User talk:Tom 144

--Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

𒀀𒊒𒈾𒀸
Does it mean message or sea? DTLHS (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It means sea. Why did I make a mistake or something? I have trouble viewing the characters. --Tom 144 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸 this one means message. --Tom 144 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote the definition as Sea . The second parameter of a link controls what is displayed, while the first parameter is what actually linked to. DTLHS (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, thats because I copied the other page an pasted it so I wouldn't have to rewrite the format all over again. My bad --Tom 144 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

html in entries
Hello. I think using html markup directly in entries is discouraged, and that the practice is to always work with templates. Just letting you know! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Good to know. I'm still getting used to the different policy. --Tom 144 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hittite
Hi ! I'm no expert, but aren't Hittite lemmas rendered in cuneiforms ? Leasnam (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , Maybe, I don't know how the policy works here with ancient dead scripts, but I wanted to add the transliteration and the broad transcription because that is how they are usually given in books and dictionaries. Authors rarely ever write in cuneiform. I guessed that if Egyptian could be written in it's transliteration, the why Hittite couldn't. Plus, it's hard to browse though categories when their all written in cuneiform. --Tom 144 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To me my first thought was: Is Hittite now Serbo-Croatian?
 * I think it would be the best to use something like Chinese and Japanese: “Romanization of …”, so you should make some templates if you like to have such entries (well now you have to as you have begun to create romanization entries …), and keep the Latin entries short and the transcription-declensions at the cuneiform anyway. If you look into linguistic literature they even romanize Arabic, so what authors do is a bad guide. If you know cuneiform you shouldn’t be hampered by having to use cuneiform for Wiktionary entries; also, cuneiform-written languages demand even more to have the entries in cuneiform because the transcriptions vary so much, whereas by a writing system that has been in use for using the language the lemma form suggests itself. I would be unamused by the way if I had to see Akkadian or Sumerian lemmas in Latin script. We want to do it better than the usual dictionaries. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 22:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In this old conversation, Angr (now going by the name of ) has expressed support for having Romanisation entries of Hittite. You should probably bring this up on the Beer Parlour again. I don't know anything about Hittite, but I'd support having Romanisation entries too. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The only variation I've found is w/u̯ and y/i̯, and apparently we've already chosen the y,w spelling. I don't think that Hittite transliterations are comparable with Arabic romanizations, while Arabic has a fixed orthography and it's written in an alphabet that suits the nature of the language, Hittite was written in an extremely deficient syllabary, they would often use both phonograms an logograms in a single word, and would have multiple orthographies (see 𒀭𒌅𒉿𒀪𒄩𒀸, 𒉿𒀀𒋻). I would prefer if the lemma were in the broad transcription, since it's often the most stable (e.g. yukan accounts for both spellings of 𒄿𒌑𒃷).
 * , Thank you! I will. --Tom 144 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well and in that linked thread Ivan Štambuk says: “Hittite in particular has several problematic issues and Romanization is not straightforward (e.g. hyphens, Sumerograms, determinatives, combining plene writing as macrons) and each Romanized Hittite word is likely to have several different forms.”
 * And I dare believe Ivan Štambuk. If Hittite was written in an extremely deficient syllabary, the transcriptions will also be deficient. One cannot compensate for it by comparative linguistics. If you have not found many differences, you should have some suspicions either about the truthfulness of those linguistics or about your capabilities.
 * Yeah, make those romanization entries with the appropriate templates, I have nothing against it, but the base should be the script that is attested. If multiple versions of the same word are attested, you make some alternative versions, I do not see a problem here. We are in the year 2018 after all. Palaestrator verborum sis loquier 🗣 23:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment here. you are invited to do it too.
 * , I would appreciate a lot if you expressed your support. --Tom 144 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Lazpa
What is the Hittite way of writing Lazpa (Λέσβος)? Is it 𒆷𒊍𒉺? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , yes, it's pretty much the only one way to write it. Although city names take the logographic marker URU, (e.g URUḫattuša), in that case it would have been 𒌷𒆷𒊍𒉺. Another thing is that wood related meanings take the logogram GIŠ, but I doubt this is the case since it's real stem is almost always tāru-. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 16:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Transliteration and transcription modules for Hittite
Hey Tom, I was thinking about making a transliteration and transcription module for Hittite. Do you think this would be good idea? To do it correctly, we'd need to implement some pretty elaborate algorithms, probably using user generated transliterations for feed broad transcription in the case Akkadograms and Sumerograms. Do you think this would be feasible? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 05:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This would be great. However, I guess making the module distinguish between Sumerograms, Akkadograms and syllabic script, since they tend to use the same signs (e.g. ḪI.A, DINGIR) . Although I doubt this would be too troublesome, in worst case scenario we would have to add it manually as always. Anyway I think that it can be done. We should probably base ourselves on the Hittite font list. It seems to me that it's complete. Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the idea would be to assume Hittite, then Sumerogram, then Akkadogram, based on the sign inventory. That's why sometimes you'd have to manually feed in the narrow transcription for it to create the broad transcription. Would you be interested in helping me make a sign list? —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 19:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely. You'll just need to instruct me on what to do. --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 22:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So, I've created Module:hit-translit. For the signs in the pdf from the Hitttie font at, add each one to the table with the Unicode sign as the key, the Hittite values first, the Sumerograms in all caps second, and the Akkadograms (in you can find any) in all caps third. Of course, the data in Module:typing-aids/data/hit should be helpful for this. Do you know where we can find the Akkadograms used in Hittite?
 * I'll write some logic to help it decide based on adjacent characters which value to choose. This will be complicated, but it should be fun! —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 23:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if you find errors in Module:typing-aids/data/hit, please correct them. For instance, I think for "be" is wrong, and should be, if the pdf is correct. Instead,  should be "pì" and "pè". —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 00:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't be using sandboxes in the mainspace
It is against Wiktionary policy. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 04:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll change them. I was using the sandboxes temporarily as I updated the declension tables.--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 17:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

On the categorization of Hittite transliterations
Hey, first of all thanks for your work on Hittite! It's a bit of a neglected area here on Wiktionary but you seem to be doing great. Anyway, I was looking at some of the transliterations, e.g. LUGAL-uš, and was wondering what was causing hit-tr and hit-broad-tr to not categorize the entries as non-lemma forms (as and hraiwadubo are for example)? I assume the relevant code ought to be somewhere in Module:headword, but I'm not really sure and I'm weary of editing such modules, since they're so integral to the function of so many entries and I am quite a rookie module editor. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't really know how to edit modules, so I'm afraid I can't help you with that. A band-aid solution could be just to add the missing category to the templates hit-tr and hit-broad-tr. Anyway, the category transliterations is contained in non-lemma forms, so all pages belonging to it will be found there anyway. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 23:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Discord
Tom, you should join the en.Wikt Discord Server. -- 18:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 21:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing PIE entries
Hey Tom, you only sourced one derived form in this entry. Can you please source the reconstruction itself and and many of the derived forms as you can? We're trying to maintain a high standard for PIE entries. Thanks. -- 03:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nulling desc
Hey Tom, is there some reason you nulled out desc in ? -- 19:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Just because the Anatolian reflex could either be *Hárǵis or *Hr̥ǵís, so I just nulled it so the “[Term?]” message wouldnt be displayed. But if I had to guess, I would reconstruct *Hr̥ǵís, because I have seen that accentuation generalized in other anatolian i-stems. — Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 21:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I recommend you put both if you're unsure, and if that makes you uncomfortable, leave it un-nulled for the future. -- 21:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls
A number of Hittite templates and pages are showing up in this category. Can you fix them please? —Rua (mew) 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Importing Template:akk-decl-noun-table and Template:akk-decl-noun-m on the French wiki
Hi Tom 144,

I think you have seen my attempts to import the mentioned templates on the French wiki... But I can't figure out how to solve or get around the "Module:typing-aids"-issue as it is not on the French wiki. I wish to create links to the declined forms (for instance, one must be able to go on 𒀭 and, from the declension table, go on this entry 𒀭𒌝, which the only working link so far).

Do you have any ideas on how to import the model ? What are the templates needed to ensure that those tables properly work? I guess, as Lyokoï highlighted, once we have the list, a more proficient user could import them for me :)

Thanks for your help, Treehill (Treehill (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC))


 * I see your problem, trying to work around the module typing aids would make very tedious noun inflections, since not only the stem of the noun would have to me inputed manually to the template, but when the previous syllable is closed, you would need to input at least 4 different cuneiform stems. But I fear this would look simple compared to waht the verbal inflection would look like. I believe the easiest way to import them would be to import part of the module. Unfortunately, I did not make it, maybe can help you. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 23:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, importing the module would be the easiest way. do you know how I could proceed from there ? Treehill (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't completely understand how you would be using Module:typing-aids. It would have to do with Akkadian inflection, but would you be using it in a module or a template, and what precisely would you be converting from Latin to cuneform, Akkadian endings or something else? — Eru·tuon 16:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Currently Module:typing-aids is only used by I think. But the data module Module:typing-aids/data/akk could perhaps be used in another module that generated Akkadian inflected forms. — Eru·tuon 16:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Thank you for your help ! I managed to import the modules by myself thanks to the last information you gave about the subpages of the "typing-aids" module. I just kept importing sub-pages until there were no Error message on the template. Thank you again Treehill (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on 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.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Anatolian hieroglyphs
Tom, do you have a unicode Anatolian hieroglyphs font? If not, do you need one? -- 19:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I don't have one, but it would come in handy once I return to editing again. I'm sorry if I haven't been able to deal with the topic of the lemmatization of Akkadian. I've just been very busy lately with college. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 00:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries. You can now find a link to a font on my user page. Good luck with your studies. -- 01:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

-ótr accent ablaut paradigm
While it's true that a suffix like this is hard to categorise in the Erlangen model, especially when we know so little about its accentual behavior, I think amphikinetic might be the worst fit. It does not describe the inflection as currently presented on the page at all, as that one states that the accent is always on the suffix or at least the first syllable of it, while amphikinetic means accent on either stem or ending. I assume that you called it amphikinetic because of the suffixal o? Unless it was a typo, that could be possible too. But in addition to the label, maybe we should change the whole inflection table. I am by no means expert on Anatolian diachronics and I don't have access to Sihler to see what he says of the matter but both proposed reflexes seem to reflect weak -otnes. -ótr̥ ~ -otnés would mean hysterokinetic, somewhat like -ónts ~ -n̥tés. So please, do tell me, what do you think? Anatol Rath (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, a form of -ótr̥ ~ otnés is more suitable for the descendants. With that change do you still think it's necessary to change the label? --– Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 17:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would call it hysterokinetic Anatol Rath (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Akkadian
Hey Tom. I've been working on fixing up our Proto-Semitic entries, which required me to learn a bit of Akkadian (just skimming through Huehnergard's textbook). I noticed that our entries are almost universally terrible; they don't present Akkadian as an actual language, with inflectional info and whatnot, but rather as a place to link etymologies to. Does your recent editing mean that you're interested in amending this situation? If so, I'd be interested in helping (but I don't want to lead the effort!). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm interested indeed. In fact, I just spent the last couple of minutes familiarizing myself about how Lua modules work. I've found that using templates alone is often too difficult, and I'd like to code the tools I need in a real programming language. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 05:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also like to mess up with the format of the entry a bit. My user namespace has a couple of examples of how I'd like Akkadian entries to look. What do you think? – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 05:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Lua is better, yeah, but I'm too used to the old ways to adapt. I don't think we need Lua for most templates, although a Lua-based pronunciation module would be excellent. I also agree with changing the format, but I don't like Latin-script page titles — I think we should stick with cuneiform. Also, I'm sure the subpages you've made are meant to be finished products, but there are some major templates missing, like ! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well to be fair, they're missing from all Akkadian entries. I think my priority right now is to clean up the noun inflection tables. I still hold my view that Akkadian shouldn't be lemmatized in cuneiforms, but I wouldn't take action for the moment. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 05:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to work out everything in advance, so we can do a clean sweep and fix all the entries. For example, I disagree about Latin vs cuneiform, but it's definitely better to design templates knowing which it'll be rather than having to switch everything over yet again. Wt:About Akkadian is also quite a mess! —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Akkadian entries should have a section with a list with different attestations of the word in cuneiform. With such a section, I really wouldn't see the point of picking one of those forms arbitrarily as a lemma. There's a reason why no assyriological dictionary lemmatizes in cuneiform. We should also try to limit ourselves to the Babylonian inflection for the moment, since Huehnergard described it so thoroughly. However, I think we should lemmatize nominals and verbs without the final nasal. And we shouldn't exclude Akkadian from the possibility of having entries for its roots. Where do you stand on having entries for Akkadian roots? – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Isn't the fact that none of them lemmatise by cuneiform mainly because in print dictionaries, it's a pain in the ass, and in online ones, Unicode hadn't gotten its act together yet? This isn't like Egyptian with spellings Unicode can't fully handle and a pretty universal transcription — or would we be creating both and  and so on, basically treating it as if it were just a Latin-script language? I do like root entries, though, which I acknowledge would have to be in Latin script regardless. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, modern textbooks do not use Unicode still, they use pictures, since signes changed over time. They don't lemmatize at cuneiforms because it is not convenient. Printed dictionaries do not use cuneiforms because no one in their right mind would attempt to list them in alphabetical order (as we do here in our categories). And for digital ones, the idea that anyone will go through the trouble of copying and pasting all the signs in a word to find it here in wiktionary is absurd anyway. Concerning the nasal ending, I would only create šarru, since it's how the CAD lemmatizes entries. There I would include as many different orthographies it had (LUGAL, šar-ru, šar-rum, šar-ru-um, ša-ar-ru, etc.), and I would leave a redirect to the lemma for each one (hard if it is an Akkadian only word, soft if its shared with Sumerian). – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 17:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a good point. But we could still make all those redirects even if we chose cuneiform to lemmatise on, and then people wouldn't have trouble searching. And if you're working through Huehnergard and checking Wiktionary, wouldn't you would be confused to discover that works and  doesn't? And I hope you mean the sign LUGAL and not the entry LUGAL. By the way, an inconsistent system of hard and soft redirects is a bad idea, because if someone else happens to need to create a language section there, they'd also have to figure out how to repurpose the redirect. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean the sign of course. You're right, in that case it may be better to stay with soft redirects to the lemma. Although it's true that we could have redirects from the transcription to the cuneiform and "solve" the typing issue, it would still be inconvenient. For example, we can make a template that automatically takes the roman script name of the entry and creates the pronunciation. We wouldn't be filled with useless links that have the transliteration only. Rendering morphemes in latin script wouldn't be inconsistent with the rest of the lemmas. More often than not, words have one romanization, while multiple cuneiform spellings. And for the cases that they have multiple romanizations, the surely have a lot more spellings. It is often hard to choose between the more transparent syllabic spelling, or the more traditional logographical one. And as things are handled currently, one spelling is chosen, and the rest are discarded. There is no objective metric to choose which spelling should be the lemma or, which to link to. There must be loads of mismatches among links and pages referring to the same word but choosing different spellings. This would be solved so cleanly if we used Latin script. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 19:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also believe the main entry should be the romanised one. All Akkadian dictionary work that way, it wouldn't make sense to make an exception here. We can still list all attested/possible cuneiform spellings under "Alternative forms", like they do for Japanese (see for exampleː https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BE%8C%E3%82%8D#Japanese).


 * Even our Egyptian entries choose one hieroglyphic spelling to use on the headword; presumably we'd do the same, right? Otherwise we run the risk of people creating entries without any cuneiform in them at all. (I also think Latin script will encourage more crappy Akkadian entries, but considering most of the current entries are crappy anyway, that's a moot point.) Either way, we'd want to have a template akin to, which it looks like you already designed. I guess I'm basically convinced, but this means a lot more work... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that means that we would need to clean up all the 200 entries that we currently have. But they need to be cleaned up anyway. I intend to do it as soon as I have enough time and a free pass to change the lemmatization. Meanwhile, I think I'll try to do what I can in my own namespace. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 19:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There are a bunch more templates that need to be created to make that happen. There should be one for the syllabic romanisations, and another for the cuneiform entries so they can disambiguate (like, but with better wording). Basically, we'll want to have all the infrastructure in place before rolling it out so that the transitional period is as short as possible. Do you have enough time to get this going now? If not, I'll wait. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with making the transition as short as we can. To be honest, at the moment I don't, but I will have plenty of free time in December to February. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 19:59, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a long time from now! I suppose it's waited this long... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well concerning the head templates, should I model them based on ? I'm not so sure what features are expected of these. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Better to model them after a Semitic language, I should think, although Egyptian is also an inspiration for how they handle scripts. I think we want to present cuneiform on the headword line for all parts of speech, and then gender for nouns and the stem type and verbal class for verbs, with everything else going in inflection tables. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds good to me – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi guysǃ I'd like to join the partyǃ I'm fluent in Japanese, and I think there's more then one thing we could just copy from how Japanese deals with entries (there are quite a lot of parallels between how Japanese and Akkadian are written). I don't know much about templates and how to modify them, but I'd like to give feedback. Sartma (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

-- 05:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)