User talk:Panda10/archive2023

úszóhártya
Hello, I have a question for you: what is the declension of úszóhártya? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the declension table. :) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Panda10 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I came across that term and hógömb at the page "Short Pages," which can be found at the Community Portal (mind the Simplified Chinese entries, I think). --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * One example I found at Short Pages is the Hungarian verb variál. Would you like to conjugate that? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish the short pages were separated by language. I expanded variál. --Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the least I could do to help you expand the Hungarian short pages is to look for them; and I'm patient with that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be very helpful. Thank you. --Panda10 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to have a look at my list of contributions for any Hungarian terms to which I added hu-IPA. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do that. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Hungarian language former Short Pages
Is it okay if I place a list of Hungarian language former short pages (you know, the ones I added hu-IPA to) on your user page or my user page? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked your contributions for Hungarian entries as we agreed previously and I saved over 230 items in a text file for future work. I have already corrected those where hu-IPA needed a phonetical respelling. I see that you cleaned up the short list pretty well. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian non-attributive possessive
I came across the entries in Category:hu-inflection of with unsupported tag/nonattr, which are for the "non-attributive possessive". As there are only three of these entries, I wonder if this is a normal form that all nouns have. The Hungarian noun inflection table doesn't list them.

Another thing I wonder is whether possessives can be stacked on top of case forms. That is, can you use one word to say "in my house"? In Finnish you can, so I wonder if it's the same in Hungarian. —CodeCat 15:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The non-attributive possessive forms were originally part of, rows 7 and 8. If you notice those are missing from the sequence. They were deleted by Qorilla. I think they should be part of the declension table since all nouns can have them.


 * Possessive forms can be declined. In my house is one word in Hungarian: házamban: ház (house) -am (mine) -ban (in). Years ago I created as an experiment but other did not like it at the time, so we went with the two-table format (a separate possessive). This also meant that I have to add a declension table to each possessive form (see házam - my house). --Panda10 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do like the approach of treating possessives as sublemmas, as otherwise we would end up with noun entries with 13 inflection tables each. I notice that the ordering of the suffixes is the opposite from Finnish, where the order is plural-case-possessive. In Hungarian it's plural-possessive-case, I think?
 * I think that the non-attributive possessives should be re-added to the table. If they are forms that nouns normally have, then they belong there and should have entries. But I wonder if there isn't a less awkward term for it than "non-attributive", unless that's a standard term that English-language grammars of Hungarian always use. Can you describe under what circumstances the non-attributive form is used? Is it ever inflected like the other possessives? If I recall, Hungarian adjectives are not inflected when they are attributive, so is it related to that? —CodeCat 21:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how we would end up with 13 inflection tables for each noun. I was thinking about one larger table containing all noun forms instead of the current two smaller tables with missing forms plus another declension table in each possessive form entry. But I have no problem with the current arrangement. A larger table might be too confusing.
 * Unfortunately, I don't speak Finnish. In Hungarian, the order is either lemma+case (ház+-ban = in the house) or lemma+plural+case (ház+-ak+-ban = in the houses) or lemma+possessive+case (ház+-am+-ban = in my house, ház+-aim+-ban = in my houses).
 * I agree, the term non-attributive possessive is weird, I've seen it in a language article and decided to use it because I did not know what else to use. Basically, it expresses possession without an object. The standard term in Hungarian is birtokjel (possessive marker) which is the name of the suffix and not the case.
 * Usage examples:
 * Ez a garázs ablaka, nem a házé. = This is the window of the garage, not that of the house.
 * Ez kinek a háza? A lányodé? (lány daughter +-od your +-é 's) = Whose house is this? Your daughter's?
 * A noun with this marker can be inflected. Take a look at this URL . You will see how the Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences handles declension of the noun ház. Each > sign in the main table will open a subtable with further declension. --Panda10 (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on Finnish, I would say that the -i- in the possessives is a plural marker. This plural marker is historically reconstructed back to Proto-Uralic, so its appearance in the possessives is an archaism. So házaimban would be háza- (stem) -i- (plural) -m- (possessive) -ban (case). Finnish possessives are structured the same, just with a different order of suffixes: talo-i-ssa-ni, or if you were to use the actual cognate of the Hungarian word, kod-i-ssa-ni.
 * Normally, the opposite of attributive is predicative. So could it be called predicative instead of non-attributive? I also see similarities with English, where the possessive determiners have special pronoun forms that are used predicatively. It seems that házé is similar to mine in how it's used (the meaning is different of course).
 * I've also been thinking about the definition lines for possessives that currently shows. They are a bit clunky. The difficulty is that there are both the number of the noun and the number of the possessor to account for. What do you think of phrasing it like this? For, it would be "first-person singular possessive of ", and for  it would be "nominative plural of , the first-person singular possessive of ". —CodeCat 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition line
 * My preference would be:
 * - "first-person singular possessive of (single possession)"
 * - "first-person singular possessive of (multiple possessions)"

English name for the -é suffix
 * As I mentioned before, originally the -é suffix was listed in the case table and was called the genitive case. Mate Juhasz (and not Qorilla) removed it in 2008 saying "There is no genetive case in Hungarian, take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_noun_phrases#Case_endings". Linguists are arguing about this, but I've found a recent work that argues for it. Here are some of the other variants:


 * Genitive case; Anaphoric possessive; -é (morpheme/suffix); -é possessives: Éva Dékány: The syntax of anaphoric possessives in Hungarian, March 2014
 * Non-attributive possession: Carol H. Rounds: Hungarian: An Essential Grammar
 * Non-attributive possessive suffix: Dennica Fotinova Peneva: Types of Agreement in Finno-Ugrian Languages (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian, Northern Sami), a PhD dissertation
 * suffixes -é/-é: Wikipedia: Hungarian noun phrase, section -é/-éi to replace possessed noun

Location of the -é suffix
 * If we put it back to the case table, we will have to add a new parameter to allow hiding these two rows. Since the same declension table is used for sublemmas, adjectives, numerals, and pronouns, it is not always appropriate. For example, see the declension of házé. If the -é suffix is not hidden, it would display *házéé. --Panda10 (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, is kind of a noun of its own, and it has a full declension including its own case forms and plural form. So to me it makes sense to see  as the plural of . Is there a reason why you disagree with this approach?
 * As for the genitive, it's not common for genitives to be limited to predicate only. So this may be why there is disagreement over that. How would you say "the man's house" or "my friend's house"? Is the genitive not used for that? —CodeCat 16:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the plural suffix (-k) and the possessive plural (-i). So cannot be the "nominative plural of " because the nominative plural of  would be *házamak, a non-existent word. We cannot just come up with our own naming conventions for things. I always search for references written by professionals to see their terminology.


 * I am not attached to the name "genitive" for the -é suffix. I described what was previously and listed some of the references I've found. I'd be happy with any of them. "the man's house" - a férfi háza; "my friend's house" - a barátom háza. --Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The normal plural and possessive plural have different suffixes, yes. But in both cases, they refer to a plural object, so they are plural. Consider it this way: my is, my  are . Multiple  are , multiple  are . That clearly shows that while there are different plural formations, they still belong to the same semantic pattern. —CodeCat 17:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The personal interpretation of foreign language grammar rules can be very useful when we try to understand and memorize them. So if it makes sense to you to see házaim as the plural of házam, that's your personal view. But I don't think we should explain grammar rules here in wiktionary based on personal views. The word házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. It is formed from the lemma + -ai (possessive plural marker, one of -i, -ai, -ei, -jai, -jei) + -m (first-person possessive suffix). My preference for the definition line is still what I listed above. --Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the article Hungarian noun phrase also describes things as I did. It even says "Before possessive suffixes, the plural k appears as ai or ei", which would imply that they are analysed as one and the same. Further down, it also says "The following suffixes are used for plural nouns:", which again clearly treats them as plurals. —CodeCat 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all agree that -i is the possessive plural marker. However, what you stated was that is the nominative plural of . And that is not a correct statement because házaim is not a further declined form of házam, therefore it cannot be called its nominal plural. --Panda10 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From a morphological point of view that's true. is not derived from  by suffixation. But from a semantic point of view, one is definitely the plural of the other. And we normally consider the semantic inflections on Wiktionary, not the morphology. For example,  can't possibly be called a comparative of  in a morphological sense, but it clearly is semantically.  is formed irregularly from . Similarly, in Slovene,  is the plural of  even though they are nothing alike. And in Finnish, the pronouns  and  have the plurals  and  even though the Finnish plural is normally created with . So in light of all these examples, I don't understand what the objection is to treating  as the plural of . Yes, the Hungarian plural is normally created with, but that doesn't mean there can't be exceptions. If "my houses" is not semantically the plural of "my house", then how would you describe the relationship between them? —CodeCat 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Which words decline in Hungarian?
I'm guessing nouns and pronouns do, but what about adjectives? Do they have cases? —CodeCat 17:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Adjectives and numerals are also declined. I use the same declension templates for all. See and . What is the goal of the changes you are making in the Hungarian declension templates? --Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are internal changes, to make them easier to manage. —CodeCat 18:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Essive-modal case
I've come across some nouns which do have an essive-modal singular form, but no essive-modal plural. I'm not sure if this is an error or not, so I'd like to make sure. And if this is not a mistake, then are there also nouns that have the plural but not the singular (other than plural-only nouns)? —CodeCat 20:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically, all nouns could have the essive-modal suffix, but most will not make sense and are not used at all. That's why this should be optional. --Panda10 (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

krinolin and varrónő
These entries have module errors due to missing parameters, and I have no clue how to fix them, since I know next to nothing about Hungarian. I would greatly appreciate your help. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New Hungarian nominal inflection template
After some work I was able to create a single template that neatly handles the functions of most of the existing templates. It's called (nom stands for "nominal" since it covers adjectives too) and is fully documented with many examples. Because it uses Lua, it's able to be a lot "smarter" and can do things like detecting what the final vowel or consonant is automatically. I hope you see it as an improvement. Is it ok if I replace the old deprecated templates with this new one? This should be easily doable with a bot. —CodeCat 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you wait with the bot? I'd like to take a look and do some testing. --Panda10 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

vegyesúszás
Szia! Az akadémiai helyesírási szabályzat szótári része szerint a fenti szószerkezet különírandó: vegyes úszás. Tudnád javítani? Köszönettel, Einstein2 (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kijavítottam. Köszönöm, hogy szóltál. --Panda10 (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conjugation of átfésül
Is the verb átfésül conjugated like fésül? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks in advance. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Panda10 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also gave the template hu-IPA to a few verbs as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now what about the verbs nyű and operál? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. --Panda10 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Three more verbs to conjugate, all ready for you. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

kurtizán
In case of pages such as kurtizán, I created Category:Hungarian nouns needing inflection. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Panda10 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The entry piton has been added to the list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hungarian words" appendices
Is there any particular reason you have been maintaining Appendix:Hungarian words A thru Appendix:Hungarian words Zs? They don't seem to do anything that Index:Hungarian doesn't. --Tropylium (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I correct typos in both, but otherwise I don't maintain them. The appendix contains a lot more words than the index (a good reminder of what needs to be added). The index contains only words mentioned in this wiki but shows more information about them. Unfortunately, the index has not been updated since April 2012 and it seems that it will stay that way. What is the reason you are asking? --Panda10 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Greek letter mű
Since you made an entry for Greek letter ró, I thought to myself "Why not add the category Category:hu:Greek letter names to the page for mű?" --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

furcsáll
Hi, is there a way to show the alternative forms in the conjugation table (furcsállsz/furcsállasz, furcsálltok/furcsállotok, furcsálltam/furcsállottam, furcsállnék/furcsállanék etc.)—as here? Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only way is to add a second conjugation table with different parameters. The current template does not allow variant forms within the same table. --Panda10 (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it. Einstein2 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

tory
I wanted to add a declension table to the entry but I couldn't because y is not a vowel. How can this be corrected? Einstein2 (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Temporarily, use the old declension template . For the long term, the module will have to be updated. We'll have to find out if this is feasible. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

elvész and other ingadozó álikes igék
I was editing Wiktionary a few hours ago when I realized that the current conjugation template cannot deal with the concept of verbs that are regular but have an additional 3rd person singular form using the -ik conjugation (egerész(ik), heverész(ik), akadoz(ik), bomol/bomlik, tündököl/tündöklik, elvész/elveszik, hull/hullik, etc.).

Also, I left out the conjugation table for elvész because I couldn't find one that works in all moods and tenses and I couldn't find verbs that are conjugated similarly either. I think it's simply an irregular verb that should get its own template but I'm not entirely sure. 89.134.45.189 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there are actually three distinct verbs (three lemma entries in dictionaries: elvész, elveszik, elvesz) that have similar conjugations differing only in 3rd person present. For the álikes igék, the lemma is e.g. akadozik, not *akadoz, so the 3rd person present form will appear as akadozik in the conjugation table. There is an article in e-nyelv.hu: ikes igék helyes használata. --Panda10 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do have a point, however, these are not regular álikes igék, they belong to a sub-category of álikes igék that have two possible 3rd person singular conjugations (while I agree that akadoz, heverész and egerész are indeed weird, they are found in older texts along with gitároz and other such verbs, and I don't think that there are any real differences between tündököl/tündöklik and bomol/bomlik).


 * I think we can all agree that elvesz and elvész have very different meanings and can't be used interchangeably. For example, while one can say Elveszem a telefonodat, the verb elvész is strictly intransitive, which also probably explains why the form elveszik is gaining popularity as alternative form.


 * The websites I've visited and the articles I've read seem to suggest that elveszik is simply an irregular/alternative form of elvész in the 3rd person singular rather than a separate lemma because the conjugations of the two verb forms are otherwise equivalent. It doesn't really matter in the end but now I'm really curious about what an actual linguist would say.


 * Thanks for finding the template as well, for some reason I confused elvész with elveszt and I thought that the existing table wasn't appropriate. 89.134.45.189 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem. The solution for the ingadozó álikes verbs could be two separate entries, where the -ik verb would be the main entry and the other would be the "alternative of" entry (each with its own conjugation table, pronunciation, etc.). The variant without -ik is the older one, to prove its validity, I'm sure we can find quotations in older literature. For other references by linguists, here is a link to the downloadable PDF version of Grétsy-Kemény: Nyelvművelő kéziszótár. It contains two entries related to the above discussion (elvesz(ik)-elvész and vesz-vész-veszik). Questions on the e-nyelv.hu site are also answered by linguists. I've found another article, although you might have seen all of these already: Ikes kétségek --Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

kitartás
An I.P. address added kitartás. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will fix it. --Panda10 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hungarian length contrast, take two
Earlier this year you mentioned at BP that you will no longer insist on including information about minimal pairs distinguished by length on Hungarian entries. On the other hand, upon further consideration this still seems to me like handy information to have somewhere, so I've started a collection: User:Tropylium/Hungarian minimal pairs by length. Feel free to add more if you see it fit. (For now I've been leaving out inflected forms though.) --Tropylium (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I started a list a few years ago in Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation pairs. I no longer add this information to the pronunciation section, but occasionally I still add a comment under Usage notes. But the Appendix is the place to collect them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, right, I should have checked if an appendix already exists :) --Tropylium (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Belated question on reversion
In 2014(!) you reverted the etymology I put in for Hu. telek, but I'm not sure why. I do see the new etymology, but it seems that the information I added should be there as an alternative, since I got it from an academic publication. Mind you, I'm no expert on Hungarian by any means, but I took the info I added from here: András Róna-Tas, Árpád Berta, László Károly. West Old Turkic: Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian (2011). Mellsworthy (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I should add "IIRC" to the above. It has been two years. However, dern it, I am certain I was quoting a source. Why Oh Why didn't I cite!! Mellsworthy (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted it because you did not provide any resources. I have two printed etymology dictionaries and they don't say anything about a West Old Turkic origin. I don't have András Róna's book and I am not able to search in it online to double check what it says about this word. --Panda10 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I finally tracked down an oblique reference I could find online, on page 136 of an article based on Róna-Tas et al's work, here. Unfortunately, this reference does not gloss the West Old Turkish word or the Hungarian word, but it does make clear that sense 1 and sense 2 of the Hungarian noun (wiktionary only has one of these senses; they're not talking about telek 'winters') correspond to sense 1 and sense 2 of the WOT word, both based on the Turkic base-word til-, which I had to figure out means 'cut'. (See dilmek, which disagrees about the proto-form, but is talking about the same forms in the same languages; it seems there is disagreement in Turkic historical linguistics about how to interpret the voiced initials that occur specifically in Turkish and Turkmen.) The WOT derivative tilök thus means, '(thing) resulting from cutting', a normal semantic source for parcels of land. On page 163 of this pdf of Nyelvelmélet és kontaktológia 2, it says that the reference for the chain WOT *tilök borrowed into Old Hungarian telük > Mod. Hu. telek is page 884 of Róna-Tas et al. I'm not at a university anymore, so I can't check Róna-Tas et al, but I think the forms I found online at least show that I'm not completely misremembering, and even tell me a page to cite.  I hope you don't mind if I revert your reversion, with the addition of a reference to Róna-Tas et al.  Not doing it today because I wanna make sure we're all on the same page. --Mellsworthy (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. It's fine if you add the information with the appropriate references. --Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Jewish Hungarian
Hi Panda. I have a list of words used by Hungarian Jews, and I was wondering if you'd be able to verify their use and enter them into Wiktionary. I'd provide you with the given definitions and etymologies. Are you interested? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Metaknowledge. I'm swamped with multiple different projects at this moment and I'm afraid I won't be able to start a new one for a while. But I think it would be a good idea to add your list of words and the other information you have about them to an appendix, so it would be available for future work. --Panda10 (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's okay. I'll try to do that; I hope you make progress on your projects for the time being. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

borjú
Hello Panda10, You have reverted my edits at borjú and nyár. I just wanted to find out which part of my edit you thought was wrong. Regards,Borovi4ok (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : Hi, when you modify an etymology, please provide a valid source. For borjú, your change did not match the Hungarian etymology dictionary, for nyár, you modified a sourced etymology and added your own. If you have a source and it does not match the currently listed ety, the best would be to add a new section saying that this different source says something else. --Panda10 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Panda10,
 * thank you for your answer.


 * first of all, I provided the Chuvash term for "calf", in proper modern spelling. You can check it in any Chuvash dictionary available to you. What was the reason to delete that edit of mine? Borovi4ok (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : I added the Chuvash term back. Sorry about that part. --Panda10 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Panda10. In both edits, I did not delete any of the existing date, but only changed the representation to better convey the nature of these Turkic borrowings. Your etymology dictionary seems to put all turkic terms in one messy mixture, without explanations.
 * Also, I hope you are aware that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic".
 * Good luck with your etymologies!Borovi4ok (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : I did not know that "Bulgar Turkic" is the modern term for "Chuvash-type Turkic". I briefly searched the internet, but I could not find anything that would state this equality clearly. The ety dictionary has a lengthier explanation than what I provided at the entry, but it was too complex for me at the time to translate, not to mention the unusual characters that are in the Proto-language examples. I will try to add some more information. Thanks for bringing this up. --Panda10 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Panda10,
 * "Bulgar Turkic" is term I'm used to in modern Russian-language Turkology. However, I've just found out that Wikipedia uses Oghur languages (which also looks fine to me). See for yourself, which term looks best to you. Borovi4ok (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

on affixes
Is there a particular reason why you're categorising all the affixes by part of speech? Hungarian is the only language where I've seen this done, so it's rather different from the common practice. —CodeCat 20:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some of the prefixes can be used to form both verbs and nouns or adjectives. It is best to keep the categories clean and not as a dump of different types of words. This may not be a common practice today, but could be tomorrow. --Panda10 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * But if the affixes are the same, why distinguish them by part of speech? The in  is not different from the suffix in . Why is it better to keep them separate, as you say? —CodeCat 20:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The prefixes may look the same, but they may not have the same meaning. Not to mention, that we are categorizing the entries, not the affixes. --Panda10 (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To disambiguate the affixes, you can use . See for example  and  and their categories. —CodeCat 22:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer to stay with the part of speech categorization. The idN system is much more complicated and less standardized. The category names may contain either a meaning or a part of speech:
 * Category:Latin words prefixed with in- (in)
 * Category:Latin words prefixed with in- (not)
 * Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (adverb)‎
 * Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (agent noun)‎
 * Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (compound verb)‎
 * Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (denominative)‎
 * Category:Latin words suffixed with -o (name)‎
 * The part of speech categorization is not as uncommon as you think:
 * Category:Dutch adjectives suffixed with -en
 * Category:English adjectives suffixed with -en
 * Category:English verbs suffixed with -en
 * Category:German adjectives suffixed with -en
 * Category:German verbs suffixed with -en
 * Category:Hindi nouns suffixed with -ई
 * Category:Hindi adjectives suffixed with -ई
 * Category:Hindi adverbs suffixed with -ई
 * Category:Indonesian nouns suffixed with -an
 * Category:Latin adverbs suffixed with -a
 * Category:Latin nouns suffixed with -a
 * Category:Latin adverbs suffixed with -ter
 * Category:Lithuanian nouns suffixed with -inas
 * Category:Portuguese adjectives suffixed with -aço
 * Category:Portuguese nouns suffixed with -aço
 * Category:Portuguese adjectives suffixed with -ado
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-teros
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-yōs
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European adjectives suffixed with *-wós
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mḗn
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mos
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mós
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-tḗr
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-mn̥
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-teh₂ts
 * Category:Proto-Indo-European nouns suffixed with *-tōr
 * Category:Slovak nouns suffixed with -izmus
 * Category:Irish nouns prefixed with mór-
 * Category:Proto-Germanic nouns prefixed with *andi-
 * Category:Italian nouns prefixed with mio-
 * Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *bi-
 * Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *fra-
 * Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *uz-
 * Category:English verbs prefixed with trans-
 * Category:Proto-Germanic verbs prefixed with *ga-
 * Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with i-
 * Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with des-
 * Category:Portuguese adjectives prefixed with semi-
 * --Panda10 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

American learning Hungarian
Hello! I am an American learning Hungarian :) I am new to editing, and was wondering if I could give you Hungarian words here so that you can add them if you like :)

Colbertadam (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can help. If you'd like to learn how to edit, you could add a word, I would review it and correct it if needed, then you could learn from the corrections. If you are not interested in editing, you could just add the words to this list: Requested entries (Hungarian). --Panda10 (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the information :) Making a "note to self" here, the words (so far) are "gondoskodás" which comes from "gondoskodik", and "törődés" which comes from "törődik". The English equivalent for both nouns would be care, concern, care taking, looking after, etc. Also, I notice that "érdekel" means "I care (about it)" much like "tetszik" is "I like (it)" ...the subject of the verb being the object/person receiving the action, not the actual "doer" of the action... rather than "érdeklem/érdekelem" and "tetszem" for "I...". Is this correct for the use of "érdekel"? Thank you. Colbertadam (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * érdekel is to be interested in someone or something, tetszik is to like someone or something. Examples:
 * Érdekel ez a téma./Engem érdekel ez a téma. - This subject interests me.
 * Tetszik ez a kép./Nekem tetszik ez a kép. - I like this picture; this picture pleases me.
 * Hope I understood your question correctly. --Panda10 (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Also relevant to you (a post from elsewhere)
As you also edited my entries, I'd appreciate it if you took a quick look here and responded when possible. Thanks! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See my reply there. --Panda10 (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for being so quick! --AtalinaDove (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! I recently saw a discussion on the request for deletion page for the template where you said this:


 * "Ok, I will delete them after I reworked the entries. I have already started using . This may take some time, though. has about 900 entries,  has about 17,000. Re inflected forms: Adding an etymology section to English forms may have less practical value, since English is not an agglutinative language. It is different in Hungarian where nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and numerals can have more than 34 different inflected forms, verbs much much more. If a Hungarian editor is willing to add this information using, what's the harm in it? --Panda10 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)"


 * Has this changed? I see that you are changing my templates to  ones. Thanks for your response --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you read the entire conversation, you will see that has functionality that  does not, so we will keep it. However,  will be deleted after I reworked all entries. I changed your edits to keep the entries consistent. You can look at existing entries to see how they are structured. --Panda10 (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I must have missed that bit. Thanks for bearing with me as I figure this out --AtalinaDove (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi. I wanted to drop by and thank you for all of your very hard work in improving our coverage of Hungarian, especially for adding IPA and etymology to every entry that you create or modify, and for helping me out with mine. The Wiktionary project is definitely being bettered by your work in this language. Philmonte101 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) --Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Inflection of words like
I have been updating inflection tables to the best of my ability, and I recognize that there are a few cases not covered by, which usually have their cases described in one of these templates' documentation pages. That said, this word, using, does not fall under the case described there (nouns ending in "ee"), yet cannot be used here. Would you mind adding a quick addition to one of the template documentation pages explaining how to treat cases like this? Sorry I'm so wordy, and thanks a ton (also for going over all my edits - I'm making an increased effort to be meticulously careful with them) :) --AtalinaDove (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At this moment, the only template that will work for this word is the one that it currently uses. I'd have to create a new template for these cases. The next several days will be hectic, so I won't have time to do it, but after next week I will take a look. I am way behind checking your edits, but eventually I get there... I saw that you started changing the inflection tables in the entries, that's very helpful, just make sure the old and new match exactly. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Good to know. I think I was recently added to the autopatrol group, so perhaps that will make things easier for you after you catch up. --AtalinaDove (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation request
From pizza nigger. en->hu. This will go on the Hungarian Wiktionary.

"(offensive, slang) a person of Italian descent" Philmonte101 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding declensions
Hi again!

I've been noting with a request most entries that don't have a declension table yet (as you've probably noticed). Since there are so many, and it must take up quite a bit of your time, I was wondering if you knew of any reliable resources I could use to search and verify declensions so that I could possibly add them myself. I would love to help out in this way if possible, but if it's something that should really be left to someone who speaks the language, then that's fine. Also, if you'd like me to stop adding so many requests, just let me know. --AtalinaDove (talk) 01:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the requests. It's always very helpful when you mark the entries because it's easy to locate them in one place. I'd like to keep adding the declensions. But if you are interested in Hungarian declensions, there is a fairly reliable source (not 100% accurate, unfortunately): . The case order is not exactly the same as ours. Thanks. --Panda10 (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for the source, and for looking after my edits. I am really interested in Hungarian, but I'm just a beginner so far, so it's good to know where to look for things like declension (other than Wiktionary, of course). --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to ask - are the etymology requests also useful? I usually just add them to words I'm interested in knowing the etymology of, but I could start adding them to all the entries I see without them. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are also useful, but it will take more time to complete them. --Panda10 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks again. --AtalinaDove (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

fázik
Hello Panda10 --

I just added my first entry, magyarul. :) I'm sure I've missed something, so I'd very much appreciate it if you could double-check the entry.  For instance, I'm not sure if the second sense should be transitive instead.

Thank you,

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * : Not too bad for a first entry. :) Both senses are intransitive. The etymology can be tricky, so if you are not sure, it's better to omit the section entirely. --Panda10 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * I've poked through the Etimologiai szótár entry a bit, thank you for the pointer. Would it be correct to add a ===Related terms=== section that includes ?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * : Based on their entry in Zaicz's Etimologiai szótár, I don't think they are related etymologically. If you'd like to mention fagy, it would be fine to include it in a ===See also=== section in fázik. --Panda10 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

🇨🇬
Hey, do you have an etymology for this word? A Serbo-Croatian authority claims that the Slavic word is borrowed through Hungarian (ultimately from 🇨🇬/🇨🇬), but our Hungarian entry says that it's the other way around. Normally I'd trust the first source, but the fact that the Hungarian word doesn't have a front vowel is fishy, and for all I know the metathesis might be a German dialect thing. Crom daba (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I updated it. --Panda10 (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you know anything about when the cheat sheet sense developed? Serbo-Croatian (or maybe just Serbian?) has (diminutive of puška) with the same meaning. Crom daba (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added ety 2. --Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes native speakers of Hungarian make
Szia Panda10, I have heard the Hungarian is a very hard language for foreigners to learn, due to the agglutination of the language. Would native Hungarian speakers make mistakes with things like these? Köszönöm – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 00:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, is the terms syllabalised as  or  – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 01:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, there can be mistakes, some are considered worse than others. Mistakes in agglutination are present mostly in substandard speech and writing. The expression  contains two separate words, so they are syllabized separately: ég-nek áll. However, in continuous speech the expression is pronounced as one word, accent on the first syllable. --Panda10 (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool! Can you learn other 'Uralic' languages easily? – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've never tried, so I can't say. --Panda10 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Etym at könyv
This is currently shown as deriving from a Slavic language, and suggests a comparison to 🇨🇬. However, the etym at currently states that the Hungarian term cannot have come from 🇨🇬, and suggests instead a derivation from a Turkic language, comparing it with 🇨🇬, with an ultimate origin in 🇨🇬.

I don't suppose you have any further insight? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I updated the etymology the best I could. The "compare" section contains several languages and words, I copied them as they were in the reference, I don't know their original form. Let me know if you need more information. --Panda10 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Names in Hungarian
Hey panda10, is it actually true that hungarian surnames go before first names? Quite bizarre, compared to other cultures around Hungary.
 * PS, is it actually true you live in the US (according to WT:Administrators)? I thought you lived in Hungary!! BTW I live in Australia – AWESOME meeos ！ ＊ （「欺负」我） 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. I think Eirikr's explanation below is very helpful. --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the Hungarian language itself is rather "bizarre", compared to the other mostly Indo-European languages of Europe. The difference in surname / given-name order seems fitting somehow, given the profound differences in vocabulary and grammar.  :)  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 06:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Panda10 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2017 (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)

so that you can access it with  to get the first homonym. I've changed the format (though instead of directly creating the tables, it uses a function) and moved the code to Module:R:ErtSz/homonyms and changed the content model. — Eru·tuon 19:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you once again! I'll try to delve into Lua, although I don't know this language, so all I can rely on is the minimal PHP I dabbled in 15 years ago, some Turbo Pascal 20 years ago, and QuickBASIC 25 years ago. :) So if you can spare the time, assistance with the finishing step would be highly appreciated… Adam78 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I read what you said above, and it would be easy to add a parameter to access the nth homonym, but I'm not sure how the multiple homonyms would be displayed, so could you demonstrate that? — Eru·tuon 20:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the Further reading section of , which has five senses in the dictionary we're about to link to. The result should be the same as what you see there (aside from the first link to a more recent but yet unfinished dictionary), but I'd like to achieve it only with the ErtSz template, like this: I left the place for the second parameter empty because that's where I could submit the ID of a particular sense if I only want to refer to that sense, like this:  So if the second parameter is empty, and the template is invoked, it would find the digit "5" in the database for the current record, so it would  invoke itself five times:, the first getting the 3rd parameter for its sense specification ("the speech sound, its written sign, the first element of a series, or an abbreviation"), the second the 4th ("the musical sound and its written sign"), and so on, with the result as given in the entry linked above. I wonder if Panda10 agrees with me. Sometimes we can't, needn't or shouldn't link to all existing senses of a term, that's why it would be better to have the option to link to one or the other. However, normally we could have all the available senses listed in Further reading, as is the case in the entry above. Adam78 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * : I wonder if we should include the page name in the call at all. How about:, it should display only those that are called, in the order called. Panda10 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, this is the best suggestion, I prefer this way the most! Thank you. Adam78 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * : I've been using this new template for non-homonyms. Is that okay? The homonym words generate errors. I assume the database is not ready. Panda10 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, although we should first consider inserting an asterisk in the code so that we don't need to type it every time before using the template. Whether the database is ready or not depends on which format finds the most convenient. The data is waiting to be implemented. Adam78 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


 * : None of the other templates include the asterisk, we should be consistent. Panda10 (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still not entirely clear on what to do and how to do it. (I guess you're not suggesting actually putting commas between multiple instances of, because that would look bad at the moment: .) I'm also not enthusiastic about putting asterisks (list syntax) inside the template, which would be required to replicate the "further reading" section of . In addition to not being the practice in most other reference templates, it's likely to cause confusing problems. So I don't see a good way to present multiple senses in a single  template. But one possibility is that the template could tell you that how many homophones there are and let you choose one. — Eru·tuon 00:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If we can't use a single template with multiple parameters to display multiple rows (one for each homonym) then the only solution is to place multiple template calls. If the template is called without parameters, it will search the non-homonym database. If it is called with parameters, it will search the homonym database. In the second case, two parameters will have to be provided: a number parameter and a corresponding gloss. And the output should look like the Further reading section of a:
 * Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've implemented this, but can't insert it into the template because the template is already used and the current version uses different parameters. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've implemented this, but can't insert it into the template because the template is already used and the current version uses different parameters. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've implemented this, but can't insert it into the template because the template is already used and the current version uses different parameters. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've implemented this, but can't insert it into the template because the template is already used and the current version uses different parameters. — Eru·tuon 20:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand. Yes, I did use in several entries without parameters and it worked fine. When I try  at, I get this error: Lua error in Module:R:ErtSz at line 42: No value for 1. If it helps you in testing, I can remove the template from all entries that contain it. Just let me know. Panda10 (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind, parameter 1 wasn't used so I could insert the new function. Now it might work, though I haven't tested it. — Eru·tuon 21:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It did work for . I'll test more. Thanks. :) Panda10 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you both so much! Adam, for coming up with the idea and getting the database, Erutuon for helping with the module. I have already used it and it's a joy compared to the old cumbersome method! Panda10 (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It seems to work just fine in ! I hope it will all right elsewhere too. Anyway, I think your username will have a gilded plaque in the history of this encyclopedia! As it's not much used here, all I can give you is a barnstar, placed on your talk page. Adam78 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Infection of Neki
Hi!

I noticed you've reverted back all of the edits of inflected forms of word neki which I added November 29th as a declension template (particulary teneked, neked, minekünk, nekünk, énnekem, nekem).

Were those contributions an error or there was indeed a reason behind that? Without that template it's really harder to navigate through words. --FormerCancer (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted it because the declension table was added to a pronoun form and not to the base word (the dictionary word or lemma, in this case neki). Declension tables usually contain the inflected forms of the actual entry. For the pronouns, the ===See also=== section already contains all the links you need for navigation between all forms. Hope this helps! Panda10 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

noun forms becoming adverbs
I wonder if angolul, csehül, finnül, franciául, gaelül, magyarul and németül are actually adverbs as well, aside from being noun forms. For például, I can say ez az eset jó például szolgált az elhangzottakra, in which case it is a noun form and of course we use például in the lexicalized sense of "for example", which is an adverb. But can we make the same distinction for the names of languages? I have a hunch that the adverb senses of these noun forms are simply the normal, ordinary senses already implied in their essive-modal forms, and we should perhaps delete their categorization as adverbs. What do you think? Do you think they have any particular semantic or syntactic traits that qualify them as being distinctively adverbs? Adam78 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The -ul/-ül adverb-forming suffix according to Zaicz: "A melléknevekből mód- és állapothatározói értelmű származékokat hoz létre, pl. vadul, angolul, hihetetlenül. Ebben a minőségében az -an/-en-hez hasonlóan határozószó-képzőként működik." Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the reference. In this case, I guess we'll have a hard time trying to find examples for their noun form senses. Adam78 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should remove the noun forms and leave the adverb only. Panda10 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What you quote practically sounds like adjectives cannot take this case suffix at all, but as far as I remember, this is the modal part of the term "essive-modal", so in this case we would question the currently established case system of Hungarian. I think we should consult some more sources about the exact scope of this case vs. the adverb-forming suffix, especially Magyar grammatika and my favorite ''Magyar nyelvtan. Formák, funkciók, összefüggések'' by Rita Hegedűs, which latter has a revised and extended 2019 edition. (Its author has insights I haven't really encountered elsewhere; I recommend it wholeheartedly.) Adam78 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I meant to remove it only from the language names (angolul, magyarul), not from all adjectives suffixed with -ul/-ül. Thanks for the book suggestions, I will try to get Magyar nyelvtan. I double checked Magyar grammatika, p. 200 lists -ul/-ül as essive among the case suffixes: tanúbizonyságul hív, barátjául fogad, feleségül megy, eszközül tekint, zálogul elfogad. I also have an old Magyar-angol dictionary (Országh, 1983) that has a suffix list at the end. For -ul/-ül:
 * (helyhatározó) arcul üt
 * (állapothatározó) feleségül vesz, foglyul ejt, rosszul van, tudtul ad
 * (módhatározó) rosszul bánik vkvel, például, véletlenül, angolul
 * (célhatározó) segítségül hív
 * (állítmányi szerkezet helyett, vmilyen minőségben szerepel) bizonyítékul szolgál, például szolgál
 * Panda10 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * For the sake of completeness: Magyar grammatika p. 202: -ul/-ül (Chapter: Melléknévhez járuló ragok)
 * (módhatározó) szükségelenül kockáztat, hangtalanul sír
 * (fokhatározó) hallatlanul érdekes, irgalmatlanul elpáhol
 * (állapothatározó) tétlenül néz
 * Panda10 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The Church of Almighty God in Hungarian
How would you translate the following terms used by The Church of Almighty God (or 全能神教會/Quánnéng Shén Jiàohuì in the original Chinese) into Hungarian?


 * 全能神教會 (Quánnéng Shén Jiàohuì) ― The Church of Almighty God


 * 全能神 (Quánnéng Shén) ― Almighty God


 * 話在肉身顯現 (Huà zài ròushēn xiǎnxiàn) ― The Word Appears in the Flesh


 * 律法時代 (Lǜfǎ Shídài) ― The Age of Law


 * 恩典時代 (Ēndiǎn Shídài) ― The Age of Grace


 * 國度時代 (Guódù Shídài) ― The Age of Kingdom


 * 話語時代 (Huàyǔ Shídài) ― The Age of Word


 * 千年國度時代 (Qiānnián Guódù Shídài) ― The Age of Millennial Kingdom


 * 大紅龍 (Dà Hóng Lóng) ― The Great Red Dragon

Thanks for reading. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I do not feel competent to provide translations of religious terms. It would require deep knowledge of the field and it would be irresponsible of me to give you incorrect information. Panda10 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Still try your best, because it wouldn't surprise me if the coined terms were intended to be easy to understand.
 * For instance, how would the Christian term "Grace" (or 恩典/Ēndiǎn in Chinese) be translated into Hungarian?
 * Here's a possible translation for the new religious movement's name: A Mindenható Isten Egyháza (Corrections are welcome) --Apisite (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding the verbal noun to the conjugation table?
I think the verbal noun is as ubiquitous and as regular in Hungarian as the infinitive and the participles (in fact, probably more common than the future participle) and it serves the same purpose (shortening subordinate clauses) so I think we should add it to the conjugation table (namely between the adverbial participle and the potential, I suppose). In fact, if the term főnévi igenév were not reserved for the infinitive, this form could be termed this way, as it mostly behaves like an igenév and it creates a noun. Its stem is normally the same as the one for the present participle, so not much programming would be needed. We could add a parameter for the cases when its form is not what could be expected so that it can be specified or disabled whenever necessary. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC) PS: It is probably the most productive noun-forming suffix and one of the most common and most regular non-finite verb forms. It's listed for verbs at E-Szókincs. Later we might discuss adding more forms as well but this one seems the most justified. Adam78 (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked E-Szókincs but I didn't see where it is listed for verbs. Is it in the "Toldalékolási típushoz tartozó szavak listázása" drop-down? You didn't mention it above but I assume you are talking about nouns with the -ás/-és suffix for now, then later adding the rest such as -at/-et, -alom/-elem, -atal/-etel, -áció as you listed in a previous conversation about verbal nouns. I looked into the subject but I could not find any source that would define the -ás/-és nouns as verb forms. I know that you genuinely care about Hungarian grammar and I truly value your contributions but I don't think we should clutter the conjugation table with derived nouns. That's why we have the derived terms section. I'm really sorry that this is not the answer you were hoping for. Panda10 (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I only meant the -ás/-és suffix, see the bottom e.g. here: http://corpus.nytud.hu/cgi-bin/e-szokincs/alaktan?lemma=k%E9r Needless to say, it's regular and productive indeed. Having to insert it individually would be overlooking its ubiquity in Hungarian grammar and lexicon. Adam78 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I still think the conjugation table should not contain derived nouns, but if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and add it. You might want to rethink the location. The bottom of the table would be better for all the additional items that are not strictly conjugation forms (just like in E-Szókincs). And while we are at it, would you please add proper documentation with examples for the new impers parameter you created? It should be in . I saw you added it to documentation but the other place should contain it, too. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind placing it at the bottom of the chart. At the same time, I wonder, could we make the top part of this table a little more compact? There is a lot of useless empty space there, in contrast with the fact that so much information is crammed into the bottom part. See. (The potential form is missing here as it depends on whether it's supplied.) Honestly, I believe this -ás/-és form is just like the other nonfinite forms (főnévi igenév in its literal sense, a noun derived from a verb, cf. Úszni jó ~ Az úszás jó), so its proper place would be at the top, whereas the -hat/-het and possibly the -ható/-hető forms could be listed at the bottom. Adam78 (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the new format. I think the top two columns should go to the bottom, though, just like in E-Szókincs. The actual infinitive could go to the same row where the conjugated infinitive forms are by dividing the label column into two. The title "Conjugated infinitive" could be shortened to Infinitive, and the term itself could be placed in the second part of the divided column, under the moods. This way you get not seven but six additional items to place at the bottom (four participles, the potential and the verbal noun). Just an idea, it's up to you. Thanks for updating the hu-conj-ok documentation. Panda10 (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't completely understand your idea but I think I made something close to it. I put the verbal noun before the present participle because its form is derived from the same stem (e.g. dicsekvés, dicsekvő) and because they exist for the broadest range of verbs, as opposed to the past and future participle, which are more limited due to the fact that they usually require an object (*a dicsekedett eredmények, *a dicsekedendő eredmények). Finally, I put the potential to the last cell, next to the adverbial participle, because if the verb is defective (like siklik), these two will be equally missing or at least controversial (?sikolva and ?sikolhat), whereas the preceding participial forms derive from the short stem, where there is no morphological obstacle to being formed (they're only limited by semantic conditions, e.g. sikló, ?siklott, ?siklandó). Again, siklás and sikló are the most common, most natural and most wide-ranging types of nonfinite derivatives, hence they are in the first two cells. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. Adam78 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's looking good. My original idea was slightly different, sorry I didn't explain it clearly, but I do like this layout. I think we can stay with this. I don't understand why the Potential label is missing, though. It should be there even if there is no corresponding form. I'm sure it will be worked out. Thanks for doing this. Panda10 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that the background color for the last row of values is white instead of the light gray. I checked but I don't see the problem. Can you please look at it? Panda10 (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Reducing vertical space in the chart at the "téged/titeket" forms
How about this arrangement? Adam78 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I just consider the layout, yes, the vertical space is reduced. But I think the content is more confusing by the shared persons. It's a first-person form with a second-person object, it shouldn't be displayed in the second-person column. I'd rather keep the old arrangement and instead of bold letters for én téged/titeket use a small font and even parentheses. You have already successfully reduced the space and made the table compact and still clear. Panda10 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, the clarity of the content is crucial. I'd also like to make it more clear, because it looks out of place in the current arrangement. What about this one? Adam78 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In this new layout the Indefinite/Definite column contains a new label that doesn't belong there, not to mention that it is now uncertain where this row belongs to: Indefinite or Definite or both. Plus the new rows will have to contain a hyphen for each cell that is empty. A simpler solution would be to keep the existing layout and change the Hungarian én téged/titeket to English 2nd-p. object in small font. I don't understand when you say "it looks out of place". It is what it is, a Hungarian feature. :) Panda10 (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It "looks out of place" because it is appended to the end of an existing cell and it's currently unclear how it fits into the system. Also, "én téged/titeket" can be understood as belonging to the previous verb form, so if it were to be left there, a horizontal bar should be inserted above this text, under the definite form. The current layout needs some change, anyway. From the new layout, it becomes clear: it is a third type. And if you come to think of it, it's indeed not decidedly definite. Téged (or titeket) as an object goes with indefinite forms in the other persons (ő lát téged, mi látunk téged, ők látnak téged), so we could just as well put this -lak/-lek form to the indefinite row. But the truth is that it's outside both definite and indefinite, it belongs to one just as much as to the other, and the table is supposed to show this feature. That's why I propose that we put it in a separate row. And you can consider it as an additional gain that a couple of lines can be spared, as téged/titeket or ''2nd-p. object'' (I don't mind either) goes to the left-hand column, instead of occupying additional new lines at every single occurrence. Adam78 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Panda10 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Now it's really beautiful and informative. :) Adam78 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhyme tables
I'm thinking about using tables for rhymes, something like this below, instead of Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒ-.

What do you think about this layout? (The vowel in question could be replaced easily for each.) Adam78 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the table is a great idea. Thoughts:
 * The color of the first vertical column: It might be good to set it to light green, same as the header row.
 * Capital letters in header row and column: I'd use small letters.
 * Order of letters in header row and column: An alphabetical order would make it easier for the reader to find certain combinations. The same layout should be used for other rhymes. I assume you arranged the letters in order of frequency. But the frequency will be different for other rhymes, so the order of letters will be different for each? I'd go with alphabetical order. It will be more consistent throughout.
 * Empty cells: I wonder if hyphens should be added to all empty cells.
 * The header row contains only consonants. What about vowels: -aó (Makaó), -au (Haynau), -áé (házáé).
 * Should inflected forms be added to rhymes? Maybe in a separate section under the lemmas? They would definitely add clutter. These websites do contain non-lemma forms: rimszotar.poet.hu, rimkereso.hu, rimszotar.hu.
 * Panda10 (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I've used many of them in updating Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒ-. I'll reply in order:
 * All right, done.
 * All right, done.
 * For the rows, I intended to consider frequency more or less (or, I would say, the likelihood or viability of the given combination), but for the columns, I used phonetic criteria, which I have added now. Since rhymes are about phonotactics, I think it's quite normal that we use phonetic criteria. Kaland almost exactly rhymes with alant, so I think common sense dictates that they should be adjacent to each other. What's more, consonants of a given manner of articulation often behave similarly in terms of syllable structure, see Sonority in phonotactics and Sonority Sequencing Principle. The consonants on the far left are the least sonorous so they are more likely to be at the very end of a syllable, and therefore, they are more likely to allow for a preceding other consonant: this is why their columns are more populated than the columns of more sonorous consonant types towards the right side. We can still rearrange them but I'd like us to consider the above aspects.
 * I'm afraid hyphens (actually, dashes) might add unnecessary clutter to the overall layout. What's more, they apparently suggest that these combinations don't exist at all although later we might come across examples, especially in place names (e.g. Apc, Zirc, Nick, Vönöck, Recsk, Köcsk, Ilk, Erk, Zsurk, Deszk, Detk, Dötk, Batyk, Gyugy, Prügy, Tiszasüly with less common endings) or foreign loanwords.
 * Yes, we need to figure out the layout for vowel-final words. There are already some rhyme pages with them (jɒ- and jɛ-‎). However, these are not so interesting phonologically so I'd prefer to put off this part of the question.
 * My suggestion is that we could add one (common and short) example for each type, e.g. for the ending, we could enter hozd in the rhyme list and then maybe add a link to the relevant suffix and/or the relevant verb type whose instances have the same ending. I hope it wouldn't interfere with the functioning of the page (having the empty field "+Add new rhyme" as usual).

In fact, I also have doubts about adding compound words to the list. Until now, I've been mostly adding only those compounds that are less obvious or less transparent (like hónap, as opposed to születésnap). Also, I tended to add multiple words with the same last element if there were very few words in the given list altogether. I'm not convinced that it's the best practice, though.

As a matter of fact, we could use a template for these tables, with the vowel in question as its parameter, and optionally excluding certain groups of columns if they are irrelevant. This way the layout could be improved later for all of them without having to make changes on each. Adam78 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The table looks really good, thanks for the explanations. Panda10 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

navigation box for rhymes with the same consonant but different vowels
What do you think about this new navigation box that I inserted here: Rhymes:Hungarian/ɒd? (I made the note in the last row with respect to the numerous examples for pronunciation variations like szinész/színész, szunyog/szúnyog, szerviz/szervíz, irigy/irígy, huszas/húszas, sűrü/sűrű, tanu/tanú, kiván/kíván etc.) Adam78 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea. A couple of questions/suggestions:
 * The template name: If you are planning to create more rhyme templates, it would make more sense to name them hu-rhymes-xxx, in this case . This will help with sorting these templates in the template category and keep them together. Other Hungarian templates are named in a similar fashion: hu-decl-xxx, hu-conj-xxx, etc.
 * The header row for the long vowels: It might be better to place it above the row with the long rhymes. Then the black separating line would not be needed. But if you want to keep it this way, the separating line should be continuous.
 * The Close vowels comment: I'd list the close vowels, there are not so many: í, ú, ű. A few examples would also help. Even if the comment will be in two lines. Learners don't always know the linguistical terms. Panda10 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, I implemented them. For the second, I deliberately made the line incontinuous, indicating that the close-vowel pairs are not as distinctly divided as the other pairs. But the note should make this fact clear anyway; maybe it's no use illustrating it. I also made the template breezier (and a little bit bigger) as the dense, short, and small links may be difficult to click. My only remaining question is where this template should be located in the page. Is it at the right place now? Or should it be at the very top, next to the other, regular (horizontal) navigation template? Adam78 (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Location: I think the current location is the best. I tried placing it on the top but it ran into the section separators, didn't look good. I also tried it at the bottom, also not good. I viewed it in Mobile view and it moved from right to left, just above the One syllable section. There is not much we can do about it. Size: I'm not sure about the larger size. On a desktop computer it's almost too large. On a tablet it was fine, but the green row height could be reduced a little. There are no links there. Close vowels comment: It is not immediately clear that (i, u, y) are IPA characters. I would use í, ú, ű, or even i/í, u/ú, ü/ű. Tend to lose distinction of length: Can this be rephrased in a simpler way? Would adding an example help? E.g. színész: [ˈsiːneːs], [ˈsineːs]. Panda10 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't forget about your remaining suggestions but I wanted to glean more cases; I've just added three examples where the difference is widespread and where the vowel in question is in the rhyme. I don't know how to rephrase the current wording in this limited space, but I think the existing examples make it clear now.

I just realized that this text makes the table wide enough in every case, so we don't need to magnify the font any more. I've changed it. Adam78 (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Panda10 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

a request
Please delete these two pages; I mistakenly created them: Rhymes:Hungarian/aːt͡ʃː, Rhymes:Hungarian/y. Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Panda10 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have time, please these ones too: Rhymes:Hungarian/oːpː and Rhymes:Hungarian/uːrː. I am sorry. I wonder if I could become an admin here some day and then I could clean up such things after myself. (I was an admin in the Hungarian-language Wikipedia for nearly 15 years but I didn't have enough activity around the end, that's why this right was withdrawn from me.) Adam78 (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's no problem deleting pages. If you want to be an admin, I can nominate you. Let me know. Panda10 (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, I'll think it over; first I'd like to get information on the obligations involved. For the time being, I'd like to ask you to delete one more page: Rhymes:Hungarian/ont͡ʃd. Thanks in advance. Adam78 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Prefixed verbs on rhyme pages
What do you think about this treatment of prefixed verbs? Rhymes:Hungarian/eːl I'm not sure it's the best way possible, but I don't have any better idea. Adam78 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not bad but I don't see the advantage of treating them separately. Actually, there is one obvious disadvantage: the "Add new rhyme" automated entry field is missing, so you always have to make two edits: one on the rhyme page, another on the entry page to add the rhyme. Panda10 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

rhyme table variant for vowel-final words
What do you think about the rhyme table I created for vowel-final rhyme pages, like on this one? Adam78 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks fine but it took a minute to figure it out because it follows a slightly different concept than the previous two table structures and it confused me at first. So this table combines two things: Rows 1-4: Same consonant - different vowels, rows 5-8: Different consonants - same vowel. The letters in the two consonant row headers might need a preceding dash, as well: -r-, -l-, -j-, etc. Panda10 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

pronunciation template, module and corrections
I'd like to see the list of Hungarian lemmas where some special way of pronunciation was entered (and perhaps others too would like to), so I added this to the pronunciation template. (I don't know the syntax of "OR", which would be more appropriate.) What do you think? I haven't created the target category yet. Do you have any suggestion for its name?

I also made some change in Module:hu-pron, since the program put an accent on és in ízlések és pofonok, which is a mistake. The above change was also made with a view to identifying any other manual adjustments which should be addressed by this module instead (e.g. hallra, mellre). Adam78 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * : I clicked on the category without creating it to see the content. The pronunciation of these words and expressions is not necessarily non-intuitive, it's simply that the module is not able to handle them, the rule was not included at the time or maybe it's just too hard to figure out the IPA of a longer phrase or a compound word. If you just want to categorize lemmas with a manual entry in their IPA, Category:Hungarian terms with manual IPA pronunciation would be more accurate. Since the main category is called Category:Hungarian terms with IPA pronunciation, let's try to stay as close to the wording of the main category name as possible.


 * Removing the accent before és and vagy was a good idea. There is still a space before them in the resulting IPA: [ˈiːzleːʃɛk eːʃ ˈpofonok]. I wonder if it should be [ˈiːzleːʃɛkeːʃ ˈpofonok]. The first is easier to read but a user might think that the accent was accidentally left out where the space is. Panda10 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I created the category with the name you suggested. I also implemented the space deletion before the phonetic transcription of és and vagy as per your idea (Btw, I didn't insert vagy; I only changed the existing line; however, I did insert the és line based on that.) I don't understand why zuhog, mintha dézsából öntenék appears in this category but a füle botját sem mozdítja does not, even though the category link is inserted into the latter as well. Maybe it just takes time to update the content. (?) Also, I don't understand why there is a parameter given for rendszert. Is there any problem here with the operation of the module? Adam78 (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * : Thanks for removing the space before és and vagy. Yes, it does take some time to fill up a new category. The phrase a füle botját sem mozdítja is there now and there are three times as much items than yesterday. About rendszert: The module works as it should. Without manual addition the IPA is [ˈrɛnt͡sɛrt] (phonetic respelling: rencert), with manual addition indicating the boundaries of the compound word the IPA is [ˈrɛntsɛrt] (phonetic respelling: rentszert). It's possible that both pronunciations are correct depending on the person and the speed or speech. Should I add a clarification to Appendix:Hungarian_pronunciation explaining the difference between [ts] and [t͡s]? Panda10 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, what I don't understand is what makes you think that the amalgamation of [t] and [s] does not take place in this word, creating [t͡s]. Did you reach this conclusion based on your own pronunciation, or based on the consideration that there is a morpheme boundary between them, or based on some linguistic literature, or something else? If you look up hasonulás (assimilation) and especially összeolvadás (merger), for example in Osiris Helyesírás (mostly pp. 41–87), it seems that these processes do happen, not only across morpheme boundaries but sometimes even between adjacent words if they're within the same prosodic unit. Adam78 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * : I'm a little surprised about the tone of your note. I hope you are not having a bad day. :)) Please see section 64. Összeolvadás point 2 of this webpage: Papp István: Hangtörvények a magyarban. It says: "Járulékos szóalakokban a tővégi t, d, gy mássalhangzó a járulék sz-ével hosszú vagy rövid c hanggá, a járulék kezdő s elemével pedig ugyancsak hosszú vagy rövid cs-vé olvad össze: másodszor (másoccor), egyszer (eccer), nagyság (naccság). Meg kell jegyezni, hogy az összeolvadásnak ez a fajtája nem kötelező érvényű: az összeolvadásos ejtés mellett gyakran hallani az összeolvadás nélküli (csupán hasonulásos) alakokat. Például: másodszor (másotszor), egyszer (etyszer), nagyság (natyság)". So even though our case in question is a compound word and not a járulékos szóalak, it seems that rentszert and rencert are both possible. Panda10 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the source. If this is the case indeed, then it would be nice to clarify this matter on the page Appendix:Hungarian_pronunciation. For me, it sounded self-evident that rendszer becomes [rencer] in pronunciation; I couldn't really imagine otherwise, and I can't recall having seen [t] and [s] following each other in a phonetic transcription without becoming [t͡s]. Actually, Papp István doesn't expressly affirm this point, either. I'm sorry about my tone; I didn't realize it was not right. You know, I tend to be wary due to the "writing trap" (or "the trap of writing"? – az írás csapdája –, I sent you some material on it, see 6.4.), and I assumed that you might prefer this form only because you rely on the written form and/or the morphological analysis more than the actual pronunciation. That is the possibility I wanted to exclude. Adam78 (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * : It's interesting that Section 58 of A magyar helyesírás szabályai, 12. kiadás gives two options for egyszer [etyszer] (v. [eccer]) and for nagyság [naccság] (v. [natyság]). I can't find the source now but somewhere I read that compound words behave a little differently: kötszer, mondatszó, passzátszél, kardszárnyú, földszín - would you say köccer, mondaccó, passzáccél, karcárnyú, fölcín? Derived words are a different case: lejátszó is clearly lejáccó. I'll think about how to update the appendix. Panda10 (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If I'm delivering a speech in a formal setting and I'm mentioning a term for the first time (and I make it a point to be unambiguous), I might use the form without amalgamation. In other words, in careful speech. All right; we can mention both pronunciations. Thank you again for looking up the sources and the examples. Adam78 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * : I've started updating the IPA sections in entries from the new category when I've found an article that contains some useful information: Hangtani és alaktani kötöttségű folyamatok. Section 6 compares lemma+suffix and lemma+lemma cases. E.g.: hagyja [-ggy-] vs. vegyjel *[-ggy-], etc. Section 7: látsz [-cc-] vs. hátszél *[-cc-]. This appears to say that összeolvadás (merger) doesn't happen at the boundaries of compound words. On the other hand, I listened to the Hungarian radio today and noticed twice that the word rendszer was pronounced rencer. I myself pronounce it closer to renc-szer when I speak slower than rencer. If you listen to the audio at the entry maybe you can hear it? Obviously, recording a single word or a short phrase is different than regular speech. So how should we proceed about this? Maybe rendszer is slightly different than hátszél or becsületszó, perhaps the fact that it's a compound word is no longer felt as obviously by speakers as in the others? Panda10 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this audio is fine. The difference is rather small and it happens as a natural process anyway, so I don't think we need to worry about it. On the other hand, would you please look into my suggestion for a table? Template:hu-infl-pos-table-comparison (at the very bottom). I'd really like to implement it if we can come to an agreement about its looks, partly because third-person singular possessive forms are extremely common in Hungarian (compare e.g. Appendix:Hungarian verb-final set phrases); I'd even consider adding this form to Template:hu-noun after the plural. If you react on my user talk page, we can keep the threads separate. Thank you in advance. Adam78 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

one more table, that of correlatives
Do you have any suggestion? Adam78 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * : Summary tables and lists are always helpful. Especially, if they are clear and easily grasped. I find this table a little cryptic due to the abbreviations which save space but reduce clarity. My suggestions are very similar to the other navigation tables.


 * 1) The table should be closed by default and placed at the bottom. It's too overpowering. Especially on mobile devices where it shows up on the top before any information about the entry.
 * 2) The abbreviated titles (s, nm, e) and entries (v, a, b, m) do show a tooltip on desktop computers but nothing on mobile devices.
 * 3) Instead of nm in the header, how about any?
 * 4) Instead of every... and no..., how about every- and no-?
 * 5) The first Hungarian column (ki, mi, ...) contains questions, all the others are possible answers to those questions. This could be made clearer in the table header structure and would be helpful for quickly understanding what this is all about.
 * 6) The English translations of the questions don't have to be in a separate column. They could be in parentheses after of below the Hungarian.
 * 7) A Hungarian translation could be added below each English header: every (minden), same (ugyan), etc.
 * 8) In the every column, how long row, there is an empty cell. Don't we have mindeddig/mindaddig?
 * 9) Consider adding this table and the other navigation tables to an appendix where they can be displayed in full size. Even if you keep the navigation tables at each entry, the table title could be linked to the appendix where a more detailed explanation could be given.
 * Panda10 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've considered your suggestions and implemented several (I won't go into details, you'll see them). Some comments: Adam78 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Since I intended it as a navigation template, I'd like to keep it on the right side. If you really prefer, I can hide some less important rows, though (merről, merre, meddig, miért and the bottom-line note -- if it's enough).
 * 2) I haven't put the English-language definitions below the Hungarian terms, not only because it would extend the table vertically too much, but also because this column serves as a kind of header, identifying the semantic relation that applies to the whole row. I found the translation of the question words more understandable than abstract titles like Person, Thing, Time, Place, Manner, Reason, etc. However, I can give this column the background color of headers, if you like.
 * 3) Do you mean an Appendix of (Hungarian grammar related) appendices, so to say? Or separate appendices that give more information on the particular topics? And: Is it possible to call a template at most places in a compact form but at one place in a full form? If so, what else do you think the full form should include?


 * : If you want to leave it on the right side, it's fine. We all have different points of view.


 * 1) Using a different color for the two question columns (English and Hungarian) and the two header columns would help. The different color would make it also possible to remove the bold face from the question row to make some room.
 * 2) If you want to keep the bold face for the English words in the header row, you could remove the bold face from the Hungarian translations to make the distinction stronger. The goal with these changes is to make the table more readable, so readers don't have to spend several minutes to figure it out.
 * 3) The one-letter Hungarian translations in the question row create more confusion. I'd leave them out and just use the full word translations where it makes sense (ugyan, mind(en), se(m/n), vala, akár, bár, más). This would be especially important where abbreviations are used (u for ugyan, v for vala, etc.) It would just help the reader to understand what u, v, a, b, and m are.
 * 4) I'm not aware of a method to call a table two different ways. In the appendix, I meant the same table but with full words (e.g. ugyanez instead of u). Also, a longer description could be given about the table itself. You can create a separate appendix for each of these tables or one appendix for all of them. Panda10 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

new table for vowel-final rhymes
Do you have any suggestion about this page? Adam78 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks good. Maybe two things:
 * Adding a table title Vowel-final rhymes.
 * Changing the first column from vertical titles to green horizontal rows that would visibly separate these groups and would make it easier to read the terms.
 * Thanks for doing this. Panda10 (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For the second, do you think it's better this way, or you'd still prefer to have the letters horizontally? Adam78 (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And I think I could move its content to the primary rhymes page and then you can delete the template, since it's not going to be used elsewhere. Do you agree? Adam78 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The first version was better since it was a separate column. Here the two information (the letters and their category name) run into each other and the text is not readable. But why do you need this column at all? In the other large table this information is not present, only the letters. Yes, you can move this template to the main page. Just let me know exactly which template to delete. Panda10 (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for this template before I insert it on more pages? This is where I've inserted it until now. An example is linked from its documentation page.

In fact, I'd like to insert some marks on the rhyme pages that help those without sufficient knowledge of Hungarian browse the rhyme list and find instances of a given part of speech among them, as well as some marks that indicate that a given form belongs to a particular declension or conjugation type. For example, it would be nice to see how many words are affected by the vowel loss on a particular page like Rhymes:Hungarian/ɛr (e.g. eper, ezer, iker, szeder but not ember among nouns and numerals and seper but not ismer among verbs). Adam78 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * : Perhaps the name of the template (if you want it to conform to the existing ones): hu-rhymes-verb-deriv. My only concern is that the note refers to "verbs that end in" xyz but when the user goes to that rhyme page it is not clear which terms are verbs. Other than that, it looks good. Panda10 (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the links; you can delete the version with the original name. Thank you.
 * Yes, I'm planning to add some marks to verbs and other parts of speech in the list; see my comment above. I think this indication could mention the POS, whether its inflected or uninflected, and the type of inflection (ideally with a link to the page presenting this inflection type). Not for all items in the list, only those that may be relevant.
 * I noticed that the ik-less csempész is the primary form for the verb (rather than ) both in A magyar nyelv értelmező szótára and A magyar nyelv nagyszótára. If you agree, could you move this entry to csempész, with the necessary adjustments, as another etymology? It has derivatives without the -ik ending, so it would be more consistent with them. Thank you if you'll do it. Adam78 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This is done. I'm not sure about the etymology of the verb csempész. I left it empty. Panda10 (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Adam78 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

vágysz
The IPA transcription shown [ ˈvaːcs] doens't take into account the assimilation of when a sibilant forms a voiceless geminate affricate with a preceding palatal stop. This should render [ˈvaːt͡sː].
 * : To my knowledge, gysz assimilates to tysz. See Appendix:Hungarian pronunciation assimilation. Egyszer: etyszer vagy eccer? Eccer is more dialectal to me. I would never say vácc. It's vátysz. I will ask the other Hungarian editors. : Should we add both pronunciations? Panda10 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. Osiris Helyesírás says the following on pp. 44–45:
 * A sziszegők/susogók kölcsönhatásai. Ezek a kölcsönhatások jobbára nem kötelező érvényűek . [emphasis mine]
 * Ha a fogmederben vagy a kemény szájpadon képzett zárhang vagy zár-rés hang (/t/, /d/, /c/, /dz/, /cs/, /dzs/, /ty/, /gy/) után sziszegő/susogó hang (/sz/, /z/, /s/, /zs/, /c/, /dz/, /cs/, /dzs/) áll, kölcsönhatásuk eredményeképpen hosszú zár-rés hang ([cc], [ddz], [ccs], [ddzs]) keletkezik, amelynek zöngéssége és képzéshelye a sziszegő/susogó hangé, például: látsz [lácc], vad cerkóf [vac cerkóf], szabadság [szabaccság], egyszerű [eccerű], csapatzászló [csapaddzászló], csontzsír [csondzsír].
 * A sziszegőkből/susogókból álló kapcsolatokon a következő szabály működik: a későbbi sziszegő/susogó határozza meg a kapcsolat egészének zöngésségét és képzéshelyét, a képzésmódban (rés vagy zár-rés) ugyanakkor nincs kölcsönhatás, például: egészség [egésség], kis szoba [kisz szoba], község [kösség], kapocsszeg [kapoc-szeg], gyümölcszselé [gyümöldzselé], bányászcsákány [bányáscsákány], tánczene [tándzzene].

In addition, gy + sz is mentioned on page 43:
 * A d + sz, gy + sz, t + sz hangkapcsolat kiejtéskor gyakran hosszú vagy rövid c hanggá olvad össze: vetsz [vecc], adsz [acc], egyszer [eccer]; a d + s, gy + s, t + s hangkapcsolatból pedig hosszú vagy rövid cs lesz: barátság [baráccság], költség [kölcség], nagyság [naccság vagy natyság].

I suppose we could find sources from more specialized phonetics books, but I had this one at hand and it's supposedly in line with language description anyway. Adam78 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm clearly struggling with this. I added audio to vágysz and látsz. They sound differently the way I say them. The gysz is softer, the tsz is harsh. I tried to say aloud the following two sentences with very rapid speech:
 * Süteményre vágysz vagy tortára? [ˈʃytɛmeːɲrɛ ˈvaːcsvɒɟ ˈtortaːrɒ]
 * Házakra látsz vagy tavakra? [ˈhaːzɒkrɒ ˈlaːt͡svɒɟ ˈtɒvɒkrɒ]
 * The resulting [cs] and [t͡s] sounds are very close to each other, but not identical. Internally, they are definitely not identical since I always want to say the gy (or ty) in vágysz, while I just want to say [t͡s] in látsz. There is a book: Péter Siptár and Miklós Törkenczy: "The Phonology of Hungarian" by Oxford University Press, 2000. The authors say in the introduction:
 * "The dialect described is Educated Colloquial Hungarian (ECH), the spoken language of ‘educated’ people living in Budapest, the capital of Hungary. That dialect (cf. Nádasdy 1985) contrasts with Standard Literary Hungarian (SLH), the speech of conservative or speech-conscious speakers on the one hand and with various types of non-standard speech, including traditional rural dialects (cf. section 2.2.3), on the other. Both authors are native speakers of ECH."
 * Should we apply this information when we add the two IPA variants and label them accordingly? One is colloquial the other is literary/conservative?


 * Another quote from this book:
 * "[A] form like ötször has a number of possibilities. In a very formal style, it can simply surface as [ötsör], with no rule applying to it. Less formally, Fricative Affrication (23) can apply to give [öt-tsör]. In colloquial speech, Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22) applies either to the underlying /t-s/ sequence or to the output of (23), both being possible inputs as (22) now stands. The output of Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22) will then be modified by OCP merger, to give [t͡s]. Similarly, a form like hegység ‘mountain’ may surface as [hεtyseːg] via Voicing Assimilation alone, as [hεtyčeːg] via Voicing Assimilation and Fricative Affrication (23), or as [hεčːeːg] via Voicing Assimilation, Stop + Strident Place Assimilation (22), and OCP. Hence, the order of application of these rules need not be specified (whereas they may be indexed somehow for the level of casualness that goes with each)."


 * Panda10 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Colloquial though it may be, I can imagine myself pronouncing the above sentence with [ˈvaːt͡svɒɟ] in rapid or lazy speech, in a very similar manner to [ˈlaːt͡svɒɟ]. (I live in an urban area of Transylvania.) – Einstein2 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've updated the entry with a second IPA. Please take a look and make changes if needed. Thanks for all your comments and thoughts! Panda10 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

homonyms
Do you think it would be possible to insert some code (e.g. in a template) that collects homonyms into a category? Or any other way to make the software collect them? Technically speaking, all entries that contain "Etymology 2" within the "Hungarian" section? Adam78 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * : I'm not sure how to automate this. The only Hungarian template that would be common to all Hungarian entries is but I don't think we should add homonym collection to its original purpose. How will the template know there are numbered etymology sections? You might want to submit a question to Grease pit to see what other editors think about this. Would it make sense to them to add a homonyms category into the existing category tree for all languages to use? And how could populating the category be automated? Panda10 (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wrote a suggestion there. Adam78 (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

a new template for uniform definitions across different allomorphs
What do you think about ?

Shall we include

in their respective entries? 

And shall we create similar templates for other allomorphs? As I may have mentioned earlier, it looks unprofessional, it may be confusing, and hence it seems counterproductive to let the definitions of different allomorphs gradually diverge more and more from each other, despite the fact that their meaning is identical. Adam78 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * : The template looks good to me, it's great that you included examples for each type. I think the template can be added to the respective entries. Which other allomorphs are you thinking of reworking with templates? Panda10 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ideally every suffix that has more than one form (which is the majority of suffixes in Hungarian), especially those that have more than one distinct meaning (e.g. -ról/-ről for "from" and for "about", -nál/-nél for "at" and for "than", as well as the other suffixes and their other senses defined in Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, Rounds, Keresztes, or other textbooks or dictionaries, although some dictionaries only supply the meanings of suffixes under the relevant pronoun forms like róla/arról and nála/annál). Adam78 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion
Would you please delete this page: and this category?
 * Rhymes:Hungarian/eːfː (it was my mistake)
 * Category:Hungarian nouns by inflection type (I realized I cannot include Category:Hungarian words with alternating stems in that because "words" is broader than "nouns", even if most of its terms are nouns)

I'm also thinking about what to do with mákat, the plural accusative of "ma". It only occurs 2 times among 1 billion words in MNSZ2 (2 out of the total 5 hits are mistakes and one must be an alternative accusative of "mák"). Both occurrences are poetry (I'm not sure about their quality), as a result of an apparent constraint of rhyme (with traumákat in one and with kutyákat in the other). We might keep this form as a (green) link in the declension table of "ma" but I think the actual entry shouldn't exist. Think about it what citation criteria exist normally here in Wiktionary. Do you think these two nonce words would suffice as citations for this form? (In the same vein, I'd prefer to delete the other plural forms of "ma", but in those cases you don't need to delete articles, as those forms are shared with the "poppyseed" sense.) Adam78 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Panda10 (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam78 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

enabling not generally comparable adjectives in Hungarian
I've always been mildly annoyed to see the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives that are normally not comparable, but I do remember your rationale about providing grammatical information on all conceivable word forms for the sake of language learners and I am aware that poetic licence or journalism sometimes make people coin unlikely forms. As a compromise, I'd like to recommend the new function of (which happens to work practically the same way as "countable and uncountable" for nouns) for such cases. It is already used for English adjectives (e.g. pitch-perfect, see its code at Module:en-headword) and there are lots of similar cases in Hungarian, so I think we could make use of it, as well. It only takes two extra keystrokes, a hyphen and a pipe, like   in. I hope you'll enjoy it and use it wherever you find it applicable. Adam78 (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the template. Panda10 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

“szokik”
Can you please explain why you reverted my edits in this article? 83.226.235.200 20:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your sentences were grammatically correct. However, the different word order emphasizes different things and the sentences will have a different intonation. I use bold letters to show which word has the emphasis in both versions:


 * Original: A leveleket reggel szoktam elolvasni.
 * Your version: A leveleket reggel el szoktam olvasni.


 * Original: Reggelente szoktam elolvasni a leveleimet.
 * Your version: Reggelente el szoktam olvasni a leveleimet.


 * Original: Reggelente szoktam volt elolvasni a leveleimet.
 * Your version: Reggelente el szoktam volt olvasni a leveleimet.


 * The original emphasizes that the mail is read habitually in the morning and not some other time during the day. Your version places the emphasis on the action instead of the time of the action. They also answer different questions. But you left the English translation unchanged. In my opinion, the original examples provide a better illustration of how the verb szokik is used. Hope this helps! Panda10 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am learning Hungarian, but being new here on Wiktionary, it is not always clear to me how things are done here. I would have translated reggelente szoktam elolvasni into it is in the morning that I usually read my mail, which, to me, sounds off simply because the entry deals with the action itself and not the time of the day it is performed. At least that is my view. This is why the current version is confusing to me. Anyway: I appreciate getting such a nice and thorough answer! Have a good day! 83.226.235.200 07:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's good to hear that you are learning Hungarian. If you have questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. I see your point and I will think about better example sentences. Thanks for your comment. Panda10 (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

minthogy etc.
What if we created a category like "Hungarian terms with spelling issues" (or something similar, perhaps "usage issues") as opposed to "Hungarian misspellings" for cases when the form is fine in some sense but a mistake in another? Adam78 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A category sounds good. We can think more about the name, Hungarian terms with usage issues might be better. Would it make sense to have a Hungarian terms with usage notes category? The logic is that if there are usage notes, there are usage issues that need to be explained. For the minthogy type terms: I assume these are all compound words where the question is one or two words? We usually don't have an entry for the two-word spelling (e.g. magyartanár - magyar tanár), only usage notes at the single term. Panda10 (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "Hungarian terms with usage notes" could be useful on the long run but a little too broad for this purpose. It could be a parent category of what I meant, which is actually a subtype of "misspellings", which are only potential misspellings (pitfalls). I hope there will be several other types of "usage notes" as well, which are actually related to usage and not spelling. (Nevertheless, it would be helpful for visitors to be able to find terms with some usage notes.) Maybe we could specify this current case, like "Hungarian terms with semantically different spelling variants"? And this could be a subcategory of "Hungarian terms with usage notes" and subordinated or coordinated (?) to "Hungarian misspellings". Adam78 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that the usage notes category is broader. I like the solution you described above. Panda10 (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

fixing plural forms displayed in the singular column
I'm sorry to bother you again on the same day. I inserted a link in hu-infl-nom to populate Category:Hungarian terms with a singularia tantum parameter (although we don't need to actually create this category) because I realized I wouldn't be able to add the declension table for * or unless their forms are listed in the singular column. It occurred to me that I had encountered the same problem elsewhere as well and I wanted to see the relevant entries in one place (and e.g. was listed indeed).

I was wondering if we could find a better solution to it, either by creating a new declension table or by implementing a new parameter in an existing one, to handle a kind of plural formed with ‑i, ideally including singular (possessive) cases like, with its plural. If the accusative,the superessive, and the essive-modal can be manually supplied, the plural should be possible too, even if it affects several forms. Do you have a suggestion which way looks more doable? Adam78 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

* Not necessarily via polygamy, if someone remarried after a divorce or the demise of the spouse.


 * This is a tough one. Over the years the possessive forms came up several times but the subject was always dropped due to difficulty of design and implementation. I started using the regular declension table for possessives because nothing else was available and it did display the forms. In case someone would search for a not-yet-created form at least the table would point to the right lemma. Yes, the plural forms should be in the plural column but that doesn't work. As for listing the declension for both neve and nevei under the entry neve - for some reason this looks awkward to me. Do you view nevei as a declined form of neve? I always think about it as a possessive form of név. So to list the declension nevei, neveit, neveinek, etc. under the term neve doesn't make sense to me (at least now). Adding a parameter: It would be great if we could just replace the k with i, but this doesn't work. For example, if I remove n=sg from bankja, it will populate the plural column with *bankják, *bankjákat, etc. This needs two changes: Replacing k with i and not lengthening the a to á. And what about the other possessive forms? Assuming you'd want to change those, too, to keep the possessive declension tables standard for all forms. Without n=sg bankom becomes *bankomak instead of bankjaim. We need to decide first if this is really a good idea to populate both columns for each possessive forms (not just the third person). I really don't see an issue with creating entries for nejei and vejei and having the declension table there. After all, the goal of this dictionary is all words for all languages. Let me know if I misunderstood your question. Maybe you want to move the multiple possessive forms from the singular column to the plural column. In that case, n=pl will be the correct parameter and bankjaim displays *bankjaimak, *bankjaimakat, etc. Here, the -ak- should be removed, the v of the instrumental and translative modified correctly. We need a solid list of requirements before we even start thinking about new parameters. Panda10 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think I've managed to add a new parameter for number, "isg", which is meant like "i" type singular (this way only a letter "i" need to be inserted before the existing "sg"), so that plural forms like "ablakai(m/d/nk/tok/k)" can be inflected like singular terms but will be displayed in the plural column. If you like, you can keep trying this feature with various forms (rounded, unrounded, front, back, o-stem, a-stem, singular, plural, first, second, and third person possessive) to make sure it works all right in every case. If it does, I'll insert the description of this value and (if you agree) I'll ask a bot admin to replace "sg" with "isg" wherever "inflection of" and "mpos|poss" are found. Adam78 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty genius solution. :) I am still testing, found one issue: it inserts the essive-modal even if the parameter is not given. See akitek. Panda10 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So far this is the only issue. I wonder about the non-attributive possessives (there are only a few, I usually don't create the plurals such as házéi and házakéi, I've just created them for testing). There are still about 500 entries out there with (multiple possessions) instead of the mpos parameter. Panda10 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm clueless. Now it doesn't display esm_sg even when it should. :( Adam78 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't help with the code. This seems to be a very specific problem, it could be described at Grease pit. It's okay to ask. Panda10 (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I contacted Erutuon who made some improvements on this module earlier and he was kind enough to fix it for us. :) Adam78 (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is great news! When you request a bot, it could be connected with changing (multiple possessions) to mpos before i is added to sg. There are still 448 entries out there. Panda10 (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Benwing2 was kind enough to do it for us. Everything looks fine now. Adam78 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

erdei
Thank you for the formatting. I'm sorry, I didn't know that can be used for formatting the inflection. It't a lot of nuisance that "archaic form of" doesn't allow parameters for the inflection! :-(

I don't quite understand your question. If I say Megmutatta nekem a kastélyát és a körülötte fekvő erdeit, the last word would sound archaic because today we'd mostly say erdőit. Wouldn't we? Adam78 (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, just make sure not to use HTML in entries. Templates are preferred. The form erdei is listed in Alaktani táblázatok and not in parentheses. It may not be used colloquially but it is still used in writing. E.g. as of 2014: Kérjük a természetjárókat és a helyi lakosokat, hogy a látogatási tilalom – vélhetően több hónapos – kényszerű fenntartásáig a Gerecse magasabban fekvő erdeit ne látogassák! . Also, I'm not convinced that the new formatting is better than the old one for archaic forms. Another comment about archaic forms: When the modern synonym is given, let's use the same gloss all the time. Variants that I've seen in the past 30 minutes: modern, modern form, modern equivalent, etc. Panda10 (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Adam78 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I think you're right about erdeit. I'd say it has some archaic overtone but we can mark it in some other way if you like.
 * I'm not convinced the new formatting is better than the old one, either. Not at all! I had to make some change because inflected forms were mixed with dictionary terms. I suppose you agree that it was not perfect. – However, I think I've just fixed it. I hope I won't be eaten alive by the admins…
 * Yes, consistency is better in glosses and elsewhere. (That's why I keep creating templates for various different purposes.) I just haven't found guidance on which one to use here.


 * It was very brave of you to make this code change. :) I agree that archaic non-lemmas need the archaic label and that they should not be put into the archaic lemma category.


 * When I'm in doubt, I check around to see other languages. For example, the Russian австралийскою. Interesting solution, we could apply that, too. In this case, the synonym is not needed since it would be part of the definition line.


 * About the glosses: It doesn't matter to me which one we use, just let's use the same consistently. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

angolul, németül, rosszul, feltétlenül etc.
I'm sorry to diverge from the participle discussion and the related things to be done. I noticed that many -ul/-ül adverbs (those from language names and those from regular adjectives, like given in the subject above) are also categorized as the essive-modal case form of the corresponding adjective. I can't make sense of it. I think their essive-modal form is exactly the adverb that is defined above. I'm afraid one thing is presented as if it were two.

I suppose the adverb sense needs to be retained, since it can have comparison in the case of regular adjectives (rosszul, rosszabbul), so it needs to be taken as a new lemma. I think this was our conclusion at our earlier discussion, anyway (even if there are valid arguments for the opposite, i.e. treating them as non-lemma forms). Also, they are linked in the as adverbs, in contrast with -ul/-ül noun forms, which obviously don't have a category of their own, being case suffixes like -ban/-ben. In short, it seems we almost consistently treat them as lemma forms, with the exception of this strange "Adjective" section.

So we could either incorporate the case sense and include it in the definition of the adverb (providing the definition after the case name template followed by a colon), or we could delete the Adjective section. (Of course, it wouldn't affect noun forms like ajándékul, which is a clear non-lemma case form.) I'd prefer the former, so that we can account for the fact that adjectives can have essive-modal case forms. What do you think?

Actually, I noticed a similar thing in the case of some participles, where the definition and the examples only seem to support the participle sense and yet they are given under the adjective sense. Of course, if it can have comparison and/or it has some meaning(s) that don't derive from the verb, then the adjective as such definitely exists. I'm not sure it's the case with each participle-derived adjective. Maybe we could be a little more cautious with creating the Adjective sections and more bold in giving definitions and examples under the participle sense (?). Adam78 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Adverbs: I'd rather delete the adjective sense in rosszul and the noun sense in németül. It doesn't make sense to me to incorporate a non-lemma definition in the lemma. There is only adverb section in angolul and feltétlenül. Maybe the etymology could clarify what the -ul/-ül suffix is. Participles: I agree that in some cases the adjective sense is not justified. For example viselő. I'll be paying more attention to this in the future. Panda10 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. (I mentioned the terms only as examples, not in particular.) This solution is fine with me. In fact, their etymology should include ……pos=adverb}} in after their -an/-en/-ul/ül or other suffix, which would make it clear that -ul/-ül can have this adverb-forming suffix and such a category would provide lots of relevant examples. Do you agree?

On the other hand, do you think I could request in Grease Pit to have POS subcategories by suffix? So for example e.g. Category:Hungarian adverbs suffixed with -an should be available from Category:Hungarian adverbs by suffix (placed Category:Hungarian adverbs) and Category:Hungarian nouns suffixed with -vány should be included in Category:Hungarian nouns by suffix. At the moment, Category:Hungarian words by suffix has 901 (!) subcategories. Not very useful without POS. Adam78 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I updated the adverbs to the new standard. There were only a few without category. You can make this request, it makes sense to me. Panda10 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ételeket feltálalók – noun or participle?
Why do you think it's a noun? If it has an object (ételeket feltálalók), it indicates that it still behaves like a verb, which means that it should be a participle. (Compare az ételek[nek a] feltálalói, which would be a noun, due to the possessive.) Do you remember what I quoted from Magyar grammatika last time? A karácsonyfát plafonig érőnek képzeltem el (page 233) and ''Én gyorsan elintézendőknek látom ezeket az ügyeket (page 248).

A noun usually implies that there are people whose occupation is to serve food (just like there are eladók, whose occupation is actually to sell things in a shop). Having said that, the existence of an object in the sentence would still make this interpretation unlikely.

When I checked Magyar grammatika again, I also found pp. 236–237. A melléknévvé vált igenevek jellegzetessége, hogy igenévi bővítményeik nagy részét elveszítik. (Also, page 233 says A melléknévi igenevek szófaji elmozdulását határozói szerepben bővítménykeretük szűkülése jelzi.) Well, this term hasn't lost its participial argument, so I'm not sure it has become an adjective (or a noun). – On the other hand, the next page speaks of alkalmi főnevesülés. So if it's a noun, it's an ad hoc noun. If we do want to classify such terms as nouns (aside from participles), it would mean that we could add this ad-hoc noun sense to practically every participle form as well, which would make it kind of pointless.

I looked up szófajváltás / alkalmi in the index of this book, and out of the four places indicated there, I found p. 411 the most relevant here: „Főnévi értékben használt egyéb szófajok. […] Másrészt a szövegelőzményből vagy a beszédhelyzetből következő visszautalással, illetve ráértéssel alkalmilag főnevesülve bármely melléknév betöltheti az alany szerepét (pl. Nekem az utolsó tetszett; Ehhez a feladathoz a második párosítható; Sok maradt az asztalon).” – It means that if we call it a noun in this case, we could also add a noun sense to and most other adjectives as well, just because in certain cases they may be used that way. Do you think it's the right way to do? – Of course, in some cases it's lexicalized in this sense (cf. page 140, győzni fog a jó; jóból is megárt a sok etc.), but if it's not lexicalized as such, I don't think this is the way to go.

Instead, I think we should consider what Nóra Ittzés wrote: ''Az igeneveket az Nszt. az igék szócikkében adatolja, önálló címszóvá csak lexikalizálódott szófajváltás után válhatnak.'' (There are several other useful insights in this article of hers; highly recommended reading.)

The good thing about participles is that they are known to be a transitional part of speech, so they are known to retain their verb-like features even if they take other (noun-like) suffixes. That is, it's understandable if a participle has a plural suffix, while it's considerably less common for a noun to have an object.

What do you think? Do you think we could consider lexicalization as the primary criterion? (Or are there any cases when you'd allow participle forms at all?) Adam78 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought it had a noun sense similar to tálaló (1. a person who serves food and 2. a room between the kitchen and the dining room where food to be served is kept). At the time of my edit, I didn't realize that you started adding participle forms. So it is probably both. The noun and adjective sense could be archaic. Here are a few quotations:
 * Participle: a sülteket feltálaló vőfély
 * Adjective: Nagy lakodalmat csináltak, a három katona is ott volt, ők voltak a feltálaló legények.
 * Adjective: A következő étek volt vadkanfej megtöltve szarvasgombás vagdalékkal s körítve hideg kocsonyával. Ez ellen már egész litániát tudott felsorolni Henrik, a mint a feltálaló mester egy leszelt darabot odatett az ezüst tálczájára.
 * Adjective: Szentesi Lap, 1897: A czinkusok az áldozattal asztalhoz ültek és Szappanos Judit feltálalta a derelyét, mely közül kettő a szilvaizen kívül arzénnal volt megtöltve. A feltálaló Szappanos Judit gondoskodott arról, hogy ez a két derelye az áldozat felé essék, ki is azt gyanutlanul kiszedte a többivel és megette.
 * Noun: Honismeret 1989: A fehéregyházi Haller-kastély: A déli szárny nyugati végében volt a „nagykonyha", majd kelet felé haladva következett a feltálaló, az éléstár, a borpince, az ivó, a sütőház, a mosoda és két raktárhelyiség.
 * I'm not sure how to answer the rest. Maybe I just don't understand the question. Panda10 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The last example is certainly a noun because it refers to a place. I'd call most if not all the other examples participles (maybe except for the first, feltálaló legények, which may refer to their function) because I don't see how their sense diverged from the original meaning of "one who serves [something]" or "one [who is] serving [something]". (By the way, I don't like the practice of ÉrtSz. that they call everything adjectives even if their own example sentence clearly shows their behavior as participles; as if they ignored the existence of participles. Maybe it was an editorial decision or an attempt at simplification; I don't know. Mind you, it was published half a century ago and certain points that we can see in Magyar grammatika may not have been so thoroughly researched.)

My suggestion in short is that we should check participle-derived terms whether their meaning shifted from the original, literal sense (see e.g. ) and if we cannot spot any particular change in meaning (e.g. "intended for something" instead of "one who/which is doing sth.") or in behavior (i.e., something typical of adjectives or nouns), then we could possibly keep them as participles. Especially but not exclusively in cases where they show verb-like features (e.g. having objects or adverbs), otherwise I'm afraid we can face an unbridled (and ungrounded) proliferation of POS'es.

Clues for the opposite case, when a participle has become an adjective, can be (among other things) a semantic change or the opportunity of comparison (which is an adjective-like behavior). Clues for a participle becoming a noun can be (among other things) a semantic change (again) or a possessive construction (which is a noun-like behavior). I think the claim that a participle-derived term also exists as an adjective and/or a noun always needs support, whether semantic or syntactic arguments. Adam78 (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. Another clue for adjective can be that a -ság/-ség noun can be derived from it, or as in Laczkó Krisztina: A Magyar ragozási szótár alkalmazásának tanulságai: Kizárólag a melléknév és a számnév ragja az -an/-en és az -ul/-ül (pl. magyarul) mód- vagy állapothatározós alak, valamint a fokjeles alakok. Panda10 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, and these are mentioned in Magyar grammatika as well, pp. 247–248. I think Laczkó mentions it in contrast with nouns, not in contrast with participles, though.

However, currently language names with -ul/-ül are given under the noun senses. Do you think we should change the terms in Category:hu:Languages to reflect that this form of theirs derives from the adjective sense? If so, the parameter "esm_sg" could be moved to the adjective table, and this "only singular" sense of the noun could be deleted, I suppose. After all, their noun sense must be secondary and their adjective sense seems to be primary. Adam78 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Based on the Nagyszótár, the name of the language is a noun, so we can't remove it from the noun section. But it also listed as an adjective and the -ul/-ül suffix can be used only with the adjective sense. See for example albán. So we will have to move the parameter "esm_sg" from the noun to the adjective and will have to add a new sense to the adjective. By the way, maybe we should list new project plans in About_Hungarian/Todo because otherwise they may be forgotten. I'm still working on the participle project and would like to finish it before I start something else. Panda10 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Hungarian reflexive verbs and normal verbs used with the reflexive pronoun
I noticed that most of the verbs in this category (22 out of 29, namely ) are not actually reflexive verbs in and of themselves but they may be used reflexively if and when the reflexive pronoun is added. I think we need a separate category for such verbs. Maybe it could be named like Hungarian verbs used reflexively with magát or something similar. I wonder if you have a better idea.

When I created the articles and, I added this  phrase as an expression, in the section of Derived terms, rather than in the main definition section, contrary to the practice in most of the entries above (with the exception of ), though I'm not sure it's OK. It seemed fairly different from the other senses both syntactically and semantically, but perhaps still not different enough. Maybe the definition field of the same entry is still OK, in which case we could remove the latter entry and move the magát expressions with to the main definition section. (?) – Anyway, let's remember not to use   if the verb entry is not reflexive by itself, only this new category.

We might also consider the case of, because of phrases like ; maybe these could be left among the category of normal phrases since there are so few of them.

For the record, there are separate entries for the following phrases in Magyar értelmező kéziszótár, however, their base forms do not exist on their own:. Adam78 (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * These are good observations and I like the idea of separating the two kinds of verbs. How about Category:Hungarian verbs with reflexive senses as the category name? This sounds more general than the one containing magát. I think it would be better to list the reflexive sense as a last definition in the main verb entry instead of as a derived term and an independent entry. Language learners (especially beginners) usually search for separate words instead of expressions such as megadtuk magunkat. With this, I would take a different approach from Magyar értelmező kéziszótár. We could create a label template or something similar (see ) that would provide a standard text and would place the entry in the new category. There are similar discussions for other languages in Beer parlour, see for example Beer_parlour/2020/April or Beer_parlour/2014/July. I'm also wondering how to represent the conjugation of the reflexive sense, since the pronoun magát will be inflected, as well. Panda10 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

In the discussion, there seems to be a consensus about using a template and I, too, support it. On the other hand, I don't really like the name because these verbs don't have reflexive senses unless they are supplemented with a reflexive pronoun. "Verbs with reflexive senses" might be more likely to refer to verbs that can have a reflexive sense by themselves, somewhat like in English (in the senses ’mozog’ or ’költözik’), though the latter group is named ergative. (I removed from my list above because I realized it may have a reflexive sense in the actual sense of the word. But it's not the case for  etc.) – If you prefer to avoid, we could name it like "(Hungarian) verbs used with a/the reflexive pronoun/particle". However, this latter could still include and even  (and who knows what else) so maybe the accusative still needs to be specified.

We can diverge from ÉKsz., but in that case we'll have to create non-existent intermediate forms. After all, we have already created lexically non-existent unprefixed forms for verbs that only occur with a prefix (e.g. ). I'd say that e.g. could be a soft redirect to  (similarly to the procedure with, mentioned at the discussion you linked). Probably the template could be used in both types of cases; this looks like a good compromise. Maybe we should have a category for forms that only exist syntactically (and/or phonetically) but not lexically, actually two for these two subtypes: one for the type of and the other for the type of, something like "Hungarian terms only used as part of compounds or expressions", I don't know).

The verb conjugation table might need another parameter (maybe "refl=y") and the forms of this pronoun could be added if this parameter gets a value. I don't mean to discourage you but actually there are two more things concerning the conjugation table which should be handled (perhaps at the same time, perhaps not): (1) adding forms in all persons, probably in a table at the bottom that needs an extra click to open (the potential being completely productive in Hungarian and applicable to all verbs, as opposed to the causative) and (2) separate-prefix forms (partly due to the imperative sense of the subjunctive and partly due to most negated forms, since e.g.  is much more widely used than ). Their elements should be linked separately, so for example (and of course ) should be linked from the separate-prefix forms of, as in. Form entries like already link to lemma entries like  thanks to ; what we'll need is the reverse direction. I don't even dare to imagine how many cases will have to be created with the separate-prefix, the potential, and the reflexive cases combined… Adam78 (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, fine, let's use your original category name. In the Nagyszótár, there is an entry for agyondolgoz and we could follow that example. I don't like to create too many redirects. The conjugation template can be tackled later. Feel free to add your project ideas to About_Hungarian/Todo. So the steps are:
 * Create category: Categoy:Hungarian verbs used reflexively with magát
 * Create label template: or some other name if you don't like this. This template will create a label saying that used with magát reflexively or some other text and will place the main entry into the above category.
 * Add the new label template to the appropriate entries to move them to the new category. Since the conjugation template will not show it, it could be mentioned somehow that the reflexive pronoun is also inflected depending on the person.
 * Panda10 (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

-való and other suffixes or compound elements + prefixes
Can we create a subcategory in Category:Hungarian exocentric compounds for való compounds? There are almost twenty of them already, scattered here and there, and many more could be created, which is bound to interfere with browsing the rest of the content. What about Hungarian compound nouns with -való? (I don't think we need to include that they are "exocentric [compounds]" because all these are necessarily exocentric ones, as they consistently lack a modified word like "dolog".)

We also need to distinguish such nouns as the majority ( etc., and there are at least forty more) from compound adjectives, which would include [= kevésbé értékes],  [= rátermett],  [= aranyos],  [= helybeli],  [= csinos], and  [= számba vehető]. This way the former category could be included in Category:Hungarian compound nouns, and the latter, in Category:Hungarian compound adjectives. Some (few) terms will need to be added to both.

On the other hand, we might want to insert the word "suffixed (with -való)", which would make it fit better to Category:Hungarian words by suffix, but it's not really a suffix like the derivational suffixes (képzők) in this category (or in Category:Hungarian suffixes) but a meaningful compound element ([összetételi] utótag, which recently superseded the term képzőszerű utótag), more similar to the existing prefixes, except for their position. Possibly comparable morphemes are. Shall we classify them simply as suffixes? There are already so many Hungarian categories with suffixes and these above are pretty different from or.

Perhaps we could do it in parallel with meaningful nominal prefixes like etc. Maybe Category:Hungarian word-initial compound elements and Category:Hungarian word-final compound elements? Or Category:Hungarian prefix-like compound elements and Category:Hungarian affix-like compound elements? Or Category:Hungarian lemma-derived prefixes and Category:Hungarian lemma-derived affixes? Or Category:Hungarian compound-forming prefixes and Category:Hungarian compound-forming affixes? (Maybe this last is the best.) – In any case, they could be included in prefixes and suffixes, respectively. Nominal prefixes could be preferably set apart from verbal prefixes (despite some occasional overlap like ). Adam78 (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * While I agree with you that it would be nice to distinguish these suffix-like elements, using a non-standard category name has consequences. Look at -féle. The current part of speech is Suffix and this is what it has to be in the future. There is no compound-forming suffix PoS. Under ===Derived terms===, the and  templates assume standard category names, so we will not be able to use them. While we could add those new categories manually to ===Derived terms===, they would not have that nice blue arrow for preview. My suggestion is to keep it as is in order to enjoy the standard category functions and add some additional things. Here I thought of four options:
 * Create two new categories as you suggested and add them manually to these entries by using the parameter cat2 in : Category:Hungarian compound-forming prefixes and Category:Hungarian compound-forming suffixes. Note: I think it should be suffixes and not affixes because all other suffix categories use this term. So these will be additional categories, and would not replace the old ones.
 * Create a new usage notes template for each (one for compound-forming prefixes and one for compound-forming suffixes), give a brief explanation about what they are and list all of them.
 * Create two list templates, one for each, and add it to the ===See also=== section.
 * Some combinations of the above three.
 * Panda10 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I'd go for adding the two categories in "cat2", because a category is always up to date, by its very nature, as opposed to a list that was once manually compiled. (The "See also" section or any relevant templates could be thus replaced by the built-in function supplied by .) The category "Hungarian suffixes" will be even messier then, but never mind, I understand your reasons. On the other hand, I think we'll have all the more reason to create a subcategory (or some subcategories, for example by the part of speech) for the rest, i.e., derivational suffixes (képzők), so that they can be browsed in a meaningful way, distinct from compound-forming suffixes.

By the way, this separation has some relevance in spelling (quoting Osiris Helyesírás): „A képző- és ragszerű utótagokra is érvényes a szótagszámlálási szabály, azaz összetételi utótagként kezeljük őket ebben a vonatkozásban. Elsősorban a -szerű és a -féle, valamint a -ság/-ség képzővel továbbképzett alakokban realizálható: programjavaslat-szerűség, nyereményjáték-féleség […]” – as opposed to honvédemlékműveink, since its base form is only 5 syllables, so all its derivations are written without a hyphen, even beyond 6 syllables. Also, their spelling is not simplified, e.g. viaszszerű vs. viasszal. There is even a phonological argument for the distinction: they don't undergo harmonic assimilation with the base form (it is also exemplified by the latter pair). So it seems to me a good decision to make them searchable separately, in their own categories. Adam78 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I wonder if I misunderstood your question. There is already a Category:Hungarian derivational suffixes. And Category:Hungarian suffixes has several subcategories. Why is it going to be even messier? Panda10 (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant Category:Hungarian words by suffix, which already has nearly one thousand (!) subcategories. This one is messy… On the other hand, I think the name of the two (noun and adjective) categories with való should have no hyphen,
 * partly because similar categories are named without a hyphen (e.g. Category:Livonian compounds with mīez and other Livonian compound categories, Category:Ancient Greek compounds with ποιός, though not many)
 * partly because it exists on its own as an entry here, and if we insert the hyphen, the reader might expect to find a separate entry on -való and I doubt we should create that,
 * and partly because való is listed in Magyar helyesírási szótár without a hyphen (together with its compounds).

Or in spite of all these above, shall we still use the hyphen here so as to make it comply with other suffix categories and enable ? This might also make sense since in these particular cases való does work like -féle or -forma, and -való could (hard- or soft-)redirect to való. Adam78 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Category:Hungarian words by suffix is large because it contains not just the main categories but all their subcategories. For example, Category:Hungarian words suffixed with -ad has two subcategories: Category:Hungarian numerals suffixed with -ad and Category:Hungarian verbs suffixed with -ad. All three are in Category:Hungarian words by suffix even though this category should contain only those that have Hungarian words suffixed with in their name. The origin of this problem could be the non-standard category names I started but at the time none of the other languages followed: I used the actual part of speech in the category name (noun, adjective, etc.) instead of just word. After a few years, someone or a bot added the matching categories Hungarian words suffixed with and now we have this situation where this category contains three times more subcategories than it should. I don't know how to solve it.


 * As for using a hyphen or not: We have to examine the entire group of compound-forming prefixes and suffixes. Can they be independent dictionary entries without exception? uses hyphens for prefixes. I think we should keep the hyphens for both prefixes and suffixes and use other methods to clarify, such as a label  and an extra category.


 * I still think that a usage template would be useful because it could describe what a compound-forming suffix is. The Appendix:Hungarian suffixes could also be updated to include a new paragraph. The Appendix:Hungarian prefixes already contains them but does not group them separately. Panda10 (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I found this in Suffix:
 * A word-final segment that is somewhere between a free morpheme and a bound morpheme is known as a suffixoid or a semi-suffix (e.g., English -like or German -freundlich "friendly").

It seems to be fitting for segments like -szerű, and at least it's more established than what I coined yesterday. (I have nothing against using a template, especially if we want to call them suffixoids.) Magyar értelmező kéziszótár also provides information on several such elements, and as they're not used on their own, the hyphen is beyond doubt, cf. -szerű, -féle, -számba, -számra. I even found -való there. Adam78 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Duden has this term, too: Wortbildungsmittel, das sich aus einem selbstständigen Lexem zu einer Art Suffix entwickelt hat und das sich vom selbstständigen Lexem unterscheidet durch Reihenbildung und Entkonkretisierung (z. B. -papst in Literaturpapst, -verdächtig in olympiaverdächtig), that is, a means of word formation that developed from an independent lexeme to a kind of suffix and that differs from an independent lexeme in series formation and de-concretization (e.g. -papst [literally, “pope”] in Literaturpapst [an almost unappealable literature expert], -verdächtig [literally, “suspicious”] in olympiaverdächtig [likely to be worthy of the Olympics]). Adam78 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, so this means that we will use the hyphens for both the prefixes and the suffixes. I'm still not sure about the rest of this project, meaning the categories and their names. Panda10 (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Extending the verb table with the potential and prefix-separated forms
I've succeeded in creating and the variants of the related other templates, so now they can display potential forms. You can try opening e.g. ad for editing, enter  , then check the preview. Since all verbs can have a potential form, it would be added automatically (visible or hidden, it's another question). Of course, I'm open to any ideas to improve the layout, although first I'd like to make sure that everything works perfectly.

On the other hand, before we implement the potential form, I'd also like to implement the prefix-separated forms, and I thought I'd do this with an optional parameter that contains the length of the prefix, so e.g. "odaad" could have "3" for "pref", and all the existing forms would be transformed to display the following: As a first draft, I thought of displaying another table (probably hidden by default) under the existing one, which would take its values from above. I'm not sure yet if I can actually do this, though.
 * an ellipsis sign (…),
 * the right side of the given string (linked) starting at character number "pref" + 1, counted from the left (possibly with this)
 * a space,
 * and the first "pref" number of characters, linked to the hyphenated form like  oda .

I've been thinking about adding the causative as well, but not automatically, only if a parameter like "caus=y" is supplied. If enabled, causative forms could be displayed under the potential forms. Once again: what is displayed is another question (I know that an oversized table would be intimidating, to say the least), but if and when everything is shown, the order could be like this: What do you think? Compare these forms of odaad in E-Szókincs. Adam78 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * odaadok – odaadsz etc.
 * odaadhatok – odaadhatsz etc.
 * odaadatok – odaadatsz etc.
 * odaadathatok – odaadathatsz etc.
 * … adok oda – … adsz oda etc.
 * … adhatok oda – … adhatsz oda etc.
 * … adatok oda – … adatsz oda etc.
 * … adathatok oda – … adathatsz oda etc.


 * The table looks fine to me with the potential forms. I have some questions/comments:
 * The potential cell was removed from the main table. I'd add it back, even though it is repeated in the potential table's 3rd-person singular cell.
 * What happened to the adhatni, adható, adhatatlan forms?
 * Did you test all existing parameters with the new table? Will they work?
 * What if there is a need for just the base table? Not sure under what circumstances, but this will need a parameter to hide the potential forms and any other below.
 * Does this mean we are not going to add conjugation tables to the potential forms? Such as at tudhat?
 * Adding the causative forms using an extra parameter sounds good.
 * I question the usefulness of the separated forms tables. There will be so much clutter. Who is going to use it and how? A separated verbal prefix can happen several ways, before and after the base verb, separated by other words: "Még oda sem adtam neki a pénzt, már panaszkodik." Or: "Oda ne add a pénzt!" Or: "Nem adtam még neki oda a pénzt." Or: "Mikor adod már oda neki azt a pénzt?" Or: "Soha nem adtam volna oda a pénzt." Or: "Oda fogod adni neki a pénzt?" Even E-szókincs doesn't have them.
 * Panda10 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Chiming in as an outsider --
 * What about the frequentative forms?  And do these combine with the potential?  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

, yes, they do, but they are considered separate lemmas, so we need to link them manually. This suffix cannot be added to any verb, and some verbs take a different, though synonymous ending, e.g. etc.

, I think these are the main reasons to have the separate verb forms:
 * to have links from the suffixed forms, and hence provide the reverse of, so this way "gondolhattál" will be linked from "belegondol" and "kigondol", which will make it easier (1) for editors to find and add a "U:hu:preferred-verbal-prefix" reference to "gondolhattál" (if it was missing) and (2) for readers to do the same (i.e. find an answer to the question "might this form possibly be part of a compound verb?") in case these links are missing. It's important for non-native speakers to realize these connections, since prefixes can get rather far from their base verbs. (“Be is tudunk majd még talán legalább néhányat közülük a lakodalmat követő éj leszállta előtt csomagolni.” – even if this is a bit of a stretch.)
 * The primary way for subjunctive forms to occur is the reverse order (menj be is far broader in use than bemenj: the latter is limited to subordinated sentences).
 * Look at the conjugation of, for example: you'll see that forms like gehe aus are not only linked but they were actually created as form entries on their own. It's true that they're grammatically required to separate in most forms, but the imperative in Hungarian also requires verbs to separate the same way, which information is currently overlooked.
 * There are multiple cases of apparent prefixes (somewhat comparable to German non-separable prefixes, but usually resulting from coincidence, rather than etymology). Just to name one example for each: alázkodik, általánosít, átkoz, beszél, belehel, elemez, ellenőriz, felejt, fennhéjáz, földel, hazardíroz, idegesít, kiabál, kölcsönöz, körülményeskedik, különbözik, lebeg, rámol, szembesít, telepedik, továbbít, túloz, visszakozik. I think we should make it (more) clear in the table which segments are actual prefixes and which ones are not: it's not only a matter of etymology.

For your other suggestions:
 * OK, we might put the potential form back, maybe with an arrow like this: ↙ to indicate that it was not some oversight on behalf of the editors to have it twice. However, I was thinking about adding forms like adván in the far-right cell (maybe in parentheses), since the header "adverbial participle" is already longer than necessary, so it could be the header for both adva and adván. Do you think we should "sacrifice" adván for the sake of a redundant "adhat"? Note that this form is much more common with some other verbs, e.g. tudván, látván, ismervén.
 * adhatni, adható, adhatatlan – a very good point. They should be added, especially the latter two. I'll add them.
 * No, I haven't tested it extensively yet, because first I'd like to settle the matter of separated prefixes (and ideally the causative too).
 * OK, we can include this feature as well.
 * I don't think we should delete those tables, but in the future it won't be a necessity to add them.
 * Going back to the split (or separated) verb forms: indeed, we should state clearly that the prefix can also be separated from the base verb if it's before the base verb but not immediately before. I'd say that we could have a notice at the very top of the table about this feature of prefixed verbs, and this notice could be a link to the – otherwise hidden – extra table below, listing all the split forms. (We could also link to this Wikipedia article; it looks good.) Adam78 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, go ahead and replace the potential form with the second adverbial form, although I still think it should be there. As for the split forms, I still don't feel comfortable with this addition, but if you want it, add this function. Instead of pref=3, why not pref=oda? Wouldn't it be easier to code? This parameter would also indicate that the section with the separated verbal prefixes should become visible. Panda10 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

order of terms
I think the term "definite/indefinite" should precede the person in the inflection formula, because it's encoded on the same suffix as the person, and because the normal order in English is from the more particular to the more general (cf. postal addresses). The second-person-object could remain at the end. What do you think? Adam78 (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it should start with the person. I looked at an English form (e.g. Third-person singular simple present indicative form of avoid), a Finnish form (e.g. Second-person plural indicative present form of aakkostaa), or the German vermeidest. I don't mind the rest but before you make any changes in the templates and acceleration script, think about how the existing forms will be changed. Panda10 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I meant (e.g. in the case of kér.t.ed) "definite second-person singular indicative past of kér" (or perhaps "second-person singular definite indicative past of kér"?) instead of the current "second-person singular indicative past definite of kér". The suffix "-ed" combines the definite with the second person, while it is independent of the past tense "-t", after which it's currently supplied. (See also kér.j.ed, where the definite second-person suffix "-ed" is distinct again from the "-j" that indicates the mood.) It wouldn't affect the order that is used with other languages because these languages don't have the definite/indefinite distinction. (In fact, we could also consider whether it's general vs. definite conjugation. Határozott and általános ragozás is mentioned in the sources I can recall. I admit this might be confusing, though.) I'm not saying we'd have to hurry and start changing things. I just wanted to let you know about this point of view and then we can think about it and get back to it later. Maybe there will be some other idea that could improve on the verb form entries and this change could be made at the same time, (semi)automatically, who knows. On the other hand, I used this order in the entries of verb suffixes I edited (like "-ed") and I didn't want you to see them as mistakes (though I'm aware that I still make mistakes, unfortunately). I hope we can keep this order (or its variant, given above in parentheses) at least in these few suffix entries. Adam78 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. In this case, the order "definite second-person singular indicative past of kér" sounds good. Yes, we can keep this order in the verb-forming suffix entries. Panda10 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Hi. Could you, please, tell me how hyphenation works in Hungarian? Because I'm lost. If I were to hyphenate the word "epidémia" myself, I would do it like this: e‧pi‧dé‧mi‧a - because "epi" certainly does not constitute a single syllable but two, the same goes for "mia". I'd already made an exception to my way of thinking before you edited it by not breaking up "mia" into two separate syllables because that's how the other words with this ending seem to be hyphenated. However, I still don't get it. Do you break it into single syllables except when a syllable consists of a single vowel? Or maybe you divide it into morae, not syllables? Shumkichi (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * : Hi, there is hyphenation (epi‧dé‧mia) and there is syllabification (e‧pi‧dé‧mi‧a). Point 3 of Appendix:Hungarian hyphenation says: "Although not incorrect, it is not recommended to leave a single vowel at the end or the beginning of a line." I have to admit that this is causing a lot of confusion. Users often try to replace the hyphenation with syllabification. I wish we could come up with a good solution. Maybe we should just forget about hyphenation and display syllabification in every case. If you have some thoughts, please share it. And thank you so much for your work on Hungarian entries! : I think we talked about this before. Your thoughts are always welcome. Panda10 (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the right person to give any advice on your own language - in my native tongue, Polish, hyphenation is always equivalent to syllabification (that's why we don't even mark it on wiktionary as it's pretty obvious), and I actually don't get the point of NOT syllabifying Hungarian words. Idk, is it some arbitrary idea that when a syllable consists only of the nucleus, syllabifying it would not be considered very elegant or something like that? I mean, if I were to choose, I would syllabify all the languages out of simplicity, but that's just me. But I'll leave the decision to proficient speakers. Btw., I've just started learning Hungarian and it's such a lovely language. I've always studied only Indo-European languages because I'm lazy so I chose languages from the same family as my native tongue - similar grammatical features (you know, Standard European Sprachbund), similar phonotactics in some respects, etc., etc. But Hungarian is a challenge, and that's why it fascinates me. It has many non-Indo-European features, such as an almost completely free word order (well, as far as I know, this is actually an innovation even within the Uralic family, so it's pretty unique), dependent on what the focus of the sentence is (I briefly studied Japanese and it is also a topic-prominent language but it doesn't mean that it's easier for me to learn this feature - the whole concept is so elegant but horribly idiomatic). Hungarian phonology is also cool with its vowel harmony (although it's typical of this language family but still a foreign concept to me), pretty weird gemination (you guys even geminate the semi-vowel /j/), and what I struggle the most with is the phonemic vowel length distinction. How are you able to keep the stress on the first syllable even if there are multiple long vowels on the unstressed ones? I know that Czechs and Slovaks (and, to a much lesser extent, even the English and Germans) do the same, but it's much easier there IMO. Even the foreign influences, like Turkic, Slavic and Germanic languages, are an interesting historical aspect of the language. As a Polish speaker, I'm glad to see some Slavic influences in your vocabulary (it's pretty cute that you've changed "ugorka" to "uborka" xd), as well as the shared German loanwords as both of our languages have significant German influences. Shumkichi (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It was refreshing to read about your enthusiasm and interest in languages, among them Hungarian. I'll think about the hyphenation issue some more. The single vowel at the end or beginning of the line - I'm not sure if it is about not being elegant. Perhaps it slightly interrupts continuous reading because it is not always obvious from a single vowel what word might come in the next line. About the phonemic vowel length distinction: Since I'm a native speaker, it comes naturally to me, but if you regularly listen to Hungarian radio and television (available on the internet at https://mediaklikk.hu/) or other audio, you will figure it out. Even if you don't understand anything, or just a word here and there, it will help you with sentence intonation and the rhythm of the words. I wish you the best in your future studies. Learning languages is a beautiful journey even with its occasional frustrations. Panda10 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I like the solution applied in, which uses the hyphen for syllables that can be separated in printing and the hyphenation point for syllables that cannot be separated in printing. Maybe we should have our own hyphenation tool, just like we have our own pronunciation tool (template:hu-IPA). If you look at Module:hyphenation, you can find "‧" and afterwards there is even tr = "-" but I don't understand its purpose. There could be a tool tip (maybe with a link?) where the difference of the two marks is explained. Only those entries should be modified where there is one or more extra syllables in terms of phonology; the other pipes (<tt>|</tt>) could be left intact, as they would generate hyphens, as usual in Hungarian-language typesetting. Adam78 (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * : While I do like their solution, in our case it would cause confusion for compound words connected with a hyphen. The simplest solution for us would be to select a character for the syllables that cannot be separated and simply add it to the current template: would result in e.pi‧dé‧mi.a. The Finnish language does have its own hyphenation template and module: . Panda10 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I created and experimentally inserted it into előadás. I think the undertie suggests the notion more than dots placed at different heights (not mentioning that lower dots would coincide with those used in some abbreviations). What do you think about this notation and this template? (If this template is used for Hungarian only, it can be renamed like "hu-...", but I'm not convinced it's exclusive to Hungarian.) However, this undertie could be a link to some page where its meaning is given. Perhaps the Glossary, if we can find a good name ("syllabification-only hyphen"?). Adam78 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * : I appreciate that you are thinking about solutions to improve the hyphenation issue. I'm not sure that the undertie is the best way to go about it. It looks a little confusing to me, especially on mobile devices. I tried to insert a simple dot and it is not that bad . We don't usually hyphenate abbreviations so a period is acceptable to me. My preference would be to change the name "hyphenation" to "syllabification" (Finnish entries already do that) and provide the information appropriately. Well-intentioned anonymous editors often "correct" the hyphenation with the syllabification which then I have to revert and explain the difference. Panda10 (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian entry analysis
A while back you asked me about this: User:DTLHS/hu analysis. Somewhat experimental still, but it is at least functional. DTLHS (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, this will be very helpful! Panda10 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Old Hungarian" for both ómagyar AND ősmagyar or "Pre-Old Hungarian" for the latter
Did you read this reply by Tropylium? If you check Proto-language, it seems we might need to use Old Hungarian both for ősmagyar and for ómagyar, since the term "Proto-Hungarian" is not applicable (see the same Wikipedia article).

However, the article says "When multiple historical stages of a single language exist, the oldest attested stage is normally termed "Old X" (e.g. Old English and Old Japanese)." Ősmagyar is not attested (except for very few, very brief fragments), only ómagyar is.

On the other hand, "Pre–Old Hungarian" could be considered, based on the section Proto-X vs. Pre-X.

Anyway, we may have to resort to "Old Hungarian" as a broader term, or use "Pre–Old Hungarian" as a specific equivalent of "ősmagyar". (I'd prefer the latter.) In this case we could stipulate it in the general guidelines about Hungarian. Adam78 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it sounds good (Old Hungarian for ómagyar, Pre–Old Hungarian for ősmagyar). Did you mean to add it to About Hungarian? I'm not sure where are the general guidelines about Hungarian. Panda10 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

unhyphenated syllables: a tentative list
(Moved to Template_talk:hu-hyphenation)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

some useful resource
English–Hungarian and Hungarian–English linguistic dictionary, published online in 2021. (Searching for terms with "ő" and "ű" might not work properly due to encoding issues.)

One thing I've already found is their equivalent for "belső keletkezésű szó": native word (as opposed to internal development, as we put it). We can research its usage and equivalence though. Adam78 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * These are extremely helpful. Thank you very much for letting me know about them. Panda10 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

egyetem
Are my ears betraying me or does the speech sample there sound more like than ? &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The uneven speed might cause this but all three are ɛ. Panda10 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * see also the entry of . (In short, I suppose it's perfectly all right even if it has the [e] sound.) Adam78 (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you! That link is really helpful. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 05:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hungarian phrases
Thanks for editing these. Note how I have modified the headword lines to fix an error that you introduced. Please look over some of your edits to fix this. See Category:head tracking/unrecognized pos to find the malformed entries. Köszi. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked through the category and completed the multi-word terms. However, I don't know what to do with the superseded spellings, see halkszavú as an example. The PoS is Adjective but the template is since we don't want to add it to the adjectives category. If you know how to fix these, please let me know. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would we not want to add it to the adjectives category? It's an adjective, correct? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Would it be OK with you for the superseded terms to use ? The <actual PoS> is noun, adjective, etc., matching the content of the PoS line. We'll add any additional category with cat2, cat3. Panda10 (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea. It would result in several mistyped forms listed in multiple categories, considerably confusing any readers. They've got to be excluded from normal PoS categories. If it's not possible, then we could simply delete their entries, mentioning them only (without links) in "Alternative forms", adding "nonstandard" as their label. Adam78 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to remove any content: Wiktionary includes all kinds of obsolete terms and spellings (even dead languages!) as well as out-of-date orthographies, etc. The category Category:Hungarian adjectives is not only for current and official spellings of present-day adjectives. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also like to keep the separate entries for superseded forms. After all, they were correct in the past and they still exist in older literature with all their inflected forms. Panda10 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * See Category:English misspellings. I clicked on two random entries there and neither were included in their own PoS categories, only in misspellings. See e.g. . I don't mind keeping them, just not in their PoS categories, only as misspellings. Fair enough, isn't it? Adam78 (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Misspellings are handled differently than superseded forms. Look at Category:Superseded forms by language. I checked a few German words, they are all in their correct PoS category. I'm not saying I want to include them, I just don't know how to exclude them AND conform to the appropriate head template rules. Panda10 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The same is true in Portuguese, Spanish, etc. "Abit" is not and has never been a word in English. "Teh" or "hodl" could be considered words due to their ironic and deliberate usage. Superseded forms are words in those languages, they have just been reformed or changed by some authority. Anyone who knows Brazilian Portuguese would understand "idéia" and many of them would use it still, no matter if some government somewhere says to not use it. Even if these Hungarian spellings have really fallen out of use among actual Hungarians today, it's still been a part of the language. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, my conviction is that including superseded forms in normal category listing would be misleading and disruptive. I'm not saying they're not part of the language, but displaying them twice (in two forms) or sometimes even more times in the same listing doesn't make sense; it'd give false information about the number of entries comprised and it would interfere with the normal use of categories. – If they are still included in the relevant Hungaries PoS categories, then there should be subcategories with one single entry for each lemma, no matter how many different forms they may additionally have. There has got to be a meaningful category for them, whether it be called (e.g.) "Hungarian nouns" or "Primary lemma forms of Hungarian nouns" or whatever else. Adam78 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * One solution could be to use in the headline and  in the definition line. This will place the entry in three categories: Category:Hungarian non-lemma forms, Category:Hungarian misspellings and Category:Hungarian superseded forms. Superseded spellings are actually misspellings, so this categorization is valid. I made the change at halkszavú. Please let me know if you agree with this direction. Panda10 (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like it; thanks for the suggestion. Adam78 (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Audio files
Hello again. If you have some spare time on your hands, it would be great if you could create audio files for the remaining few words that don't yet have them in the tables in Hungarian_phonology and Hungarian_phonology. This is the place most learners of Hungarian will probably visit at some point so I think having audio files for all example words would be of great benefit. Köszi in advance! &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a few, please go ahead and update Wikipedia. I updated the Wiktionary page. Panda10 (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've added them to the Wikipedia article. BTW, the reason why I requested was because it appears on Hungarian_phonology. If it is really wrong it should probably be removed from there as well. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected the spelling in Wikipedia and added two more audio files. Panda10 (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Deklinációs sablonok fordítása franciára?
Helló, megláttam, hogy te voltál az, aki (legalább nagyjából) hoztad létre az angol nyelvű magyar szavak deklinációs sablonjait, én meg nemrég (tkp. tegnapelőtt) kezdtem hozzájárulni a francia nyelvű, magyar szavakkal és kifejezésekkel foglalkozó wikihez, és úgy vettem észre, hogy a jelenlegi francia nyelvű sablonok egyáltalán nem felelnek meg a szavak nagy többségének (pl. nincs is megfelelő sablon a magas magánhangzóknak, kivéve egy, ami nagyon ritka esetekben lehet helyes), és csak azt akarnék tudni, hogy le lehetne-e fordítani a te sablonjaidat franciára, hogy miért ne lassan ismertebbé valjon a magyar nyelv a franciául beszélők közül is :) Szóval, az a kérdesem, hogy tényleg lehetséges-e, és ha igen, hogyan csináljam, ha nem, hogyan hozzam létre a sajátaimat? Amúgy köszönöm, hogy végigolvastad és emellett szép napot kívánok!

Ui.: Előre is bocsánat a lehető hibákért, tanulok még :)

Ombreux (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Helló, gratulálok a magyarodhoz! A sablonok nagyon sokat változtak az elmúlt években. A francia wikiben még mindig az eredeti változatot látom. Át lehet őket másolni (egy részüket lásd itt: Category:Hungarian nominal inflection-table templates), persze mindent le kell fordítani franciára. Dolgoztál már wiki sablonokkal? Vagy Lua programozási nyelvvel? Ha nem, van valaki, aki tud neked segíteni a francia wikiben? Amit tudok, szívesen segítek, de sajnos nem beszélek franciául. Panda10 (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eddig soha nem dolgoztam velük, Luával sem, de kicsit érdeklődtem iránta. C-ben meg HTML/CSS-ben pedig elég jól tudok kódolni, de nem hiszem, hogy köze van a Luához...
 * Kérdeztem már a francia wiki adminjaitól, de eddig sajnos nem is kaptam választ :/
 * Te amúgy tudnád kódolni ha mindent fordítanék franciára, ami kell? Ombreux (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you mind if I write in English? I see that you are a near native speaker. I'm not familiar with Lua and I can do only basic stuff in wiki script. I copied two templates to Catégorie:Modèles d’accord en hongrois: Modèle:hu-décl-table (this provides the table structure) and Modèle:hu-décl-ek (this provides the declension information) but I immediately ran into a problem. Some templates are not present on the French wiki (such as l-self) that we use here and I'm not sure how to fix this. So this might not be as easy as I thought. You will definitely need someone who is familiar with the templates over there. I'm very sorry about this. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine I'll try to find someone and I'll eventually come back at you :)
 * Maybe we could translate the missing templates too though? Ombreux (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is another approach. Instead of using the current complex templates, I copied the old -ok template structure that exists on the French wiki to the new -ek and modified the suffixes. This seems to work. Try to add the declension to kert, this is what you have to add: hu-décl-ek|ker|t|et in curly brackets. Panda10 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you it works perfectly! I'll try to do the same with the other templates :)
 * By the way do you know how to make it a box (amit be lehet csúkni, nem tudom, hogy mondják angolul) just like with the English wiki? Because aesthetically it's not very pleasing ^^ Ombreux (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Manual:Collapsible elements says you have to add mw-collapsible mw-collapsed to the class in the table. Panda10 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It worked!! Thanks a lot :) Ombreux (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A last question, do you know how to align the table at left, while keeping its width, and the words inside of the table still staying centered? I have a bit forgotten my CSS classes 😅
 * Btw here's the template Ombreux (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind I found it by myself 😂
 * But I have another problem now, it causes the text below it to not span across the whole screen, ie. if the width of the table is 50 %, all of the text below will also stop at 50 % (see here)... Ombreux (talk) 03:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The closing div tag is missing. Panda10 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankss it works perfectly :) Ombreux (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Transferred senses?
I'm curious why Category:Hungarian terms with transferred senses doesn't exist—I was going to use (transferred sense) for sense 2 of hűbéres, since the Értelmező szótár itself says "átvitt értelemben", but then saw the red link. Not sure if it's an intentional decision or not. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * : I've been using figuratively for "átvitt értelemben". This label does not create a category but I don't see how a category in this case would be useful. Panda10 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I think these large categories are mostly intended for large-scale data-harvesting, though I suppose it's also useful precisely for this reason (to indicate a convention). Thanks. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Karmol
Hello, why did you reverse my edit on an Udmurt cognate?

Here is the book I got it from, page 154

145х215 (paradoxplaza.com)

~ Gibby01 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * : The Russian-language book you linked above mentions karmolás only (a noun), but not karmol (a verb). You can find this entry's etymology in the New Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian. There is no mention of an Udmurt cognate. Please stop editing Hungarian etymologies. The majority of your Hungarian edits had to be reverted because they were incorrect. Panda10 (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I see, these were only 2 entries from the same book though. My other edits on the etymologies of Hungarian kings have not been removed :)
 * ~ Gibby01 (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

gyűlöl
Why did you undo my contrib? [] According to Anna Vladimirovna Dybo, the "unattested stem" is derived from PT *yǖl-. Nothing is wrong with my contrib. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No need to be angry. You removed the previous valid etymology and its reference and replaced it with your own. After reverting your changes, I added a new online reference, now there are two of them saying the same thing. If you found a different point of view about the unattested stem, you should mention that after the original etymology as an alternate and add your new source after the existing one. BTW, I clicked on *yǖl in your reference and no match came up in the database. Panda10 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay then, I've also noticed that I wrote it wrongly, sorry for my mistake. Here is the correct link . I'm not going to delete the current etymology which had been supported by other references, but write another alternative etymology. I also have a question, do the notifications come to you if someone make an entry or edit about Hungarian or other languages, because of being administrator? Thanks in advance. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. To answer your question: I get notifications only for those entries that I created in the past. Otherwise, I have to add entries to my watchlist to see a change. Panda10 (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

vekni
So what's the standard, neutral (=non-colloquial) word for a loaf of bread in Hungarian? And not some very specific one like "vekni", which means an oblong loaf of bread specifically, but I'm asking for the general term for any loaf? Shumkichi (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Usually kenyér: Vettem egy kenyeret/egy kiló kenyeret. Panda10 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

csöröge
Thank you for this entry, I "stole" some parts of it to improve the form loaned into Rusyn :) — Phazd (talk|contribs) 00:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

kroki
Saw your edit on kroki. Do you have a good reference for adding skit as a translation? Although I'm not a native speaker, but for me skit is more like a play than a short written article. Are there any native speakers here to ask? Drkazmer (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the online dictionaries provide multiple definitions for skit, for example Dictionary.com: 1. a short literary piece of a humorous or satirical character 2. a short theatrical sketch or act, usually comical. Or Merriam-Webster: 2a. a satirical or humorous story or sketch. Országh gives the following translations: sketch, light essay, gossip. Szotar.net: kroki=sketch; skit; vignette. The gloss after the English translation is important to make it clear which English sense is used. But it's always a good idea to ask native speakers. These type of questions can be asked at Tea room by pressing the tab with the plus sign on it (between the Read and History tabs). Panda10 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Panda10, this is not an etymology and it's a duplication of the information in the rest of the page. See Etymology —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : Hi, the paragraph you linked above refers to English language entries. For Hungarian entries, it is not a duplication because the affixes are separated from the base word, each is translated, and a literary translation of the entire phrase is also provided. There are more complicated sayings where this type of detail is necessary and it's always a good idea to maintain the same standard for every entry.   Panda10 (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It refers to entries of all languages on the English version of Wiktionary. In addition, you can find the parsing of jóból by clicking on it, as most declined forms of Hungarian have their own entry. Or you'll find it in the declension table at jó. Everything can be linked to from the headword line. Anyway, the etymology section is not the place to explain ordinary grammar. If this is currently the convention then the convention is wrong, because this isn't an etymology. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bother you with this, but I'd appreciate your point of view. Panda10 (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say only those elements should be explained that can have multiple etymologies. (Although even those particular etymologies can be linked with the "head" parameter of the POS, using the right "id" that had been defined.) I don't like Caoimhin ceallach's way of communication but I have to admit that I also had misgivings about duplicating information that can be unambiguously accessed from the elements.

Also, there are questions we face with this kind of detailed etymology, for example: If we find a better translation for a morpheme, should it be updated on all pages that link to this morpheme? I don't think so. However, currently it's quite possible that we supply some suboptimal gloss in an etymology section. And: Who can tell if it's better to supply the most typical meaning or the local, current meaning? Both are useful in a way, yet there's usually no room to supply both.

Instead, I think the definition of the glosses linked should be checked each time to make sure that the sense used in the phrase is actually provided (and truthfully provided, comprising the relevant sense).

Personally, I often felt discouraged by the fact that I'm supposed to provide such elaborate level of etymology, down to the level of individual morphemes, so I didn't create some entries I would have created otherwise. Honestly, I would be relieved if we didn't have to do so. Providing the "literally" note should suffice in most cases, I think (along with the "ID" wherever necessary).

Adding the detailed etymology seems like a burden not only for the editor but also for the reader: because they expect to see something extra, something special, and then they realize it's nothing more (actually less) than what is already given elsewhere, and the selection (the gloss text) may be arbitrary. In the end, redundance may beget disappointment or annoyance, a feeling that you've been robbed of a bit of your time or effort for no obvious reason. Adam78 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I was probably the one who started this etymology style because I thought it might be useful for learners (and I really don't know that because I never asked Hungarian students who use this Wiktionary). Even if we remove this type of information we should not do it automatically (with a bot). Some may contain other things, for example a füle botját sem mozdítja. Panda10 (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Adam78 I'm sorry if I came across as overly blunt. That wasn't my intention. The thing to note here is that although the deconstruction of a word or phrase can surely play a role, and I can see how it could be useful for learners, it is not the be-all end-all of etymology. Doing this and only this for a phrase, apart from not contributing anything meaningful, creates the impression that it is all there is to be said about it, although it actually leaves the main question unanswered: Where does it come from? (Panda10's example above is actually a good illustration of what I would like to see, apart from the obligatory parsing of course.) In this case I was hoping to find information on the relationship to similar phrases in other languages. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * : I know you've been interested in Hungarian, especially in its etymologies. I also noticed that you often added an English gloss to the Hungarian etymology elements, although not necessarily in phrases, idioms, proverbs, etc. Would you share your thoughts about how you'd like to see the etymology for expressions like jóból is megárt a sok? Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For my part, as someone definitely less savvy about Hungarian (but savvier than a completely-ignorant-starting-out newbie), I do find breakdowns quite helpful. This is a bit of a ramble, as I try to address several points I see in the thread above.
 * As @Caoimhin ceallach notes, it is possible to click through. However, requiring users to do this is poor usability -- especially for longer idioms.  It can become an exercise in yak shaving, where one has to dig into one thing after another and loses sight of the overall entry they were trying to understand.  I have keen and painful memories of doing this in my struggles learning Japanese: resources at the time were hardcopies, and usually targeted Japanese readers, providing extensive Japanese-language explanations of English terms but offering only cursory information about Japanese terms.  One had to read the dictionary in order to read the dictionary.  It was a frustrating exercise in recursive tedium.  Part of why I got involved here in the first place was out of a desire to save other language learners from this kind of avoidable barrier to learning -- and providing glosses and breakdowns and explanations is one way of doing so.
 * I mostly agree with @Caoimhin's point that etymology sections should ideally include additional lexical information: things like defdates, and development over time in terms of senses, phonology, and spellings. I don't think this precludes adding glosses.  For phrases, a literal breakdown and then idiomatic rendering strikes me as appropriate and helpful for language learners.  I have been gradually adding such detail when I can, as at the Japanese entry.
 * This is the English-language Wiktionary, and we can (and should) assume that our readers can understand English. At the same time, we cannot assume that our readers understand non-English text, so providing a relevant short gloss greatly improves usability.  Providing historical development, first appearance, semantic changes, and other details are also helpful.  That said, I don't think doing so should be a requirement, as this can wind up being a deterrent to adding anything at all, as @Adam78 mentions.  That said, if an editor has added glosses, defdates, development, or other details, I see no reason to remove those, so long as they are correct.
 * To get to @Panda10's specific question to me, my hope is that idioms in non-English entries like can be explained in a way that helps readers understand how the phrase works, as (hopefully) exemplified by the  entry.  I haven't added glosses to any Hungarian phrase entries yet, simply because I haven't encountered any such entries so far 😄 -- I am still quite "early days" in my Hungarian studies, and idioms have not yet entered my field of view.  As I come across such entries in future, I will likely add glosses and breakdowns as seems appropriate to better explain the entry to an English-language readership.
 * Regarding itself, I am unsure how the  part fits in grammatically / semantically?  Is it the subject / agent of the verb ?  If so, is this phrase parseable as "a lot [of something] is harmful even if it is good"?  Or is the  essentially nominalized by the addition of the  suffix?  → "even from a good [thing], a lot [of it] is harmful"?  But then why is it the definite ?  Can't quite wrap my head around this.
 * Anyway, there's my 2p (or whatever the above amounts to). :) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experience, they were very helpful. In the phrase, is the subject of the verb,  is used in its noun sense here (a good thing). The online Hungarian dictionary marks  as a numeral that can be used both in adjectival and nominal sense. This translation might be closer to the original Hungarian: a large amount is harmful even out of a good thing. Panda10 (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * While I do find the separation of each morpheme (e.g., ) a bit excessive and sometimes confusing, displaying the contextual meaning of each word (e.g., ) occurring in a given phrase might be helpful for readers and save them the time of clicking through each entry in their attempt to completely parse a phrase (as Eiríkr said). At the same time, I think our current way of displaying such information is rather muddled visually. I can think of two alternative methods that might be worth considering, although neither seems perfect and both methods lack implementation in other languages. One option is the recently created Module:interlinear (too technical?), while the other one would be using comment in the headword line to display the meaning of each word (too compact?).
 * (1) hu

jóból is megárt a sok

good-ELA even be.harmful-IND-PRES-3-SG the much

even too much of a good thing can be harmful
 * (2) 
 * Einstein2 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't even know about these two functions! Thank you for mentioning them and also for your comments. I incorporated them on a test page I created to display the variants: User:Panda10/Test.

To summarize the above:
 * Adding an Etymology section to phrases is not a requirement.
 * A literal translation is allowed. See :
 * “For phrases that have more complicated origins, an etymology may be useful. This applies in particular to idiomatic phrases that cannot be interpreted literally by the sum of their parts, such as rain cats and dogs. For idiomatic phrases in languages other than English, the etymology can be used to provide the literal translation of the phrase.”


 * For the benefit of language learners and to increase usability, if editors want to spend time and effort to add a breakdown analysis of the phrase, they may do that under the literary translation and any other lexical information that belong to etymologies. See layout comparisons at User:Panda10/Test and let me know if any of them is acceptable. Or you still want to go with no Etymology for phrases under any circumstances. Panda10 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A literal translation is not only allowed but highly recommended, I'd say. I didn't question it at all (I wrote "Providing the "literally" note should suffice in most cases, I think"; I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough).
 * In general, I prefer, though I very much hope it can be adapted to mobile devices. We might as well check out the Etymology section of phrases of some other morphology-rich languages, like Finnish or Turkish.
 * As another option, the way we employ <tt>Interlinear</tt> could be simplified, for example only indicating the inflectional suffixes (that define or reflect the actual syntactic relations in the current phrase), i.e. the elements but no  (let alone any ). For example, present and indicative are less relevant features in this phrase than elative or third-person singular. Adam78 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Eirikr Your example entry looks great overall. I hadn't considered the issue from the angle of a language learner. Nevertheless, I have trouble imagining how detailed parsing could be useful, and I'm saying that as someone who used Wiktionary extensively when learning Hungarian.
 * Firstly, as a beginner you don't usually grapple with sayings, idioms, and proverbs. Secondly, by the time you're ready for such phrases, you'll have the tools to parse them yourself. If you're given the idiomatic meaning it shouldn't be any harder than any other sentence. Thirdly, if you belong to neither group and are just dabbling you probably don't care about the precise grammatical analysis and only want to know what it means literally and what it means actually.
 * I find that the case especially for the phrases we've discussed here, where the base words are usually one click, sometimes two clicks, and rarely three clicks away from the headword line. But that's just my view and obviously my experience isn't universal, so if I'm overruled, so be it. Cases where I would maybe support detailed parsing are phrases with archaic or otherwise unusual syntax.
 * I agree with @Adam78 that a literal translation is desirable, combined when necessary with an explanation of how we get from the literal to the idiomatic meaning.
 * Thank you @Panda10 for laying out the alternatives clearly like that. Notwithstanding what I've said above, I prefer variant 3. I agree with your con though, so what if the comments are in the headword line? I've added variant 4 to illustrate this. —Caoimhin ceallach (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I made some code that makes it easier to enter the values; see and section "4a" on the test page. The display is the same as "4" but it's easier to code. Shall we settle on this version? Adam78 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate that you spent time on the code (BTW, it was moved to User:Comment-link-mul). I'm hesitant to implement it because the tooltip is not working on mobile devices. Also, I'm not sure if this particular arrangement will be accepted by the wider community. What does the name mean? Why comment-link-mul? Panda10 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. After a quick search, this is what I found. In short, there could be a circled question mark after each term (so that the terms are not clicked by accident) and the tool tips could appear by means of CSS, as shown on this page, which works fine on mobile devices. When it's ready, we can consult the wider community. Based on the earlier comments above, the others don't seem to question its use. For the name, I just appended "mul" because it can handle multiple terms. Of course, it can be renamed to anything. Adam78 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * A question mark after every word in the phrase doesn't look very appealing to me. How will a longer phrase look like? E.g. a hazug embert hamarabb utolérik, mint a sánta kutyát. I double checked proverbs in other languages (Finnish, Turkish, Polish) as you suggested. Some do not have an etymology section at all, others do have it with a literal translation, others add in the head line to display the literal translation (see tappaa kaksi kärpästä yhdellä iskulla). I'm okay with giving up the detailed etymology and going with the current policy: either no etymology or an etymology with a literal translation. If you want to go further and implement the comment template, please make sure that the idea is presented in Beer parlour before you invest more time and effort into it since to my knowledge it is not included in the current policy. Panda10 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

All right. Interestingly, the Finnish example you brought up links to the corresponding lemma entries, not the inflected forms as we do. What do you think about this practice? Linking to the lemma makes it easier to collect derivations, whereas it might make it more difficult to look up which form (number/​case, tense/​mood/​number/​person) something is. I wonder if there's any policy or guidance about it.

Another question. Based on this discussion (especially Benwing2's warning), do you think I can start converting senses formed with "maga" into separate entries, such as érzi magát, magához tér and kitesz magáért (to name the three types)? I noticed that Bulgarian, Polish, and Old French use a "reflexive with…" sense, while English actually lists them each in separate entries. Anyway, a separate entry may still be better so we don't need to make a redirect e.g. from "érzi magát" to "érez" (and if a literal sense exists, we can still use ). In fact, there may be many translations that link to the Hungarian phrase including the reflexive pronoun, so we'd better not leave them red. Also, some phrases don't even exist without the reflexive pronoun. The reflexive derivations of verbs could be listed among Derived terms > Expressions, I suppose.

On a more practical note, I think the "Conjugation" section of these entries should be standardized with a template, partly for the sake of a uniform look, and partly to avoid unnecessary typing. On the long run, I think standardizing the conjugation section of other phrases as well would be useful, e.g. with a template for the possessive-suffixed forms that could be listed as parameter values without having to type (or copy-paste) the entire sentence each time. Adam78 (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I prefer linking to the actual inflected form and not to the lemma. I clicked on each word in the Finnish proverb to see the experience. The first two were lemmas - OK. The second two were inflected forms - when I finally found the form in the declension table, I clicked on it to see the structure but there was no etymology to show what the case suffix was to further investigate it. It’s a normal practice here not to add etymology to form entries and the Hungarian practice is frowned upon but to me the plain form entries without etymology, IPA and hyphenation are useless. For the last word I had to search individually because it was not included in any of the declension tables at its lemma form. Another reason I don’t want to link to lemmas: If we link to the actual inflected form, it forces us to create that form if it is a red link. Otherwise, there’s no guarantee that it will ever be created.


 * Further thoughts on the etymology in form entries: The reason I like to add more information than just the POS and the line is again my imagined target audience. These users are not the lucky ones that come with two or three native languages just by being born into a multilingual family. And they are not linguists who study multiple languages and have a natural talent to pick up foreign languages easily. They are the ones who either do not know Hungarian at all but read a sentence or heard a saying somewhere and just want to understand it better and the ones who study Hungarian as a second language and are not linguists.


 * For the question about verbs with a reflexive pronoun: I'm okay with a separate entry. Let me know how I can help.


 * For the conjugation: This would be another special Hungarian template. I wonder if this would be accepted. Panda10 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian–English terminology in mathematics, physics, biology, and chemistry
Technical terms collected at the website of Cambridge University for Hungarian applicants. Adam78 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This will come in handy. Panda10 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

szókincs and szótár
Why did you revert my edits? the combo for instance of "word" and "treasure" is pretty darn specific. Synotia (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The references you provided were not specific enough. There was no way to determine that your statements were correct. Please create a user page and indicate your language fluency. Panda10 (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought that since Karl Popper the focus is more on Falsifiability? Or is it not the case in linguistics? Synotia (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)