User talk:Mnemosientje/2016

This page shows conversations on my talk page from 2016.

Welcome
I realize you're not exactly new here, and you certainly seem to know what you're doing, for the most part, but I thought you might benefit from the links in the message. One of your etymologies lead me to wonder if you're aware of the About Proto-Indo-European page, which has all the spelling and formatting conventions we use for Proto-Indo-European entries. There are similar pages for many other languages and proto-languages, as well. The convention for the shortcuts to these languages is A + the language code in ALL CAPS, except for proto-languages we leave off the -PRO. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was still unaware of those pages! I like the place, but I haven't gotten the hang of all the finer aspects of wiki editing quite yet. Rathersilly (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Eris
Hi Kieio/R.S., thanks or fixing the mess I made of. I was probably hoping to get to it soon. Did you find a good way to refute the odd entry in L&S that looks like a genitive but claims to be a nominative? It's not in Gaffiot or Cassell's, and I'm not sure where to find it attested, so I wouldn't be too worried-- but you have made me curious, since you had more courage in this than I had. Thanks, Isomorphyc (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The entry looked fine to me, if a bit barebones; showing the genitive, but not claiming it to be the nominative which it lists prior to the genitive as is customary, and providing one attestation. This being the entry I found in L&S, which lists Nemesianus' Cynegetica 57, where it is attested in the accusative singular. — Kleio (t · c) 08:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The L&S entry gave me the impression that eris, being in boldface type, was intended to be an alternate nominative form, in addition to being the genitive. (In the [entry] for urbs, the genitive is not boldface).  Since erem can be accusative singular for either, this is not an attestation for eris as a nominative.  Since you deleted the main alternate-form article for eris and replaced it with a note that it is the genitive of, I assumed you did this because you disagreed with the boldface treatment of what looked like a genitive in L&S.  I had done the same thing a couple of hours earlier, but undid it, because I was slightly unsure of myself.  Merriam-Webster also cites ēris as the nominative of this word in an etymology, which I think is probably how it received an article of its own on Wiktionary.  I assumed this also derived from the possibly erroneous boldface type in L&S.  Apologies for this tempest in a teapot, especially as it is possible I am merely misreading the dictionaries; I am quite pleased by your edit and am not at all contesting it.  Isomorphyc (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Having just had a closer look, you are right that the bold usage of ēris is odd here. Some googling around suggested some less-than-reliable looking websites that suggested it could be both an alternative nominative or the genitive of ēr. I think my university has some pretty comprehensive Latin dictionaries in its library, I will investigate there later today. I think it may just be a case of the Perseus entry being misformatted, but perhaps there is an attestation of which I am not aware, or indeed the attested ērem in Nemesianus is the accusative of ēris, not ēr, but the etymological evidence does very much suggest the existence of ēr. — Kleio (t · c) 12:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kieio, thanks for checking farther into this. The 1951 print edition also includes the boldface type, so it is not just Perseus; but of course there are a certain number of errors like this in all of the editions.  Isomorphyc (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I also noticed that just now. It appears it could be an alternate nominative and it just isn't sure? Oxford Latin dictionary does not have ēr at all, and lists ēris as an alt. form of iris "hedgehog", which is found in Plautus, Capt. 184 as irim (cf. also irenaceus, which Oxford Latin has as a metathesis of erinaceus, which in turn is related to ericius..!) -- but iris is not found in the sense of an animal in L&S... it's a mess. On searching around a bit I also found one otherwise unrelated article (Stefan Höfler, "Notes on three “acrostatic” neuter s-stems", Indogermanische Forschungen 119.1 (2014) 293-338) which seems to give a form ēr with genitive ēris, but I need to find the sources to which it refers, for which I don't have the time at the moment unfortunately. There's also this poorly digitized edition of Plautus which, if you CTRL+F a bit for "irim", suggests it is an alternative form of "erem" - referring to Nemesianus, which we have seen - without saying whether the nom. sing in Nemesianus would be ēr or ēris.


 * I'm honestly more confused now than when I started out.— Kleio (t · c) 16:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And to add to the fun, here is LSJ χήρ directing us to ēr. — Kleio (t · c) 16:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I also saw the Plautus; amusingly, an English translator gives an exotic reason for translating it as ferret, and De Vaan suggests that if irim is the correct reading, the connexion could be with, which is only possibly related to , as the latter depends on a thematic consonant. Evidently, no nominative is actually attested; ēr is a traditionalist reading by analogy with Greek; iris is a manuscript reading that occurs in Plautus and variantly in Pliny; ēricius is a preferred classical form, presumably having originated as a re-substantivized adjectival form of either ēr or ēris, unsurprisingly given the metaphorical usage; ērināceus, apparently twice re-substantivized, is one of three substantives (among thirty-five adjectives) formed with the adjectival suffix -ārius.  Clearly the Romans found the bare word ēr a bit prickly.  OLD tends to be literalist, so it is reasonable to assume neither ē-form is attested.  But I could imagine *ērcius forming from ēr, whereas we have ēricius; this is the only reason I can imagine a form such as ēris would be imputed.  It seems unlikely to be correct, given that De Vaan, OLD, and the 2014 journal article ignore it, the latter in a place where it would be relevant to mention.  Unfortunately, I also don't have time to look around in the literature, but I hope this is a reasonable summary of what we seem to know so far. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yea I also just checked De Vaan and think he makes it pretty clear, with no nominative ēris or anything of the sort, and irim just as a transmission error. Because it hurts my brain to spend too much time thinking about this, I'm just going to go along with De Vaan's reading and say they're all forms of ēr and be done with it. Perhaps the entry should reflect these considerations (re: irim especially), though. Might get around to that in a bit, if you don't beat me to it. — Kleio (t · c) 16:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your summary sounds good; feel free the make the changes, since you have seen more in the library about this than I have. But if you do not, I will do it in a few days.  Pleasure thinking over this with you.  Isomorphyc (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

What To Do
If you're having trouble with someone, the quickest way to get attention from admins is Vandalism in progress.

When I looked at their edits just before I had to get ready for work, it seemed like you had dealt with the problem- but that was before they started acting up (I really hate it when people try to force their way through like that, especially when they lecture and argue in their edit comments).

If it helps any, your judgment as to whether an edit should be undone has been spot on, as far as I'm concerned. Keep up the good work, and thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Tbh I wasn't entirely sure if it really could be considered vandalism as they appeared to think they were genuinely improving the dictionary (albeit somewhat hot-headedly). Usually I don't like publicly shaming people either, so when I'm not sure if it's really vandalism or block-worthy I don't like using pages like VIP or community portals, I try to stick to users' talk pages. Maybe I'm a bit soft. But it's solved now :) — Kleio (t · c) 19:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

over
Hi Kleio! I noticed that you reverted my reversion to over. I'm under the impression that we are supposed to use the templates and headers provided for us, changing how they look is generally not encouraged. I'm not contesting the structure (referring to "Etymology 1", "Etymology 2". etc.), I am however uncertain if the way the article looks is right. But upon further investigation, I can only apologise for my reverts – apparently, changing headers is quite common in articles with multiple etymologies. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WT:EL mentions this: if there's multiple etymologies you're supposed to nest the thing a bit deeper, I've seen this on many pages. The entry layout page also has the pronunciation as nested after the etymology, but since the pronunciation is the same here I think your version is better (and I've noticed the pronunciation formatted your way elsewhere as well, in fact I've never seen the pronunciation nested under Etymology on any multiple-etymology entry). So I think it's all fine now. — Kleio (t · c) 19:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry to intrude; I happened to read this. Most of the few examples I have seen involve macrons, such as rosa, which can be either a rose (short o) or having been nibbled at (long o), and then again the latter in ablative (long a).  Isomorphyc (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but it's actually relevant there, as there is a real difference there. Wouldn't really make sense to nest the same pronunciation twice for each etymology, which apparently ought to be the case at if we were to follow WT:EL to the letter. — Kleio (t · c) 19:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

VIP
Hi,

I'm unable to post on WT:VIP, but I thought I should report this:

A user at ‎2607:fb90:190e:6917:0:3e:9a26:4001 has vandalized several entries with scatological comments.

Dowf (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up and for reverting! I reported it on WT:VIP. I think you need to be autoconfirmed to edit that page, not sure how long that takes on Wiktionary but shouldn't be too long. — Kleio (t · c) 01:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:quote
This template has now been created as a variant of to use for quotes. Can you use it whenever you quote Gothic texts from now on, and perhaps also edit any older entries if you have the time? Thanks! —CodeCat 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem. Changed it up for a couple I remember entering quotes for off the top of my head. What is the exact difference with ? — Kleio (t · c) 19:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply any formatting to the quoted text, so that it preserves its original formatting as much as possible. —CodeCat 19:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Gothic template input in Latin script
I made a function to reverse-transliterate Gothic from Latin into Gothic script, and I've made a noun inflection module, Module:got-nouns, which uses this functionality so that the parameters can now be in Latin script instead of Gothic. It is currently deployed on Template:got-decl-noun-a-m. However, the template is not backwards compatible, so all existing entries will need to be fixed. Do you want to help out? A current list of entries to do is at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/got-nouns/Goth. —CodeCat 21:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but that's going to be quite some work to do manually, could it not be automated somehow? If not, I will work on it, but it'll take a while. Also, I just tested it at 𐌱𐌰𐌲𐌼𐍃 -- it doesn't seem to generate links to the romanized entries, which is very useful when creating new entries (it shows which forms are attested, due to the mass import of romanizations a few years ago). That's a pretty big deal, as I like to create all attested inflected entries of any lemmas I add right away. — Kleio (t · c) 21:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have no idea why the transliterations aren't being linked, when they certainly used to. I'm looking into it. —CodeCat 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's fixed. It was a bug/mistake in Module:links that only applied the linking when automatically generating a transliteration, rather than all the time. —CodeCat 22:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've now converted a-n, cons-mf and eins to the new format. However, this converting is rather tedious so I'm considering a different approach: the template transliterates the parameters to Latin form before adding endings to it. That way, if the parameter is already in Latin script, nothing happens, but it will also work with existing entries that give Gothic input. —CodeCat 23:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All noun templates have now been converted. The appearance of the table has been improved a bit as well. —CodeCat 20:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, so there's nothing left to manually convert? This diff was due to it showing up red when I tried to link it normally btw, not sure why that happened. It wasn't linked for me before, in fact no manual transliterations (using the tr= parameter) used to generate automatic links for me in the past, but that seems fixed now. — Kleio (t · c) 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The adjective tables have now been converted too. The module is Module:got-adjectives. —CodeCat 17:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Verbs also done. —CodeCat 19:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

controversjelVARIANTofsamewordi'dsay
asCALQofUNZURECHNUNGSFAEHIGparntly(iduno'ow2adad..

Related terms
ta4elpbtw:)81.11.222.84 09:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Skapjan
So this is basically not attested at all then? It should be moved to the reconstruction namespace if so. —CodeCat 14:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing that up, I've been wondering how to deal with these. There's some of these verbs that probably existed but only survive in prefixed form. I believe this is also the case with, which you created way back in mainspace. I figured the idea was that fairly uncontroversial/obvious root verbs that are only attested in prefixed form were to be kept in mainspace. But there'd be no problem moving them to the RC namespace. Probably make a note about it on WT:About Gothic too. — Kleio (t · c) 14:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Translation
Hi, could you translate "Automatisch verversen" to Ancient Greek, Gotic and Old English? -XQV- (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey? -XQV- (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit busy at the moment, but gave it something of a shot anyway. The main problem is that refresh automatically is a rather modern phrase; the modern sense of refresh obviously doesn't exist in ancient languages, so I used renew instead. Also, automatically is a bit of a difficult one too, because automata are a bit of a modern thing.
 * In Ancient Greek, you could say something like αὐτοματικῶς ἀνακαινοῦσθαι (automatikôs anakainoûsthai), which would mean renew automatically.
 * In Gothic, the word for renew is, but I don't think there is an attested word for automatically or on one's own accord or anything of the like and I'm not confident enough with the language to make one up.
 * Idem Anglo-Saxon, where (or ) can be used to mean renew, but I have no idea how one would say automatically.
 * So there you have the phrase in Ancient Greek, if you find appropriate adverbs meaning or approximating the English word "automatically" in Gothic and Old English you should also be able to translate it to those languages, but I can't help you with that right now. — Kleio (t · c) 19:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I figure if you want to use a word I just invented, works: so Gothic would be 𐍃𐌹𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌻𐌴𐌹𐌺𐍉 𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌽𐌹𐌿𐌾𐌰𐌽 (silbaleikō ananiujan). But it sounds awkward, there is probably a better way to form that adverb that I'm missing. — Kleio (t · c) 20:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. If you find something new/better, please leave me a message on my talkpage so I can be informed about the message. -XQV- (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

vlijt
Please be careful not to mark terms as inherited if they're not direct descendants of the ancestral term. —CodeCat 17:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, that was mainly just to add it to the inherited-from-pgmc category, as it obviously (given the cognates) is of P.Gmc. origin, but I wasn't sure of what the exact reconstruction would be. — Kleio (t · c) 17:44, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can leave the second parameter of blank. Then it will add a request for someone to fill it in. —CodeCat 17:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Word-initial g in Gothic
Are you sure that it was a plosive? It wasn't in West Germanic or, presumably, Proto-Germanic. —CodeCat 16:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I followed Wikipedia on pronunciation, which has a good-enough looking reflist that I trusted its word on it. But if it wasn't a plosive in P.Gmc., I'm going to need to check proper literature so I can be sure. — Kleio (t · c) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's Proto-Germanic language, at least. —CodeCat 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I also got the idea that /a/ becomes /aː/ before /h/ or /hʷ/ from Wiki. Not sure what to think now, I dislike that there are no inline citations at the relevant section of the Gothic page. When I get to the uni library sometime next week I'll try to see if I can find some reliable info. — Kleio (t · c) 16:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * /a/ becomes /aː/ before a former Germanic *nh(w). The n disappears, and lengthens the vowel. So it's not a general rule for all /h/. —CodeCat 16:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I restored another one I had 'fixed'. — Kleio (t · c) 16:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I noticed you added the table claiming that word-initial g in Gothic is a plosive back in 2012; was wondering where you got this from? I tried checking some books in my uni library but couldn't find anything certain. — Kleio (t · c) 20:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I think I read it in Bennett's Introduction to Gothic. This may purely be based on the apparent parallelism in stops in Gothic; I don't know. It seems clear, however, that at some point not long before recorded Gothic that /g/ was a fricative, based on the word Krēka- "Greek", which would presumably have been *Grēka- if /g/ were a stop at the time. Benwing2 (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, given the etymological evidence indicating it'd be a fricative initially, and the lack of any certain evidence for an initial plosive from what I found in secondary literature (my university library unfortunately doesn't have Bennett's work :, I decided to go with the fricative theory, which other editors here seem to favour. — Kleio (t · c) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

whether as a 3 syllable word
In my experience, I have heard someone pronunce the letter group "whe" in "whether" as if it had two discernable vowels. Perhaps this has not been your experience, however, I have heard it done. Are we only putting in pronunciation of a limited number of dialects that pronounce "whether" as two syllables, here on wiktionary ? Bcent1234 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If there's such a pronunciation, I haven't heard it -- but if it exists, add IPA for it. It sounds weird, though. What second vowel would there be? — Kleio (t · c) 20:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * it is basically an unstressed vowel like an "uh" or schwa. The speakers I'm recording live in rural Texas and Arkansas in the USA. I have not heard it from Georgia nor Mississippi US speakers, so it may be solely a regional dialect. Bcent1234 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is this unstressed vowel inserted? Can you give the full IPA? Otherwise my guess is that this is non-syllabic diphthongization. --WikiTiki89 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is just another chapter in "strange things Southern dialects do to vowels": diphthongs are monophthongized, monophthongs are diphthongized, and everything is moved every combination of up, down and sideways- both rounded and unrounded (one example I remember is a Tennessee speaker who pronounced spoon sort of like, with a vowel that isn't supposed to occur in English). I've heard speakers from around Georgia and South Carolina add schwa off-glides on many vowels, accompanied with a rising tone on the first part and a slow tonal dip on the off-glide, which is probably the diphthongization you're talking about. At any rate, it's not phonemic, and there's a different variant every hundred miles or so in the southeast US, so it might not be a good idea to try to document them all. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of Parsa
Hey. Are you sure about this edit? --Z 13:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That diff actually shows two edits, the first of which (adding the etymology) is not by me. I merely formatted it. — Kleio (t · c) 13:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm sorry. --Z 09:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)