User talk:Ruakh/2017

=January 2017=

Place names votes
I hope you don't mind me messaging you to say that voting is open on Votes/pl-2017-01/Policy on place names.

= March 2017 =

בר מינן
Hi, I'm not really sure why you reverted my edit. The page has errors now. — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. The errors are now fixed. —Ruakh 04:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and to answer your implied question: states — I believe correctly — that it is for usage examples, not quotations. It's true that usage examples and quotation bodies use essentially the same format for non-Latin scripts, but I think it's a mistake to use the same template for both, seeing as they do not use the same format for Latin scripts. —Ruakh 04:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I see. I've changed it to . — justin(r)leung { (t...) 04:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Some new templates
Hi Ruakh! Since you've been relatively inactive for a while, you should be aware of some new Hebrew templates for when you periodically edit/create Hebrew entries: --WikiTiki89 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, there are and, which can be used in place of  and , respectively. They function much like  used to and are useful mainly for words that would have a dwv parameter. For example,.
 * Second of all, there is . Take a look at this . In many cases, it may not be correct to say that a verb is "from the root" (in this particular case it may be, but I'm not certain of that and there may be more details to the etymology). It is much more useful to say that "this word is seen as belonging to this root", which is what does. It also categorizes the word as belonging to the particular root, making it easier to find other words with this root.  should be used even if the root is also mentioned in the etymology.


 * Thanks! —Ruakh 03:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, relevant to Rukhabot: mainspace interwikis are soon to no longer be under the purview of bots. See WT:Beer parlour/2017/April for more. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Awesome! Thanks for letting me know! —Ruakh 00:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Reversion?
I didn't understand the point of your reversion of anon User:86.131.224.133's contribution to the Tea Room of c. 17:00, 2017 March. It was spread over three L2 sections. I have clumsily undone one. DCDuring (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The anon's contributions were unsigned and variously ridiculous ("in England (by definition, the prestige dialect)") or rude (addressing an editor in the third person with "Wiktionary is demotic in that it allows poorly educated people their say here"). As Chuck Entz says, I think they were meant as trolls: the anon may sincerely believe that his/her usage is the prestige and that American usages are uneducated and inferior, but (s)he cannot possibly believe that it is constructive to say so.
 * But if you think the comments have value (or at least, that they merit the benefit of the doubt), I won't insist.
 * —Ruakh 17:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

= June 2017 =

Romanization of Hebrew roots
Hi !

I've noticed that in quite a few articles you've given Hebrew ל״ה roots a romanization rendering ה as "_" (underscore), e.g. the root ק־ו־ה is romanized as "q-w-_". This seems odd to me (and rather unsightly). I'm aware that etymologically most of these roots are originally ל״י or ל״ו, but if that's the argument, then shouldn't the romanization rather be "y" or "w"? As it is, from a synchronic perspective it seems best to me to romanize ה the same way in roots as in words proper, i.e. as "h". But I'm interested in hearing arguments to the contrary, if there's something I'm missing. Best regards. —Pinnerup (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The at the end of  or  is just a placeholder letter — an ém-kri'á or mater lectionis — and has never been pronounced in any form of the language. So I disagree with your presupposition that it should be romanized as 'h' at the end of a word, as well as with your suggestion that it should be romanized as 'h' at the end of a root.
 * I might feel differently — and would certainly feel less strongly — if it weren't that some words and roots, such as and, end with a  that really does represent /h/. In Modern Israeli Hebrew that  is usually not pronounced, but it's still considered "more correct" to pronounce it; and what's more, the distinction between  and the placeholder is usually crystal clear in other forms of the same words (contrast  with : the placeholder vanishes, but  does not). So I think it's better to never use 'h' in romanizations of the placeholder.
 * Incidentally, I do generally prefer a more etymological romanization for roots than for words, but still within what's considered Hebrew; there are forms of Hebrew that distinguish and, but no forms of Hebrew where  is 'y' or 'w'.
 * —Ruakh 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because it's a placeholder and was never pronounced doesn't automatically mean that it shouldn't be transliterated as h. As for using y or w, your argument that the letter ה is never pronounced /j/ or /w/ is irrelevant, because the radical that it represents is sometimes pronounced /j/ (although I don't think any cases of original /w/ remain), for example, from the root  or  from the root  (can't believe both of those words are redlinks). Personally I think we should just avoid transliterating roots, because of these issues and many others as well. --WikiTiki89 15:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "Just because it's a placeholder and was never pronounced doesn't automatically mean that it shouldn't be transliterated as h": Well then, good thing I said more than just that. :-)
 * Re: "the radical that it represents is sometimes pronounced /j/": And sometimes /t/ (e.g. ). But Hebrew has decided to represent it with a placeholder.
 * —Ruakh 15:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "But Hebrew has decided to represent it with a placeholder": Roots are an abstract grammatical concept that doesn't really exist in the language. So it was Hebrew grammarians that decided to use the letter ה to indicate this final radical. They could have just as easily used י (and some do), and they could have just as easily decided to use a blank space. So for the transliteration we can do any one of these things as well and it wouldn't make a difference. --WikiTiki89 15:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Todo/Representative entries
Hi. Is this page still relevant? If not, it can probably be deleted. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've RFD'd it. --Spreaderofwords (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI (re plene spelling)
http://hebrew-academy.org.il/2017/06/17/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%9F/ &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The new rules are described in full here. I have to say I like most of the changes. I didn't realize the old rules were from 1947! --WikiTiki89 22:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —Ruakh 05:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

= October 2017 =

Category:Tbot entries (Hebrew)
Hey R. Can you see if you can reduce the number of Hebrew Tbot entries in Category:Tbot entries (Hebrew)? We have 228 at the moment, which haven't been touched after up to 10 years in a cleanup category. It would be nice to get rid of the Tbot entries some time soon. --P5Nd2 (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

= November 2017 =

Rollback
What did you do for? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's up to Angr what scripts (s)he chooses to list (and at what proficiency level). You shouldn't touch it. —Ruakh 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, considering the template had just been created, you can't really say Angr "chose" not to have it on his user page until then. Anyway I'd be grateful if you could settle that with him. Thank you! --Rerum scriptor (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I surely can. It's not like that's a difficult template to create; had Angr wanted it on his/her user-page, (s)he could easily have managed it. (This doesn't necessarily mean that (s)he'd have made the same decision if the template had already existed; but either way, it was his/her decision, not yours.) —Ruakh 19:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You're as guilty as me in that respect; you've deprived him of the opportunity of making a clear and unequivocal stance by reverting me himself. Have you thought about that? --Rerum scriptor (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * LOL, you're right: by rolling back your change, I've now prevented Angr from ever adding that Babel box. Mwahaha! That user-page belongs to me now! —Ruakh 05:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)