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with that word in Macedonian either. I have known it all my life as a Serbian word. In Macedonian, I know about, , and . Martin123xyz (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Words Appearing in Red
Every time I enter a compound term, if some if its components are not recorded as separate entries already, they appear in red. However, some of them don't even exist as separate words and thus, there is nothing to create, as in the case of some reflexive verbs that don't have a normal form (such as "се кае"). How I can make Wiktionary consider compound terms as single units rather than sequencse of separate terms, so as to avoid this problem? I face the same issue when I enter a compound term where some of the words are declined - then again, I suppose this will be fixed once a suitable bot has been procured to automatically generate new entries for all inflected forms of all the lemmas.
 * The headword that is displayed in the entry normally defaults to the name of the current page, and it is automatically split into separate words when possible. If this is not desirable, then you can change it using the  parameter, like this:, which gives:
 * You can also specify which words should be linked to and which shouldn't, by putting  around the appropriate words:, giving:
 * For nouns that contain adjectives in them, it could also be useful to specify which word the link should go to, if the adjective is in a feminine or neuter form. For example:, which gives:
 * (Notice that if you click on the link, it goes to електронски.) It's up to you to decide what works best. 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations - that's brilliant. I'll start employing it.
 * (Notice that if you click on the link, it goes to електронски.) It's up to you to decide what works best. 12:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanations - that's brilliant. I'll start employing it.
 * Thank you for the explanations - that's brilliant. I'll start employing it.

Reflexive Verbs
When I add intransitive or transitive Macedonian verbs as entries, they are automatically incorporated into an entire list of intransitive or transitive verbs which I can later view. However, this doesn't happen with reflexive verbs - no such list is created. Why is this so? Could someone mend it? Martin123xyz (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Verb Templates for Irregular Verbs
I have thought of a way to accommodate irregular verbs into templates - by entering two (or even more, if needed) stems in the parameter on the entry page. Given the fact that Macedonian irregular verbs tend to be irregular only in that their basic stem changes in some tenses, allowing different stems to fill out different parts of the template would resolve the problem. For example, whereas for "копа" I only write { { mk-conj-а|impf|коп } } and have "коп-" fill out everything, if I could write { { mk-conj-a|pf|дојд|дош } } for "дојде" and then have "дојд-" fill in certain parts of the template while "дош-" fills in the remaining, I could obtain the correct conjugation table. However, I don't how to specify in the code template which spaces need to be filled out by which parameter's contents. I think that the { { {2 |- } } needs to be altered somehow (split into two distinct things), but I don't know how to achieve this. Could someone show me? Martin123xyz (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is more or less what I had in mind as well. For which forms would the second stem be used? 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Only the non-future л-forms should have the second stem, i.e. "дош-" in the case of "дојде"
 * What about the aorist? I thought that could be irregular too? 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is very rare. The only examples I can think of where it happens "земе", which is quite a singular case, and "сум", which is a completely irregular verb, as in so many languages. Thus, for "земе", we would need three different stems - a regular one, an aorist one, and a non-future л-participle one. For "сум" we would need plenty of different ones. I will upload the conjugation of that verb for you to see how it works and what can be done about.
 * Anyway, besides this, there is another complexity - the depalatalization. It happens with verbs of the "-е-о" and "-е-а" types. Thus, we need a depalatilized stem and a regular palatalized stem. In the case of "повлече", we need "повлек-" and "повлеч-". You can review the respective distributions of these forms in the Dropbox file from earlier. А somewhat different distribution applies to the "-е-a" type verbs (due to the presence of more back-vowel suffixes which trigger this depalatalization). Here is a file with both "расплаче" (an "-e-a" type verb with depalatilzation) and "сум". I have also included "земе": https://www.dropbox.com/s/hagjs643pht2pzd/Additional%20Macedonian%20Verbs.xls Martin123xyz (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly Unnecessary Entries
Almost adjectives that end in the suffix "-ен" seem to have a noun form with "-ост". Should I keep entering such nouns or wait until a suitable bot is procured to create them all automatically? I am not sure if this would be adequate, though, as the bot wouldn't really be able to add definitions. For example, if I need "послушност" (obedience) from "послушен" (obedient), how would the bot know that "obedience" is the appropriate translation? I don't suppose it would know how to derive it from "obedient". Then there are also the cases where these derived nouns with "-ост" have a somewhat less predictable meaning. For example, "должен" means "obligated" or "indebted", but "должност" means "duty". Obligation is better translated as "обврска". What's more, there are cases where derived nouns with "-ост" wouldn't be valid or at least not be very preferable. For example, from "тажен" (sad), one wouldn't derive "тажност". One would go with "тага" to mean "sadness". Likewise, one would much rather go with "празнина" (emptiness) rather than "празност" from "празен" (empty). How do you suggest this matter be approached? Martin123xyz (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"code"
Why do you put in templates, like on одолева? That's not right and it just breaks things... 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I wasn't fully aware that it's not right and because everything the template appeared fine even with the code inside it. I have removed it now (on another page). --Martin123xyz

Macedonian: biaspectual verbs
Can the template(s) be fixed to accommodate biaspectual verbs (двовидски глаголи)? The verb јаде, for example, can be biaspectual (cf. aorist јадов; aorist participle јал). There are also some borrowed verbs (unprefixed) ending in -ира that are biaspectual. --106.69.89.206 07:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They presumably can, but I don't know how - I am very poorly acquainted with the Wiki mark-up language (and any other computer languages, for that matter). Anyway, I agree that biaspectual verbs need to be taken into account, such as the ones in "-ира", but I don't know about "јаде". I myself am not familiar with the form "јадов" and have always considered "јал" to be a dialectal variation of "јадел", imperfective either way. I only know of "изеде" as the standard perfect equivalent of "јаде", along with the more specific forms such as "дојаде", "најаде", "прејаде" etc. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The documentation of describes how to do it. As for inflection tables, it's probably clearer to just show two tables, as usage is presumably either imperfective or perfective but never both. I could imagine that they even have different inflections (maybe different l-participles) depending on which aspect is used.  08:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I found how to do it. As for the conjugation tables, I agree that they should be separate. It's not that a biaspectual verb's imperfective conjugation would contradict its perfective conjugation or vice versa - they would be complementary - but I think it would be misleading to present a single conjugation table with all forms. Anyway, how should I mark the first table as opposed to the second? Should I write Inflection 1 (imperfective) and Inflection 2 (perfective) as headings? Is there some standard? Martin123xyz (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I could try to make it so the header automatically shows this. 10:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, thank you. Tell me if you succeed. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

сѐ
Why should this be deleted? 16:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I made a new page for it, with a different "è" symbol. It's all here: . The other "è" symbol that they had was somehow automatically converted to a regular "e" when I tried to create the page, so I tried using this other one, and it worked. Then, I needed to change as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You should really use the original title. We shouldn't be mixing Cyrillic and Latin letters in names. The conversion happens because there is some special code that strips certain diacritics from words before linking to them. This is done so that we can add accent marks for languages where they are not normally written, like Russian. The same has been set up for Macedonian too, but I don't know if this is correct. Currently it's set up to convert "Ѐ", "ѐ", "Ѝ", "ѝ" to "Е", "е", "И", "и", and to remove all combining grave and acute accents. Should this be changed? 17:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. There shouldn't be a code stripping diacritics, because "се" and "сè" are two different words (the whole purpose of the grave accent is to distinguish them) and when they appear in compound phrases, just like when they are alone, they cannot be used interchangeably. If I am creating "сè уште", I don't want "се уште" - there's no such thing. It's just a common misspelling of "сè уште", which is why I have an entry for "се уште" at all. Should I recreate all the entries with "è" now by using the Cyrillic version and mark all the ones with the Latin "è" for deletion? --Martin123xyz
 * You can just move the pages, there's no need to delete and recreate them. I'll also remove stripping of the grave accent. But what about the acute accent, is that used at all? 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, there is "Move" button. As for the acute accent, it's used to mark stress, but only when someone specifically wishes to show the stress of a word - it's not actually part of the orthography (the case is the same for Russian). Thus, I don't think it matters if the acute accents are stripped. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is exactly why we have accent stripping, so it seems sensible to keep it for the acute accent. 17:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Remove it for the grave accent only. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. I've also added transliteration for the grave accented letters. 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

твој
I had just changed this to "determiner". A determiner is similar to an adjective, but it has different meaning and usage. Instead of describing some kind of property of a word, it specifies the word in some way, helping to indicate which thing(s) is meant. Examples of determiners in English are, , , , etc. Articles are generally also considered to be determiners. 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Half of the possessives were already entered some time ago as determiners, but I now changed them into adjectives (and added the missing ones). I thought that they should be labelled as adjectives because in school, when were studying Macedonian grammar, the possessive pronouns were specifically explained to us as adjectives. I didn't know that this was unfavourable here on Wiktionary. I'll change all the other ones to determiners too, if you wish.
 * What about words like "some", "every", "this kind", "few", etc. Are they also supposed to be determiners? Those were also taught to me as adjectives. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are determiners too. According to Determiner, they were (and still are) often grouped with adjectives, so what you were taught is not wrong. "Determiner" is just more specific. In English, most determiners can't be used with an article (although some can), and I assume something similar applies to Macedonian. You probably can't say "the your car" with the definite form in Macedonian (something like ?) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll change them back soon. More specific is certainly more desirable. As for the articles, they are indeed used with the possessive - look at the examples I have provided for the entries. Thus, "твојата кола" is indeed correct, and means "your car". If you simply say "твоја кола", that means "one of your cars" or "a car of yours". Anyway, one can put articles on other determiners, e.g. "таков" (such, that kind) > "таквиот" (*the such). However, there are some determiners that prohibit the use of an article (e.g. "which", "every") Martin123xyz (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, if you use an adjective (of any kind) with a noun, then the definite article appears on the adjective rather than on the noun? So a form like колата would always stand alone? 18:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears on the adjective/determiner. I cannot think of any case where "колата" would be preceded by a modifier of some kind. Martin123xyz (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is quite different from how it's used in the Scandinavian languages. In Swedish, for example, you say:, , , . So the article remains on the noun, but the adjective has a separate definite form. 18:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions
It’s not a good idea to speedily delete entries without discussion unless they are your own mistakes or obvious vandalism. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I will put all future entries I delete up for discussion in advance if they don't fall into the aforementioned categories. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BTW, Macedonian was the language with the greatest increase in number of gloss definitions since the previous database dump, so good job! — Ungoliant (falai) 19:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad - I've been working rather intensively on adding entries throughout the past month. I really think that Wiktionary is a useful learning tool, with the vast variety of information it can provide about words and phrases (etymology, pronunciation, morphological classification, grammatical forms, manner of usage, related terms, etc.) and I want to make it as useful as possible in this respect for Macedonian as well. It would be a pity if I didn't, since so much of the work is so straightforward and since I have sufficient knowledge of the language. Naturally, I've had great help, primarily from CodeCat, for which I'm very thankful. I hope things will run as smoothly in the upcoming weeks (or maybe months) as well. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't speak the language, but it's not clear why you nominated сѐ‎ for speedy deletion (remember, that means there isn't even any debate, and it's an obvious mistaken entry), when it looked quite long and complex. Please re-nominate with a reason, if necessary. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had a reason which you can read higher up my discussion page. It turned out that it wasn't valid, though. Anyway, it was indeed long and complex and there was nothing wrong with that part - I was only having trouble with the title. I didn't actually wish to delete anything fully but to move the content of that page to a new one with a title that didn't present the same problem. Either way, now the problem has been resolved because CodeCat has altered the code that automatically strips grave accents. I will soon move all pages related to "сѐ‎" to their appropriate Cyrillic titles (I am currently mending some determiners I've mislabelled as adjectives). Martin123xyz (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Some tips on nominating things for deletion: if it's something that anyone would look at and say "of course, that definitely needs to be deleted", or would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt since you just created it yourself, use . If it's something where they would say that if they knew a little bit of information, use, but add an explanation to your template as a parameter such as . Otherwise, use and post an explanation. You should never nominate other people's content for deletion without some kind of explanation somewhere, unless it's so absolutely obvious that the average admin would have deleted it anyway as soon as they were aware of it. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Biaspectual verbs
Anatoli asked about Russian biaspectual verbs and created a category for them. I thought this was a good idea so I created one for Macedonian too. But I noticed that in the entries, you added two separate conjugation sections. When words have more than one conjugation, the normal practice is to have just one section, but with two tables. I fixed the first few entries in Category:Macedonian biaspectual verbs, could you fix the rest? 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will, presently. Martin123xyz (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done. Martin123xyz (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still contributing to "Macedonian Category"
Zdravo,

I am wondering if you are still contributing to "Macedonian Category" of words as I would like to know if you need any help or if you could give me any tips.

Thanks

Davski (talk)

Horizontal lines
is only used between languages, so if there's only one language on a page, it's not needed at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, but it's easier for me to just paste it everywhere automatically rather than type it individually each time it's needed, or alternatively erase it each time it's not needed. Am I violating some rule, such that I should stop immediately, or can I continue working as I have been so far, although it's not ideal? In any case, I personally don't find redundant horizontal lines particularly harmful in any way - after all, they're barely visible on the page; moreover, if someone wants to add an entry in another language to one of my pages which only contains a Macedonian entry, a horizontal line will already be there, saving the user in question some effort. Martin123xyz (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Need more names of cities in Macedonian
Greetings. This is a friendly reminder to improve the Macedonian entries. I think Wiktionary needs more proper nouns denoting cities. See Category:mk:Cities. Thank you very much. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion. I'll add some cities tonight and then I'm taking a break from Wiktionary since I'm starting my second term at university. When I revisit it in a few months/years, I'll add more cities as well as many other kinds of words - I've been adding whatever comes to mind so far, and clearly, there's much more to add. Martin123xyz (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

се разочара
Firstly, thank you so much for working on Macedonian! It's really great to see one person doing so much to expand the coverage of an underappreciated language. Anyway, I came here to mention that for other languages with reflexive verbs on Wiktionary (like Czech, French, German, etc), we have a standard of not creating a separate page, but instead adding a reflexive sense to, say, разочара. I think it would be advisable to follow that same standard for Macedonian. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, but if that's the standard, how come Wiktionary has separate entries for all Russian reflexive verbs? In Russian, the reflexive marker is written as a suffix, whereas in Macedonian it's written as a separate word, but that's just an arbitrary orthographic convention (well, more or less) - is that the criterion that Wiktionary relies on? Also, if I start including information about reflexive verbs in the entries for their non-reflexive counterparts, is someone going to fix all the entries I've made so far? I think that continuing with the method I've already adopted would be more desirable than producing inconsistencies. In any case, I've been including reflexive verbs as separate entities because in school we're taught that they're lemmas in their own right. This is obvious in cases where are a reflexive verb doesn't have a non-reflexive counterpart, or has a non-reflexive counterpart with a completely different meaning (cf. and ). Martin123xyz (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

се разочара
You added a label "reflexive" here but it's redundant because the entire entry is for a reflexive verb. The verb can only be used reflexively, there's no need for the label. The label would be used when a non-reflexive verb has some senses that are reflexive. —CodeCat 16:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , the groupthink is getting to us... :) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The function of that label was to send all of my reflexive verbs into a list of reflexive verbs - if I recall well, I made it work like that. Now, that list is essentially gone - only a handful of verbs have remained in it, which had been sent to it via a category label (which is invisible unless one is editing the page). I don't really understand what's happened. Anyway, feel free to remove all of the reflexive labels if you wish, although I disagree with Wiktionary's standard system, which obscures the difference between reflexive and non-reflexive verbs. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, some of the reflexive verbs that I've entered as separate entries appear to link to the list of Macedonian reflexive verbs, but they're not in the list when I actually open it. Furthermore, the table of recent additions on the list's page contains reflexive verbs that I've added recently which are likewise absent from the list. Martin123xyz (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it's probably because Module:labels/data doesn't provide an automated categorisation of reflexive verbs. This edit would have worked, but it was reverted (maybe rightly so, I don't know; this issue probably needs further discussion). --Barytonesis (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Macedonian
Hi. I see you're a prominent editor to our Macedonian lexicon. Thank you for your contributions here, and I'm glad to see an active native speaker. I recently started learning Macedonian, and haven't really studied Slavic/Balkan languages in-depth before, so feel free to take watch to my edits and help me out. I am also editing at the Macedonian Wiktionary, which, no offense, is sort of a swamp right now seeing how there are almost no active editors there. I added a lot of English and Danish entries there. Happy editing! PseudoSkull (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

should be applied somewhere to fix that, but I don't know where. Please feel free to change or revert back anything you think I did wrong. I'm still learning. --Gorec (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing the adjectival participle back to masculine. Regarding the terminology, I strongly prefer "adjectival participle" and "adverbial participle", as these hybrid categories, halfway between verbs and modifiers, are customarily referred to as "participles" in the literature (including linguistic works on Slavic languages; see for example Sussex & Cubberley, The Slavic Languages), whereas "verbal adjective" and "verbal adverb", calques of the Macedonian designations, would needlessly depart from this convention and possibly cause confusion with deverbal adjectives like "читок". Different languages use different terms to describe their own grammar, but they do not have to be retained in English. You can also notice that the Russian and Polish conjugation templates use the term "participle" too. For similar reasons, I prefer "л-participle" or even "l-participle" as in the book I cited, and have substituted this term for "л-form" in your description of the new tenses. On the other hand, "verbal adjective" and "verbal adverb" are parallel to "verbal noun". There are thus arguments in favor of both sets of terms. In any case, I would like to point out that it would be wrong to call the Macedonian adjectival participle/verbal adjective a passive participle, as is often done in the case of other Slavic languages, because in Macedonian, it has innovated an active meaning too, e.g. "јаден сум" means "I have eaten", not "I have been eaten".
 * I have checked the new tenses and made a small change to the order, placing the има perfect beneath the normal perfect. Another option would be to group all the има tenses at the end, but there is no objective reason to prefer one order to the order. I have also shortened the descriptions and improved their consistency. After all, conjugation tables should have a relatively ergonomic design, and if anyone wants to know more about Macedonian conjugation, they can read explanations on Wikipedia. Finally, I have fixed the problem with reflexive verbs, although my solution was hardly practical (I created a new category called "refl" in each individual conjugation template, setting it to be displayed as "се" or "си" when the ref or ref2 parameters are activated, and then indicated where refl should be printed in the general conjugation template; surely there would have been a more efficient way to go about it). Martin123xyz (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great job! 👍 I checked different reflexive verbs and they are shown correctly. The conjugation tables look complete now. Thanks! --Gorec (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Глаголи
Здраво ! Забележав проблем со глаголските придавки на некои од глаголите, па така место со -т се генерирани со -н. Пример, кај кивне и лавне се генерирани како кивнано и лавнано, место кивнато и лавнато. Кај некои од глаголите нема воопшто генерирано глаголска придавка, иако заради има-перфектот, глаголска придавка може да се образува од сите глаголи, без оглед дали се свршени или несвршени. Исто така, се прашував како да се прават парови свршени/несвршени форми кај глаголи како: кива, кивне, кивнува, закива; или лае, лавне, лавнува, залае, полае итн. Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Здраво . Ти благодарам што ми ги посочи грешките во конјугацијата на глаголите и  - сега се поправени.


 * За да се генерираат глаголски придавки со -н, не се одредува никаков параметар, односно формите се генерираат автоматски; за да се генерираат глаголски придавки со -т, се користи параметарот tap=1 (види на пример кај ); а за да не се генерира глаголска придавка, се користи параметарот noap=1. Имајќи го ова предвид, ги разликуваме следниве три случаја:


 * 1. Глаголот има глаголска придавка што може да се користи како придавка, на пример "убие > убиен > убиен човек" (наспроти "тагува > *тагуван > *тагуван човек", што би било граматички погрешно) - формата се генерира автоматски и во полето за глаголска придавка, и во полињата за сложени глаголски времиња образувани со помошниот глагол „има“; по потреба се користи параметарот tap=1, на пример кај


 * 2. Глаголот формира глаголска придавка со -н што не може да се користи како вистинска придавка, на пример "тагува > *тагуван > *тагуван човек", туку само за сложените времиња со „има“ - се пишува noap=1 за да не се генерира ништо во полето за глаголска придавка (коешто е означено со машки род еднина и ги сместува само формите со придавска функција, коишто се менуваат по род и број и се членуваат); сепак се генерираат точно сложените глаголски времиња со „има“, бидејќи параметарот noap=1 не им влијае


 * 3. Глаголот формира глаголска придавка со -т што не може да се користи како вистинска придавка, на пример "кивне > *кивнат > *кивнат човек", туку само за сложените времиња со „има“ - се ставаат параметрите noap=1 и tap=1 истовремено, за првиот да го спречи генерирањето на форма во полето за глаголска придавка, а вториот да го овозможи точното генерирање на сложените глаголски времиња со „има“.


 * Оваа класификација е заснована врз суштинската разлика помеѓу глаголската придавка со придавска функција, којашто е лексички ограничена, и глаголската придавка како дел од сложените глаголски времиња со „има“, којашто се образува за сите глаголи, како што посочуваш. Кога би ги третирале двете функции на глаголската придавка како една категорија во табелите и би генерирале глаголски придавки во горното поле за сите глаголи, би морале да пишуваме објаснувања на посебните страниците генерирани за истите за да објасниме дали имаат или немаат придавска функција. Со оглед на тоа што сѐ уште немаме бот што генерира страници за нелемски форми, ако сега генерираме глаголски придавки за сите глаголи, сѐ додека го чекаме ботот, читателите ќе имаат погрешен впечаток дека глаголските придавки од типот „тагувано“ се еквивалентни со оние од типот „убиен“.


 * Можеби моменталното решение не е идеално, и со оглед на тоа што не знам како функционираат ботовите, не знам дали може да се испрограмира бот што ќе ги третира глаголските придавки од горното поле различно од оние во сложените времиња со „има“. Меѓутоа, исто така мислам дека не треба да имаме две посебни полиња за двете функции на глаголската придавка, на пример „глаголска придавка“ и „пасивен партицип“ (за времињата со „има“), затоа што традиционалната граматика, колку што знам, не користи два различни поима (традиционалната граматика кај сите јазици занемарува и замачкува суштински разлики кои се истакнуваат само во лингвистичките истражувања, а истовремено постулира фиктивни разлики, така што ситуацијата со македонските глаголски придавки воопшто не е необична), и не би сакал да воведуваме своја терминологија на Wiktionary.


 * Она што е тука најспорно е кои глаголски придавки имаат а кои немаат придавска функција. Јасно е само дека ако глаголот е преоден, ќе има глаголска придавка со придавска функција. Ти тврдиш дека сите глаголи образуваат глаголски придавки за времињата со „има“ без оглед дали се свршени или несвршени, но битниот критериум е всушност преодноста. Значи, спорни се непреодните глаголи, кај коишто глаголската придавка понекогаш постои како активен минат партицип наместо пасивен, на пример „паднат“ со значење „којшто паднал“, наспроти „убиен“ со значење „којшто бил убиен“ (не „којшто убил“), но не и „*тагуван“ со значење „*којшто тагувал“.


 * Овој аспект на граматиката не е добро стандардизиран и различни луѓе би имале различни интуиции. За некого, можеби „кивнат човек“ е точно со значење „човек врз којшто некој кивнал“, но мене не ми е природно. Јас одредувам според сопствените интуиции и според тоа кои глаголски форми сум ги сретнал во придавска функција а кои не. За суптилни идиолектски разлики, може да пишуваме коментари во Usage Notes или да дебатираме на страницата Discussion на засегнатиот збор.


 * Што се однесува до наведувањето свршени и несвршени парници на глаголите, и ова е комплексна и спорна тема во лингвистиката и постои обемна литература на темата, претежно во врска со руските видски парови, но принципот важи за сите словенски јазици. За вовед во проблематиката, погледај го следниов труд:

Polish Verbs


 * Во суштина, лингвистите не се согласуваат според кои критериуми се утврдува вистински пар. Јасно е дека имаме пар кај „успокои“ и „успокојува“, каде што нема други можни изведенки, но кај глаголите како тие што ги посочуваш ти, ситуацијата е покомплексна. Целта на проект како Wiktionary не е да решава напредни теоретски дилеми – за тоа корисниците можат само да навлезат во стручната литература – така што може да се задоволиме со полабав систем за наведување видски парници. Во постојните статии, принципите се следниве:


 * 1. За несвршени глаголи, се наведуваат свршените глаголи изведени од нив (на пример „тепа“ – „истепа“ и свршените глаголи од коишто самите се изведени (на пример „умира“ – „умре“)


 * 2. За свршени глаголи, се наведуваат несвршените глаголи изведени од нив (на пример „успокои“ – „успокојува“) и несвршените глаголи од коишто самите се изведени (на пример „ископа“ – „копа“); ако има парници од двата типа, се наведуваат заедно, како што си направил кај „лавне“


 * 3. Кај несвршените глаголи не се наведуваат други несвршени глаголи (освен под Related Words, See Also и слично; значи, кај „лае“ не стои „лавнува“ во head-template покрај „лавне“) и истото важи и за свршените глаголи


 * 4. Ако има повеќе несвршени или свршени парници, се бележат со параметрите |pf=X|pf2=Y|pf3=Z| односно |impf=X|impf2=Y|impf3=Z| (види кај ); редоследот се одредува за да соодветствува на дефинициите, на пример pf2 да биде свршената форма за втората дефиниција; ако формите важат за сите дефиниции, може да се подредат почнувајќи од најчестата или најосновната, или пак по азбучен ред; се одлучува за секој случај посебно


 * 5. Се избегнуваат парниците со поспецифично значење, односно оние кај коишто има и семантичка разлика освен видската. Затоа кај „тепа“ се наведува „истепа“, но не и изведенката „претепа“, којашто има интензивно значење. Во случајот на „кива“, нема да се наведе „закива“ затоа што е поретка форма и има инхоативно значење; наместо тоа ќе се наведе „кивне“ како поосновна форма, којашто по интуиција ја перцепираме како поблиска до вистински видски парник. Секако, ќе се наведе и „закива“ посебно во делот на изведени форми, независно од head-template, кога ќе се создаваат листи на изведени форми какви што има за подобро документираните јазици на Wiktionary.


 * 6. Ако глаголот нема основен парник, може да се прифати парник со поспецифично значење, на пример „заквичи“ за „квичи“, и покрај инхоативноста.


 * Тука има многу слобода во одредувањето што е основен видски парник и колку дополнително значење има извесен потенцијален парник. Најважно е да не се ставаат маргинални парници наместо основните и да не се пренатрупува head-template со маргинални парници. Во секој случај, на крај треба сите поврзани глаголи да бидат наведени некаде на страницата, било во делот за етимологија, било во листата на изведенки, така што критериумите за вклучување на видски парници во head-template можат да бидат поконзервативни.


 * Се надевам дека овие упатства ќе ти помогнат во уредувањето на речникот. Секако, Wiktionary е слободен проект и можеш да предлагаш свои идеи за македонските статии, врз коишто немам никаков официјален авторитет; едноставно сум имал прилика да соработувам со поискусни корисници и администратори кога македонските статии беа во зародиш и да донесам одлуки коишто потоа се утврдиле преку сите илјадници статии што сум ги создал, без тоа да значи дека се најсоодветните можни решенија.


 * Поздрав Martin123xyz (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , ти благодарам за исцрпниот одговор и за појаснувањата! Согласен сум со напишаното, го ценам твоето мислење, имајќи го предвид твојот долгогодишен труд и искуство на wiktionary. Немам многу уредувано/создавано статии за глаголи и не знаев за параметарот "tap=1". Поправив некои од статиите со глаголи, за кои што се сетив, кои завршуваат на -не, додавајќи им tap=1.


 * Околу создавањето бот за генерирање нелемски форми, мислам дека понапредните корисници и админите од македонската википедија би можеле да помогнат?! Веројатно знае дали некој од македонската википедија би можел да создаде и управува бот на wiktionary!?


 * Поздрав, --Gorec (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Браво! За рекордно време го дигна бројот на над 27.000. 👍 Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Фала. Моментално пробувам да го доближам бројот на статии со фонетска транскрипција до 20.000. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Дали некаде може да се види на кои статии им недостасува фонетска транскрипција? Инаку, бројачот понекогаш лагира и дава стара статистика. Некогаш се средува ако се направи edit/publish на празно, без да се прават измени, но најчесто резултатот е локален. --Gorec (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Не може да се види освен ако некој не ставил на статијата, како кај . Прашав во Grease Pit во јули , но не добив одговор. Затоа си ги отворам една по една сите статии од "Contributions" и им ставам транскрипција ако немаат. Стигнат сум до декември 2015. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 👍 --Gorec (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Глаголот прортува би требало да е означен како misspelling на про’ртува. --Gorec (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Можеш ли да видиш кој template треба да се употреби за conjugation на глаголот кладе? Од тие што ги пробав ниеден не ми ги даваше точните форми (кладам, кладат; клај, клајте; кладов, кладоа; клал; (ќе) кладев, (ќе) кладеа; (ќе) кладел; кладен) --Gorec (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ја додадов конјугацијата; template-от е, исто како за даде, и користи два параметра. Поздрав Martin123xyz (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Фала! --Gorec (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Некој создал статија дува ветер, но конјугацијата е грешна. Имаш ли идеја како да се среди, имајќи ја предвид и специфичноста на глаголот?--Gorec (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * За глаголските синтагми што содржат неглаголски елементи како именки и прилози, вообичаено не се става конјугација, туку само се упатува читателот до главниот глагол, како што е направено на повеќето статии што сум ги создавал јас. И кај другите јазици не се користат табели во вакви случаи; види и, со упатување, и  и , без упатување, евентуално со делумна конјугација во headword line. Има и спротивни случаи како , но лично сметам дека нема потреба од табели за изрази: во дува ветер, глаголот дува се менува исто како и кога се користи самостојно, во контексти од типот „ми дува од прозорот“, а ветер е едноставно неменлив подмет. Ако сметаме дека ова не е доволно очигледно, може да се образложат Usage notes. Доколку сепак би ставале табела, би требало во  да се додаде параметер во којшто би стоел подметат (веројатно може да се ископира кодот за параметарот што става повратни заменки и едноставно да се прекрсти од „ref“ во „subj“), за на статијата да може да се напише  и да се генерираат точните форми. За заповедниот начин „дувај, ветре“ ќе треба уште еден параметар за вокативот од ветер. Со оглед на тоа што вокативот веќе ќе го има на статијата за ветер, конјугацијата за дува ветер во суштина би ја комбинирала конјугацијата на дува со деклинацијата на ветер. Martin123xyz (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Фонетска транскрипција
Кај нестандардниот изговор на падобран претпоставувам си мислел да ставиш падо'бран!? --Gorec (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Да, сега го поправив. Фала што ми ја посочи грешката. Ако наидеш и на други статии каде што стандардниот и нестандардниот изговор останале исти, слободно менувај и сам. Инаку дискутираме како да се подобри алгоритмот за фонетска транскрипција на Module_talk:mk-pronunciation; можеби би сакал нешто да придонесеш. Martin123xyz (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ќе ја разгледам дискусијата. Во случај да ти притребаат некаде, ако ги немаш, еве ги на едно место акцентираните кирилски букви: А́ а́ Е́ е́ И́ и́ О́ о́ У́ у́ Л́ л́ Р́ р́ --Gorec (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Пробав различни начини, но никако не можам да ја средам фонетската транскрипција на брцкајќи, за да се прикаже „брц-кајќи“. Исто и на брчкајќи, буцкајќи. --Gorec (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Средив, со користење на # --Gorec (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Тоа е единственото решение што ни стои на располагање, и многу пати го имам користено и јас. Проблемот потекнува од правило во модулот за фонетска транскрипција коешто во случај на низа од слеана согласка (ц, ѕ, ч или ш) и каква било друга согласка, секогаш го става знакот за акцент пред слеаната согласка, така што дури и да напишеме „ц/к“ во template-от, правилото ќе се примени и на оваа репрезентација и акцентот ќе се помести на лево. Правилото е неопходно затоа што во негово отсуство, акцентот се јавува помеѓу составните елементи на слеаните согласки, под лигатурата, што е секогаш грешно. Изгледа дека правилото за спојување на симболи со лигатури не е добро подредено во однос на правилото за одредување на акцентираниот слог и на слоговните граници, но сега за сега не сум открил како да се препише модулот. Нема ваков проглем со другите согласки затоа што сите соодветсвуваат на еден симбол во МФА. Имај наум дека во случаи како отпочнување, мора да се стави # и по првиот и по вториот слог, затоа што ако се стави само меѓу „ч“ и „н“, „отпоч-“ ќе се третира како самостојна низа од два слога и ќе добие свој акцент.
 * Доколку во иднина некој го отстрани правилото што автоматски ги претставува едносложните зборови како неакцентирани, ќе се расипе транскрипцијата на сите зборови што моментално се транскрибирани со помош на #. Тоа е една од причините зошто побарав веќе да не се менува модулот, иако се дискутираше ново правило кое ќе се повикува на листа на клитики кои се секогаш неакцентирани и во сите други случаи ќе генерира акцент, дури и зборот да е едносложен. Со такво правило, не би требало рачно да додаваме акцент во бара преку леб погача, и би било доста корисно, но ако се воведува, ќе мора да се смисли и алтернативно решение за # и да се побара целосна листа на зборови транскрибирани со # за да се изменат сите, рачно или со бот. Martin123xyz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

македонољубец
Можеш ли да најдеш добри дефиниции за македонозналец и македонољубец? Поздрав. --Gorec (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Немам речник во којшто можам да најдам дефиниции на англиски, но можам да предложам "expert/specialist in Macedonia and its culture and history" и "Macedonophile, Macedonian patriot, lover of Macedonia and its culture and history" за потребите на Wiktionary. Martin123xyz (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Фала за одговорот! Може ли да го прегледаш преводот на јатрвин? --Gorec (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ја променив дефиницијата: ако јатрва е „сопруга на еден брат во меѓусебниот однос со сопруга на другиот брат“, според дигиталниот речник и други извори, тогаш е co-sister-in-law а не co-mother-in-law (тоа би бил односот помеѓу свекрвата и тештата). Martin123xyz (talk) 06:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Headword-line templates in nonstandard forms!
Hi, lots of your entries are showing up in missing headword-line templates. Are you omitting the headword-line templates because these are nonstandard forms? — Eru·tuon 20:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes I am, because otherwise, the non-standard forms are added to the list of lemmas and I thought that all non-standard forms belong to the lemma of the standard equivalent. Should the non-standard forms be added to the lemma list?
 * English at least seems to put nonstandard forms in the lemma category. See this search that shows several English nonstandard-form lemmas. The search for nonstandard-form non-lemmas seems to show non-standard inflected forms (or pages with both a nonstandard lemma and a standard inflected form). I think it's clearer if the non-lemma forms category is only used for inflected forms (or mutated, etc.) and not nonstandard lemmas as well. — Eru·tuon 07:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. I see that Russian is also a lemma. However, Macedonian misspellings have their own header and are assigned to non-lemma forms, e.g. . Isn't it a bit inconsistent to treat misspellings as non-lemmas even though they also have their own inflected forms? The difference between misspellings and non-standard forms is also blurry: some incorrect spellings are the result of a faulty pronunciation which can in turn be regarded as dialectal, non-standard feature. How can all of this be handled with optimal consistency? Martin123xyz (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is a lemma. However, a search for   does show quite a few other misspellings that have  and are therefore categorized as non-lemma forms (and even have inflection tables where applicable). This is inconsistent with the nonstandard forms, but I still dislike the idea of putting nonstandard forms in the noun forms, adjective forms, verb forms categories because it leads to ambiguity. I'm not sure what the solution is.
 * A fundamental problem is that we can't use category intersection to find out if the word is standard or nonstandard for a given part of speech. For instance, suppose we want to find a list of nonstandard nouns, and therefore look at the list of pages that are in the "nouns" and "nonstandard forms" categories (search query: ). That list may have false positives, because some of the pages could have an entry for a standard noun and a nonstandard adjective (or some other part of speech). This is a limitation of the category system and the only way to solve it is with external tools that read entry pages and determine that a given page has an entry for a noun that has the nonstandard forms template in it (or some other template that adds the nonstandard forms category). So the category system can't fully solve the problem of nonstandard forms having both lemmas and non-lemmas: that is unless we create "nonstandard nouns", "nonstandard noun forms", etc. categories, which could be done but requires multiplication of categories. And the external tool, if anyone ever creates it (I've thought of doing something similar), be able to look at the definition lines to determine which entries are for nonstandard nouns and nonstandard noun forms if you add the lemma headword-line templates to nonstandard forms just as you would do to standard forms. Unfortunately misspellings have their own part of speech so the external tool might have a harder time there.
 * Perhaps "nonstandard form" could be added as a non-lemma category, but that may require a vote since it would affect other languages besides Macedonian. (For instance, if editors of another language prefer having nonstandard forms in lemma categories, but a less-informed editor writes, putting it in a non-lemma category, that would be a new error that they would have to watch out for and correct.) There may have been discussions about this that I've missed. If you put in the lemma headword-line templates now, it would be easy to convert the headword line later if a solution is found. [Edit: It may make it harder to fix later if you put in a non-lemma part of speech where the form is really a nonstandard lemma. In that case, we may have to determine it's a lemma by following links to the page that the definition links to — if that page has only one entry for that part of speech and not an entry for a lemma of that part of speech and an entry for a non-lemma of that part of speech. It may no longer be a simple bot task.] — Eru·tuon 20:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * . Sorry for the bad example; is indeed a lemma because I haven't used the misspelling header template there. I'll add the lemma header templates to the few entries for non-standard lemmas I've created so far, but how do we subject the issue to a vote and get the community to decide? Here it seems that it has already been decided to treat English misspellings differently from English non-standard forms. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * On the subject of bots, can someone program a bot to generate non-lemma pages for Macedonian? No Macedonian contributor has the necessary skills. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Деминутиви и хипокористици
Се прашував како да се означат зборовите кои имаат хипокористичен карактер, како на пример мајче, мајчица, мајчичка итн.!? На руските статии гледам кај едни е употребено, кај други  , кај трети само. --Gorec (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * За македонските статии до сега се користело само . Сметам дека нема потреба од   и други варијанти: нема систематски правила за тоа кои деминутиви имаат нагалено значење, кои се однесуваат на мали димензии, а кои се иронични и навредливи: кај повеќето зборови паралелно постојат сите семантички нијанси и се активираат според контекстот. Сметам дека таа полисемија е основна карактеристика на деминутивот којшто сочинува една засебна категорија во македонската граматика. Што се однесува до повеќестепените деминутиви, на статиите се изведуваат едни од други; на пример, „цевченце“ на својата статија се означува како деминутив од „цевче“, а „цевче“ како деминутив од „цевка“. Инаку, теоретски би можело да се користи   за деминутиви што означуваат мали димензии а   за деминутиви со нагалено значење. Ако мислиш дека има веродостојни критериуми за таква разлика, можеш да почнеш да користиш   и да ги преправаш статиите од тука. Меѓутоа, кај деминутивните глаголи и придавки мислам дека навистина нема потреба од ништо освен  . За мислења од повеќе корисници и споредби меѓу повеќе јазици, може да иницираш дискусија во Beer Parlour. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Фала за одговорот и за појаснувањето! И честито 28.000! 👍 --Gorec (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
По пример на руските статии, добри ли се етимолошките објаснувања на душојадец и душогубник? --Gorec (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Колку што можам да видам, добри се - искористен е соодветниот урнек (template) и зборовите се автоматски ставени во точните категории, и за зборови со афикси и за сложенки. За ваквите зборови со провидна морфолошка структура е прилично едноставно пишувањето етимологии. Во секој случај, до сега не сум се нафатил да додавам етимолошки објаснувања и не ги владеам сите конвенции. Можеш повеќе да прочиташ тука. Ако сакаш да додаваш ти, вклучително за зборови со помалку очигледна етимологија, можам да ти ја предложам следнава литература:


 * * Petar Skok - Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika
 * * Български етимологичен речник
 * * Slovenski etimološki slovar
 * * Hrvatski jezični portal
 * * Rick Derksen - Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Inherited Lexicon
 * * Этимологический словарь русского языка


 * Со оглед на тоа што не постои официјален македонски етимолошки речник, треба да се споредуваат етимолошките објаснувања на еквивалентните зборови во останатите словенски јазици и од тоа да се заклучи потеклото на македонскиот збор во прашање. Мислам дека има доволно материјал за ова да биде изводливо, а особено е корисен бугарскиот етимолошки речник, што не вклучува само стандардни бугарски зборови, туку и дијалектни. Наскоро ќе има фонетска транскрипција за скоро сите македонски леми, па мислам дека е време да се прејде и на етимологија.

Martin123xyz (talk) 06:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Фала за предложената литература и линковите! Забележав дека кај фонетската транскрипција на хиперврска слоготворното "р" не е правилно прикажано. --Gorec (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Фала што ми го посочи; сега е поправено. Martin123xyz (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Кај зборови како течнокристален, како е подобро да се напише:, или ?! Првиот начин автоматски го додава зборот во сите категории. --Gorec (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Или првата или втората опција (има и скратена верзија со af наместо affix; види ја статијата за огнетушитель), во зависност од тоа дали сметаме дека течен и кристален се спојуваат откако веќе се оформени самите, со наставката -ен, или сметаме дека одеднаш се спојуваат сите корења и наставки. Прашањето е теоретско и нема јасни емпириски докази, но поинтуитивно е да го изведуваме зборот течнокристален од кристален а не директно од кристал. Во тој случај, течнокристален не е "suffixed with -ен" (не постои *течнокристал), како што би стоело во категориите, туку содржи во себе таков збор. Меѓутоа разликата не е многу важна за Wiktionary и можеби е подобро да се стави за да се опфатат што е можно повеќе морфеми, за корисниците полесно да наоѓаат морфолошки поврзани зборови. Мислам дека кај руските етимологии почесто се практикувало ова решение, иако е помалку прецизно од лингвистички аспект. Како и да е, третата опција не е соодветна затоа што не ги зема предвид ни интерфиксот ни наставката;  треба да се користи за случаи како бизнис-заедница каде што нема никакви дополнителни морфеми туку два збора се директно споени. Поздрав. Martin123xyz (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:infl of without a lemma
The whole purpose of the template is to say that the term is an inflected form of a lemma, specifically the lemma provided in the second parameter. That's why you have a module error instead of a definition at размазен. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this extremely enlightening explanation; I obviously had no idea how to use Template:infl of and what it's point was even though I manually created 4000+ pages for Macedonian adjectival participles without module errors, and it is naturally altogether unimaginable that in one of those 4000+ entries, I accidentally forgot to fill the lemma parameter because of a momentary lapse. Martin123xyz (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

question
hi I have a question do you have a plan to creat Macedonian forms Amirh123 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you mean to ask whether I plan to create pages for Macedonian non-lemma forms such as the conjugated forms of verbs, no I do not, because I lack the knowledge to program a bot, no other users seem to be interested in programming a bot for Macedonian, and it would be far too painstaking to create all the pages manually. I only created pages for verbal nouns and participles manually because they are at the boundary of lemmas and non-lemma forms and they have their own non-lemma forms, which users could not search for previously; for example, before the creation of работење, searching for работењето would not turn up any hits. On another note, please use proper punctuation and spelling when posting on Wiktionary - this is not a Facebook chat and a higher level of propriety and formality is expected. Martin123xyz (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests
Hi, to delete entries created in error, including typos, please use d rather than rfd. If you add an RFD tag to a page whose deletion should be voted on, please create the discussion at WT:RFDN. In either case, don't blank the page. For typos, please link to the correct page. Ultimateria (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these instructions and I am sorry not to have complied with them earlier. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian headword lines
Happy New Year! There are a lot of Macedonian nouns that use for their headword line. Are they really verb forms, or is that just an error? If it's an error, I can clean it up if you let me know what the correct entry should be. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Those are verbal nouns, which are hybrid categories. I consider them to be verb forms rather than separate nouns lemmas for the following reasons:
 * - they are formed from all imperfective verbs (regularly)
 * - they are not formed from any perfective verbs (the fact that they are determined by aspect rather than by meaning strongly suggests that they are inflectional rather than derivational categories; other abstract nouns are formed from both imperfective and perfective verbs)
 * - they can take a direct object not preceded by a preposition, in constructions such as "reading books" (rather than "the reading of books")
 * - they indicate processes and states, in keeping with the imperfective aspect of the underlying imperfectivity of the verbs from which they are derived, but not acts or results, like other abstract deverbal nouns
 * However, they exhibit their own nominal inflection, in that they take definite articles and have plurals just like any other noun. Consequently, I felt that the best way to represent them is with a Noun header and a "verb form" headword line - in other words, they are nouns that are part of the verbal inflection. As with any hybrid category (showing both nominal and verbal properties in this instance), the exact status of Macedonian verbal nouns is debatable. You can suggest alternative representations if you have a better idea. You should note that the morphological equivalents from other Slavic languages cannot be assumed to be grammatically identical. Thus, Polish dojenie does not necessarily have the same status as Macedonian доење even though etymologically, they are perfect cognates. Martin123xyz (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the excellent explanation. I asked because it seems to be the only language in the list that intentionally uses one POS for the section name and another for the headword line. I'll add an exception permitting Macedonian Nouns to use "verb form" headlines so when I generate the next list it may be more useful for someone looking to cleanup mismatches in Macedonian entries. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for offering to add the exception. Admittedly, it was a bit daring on my part to decide to use one POS for the section name and another for the headword line; I just felt that this was the most appropriate compromise. If other contributors object to this innovative convention, I am open to a discussion aimed at identifying a better solution. Martin123xyz (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

changes to Template:desc
Hi. Just FYI, has changed a bit; please use t in place of 4 (the gloss/definition), and alt in place of 3 (the display/alternative form). This is because the template will soon support multiple terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Inflected forms of verbs
Здраво, се надевам дека си добар. Започнав со додавање accel кодови за автоматизирано генерирање статии за глаголските форми. Создадов и модул кој сѐ уште го развивам со правила и исклучоци. Бидејќи сите template-и за глаголи ги создаде ти, а и најголемиот дел од статиите за глаголи се создадени од тебе, би сакал да се вклучиш во процесот за што попрецизно и подетално да ги формулираме и дефинициите и правилата. Поздрав. Gorec (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)