User talk:Palaestrator verborum

Archives:
 * 2017

Welcome
--Barytonèse (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Adminship
Salve amice. Do you wish to become an admin? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be a gain I know, but perhaps we should wait a bit, for others don’t know me enough not to think that I am a sapling? Though well, became admin in the fourth month too, and people surely know that I have the deliberation to be entrusted with the admin tools, and the conversational qualities wherewith I annoy people are the same which can combat vandals. What do you think people, are there people who would doubt my mindfulness?
 * Hm, there are two hours now spam entries for American Sign Language, such as arouses the thought that I should be admin, for I can name nobody else that could be adduced in these times. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the devil:, what do you think? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * --Rerum scriptor (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I already got the ping, y'know. I think PV is a good editor in a badly needed area, but his communication skills have been middling and he has needlessly antagonised other editors. As you may note, my own adminship vote came a bit early, leading to low support — but the nom didn't come from WF, I hadn't gotten into any conflicts, and thus no serious opposition was likely. I really don't know whether this vote could reasonably pass, so I would not find it wise to proceed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think I have been very approachable? I have not shunned controversies, it could mean that I am not a shady figure that just slips through, and I as well lead discussions where everyone takes some insights; and it is good that the people have seen my character here thoroughly, instead of that people later think We have not known you thus when we voted for you – I hope I have charmed the minds though not captured the hearts? Maybe nobody has proven as fast that he is not Wonderfool. (Can Wonderfool speak Latin as in – as you are accusing Rerum scriptor?) If there are antagonists, they can perhaps nominate me myself. Maybe  wants to, or  wants to take back his terrible accusation that I am a child? Otherwise I like to wait.
 * I can wait and relish the time without needing to act as an admin, but I am already a very calculable constant, isn’t it; I do things as far as I am able to understand them and I shall not sway in it. You do it for the lexicon, mind it, I can be laid-back in knowing that nobody expects from me that I patrol or maintain something. I accept being an admin if the community wants me to be it. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that communication skills are a problem here... Why do some people feel the need to speak some kind of pompous fictional Ye Olde English? I can think of at least two other users who did this all the time. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Trying to follow what you have claimed about the communication skills:
 * You are equating things that are not equal. Everybody’s speech is fictional in a manner because it is new, and if everybody would speak the same everybody thought the same. That’s how Latin died out, in the 19th century. Because there came people like under whose lines one could only talk like Cicero. Who are you comparing with if you say “pompous”? Maybe the standards have lessened, but I have not resorted to Ye Olde English or Anglish or something like that. I don’t know which lect to use if everyone is so prissy – that’s how Latin has ceased to be used. Surely you cannot answer how I am supposed to write less pompously and less fictionally without giving up what I have indeed thought.
 * No, it’s not obvious which lect is to be spoken by me, as a reminder when I get off the computer I come into no situation to talk English, and besides I have neither come into any, so it is well matched if I sound like a 19th-century novel. Isn’t it? Sounding “different”, “weird”, “idiosyncratic” does not equal being unable to communicate oneself. Where is the problem? I have not been known for underspecification, so “communication skills” here seems to refer only to people’s tastes, not to me being unable to communicate or not actually communicating successfully. If sensitivities are touched, is that principally bad? It prevents discords from lingering around, whether they are known or not.
 * Exactly what do you propose? That a German man shall talk similarly to the teachers from your ends? You are in the unicorn zone.
 * I think the problem here is that people have some way or the other formed the expectation that one writes messages in a succession as spoken conversations proceed. And I have defied this by proferring paper English. The medium makes the conflicts here because it creates contradictory expectations. The real-time qualities of this medium suggest for most people to talk as they would in a conference room, while for others this is more easily a ground for officialese letters. Should one really chide me for being on the smaller side? There is some room for manoeuvre. In some points it is of course required to have a common, uniform ground, as in that the speech is correct and conveys its purpose as intended – which determines the length of speech no doubt – but as much as there is fulfilment of requirements of a task there is supererogation that is wholly the personal choice. It’s what is different in a group of people working together as distinguished from a cult.
 * Also WT:NOTPAPER; it does not mean that we have to drop the paper language in favour of more casual ways but rather that we have to take it up and to outperform it. The internet has caused for most people that they decrease their pretensions but it actually is supposed to further evolution. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 21:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that communication skills are a problem here. Equinox ◑ 23:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A problem in you, I suppose, for you accuse me of something, I refute it, and instead of getting a hold you just continue your vague claim. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 00:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wouldst thou, verily and yea, place more credence in this claim were I to propagate a paragraph of puffery? Dear God. Equinox ◑ 00:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S. Regarding "sounding like a 19th-century novel": I read those all the time, and love them, and you don't sound like one. You do sound a bit like a 17-year-old trying to sound like one. Equinox ◑ 00:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That’s good, because I don’t need to be an epigone and wouldn’t it be even weirder if I actually matched them? First you claim that I use Ye Olde English and then I only sound a bit like a 17-year-old trying. Being a bit old-fashioned is not that bad as you let it appear, and in fact as I said I do not try, it’s how I think. Is there a specific reason to sacrifice thorough thinking for being more fashionable? That talk about “communicative skills” seems to be a mask for “people do not like you because you are odd” – I have communicated everything I had to say. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 01:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ناقوس, 'wherewith'
Hello, I don't think 'stick bell' exists, if it did it would be 'stick bells' or a 'bell stick, or a 'stick of bells'. A possible alternative may be 'sleigh bells' but you would have to decide whether that is correct or not. Also, please could you replace the obsolete word 'wherewith', or if you keep it it would be 'wherewith they were called'. Thank you :) Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think “stick bell” exists but is rare similarly to German that Wehr uses to gloss  (“Stielglocke (z.B. in der kopt. Messe)”) and is also hard to find on the web. The English translation of Hans Wehr glosses “hand bell” but this is a loss of information if Handglocke is a hypernym of Stielglocke, or do all hand bells have sticks?
 * Also it is hard to know what is and what is not, so one might find a better picture: I stay far from bells and consider it enough reason to wish the Christians perishment that they disturb tranquillity with their impertinent ringing immissions, and it is thus with the bells as with skengs and drugs the terms for which you cannot know in their full extent if you aren’t in a criminal organisation. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hand bells always have sticks. "Stick bell" is bad English. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Brandish' is probably not the best word to use in this context. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not gone unnoticed by me the this user just wished death to Christians, whether seriously or not. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should I like Christians? Complimenting Christianity is tantamount to outspokenly support . I just pointed out that bells are sectarian weapons the types of which are not comprehensively documented, so I cannot know which bells have been used at time X at place X.
 * “Brandishing” is about ostentatiousness, and bells have the purpose of being ostentatious, to call out. Think out another word if you do not like it. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dehkhoda and Steingass describe it as a wooden object. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fraenkel too. And what follows from it? I could have used this picture likewise. It is now a general term in Arabic. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 19:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked again, in Dehkhoda there is mention of a flat iron or wooden board that is struck with a smaller piece called 'وبیل', 'vebil' (?) or 'wabil' according to Steingass., would know more about it. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: 'what follows from it', it may be that they were not brandishing bells, but some other implement. Edit: 'semantron' ?? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * : Nice finding, but which is which? So nāqūs means in one meaning the stick wherewith the metal board was beaten, and the word “semantron” means the whole instrument or only the stick? For the stick itself does not make sounds, it needs the metal board.
 * It could be like this:
 * # the stick
 * ## hence, the whole instrument
 * ### hence, a gong
 * #### hence, a bell that makes sounds
 * ##### hence, a bell jar
 * ## any clapper
 * But I am not sure if is the stick or the whole instrument, or maybe even the board? German Wikipedia says that semantron/nāqūs is the . Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear, German Wikipedia has a separate article Naqus. It says it “denotes two separate instruments”, one is the wooden stick (=semantron), the other is “hand bell”. And the article has a section for each. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Dehkhoda, ناقوس is the longer part, presumably the board, and Steingass says the same. It does seem that 'semantron' is the board part, which makes the translation correct, although you then have to wonder why Steingass didn't use it in that case. If 'semantron' means the whole instrument, then you are right that it doesn't work as a translation. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see what you mean about German Wikipedia. Should there be a discussion in the Etymology scriptorium? Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * " ‘Let us use a bell* like the Christians do;’ other said, ‘No, a horn like the Jews have.’ Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: ‘Why don’t you send a man to announce the time of prayer?’ The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ‘O Bilal, get up and give the call to prayer.’” (Sahih) *An-Naqus: “It is an instrument made of copper or other than that, which is struck to ring.”" Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Opinions...
are like armpits: everybody has them, and they all stink.

Expressing strong opinions about whole groups or classes of people isn't just extremely rude and wrongheaded (with normal variation, it's invariably wrong about most of those so categorized), but it's very bad practice for a wiki. Wikis are communities of diverse people, and the focus should be on the task at hand, not on irrelevant issues that divide people.

You're entitled to your opinions, however bizarre they may seem to most of us, but the way you're expressing them is only damaging the project and your ability to accomplish anything here. You're not just shooting yourself in the foot, you're hitting innocent bystanders. Please stop. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

BTW : I thought the whole time that “analphabetism” is a cromulent word, and just today I remembered again that in English they usually say “illiteracy”. That’s why I have now logged in, to tell you now you that can continue reading. I did not try to use artificial words, as usual. With this finding I also found out that I should rather work on the Latin Wiktionary because there words cannot be discriminated because of age or fancifulness. I found out that I can’t understand the concept of “living language” as people feel it, independent of if it is English, German, Russian, Arabic or else. Nonetheless, I suggest to remove the block because its reasons are fabricated, and I have not broken rules, of which form they might be, nor been immoral. What Koavf claims “off-topic ranting” is also not true, because the Beer Parlour is for anything that one considers useful for editors, and I elaborated what rules for proper behavior might be, and the topic bore my name, so it has not been off-topic to defend myself, which is the whole what I have written there. Or where I supposed not to say anything? On other occasions people are blocked because they are not approachable, now I have been open for discussion the whole time and get punished for what is else demanded. And even if I would have insulted, what is that where Koavf calls my whole speech “flagrantly stupid bigotry”? Such verbiage together with disregard of what I have actually said is enough reason to deadmin Koavf. I have never been mad at people for excusing them for not reading what I have written, but then they shall not do as though they found bannable offences in it. The length isn’t an arguable offence, because, as I said, it was all on topic, even more so for my usual length.

I am not impudent here, but I want to say that I did all what is commendable for an admin: Trying to explain my acting so far that everyone understands. Wyang could have nominated me for admin instead of blocking me, because I always stayed cool, always stayed earnest, never debased people with jokes but evaluated opinions. Why do people still accuse me of taunts? I said “I wish you great relish! 💛” to be taken literally, and I have regularly laid out the literal content of my mind, which is polite in an unheard extent.

I did all that I knew about being friendly, and did not talk bogus, however hard my writings were, so what do people still require from me? The ? Kaixinguo saw that there stay some incompatibilities between humans even when they do all right; and I can’t just cease to be odd, but I did all of being friendly and judicious, which are the finest qualities for a dictionary wiki?

So what do you want of me, that I cease trying to talk explicitly? The English Wiktionary will be entangled eternally in a conflict of values, the explanations sometimes needing to be short, sometimes needing to be wide, people quarrelling about length. I hoped that people here aren’t thus but we can approach each other knowing that we are different and there is no need to call it off. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 11:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a joke on my part, I read the whole thing and I'm not going to unblock you. Sometimes it's better to keep your opinions to yourself, when they aren't relevant to the project at hand. It's a shame because your work on the dictionary is very good, but you insist on getting involved in these kinds of conflicts. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 14:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I favour unblocking him, I thought we had come to an agreement that I was taking a break and that would be an end to it anyway. The debate is just spiralling onwards and out of control and it's true that there have been comments about PV's personality which I think is going too far. I haven't made any comment regarding his personality. Nothing good can come of the continued debate at the BP. It's better to end it now which is what I already tried to do. But if people continue it and make comments about me, I will respond to them. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You were explicitly blocked so that you can cool down. Clearly, by the combative attitude of your unban request, you haven't. One week isn't that long, anyway. mellohi! (僕の乖離) 17:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even though I am not in favour of theblock at all, I suggest reducing it to 24 hours as a compromise. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t see any combative attitude towards anybody. I explained what I think I have done and what were the guiding principles. So where is room for cooling down? I was always cooled down. And maybe “cooling down” is not a sufficiently determinate reason for banning, it’s just a reformulation of “we can’t stand your presence”, an amenable pretext Wyang has thought out that is not describing anything bad. And what is the most important: I have not fulfilled an insult. The claim “what you have said on this page and other related pages is deeply insulting” is just not true, neither have I insulted elsewhere. “Insult” is another pretext only used in the vaguest sense. I did never wanted to insult and thus never did, it’s all in the imagination of some, the imagination which I never had, Vahagn Petrosyan never had, TheDaveRoss turned down on first sight, and Kaixinguo~enwiktionary has lost already.
 * I don’t want any compromises because as I said what I wish does not matter. And here I do not plan to continue doing anything. misunderstands here that “I really do care so much about the dictionary”; I am totally apathic, and I will be glad to further an other working language than the emotional English: Just Fiat justitia et pereat mundus. It has not been proven that I am wrong, I have been banned under a pretext by an administrator who no doubt wanted to ban me the first time I talked with him. Which is to say, I am not asking for an act of mercy of unblocking, but for an act of justice, so order prevails. Administrators preying upon users for having built the impression of being baleful is disorder. You may say what you want about me being annoying, but it is undecent to pick out reflections about personal wishes and then generalize them as a common hazard that they never were visibly intended to be. The administrator who has banned me has therewith picked a reason of “cooling down” which I find unacceptable, therefore there is no point in pointing out that I have not cooled down. How difficult is it to understand that I do not ask for mercy but justice? It is expendable for the people if I cool down or am hot or always was cooled down if this does not mean anything. People need some security if they work in controversial contexts.
 * I think I will part because people do not understand that their everyday language contains words which seem as cromulent as they are judgy but are actually full of unjustly discriminating bias, as words like “insult” and “cooling down”. Neither is “cooling down” applicable to speeches on the internet, because one does not see the actual heat of others, nor does “insult” mean any offence if it is applied to anything edgy. Obstreperousness ≠ insult ≠ spam ≠ bannable offence. And many people not liking somebody is not a reason for banning someone if they simultaneously know that he works well at the same times as he is obnoxious; it just happens that people are incompatible. If things are hated, it does not follow that they are bad, similarly as it is likely not bad to eat spinach even if the taste is considered horrendous.
 * People where emotion-driven but they knew I was right. But I am not responsible for their emotions if I have not steered to them but to the facts. And I have steered very gallantly.
 * So I have stayed on topic and not aimed at emotions. This makes that I have not fulfilled any ban reason. Except you say: Palaestrator verborum was right all the time, but the English Wiktionary needs to be a safe space from “flagrantly stupid bigotry” or whatever. That would be apt, because then the English Wiktionary would be a kindergarten like the universities in Anglo-Saxon countries are already. Hey, is it also bannable to call Anglo-Saxon universities kindergartens? I don’t know because the administrators predominantly prefer the scholastic intricacies of a convoluted historically grown mass of social norms instead of the liberties the principle of truth demands, which shows again that enlightenment has never been widespread in man: Administrators prefer to have all compatible or amicable as in the dreams of religions (including communism), instead of letting man grow over himself, behaving like a god. Again gods are dividing people, even though I and Kaixinguo~enwiktionary appear to have agreed that it shall not be. Of course it only harms the dictionary, because that Christian insurgence that lead to my ban can only make me more dogged in more covert operations that actually harm the existence of Christianity – but no operations to harm Christianity I have undertaken here.
 * Do you know how it is too live in a theocracy? As in Germany where from every side another church multiple times in day and night exercises a licence to let off immissions onto nonbelievers? Too many administrators’ morals here are unrefined, they only look out for what authorities opine to judge things: Thus ISIS is bad and can be condemned, but Christianity itself not so because its critics are not so mighty – don’t tell me that’s not a factor, it apparently does make a difference in people’s behaviour if you attack ISIS or if Christianity. And the longest tradition of course of such looking-what-others-believe is found in the Far East, thus it must have been that Wyang has banned me, in so far as he has no own judgements – nothing against those countries, they have their special problems, but disregard for the individual should not be one.
 * I have realized that I only play a game of hazard here. I have nothing to lose here, the community decides to lose work power by tolerating decision-makers who have their integrity only borrowed. You are all entangled in basing your acts on the fear from the others.
 * Guilty, guilty, he has talked so much again and he was offensive! But I am talking for you people, not for me, as I said. It’s your decision to lose the points I have made. Three hours of talk I have written for this project, doesn’t this prove magnanimousness? Because myself I have retired from this dictionary, you know this already. There is no return: Somebody might make the wrong committed upon me right, but the people here have too much to learn. A wiki-based dictionary for speakers of English is perhaps a bad idea. National comrades have a common ground to understand each other and are a community of destiny while on an English-language platform the most outrageous ideas strike upon human dignity where race ties would have held people together. Here it is again where the Judaeo-Christian story, about the Tower of Babel, teaches wrong values, because it is actually less contentious when mankind is split between languages. Yes, I am a racist, I really should not work here. Still, you know my position about when bans are to be dealt: Not just when “somebody should not work here”, but if somebody doesn’t work here. And I was working and you have thrown an asset out of the window. I consider it better to work with Nazis like on Metapedia because they at least believe in something instead of bending their stances on the lookout what opportunities suggest, the result being that the sole government of the principle of democracy – without being filled with reason – causes more terror than the ideologies that stand for the latter. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 20:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think nothing has happened with your block because it requires a few people to agree on it, really, and not many administrators seem to be around. So I would just wait a while longer, just because no-one has lifted or shortened the block so far, it doesn't mean anything. It would probably be better to undo your latest comment and wait.Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I reduced it to three days, since Kaixinguo~enwiktionary seems pretty forgiving, and Wyang has had some disagreements with you in the past. I also suggest you remove your last comment, it's definitely not helping your case. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Palaestrator verborum who attacked Wyang then, not the other way around and it shows PV's bad judgement. I never commented on the current conflict. PV's skills and knowledge and passion are commendable but I can't say positive on the behavioural part. BTW, I don't read too long replies. PV's English is unreadable for me. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused as to what to do. Kaixinguo~wiktionary says to get rid of the block, so no was actually offended here. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 23:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest anything on blocking or unblocking. The topic is here Beer_parlour/2018/January. I guess it's between User:Wyang and User:Kaixinguo~enwiktionary, unless there are other strong opinions. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

مشكاة
[//en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%A9&diff=48181672&oldid=47205197 diff] Hi, did you actually check the source that was there before your edit? I don't have access to that literature right now, but I remember the article had mentioned an "Ethiopian" word (I don't recall what was the word itself) and had rejected it as a false etymology. --Z 15:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read it and it does not even reject it explicitly. Furthermore this book is pseudo-science written by a . In The Qurʾān: an Encyclopedia he writes for the article Mishkat (note the pseudo-scientific transcription): >In essence, the controversy over the origin of this word is representative of the huge gap between Muslim and Western views concerning the vocabulary of the Qurʾan. To Muslim scholars all the words of the Qurʾan are Arabic in origin. Their argument is based on statements in the Qurʾan that it was revealed in a clear Arabic tongue (lisanun arabiyun mubin), but also on the more pragmatic fact that a messenger to the Arabs, a people well versed in the art of poetry and oration, must of necessity speak Arabic.
 * That is of course unbearable cultural relativism, straight-out irrationalism. It does not matter what theologians believe about linguistics (“Muslim scholar” is a paradox in application to language science, and it demeans any scholarship outside of religious quarrels). He continues insinuating that, , etc. are native words:
 * >As for Western scholars, some still claim that hundreds of common Arabic words, among them qalam (pen), kitab (book), rahma (mercy), bayt (house), warda (rose), aya (sign), jahannam (hell), salat (prayers) and the famous mishkat, ultimately come from Hebrew and Aramaic.
 * There is not even a controversy; his claim “ some claim ” is an obfuscation of the reality of opinio communis and he mixes obvious loans with obvious non-loans in his portrayal, apparently in a rhetorical try to befuddle solid views: I can’t remember anyone claiming that is borrowed or  albeit reading wrong or inexact views here and there (though  meaning “to write” is borrowed from the Northwest because of the spreading of writing itself (it did not mean that in Proto-Semitic either), we can see the former meaning in.
 * is just the usual word for “window”, related to . It is one of the about thirty words Arabic has borrowed from Geʿez. Needless to say that we have already collected hundreds of words passed from Aramaic and Classical Syriac into Arabic.
 * Don’t quote this book, don’t read it, unless you really must – it’s sophistry. The author has not even had the valour to write explicitly that the word is not borrowed from Geʿez, he just tried to sound smart. Sadly, being on paper does not prevent a work from being bad. You must just have a judgment, the ability to weigh up, in order to recognize the correct etymologies, in addition to background knowledge; mostly in the Semitic area there isn’t even written that much either that we could just count what “the majority of scholars” believe, different from what Oliver Leaman portrays – after Nöldeke there hasn’t even been an update on those Ethiopic words in Arabic, and Fraenkel is still the standard work for the Aramaic borrowings though missing out on many places. And Ethiopian Semitic has been been done the whole twentieth century by one man only . WT:About Arabic is supposed to contain all resources about the language that even exist. We are writing the etymological dictionary of Arabic here that does not exist, with the clear reasoning that the world before us has not brought up. Fay Freak (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

حنفية citation
Hello, I saw that you were the one who [//en.m.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%AD%D9%86%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%A9&oldid=48417980 added] the references for the word, حنفية, however as I followed the first link, I couldn't find the word even when flipping all over, while the second source is not found.

The given etymology is wrong! The word is an attribution to أبو حنيفة whose school of Islamic jurisprudence, followed in Egypt, was the one that legalized the use of the faucet and you'll even notice his school of thought has been called حنفى while حنفية is the feminine form attributed to the faucet device. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The first had a wrong volume reference number. The second source is found only in print, updated by a newer edition published after the publication of the Wiktionary entry also but in print. Neither answers the morphological composition and you do no neither; I have updated it to as I understand it now. Fay Freak (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I sufficiently explained its composition and successfully led to the correction of the obviously fake etymology, but you're just too ungratefully arrogant to admit it. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)