User talk:Wikitiki89/2015

Phoenician help
Howdy, I was intending on working on the Latin and AG terms Corduba and Κορδύβη and was looking into their etymologies, which eventually led me to make on Córdoba. Could you take a look at the Phoenician and tell me if it makes sense. Feel free to tell me I was completely off base. In a related note, do you have any advice on getting the Phoenician Unicode to display correctly? Sorry to pester so much; I have been appreciating your edits from afar. Thanks! —JohnC5 (Talk 11:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply. What is your reference for the Phoenician word? It looks like it is close to the words and, but if it is the same word, it is strange that it has an extra  and is missing a . As for the Unicode displaying properly, you just have to have the fonts installed. --WikiTiki89 19:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It mentions it here; though to be honest, I can't find my more authoritative source now. The rest is idle speculation based on Carthage (which is why I wanted you to check it out). I could not find a good text mentioning Juba in Phoenician; so again, that spelling is a guess. Feel free to just remove all the unverified material. Just thought I'd give it a try. —JohnC5 09:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your bot is making some mistakes
Re: User talk:DerbethBot:
 * خبز - if the audio is wrong, go to Wikimedia Commons and ask it to be removed, giving an explanation. The bot is not a human and can never judge whether the sound sounds correct and not - and this will never be corrected, because it cannot be!
 * أهلا - AFAIK there is no rule that two recordings with pronunciation of the same word should not appear in the entry. The bot is not a human and cannot judge which file is 'better'. This will never be fixed. Again, if the recording is broken or of too poor quality, ask at Commons to remove it.

Please do not write on the talk page of the bot, because it is not a human. It cannot talk. Please leave messages on the operator's talk page (i.e., mine). Regards --Derbeth talk 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

הוזיל
The redlinked category Catgeory:Hebrew פ״ז hif'il verbs has been sitting in Special:WantedCategories for a while because I have my doubts about whether there really is a פ״ז verb class. Could you either create the category or fix the entry at הוזיל? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No there is nothing special about verb roots starting with ז. The strange thing is that this verb looks like its root is י-ז-ל rather than ז-י-ל, but I'll have to change my Even-Shoshan when I get home. --WikiTiki89 13:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Latin sēmita ⩼ Aramaic *simta ⩼ Arabic سَمْت (samt)
Hi Wikitiki. I wonder if I may pick your brains. Zenith states:
 * The root of the word "zenith" in Proto-Indo-European was reconstructed as '*mei-' ("to change"). In we find 'meare' ("to pass"). With the prefix 'sē-' ("aside") it became 'sēmeare' ("to branch off"). Then the noun 'sēmita' ("side-way") was formed.REF:   When the Romans occupied, shortly before the time of Christ, the resident  adopted the word 'sēmita' as 'simta' ("side-way").REF:   The Romans left. As the  conquered the land in the seventh century they took the word 'simta' from the Arameans as 'samt' ("side-path") and also coined astronomical expressions.REF:  

Our entry for the Arabic currently states that the word derives from the root. Which is right, do you think? Do you happen to know an Aramaic word that could be transcribed and which would work as an intermediate etymon between the Latin  and the Arabic ? Thanks in advance for any elucidation you can provide. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many of our Arabic entries say "From the root XYZ" even when the root is really a back-formation from the word in question. The link to the root is useful, but the text is misleading. I honestly don't know how best to fix this. In some case, I have changed the text to say "Reanalyzed as belonging to root XYZ", but I'm not sure if that is the best thing to do since such "reanalysis" is a regular part of the Arabic language (and Hebrew for that matter). --WikiTiki89 18:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please excuse the 11½-week delay in my response. I suppose I'm most interested in the supposed Aramaic word. Any idea about that Aramaic ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * A while ago I suggested having categories for terms derived from each PIE root. Perhaps the same could be done for these languages but with modern-day roots (perhaps alongside actual Semitic roots). Such a category would bypass issues of synchronic vs diachronic origin: it's simply about whether the word has the root or not. —CodeCat 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I found the word you are talking about in CAL: /, which I'm guessing was probably voweled as  or .  I agree, that would be a good idea. --WikiTiki89 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much; it's nice to have it confirmed that that Aramaic word exists. Now, was I right to do ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess so. I don't think we have ever discussed what to do with Aramaic transliterations when the vowels are not known for certain. --WikiTiki89 19:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the all-caps looked kinda shouty. Do you think that the Aramaic word is plausibly descended from the Latin ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh it definitely is, I don't think there is any reason to doubt that. --WikiTiki89 01:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thanks for the confirmation. What about the Arabic ? Do dates of first attestation and facts of language contact make the hypothesis that the Arabic derives from the Aramaic  at least possible? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The language we call Arabic has had plenty of Aramaic borrowings since the language itself was first attested. Even the Arabic alphabet is a borrowing from Aramaic (specifically the variety of the alphabet that we now call Syriac). But I can't tell you anything specific about, except that it is not in the Quran, but it is in (1290). --WikiTiki89 21:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Looking at The C.A.L.’s entry, it seems that the Aramaic is attested in the Palestinian (AD 200–500) and Babylonian (AD 200–700) recensions of the Talmud and in responsa of the Geonim (AD 589–1040). That indeed seems to "make the hypothesis that the Arabic  derives from the Aramaic  at least possible". Is it therefore fair to state ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"I honestly don't know how best to fix this"
We could do what Hebrew wiktionary does and just say "root". Of course our structure is different than theirs, so if we didn't list "Root: X-Y-Z" under the L3 etymology header, we'd have to make an L3 "Root" one, which seems a bit much. —  קהת — 14:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Or we could have a floating box on the right like this. --WikiTiki89 14:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Such a box was what I had in mind for PIE roots originally as well. —CodeCat 16:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I kind of like it, but I can see it sometimes interfering with pictures. —  קהת — 18:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I really like the box; it looks a lot like what's done for multi-hanzi Chinese terms. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Module:yi-translit
Somehow I didn't notice, but we have this module set to transliterate everything automatically, which is a really bad idea if it isn't capable of recognising when it certainly shouldn't try to transliterate. Of course, we'll never be able to teach it to transliterate טעם as taam rather than tem, but it should certainly be coded to refrain from transliterating when the letters only found in words from Hebrew are present. I simply don't have the Lua abilities to do this, hence me asking you despite the fact that you've been fairly inactive. Are you willing to help? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See also User_talk:Vahagn_Petrosyan. I second the request but it's quite challenging.
 * How many are the words of Hebrew origin, which are pronounced irregularly and cannot have diacritics? I wonder if it's the matter of just maintaining Yiddish entries and translations? Other languages also need hardcoded transliterations at times. The automatic transliteration can be turned off but I think it's the worst cases scenario. BTW, Hebrew terms can potentially be also autotransliterated with about 90% accuracy, if the word stress can be ignored. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We've discussed this before. My opinion is still that if a transliteration is missing, it's better to have a transliteration of just the consonants (which is effectively what happens) than to have nothing at all. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be better to simply have the transliteration module add a cleanup category if the term has Hebrew-only letters, rather than removing the transliteration entirely. Feel free to disagree. Either your proposal or mine would be fairly easy for me to implement. --WikiTiki89 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cleanup categories sound like a good idea. Perhaps adding words with no vowels would also work. Chinese modules have large volumes of readings for characters. Is it (theoretically) possible to have updatable lists of irregular words either for exclusion or for customised transliteration? In any case, there's ongoing work for editors but I don't see many dedicated Yiddish editors. Pls don't forget about Hebrew transliteration, I still believe it's possible to achieve good results, similar to the success with the Arabic module. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Making hardcoded lists is an impractical idea for Yiddish, and even more prone to issues IMO.
 * We have an inherently different viewpoint; you think of shbs as being closer to שבת than nothing, but I think of shbs as being incorrect and that lack of information is better than misleading information. But in the meantime, I would very much appreciate that you create a cleanup category, because translations especially need to be dealt with and we'd hit a lot of offenders with the Hebrew-only letters. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it impractical - too many words, no data available, all inflections should be included as well or all these together and something else? I also think that "shbs" could be used as a signal that there's something wrong and better than nothing. The partial transliteration could be used to make a correct one by an editor, especially in example sentences where only one word may be transliterated incorrectly. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Too many words and there is never going to be a finite or manageable number; some texts borrow from Hebrew extensively when talking about anything religious. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 18:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your use of the word "borrow". Many Hebrew words in Yiddish are direct continuations from the time when Hebrew was still the native language, so you can't say they were "borrowed". In fact it would be more correct to say that the entire Germanic part of Yiddish was what was "borrowed", while the Hebrew part was simply "kept". --WikiTiki89 19:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have just transliterated a random first sample Yiddish text and I got this: mayn letst lid rkhl bushevski-kaplan 1 may, 1958 ayngehoykert in dreyen, bagis ikh mit trern mayn veg. troyerik iz mir tsu tseyln, mayne letste teg... gehoybn di oygn tsum himl, fun betn bin ikh shoyn mid. vayt, gants vayt shoyn farblondzhet zingendik mayn letst lid ... a lid fun benkshaft un khrth, vi khlumus iz alts fargangen, gevigt hot mikh dos lebn un gevorfn, punkt vi in felder, di zangen. krank un farshemt, kh'fal anider, dos lebn iz geven zeyer shver, aykh kinderlekh, vel ikh shtendik zayn mukhl in mayne oygn vet eybik blishtshen a trer ... azoy sheydt zikh in eynzamkeyt a mame, fun kinderlekh zeyer fil, keynmol hot ir keyner farshtanen, geshtorbn aleyn in der shtil ... . I reckon the core Yiddish vocabulary is Germanic and transliteratable. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 07:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be very unhelpful to reject an entire transliteration like that just because it has some Hebrew words here and there. As for the frequency, it really depends on the subject matter and/or author of the text. You happened to pick a more Germanic one. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! I don't disagree on that. Manual transliteration is allowed and is necessary for those words. It would be possible to add to attention categories words transliterated without vowels, wouldn't it? I disagree on frequency (religious words are not the core vocabulary) but I'll let slide. All words are important. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you don't disagree, that was more intended toward Metaknowledge. But as for vocabulary, it's not only religious words that are Hebrew. In fact it was the educated secular Jews in the 19th century, who received the bulk of their higher education in Modern German, that pushed away the less familiar Hebrew-derived words from their writing in Yiddish and even introduced new borrowings from German such as . At the same time, the religiously educated were incorporating more Hebrew words into their Yiddish. But outside of these two influences, the "core" vocabulary was thoroughly mixed and Germanic words may have been the majority, but not an overwhelming majority. --WikiTiki89 01:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I have updated Module:yi-translit to add terms as needed to Category:Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters needing transliteration. --WikiTiki89 20:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This category is catching issues that don't actually have any Hebrew-only letters, but still need to be dealt with. Why is the module transliterating and  thus? This is something that should be easily predictable. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Because when I originally wrote the module, I was under the impression that CuV would be written with dot in the vav. Only when I made this category today did I notice that I was wrong about that. Although I should fix this, it's not very common and I probably won't have time to fix it any time soon. As for, that's only because the module does not treat makaf as a letter, which it shouldn't be, so suffixes starting with vocalic yud or vav will display incorrectly. Since it only applies to suffixes, I'm not sure whether it's even worth fixing. --WikiTiki89 21:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth making it actually work rather than not, so if you ever have time I would appreciate if you could make the module more functional. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 22:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant to say is that a hyphen/makaf should not be treated as a letter in general, but only in suffixes. Is a hyphen/makaf occurring at the beginning of a string sufficient to be sure it is a suffix? --WikiTiki89 22:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the full string, yes. For any substring, no. That shouldn't be hard to implement. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll do it when I have the time. --WikiTiki89 23:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. It was easier than I thought (and I also added some detection of Hebrew words with the letter and improved their default transliteration). --WikiTiki89 19:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably the biggest source of bad transliterations that we're still not finding is links in, like in this old version, where the word linked to has a Hebrew spelling without any Hebrew-only letters. These can definitely be caught if you (or someone else capable) is willing to generate a list of pages that have a Yiddish section, end in ים or ות, and use without the   parameter being specified. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We would need a bot to catch the form-of entries, since I would not want to modify non-Yiddish-specific templates such as, but we could catch lemmas from the headword template by requiring a transliteration for the singular if the plural ends in and also requiring that if either one of the singular or plural is manually transliterated, then they both should be. In my mind, the old version of  you linked to is much less of a problem than lemma entries. --WikiTiki89 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't reconfigured my bot since I got a new computer; can you still run yours? I agree re lemma entries, that would be great to implement. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well actually we don't need a bot, but just a search of the dumps and I don't have time to write the code for that, especially considering there are others who do this all the time. We should just put in a request at the WT:GP. Meanwhile, I can write something for . --WikiTiki89 14:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Stress mark on monosyllabic terms
Привет, для чего используется знак ударения в таких словах, как כיס? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Я был против, но так было решено. --WikiTiki89 01:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

weoufhjasdf
I see more use י than ה, especially in things organized by root like verb stuff. Barron's for example. —  [Ric Laurent] — 19:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh Gosh I almost forgot, שבת שלום —  [Ric Laurent] — 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even-Shoshan, for example, uses ה. It's also what we have been doing (see and ). I personally wouldn't mind using י and ו, but we would have to change our existing entries. Plus, you can't expect people looking up roots to know when to look for י and when to look for ו. And אַ גוטע שבת to you too. --WikiTiki89 21:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It could be done, I'm pretty sure. Actually now that I look again Barron's lists these roots like this קרה (קרי) If we don't use the י and ו forms in pagenames, I think we should at least mention them somewhere in the root entries themselves. —  [Ric Laurent] — 21:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

א נייע קאץ
Hypothetically — if there were a category specifically for halachic terms (since obviously Judaism encompasses more than just halacha) do you think it would be better to go with the format Category:he:Halacha or Category:he:Jewish law? (pingponglekh tsu ) —  [Ric Laurent] — 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that since Wiktionary is not primarily targeted toward Jews, using a term that is readily understood by readers unfamiliar with Judaism is probably a better idea. Our choice would not matter so much if it were only for Hebrew entries, but since this applies to English entries as well, I think Category:en:Jewish law would be better. This also relieves us from having to choose a spelling for . --WikiTiki89 17:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually preferred using the native term since the translation isn't entirely precise, but I would agree that "Jewish law" would be better entirely on the basis of your last point :D —  [Ric Laurent] — 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that there are too many languages that need that level of granularity for Jewish terminology, but have fun rooting through the cats for Hebrew and Yiddish to fill the bloody thing. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:he:Judaism and Category:yi:Judaism don't have terribly much in them, anyway. If I were to do it, (which I might not, because I forgot that the topic cat templates use JS which I don't know at all so I can only make categories with those ugly "this isn't a real category" things) it would probably only take a morning. —  [Ric Laurent] — 05:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They don't use JS, they use Lua. I'll do it if you don't. --WikiTiki89 14:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I created the following categories: Category:Jewish law, Category:en:Jewish law, Category:he:Jewish law, and Category:yi:Jewish law. All I had to do in Lua was . --WikiTiki89 14:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If only were smarter —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is smarter. It just lacks knowledge, and I can fix that. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . --WikiTiki89 15:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Righteous —  [Ric Laurent] — 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ʾiʿrāb question(s)
What's the deal here? I recently was editing ἀμερμουμνῆς and was doing my best to learn the vowel system of Arabic for the word (and doing it poorly, I might add). I know WT:AAR says that lemma should not have ʾiʿrāb, but in the past you added them to at salateen. So should a compound lemma like be: — JohnC5 05:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Something else?
 * Something else?
 * Something else?
 * Something else?
 * Our policy on this kept changing, but now that we have declension tables we agreed that we no longer need ʾiʿrāb in headword lines, links, or mentions, except perhaps for certain exceptions like . --WikiTiki89 18:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So... in this case? — JohnC5 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's right. BTW with full ʾiʿrāb it would be . Benwing (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense... — JohnC5 04:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek *rhēxis, *rhêxis?
Hi Wikitiki. Are you sure that you meant to to WT:WE? Obviously, they're not in the Greek script, but even as transliterations, they're valid for Ancient Greek, not Modern Greek. Were you thinking of, perchance? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing me with, who was the one who added those. --WikiTiki89 12:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, . ;) --WikiWinters (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Wikitiki. I was knackered when I posted that message and failed to distinguish you two Wiki-prefixed editors. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. I was hoping that someone would sort it out, but I should've consulted someone like you first, I'll admit, before adding them. I wasn't sure for which Greek (Ancient nor Modern) terms the transliterations were. I'm a regular editor of Chinese entries, so I guess I'm used to entries being created for pinyin and other romanizations. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears now that this is not done for Greek entries. What is the next step of action, ? Also, I requested rhexis on the English requests page because I noticed that it was very common in the breakdowns of English medical terms (such as keratorrhexis, which I created from the requested entries page), which got me thinking that there should probably be the original Greek term as an entry. I apologize for the confusion and the inconvenience. --WikiWinters (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * English vocabulary derived from Greek almost always derives from Ancient Greek, rather than Modern Greek (compare Category:English terms derived from Ancient Greek [8,625 members] with Category:English terms derived from Greek [137 members]). And no, Romanisations of Greek (Ancient or Modern) are not currently given entries. Out of respect for Wikitiki, we should continue this discussion at User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

כּתובֿים
=kesuvem? (Somehow it isn't in any of my easy-to-search dictionaries.) — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 18:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think, just like and . --WikiTiki89 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That was my other thought, but I feel like I remember seeing a lot of words whose first vowel in Hebrew was a shva being pronounced with it in Yiddish. Then again. — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 18:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think in many cases the vowel is optional, but I can't picture it being pronounced in this case. I've definitely heard ksuvem before (albeit in Ashkenazi-English), but never kesuvem. (Unrelatedly, can you check the transliteration in the first quote at ?) --WikiTiki89 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't Yiddish is about as Ashkenazi as it gets? :D
 * Actually the only talmud masekhta I own is Chagiga (too bad it wasn't from the mishna for berachot, I actually have that one), but I'll see if I can find that bit menuqad online. — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that it wasn't actually Yiddish, but English. --WikiTiki89 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * But is it reaaally English? :D
 * שַׂמּוּחֵי, but I'm having trouble finding the quote we've got on the page itself so I dunno. — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well is it reaaally Yiddish if the speaker doesn't speak Yiddish? And thanks, there seem to be different versions of the Talmud out there; I picked this quote, which I found in CAL, because I didn't have to translate it from scratch. --WikiTiki89 19:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's toward the bottom of the page: אלא חמרא סעיד ומשחא לא סעיד וחמרא מי סעיד והא רבא הוה שתי חמדי כל מעלי יומא דפסחא כי היכי דנגרריה ללביה וניכול מצה טפי טובא דריר פורתא סעיד ומי סעיד כלל והכתיב ויין ישמח לבב אנוש ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד וגו' נחמא הוא דסעיד חמרא לא סעיד אלא חמדא אית ביה תרתי סעיד ומשמח נחמא מסעד סעיד שמוחי לא משמח


 * Yeah, I guess that version uses the word נהמא instead of לחמא (and adds a whole bunch of extra words), defeating the whole purpose of a quote for לחמא. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now that I look more closely, Masekhet Berakhot has almost the same number of pages in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. I might just be looking at the wrong one. The investigation continues — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yerushalmi has almost completely different Gemara text, and most of it is actually in Hebrew. It's definitely Bavli. --WikiTiki89 19:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was sure the Gemara would be different, but I had no idea about the language difference. Though it makes sense :D Thanks lol — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 20:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Judeo-Tat
Hi there. I can't help noticing that we haven't got an entry for yet. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We do now. --WikiTiki89 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * speaking of tat, I dunno how to make the yi-xlit do right for — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 08:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was going to suggest doing, but it seems your spelling is more common in Google Books. Anyway, . --WikiTiki89 15:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I just used the spelling I found on Forverts lol. שבת שלום אחי — <font face="Lucida console"> [Ric Laurent] — 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

One question
Imagine that a native Korean speaker learns Hebrew. Exactly what kind of difficulty would he or she face while learning Hebrew? (Hebrew is a extremely rare language in South Korea, so to speak.) --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikitiki89 doesn't speak Korean but you do speak English and some Russian, so it's not so extremely hard for you any more. Semitic languages like Hebrew and Arabic have (usually trilateral - i.e. consisting of three consonants) root systems where words and word forms are created by using meaningful root consonants plus various prefixes, infixes or root vowels and suffixes, all of which may have vowels and some consonants. See . What makes reading in Hebrew (also Arabic) difficult, is that (short) vowels are usually omitted but native speakers can "guess" where they are needed. Special texts supply vowels, which are usually unwritten (religious texts, texts for children or foreign learners). Foreign learners are required to master many words and grammar before they can read out texts in Hebrew or Arabic, both are only partially phonetic. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is like a whole new world. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, despite lexical differences, Semitic languages are somewhat easier for European language speakers (grammatically and syntactically) than for speakers of East Asian languages such as Korean or Japanese, let alone Chinese. I know very little Hebrew (mainly theoretically) but Arabic, which I know a little, is a close language, so I used it for comparison. Arabic has a complicated diglossia situation, which makes mastering any variety of Arabic very difficult (you can't practice what you learn from the books in the street and you can't brush up your spoken Arabic by reading books) plus lack of resources. So, Arabic is among the four most complicated languages for English speakers (level 4). The other three are Chinese, Japanese and Korean. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Following what Tolya said about written Hebrew, I started learning Hebrew almost 7 years ago. I haven't focused on it intensely for that whole time, but I still have problems reading unvowelized text, and I can still be pretty slow about reading text with vowels if the words have unfamiliar prosodic forms. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 14:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been reading Hebrew with vowels from a very young age (without understanding the vast majority of it). Because of that, when I started learning to understand Hebrew and to read without vowels, I already had many of the patterns ingrained into my subconscious. However, I have met many people who started completely from scratch later in life and did fine. I have met at least one Korean and a few Chinese in Israel learning Hebrew. In short, I would say that learning Hebrew for you (regardless of the variety of Hebrew) would be roughly equivalent to learning English completely from scratch. Think about how much effort you spent getting to each level of English and that is roughly the effort it would take for you to get to that level of Hebrew. At any point, switching to another variety of Hebrew would be comparatively very easy, and learning Arabic would be much easier than it would have been otherwise. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To add a fun dynamic to that, I've met native speakers from Israel who can't read nikud at all because they didn't pay attention in school :) — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many Chinese who can't read pinyin or other romanizations too :) --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 18:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well of course, pinyin is in a foreign alphabet, but nikkud is native to Hebrew. However, I have heard that in Taiwan, many young people can read and type, but not write with pen and paper. --WikiTiki89 18:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Or Koreans who don't know any Chinese characters and these people struggle in universities. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Come on...
We're specific enough for שיבולת \ שִׁבֹּלֶת • (shibólet) f (plural indefinite form שיבולים \ שִׁבֳּלִים, singular construct form שיבולת \ שִׁבֹּלֶת־, plural construct form שיבלי \ שִׁבֳּלֵי־) but not for נוֹלַד • (nolád) (nif'al construction, 3rd person masculine singular future ייוולד \ יִוָּלֵד, active counterpart יָלַד) ? — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 06:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * So you don't think that
 * is a little too long compared to
 * ? --WikiTiki89 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ? --WikiTiki89 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ? --WikiTiki89 14:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think all of those forms should be present in the headline. I think the headline should be reserved for the principle parts (which for Hebrew I would say are the 3rd person singular masculine perfect and imperfect), otherwise why are we just including the masculine singular forms instead of all of them? I prefer conjugation tables to listing a bunch of forms in the headword line. The lack of specificity in your second example makes it look to beginners like there are no other forms, and to non-beginners like we're, at best, leaving out important grammatical details, or, at worst, giving inaccurate descriptions of what each form represents. Conjugation tables are infinitely more useful than listing the masculine forms in the header. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 17:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My plan was to include all of the non-obvious parts. In this case, maybe לוֹקֵחַ is not completely necessary, but the others are. As for the non-specificity, we do that for Arabic also, labeling يَكْتُبُ as the "non-past" of كَتَبَ. --WikiTiki89 17:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say that technically all of the parts are non-obvious, but still they're only non-obvious to beginners, and they're going to vary depending on the shoresh and binyan, and conjugation tables are still better at showing them. I think the forms that the headword template can handle should only be included if every word needs those forms shown. If you know enough Hebrew to be able to figure out the conjugations based on limited information, generally that only requires the past and future forms. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 17:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "If you know enough Hebrew to be able to figure out the conjugations based on limited information, generally that only requires the past and future forms." That's exactly what I'm talking about, but sometimes other parts are also required and I want to show those. Also, the future is only required in pa'al verbs. --WikiTiki89 17:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you need more than the past and future to figure out the conjugation, a full table is going to be more helpful than a handful of masculine forms. (I think that's the sentence I've been trying to put together this whole time lol). I guess that's what I don't get, why not just make the tables, which I think we both agree are useful to any learner. I would probably be working on tables if somebody hadn't changed them to a color scheme I find hideous :( — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you already know enough Hebrew, having to look through the table to find all the irregularities takes more time than to have them highlighted for you in the headword line. I have nothing against also including a full table. --WikiTiki89 18:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What other language do we have where the headword line only lists the lemma and irregular forms? — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 19:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We currently do that for Arabic nouns; the dual, construct, and "informal" forms are shown in the headword line whenever they are irregular (in addition to the full declension table). --WikiTiki89 19:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Arabic isn't the best example, since it's only recently that anybody started really standardizing it on here. It's been utter chaos for years. And anyway, Arabic is insanely irregular. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is what most print dictionaries, anyway. And I think it is useful. Also, Arabic is also insanely regular in other ways. The dual and construct forms are almost always regular, which is why they only need to be shown when they aren't. We aren't talking about the plurals. --WikiTiki89 19:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary isn't a paper dictionary. Focusing only on the irregulars is going to do a disservice to beginners and intermediates who would be better served by conjugation tables, which are regular in form and not that difficult to navigate for Hebrew verbs. I don't think Barron's 500 Verbs series exists just to be cute. There's no place on Wiktionary where someone just starting to learn Hebrew is going to find out how to guess feminine forms from looking at the masculine ones. My question isn't whether or not it's useful, it's how to be the most useful to the broadest base of people. In my opinion, an organized chart is more useful than a string of random forms. That is, it's easier to read a chart than to scan through a list for the forms you want. Especially if the forms you want aren't there at all. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 05:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I do plan on also including a full conjugation table. The headword line just serves as a summary of the important parts. --WikiTiki89 11:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol I guess I just prioritize the tables. That was always my favorite thing to do until we started doing them in more advanced code that I've never understood. Ah well. שבת שלום — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 14:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

balcony
Привет,

Ты забыл протранслитерировать. Это "gezuzetera"? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * По нашей системе — "g'zuzt'rá". Но это не я это слово добавил. --WikiTiki89 04:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

טב
Why is the emphatic the lemma for nouns but the absolute for adjectives? — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because those are the default forms in late Aramaic, where nouns almost never occur in absolute form (and even the construct state is pretty rare), while adjectives are still frequently used in the absolute state as predicates (and the construct state for adjectives was always very rare). I would even have preferred to use absolute state as the lemma for nouns, but there is a strong case for this only in Samaritan Aramaic and older varieties of Aramaic. --WikiTiki89 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It almost seems like a bad idea to treat all Jewish Aramaic under just one header, given the timespans and divergences — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not much worse than it is for Hebrew. I would actually prefer to unify all varieties of (non-neo-) Aramaic because it just creates too much duplication. Regional, temporal, and ethnic varieties can be handled with usage notes. CAL, for example, lists the applicable varieties before every sense of every word. --WikiTiki89 21:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

אלטע זאכן
Can you check the Yiddish. Enosh (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's right, but I linked the two words separately. --WikiTiki89 15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

ts'hu[ב]a
In modern Hebrew I've only heard these forms pronounced with a v. Think that should be mentioned somewhere? It's not really relevant to the other letters, since their final shorashim don't change pronunciation, but maybe for this one? — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 21:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a usage note. There are tons of words that are pronounced "incorrectly" by most Modern Hebrew speakers. --WikiTiki89 21:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The usage note is what I was thinking. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

twice
The translation table in this entry had lots of fossilized markup from before there was a template. Someone decided to clear this out, but managed to leave the Hebrew translations seriously mangled. I tinkered with it a bit, but gave up: I have no idea what the person who originally added it was trying to do, and no idea what would be right for the entry. Could you take a look at it? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I see what they were trying to do and made it so. But I'm also unsure it's the best link/display to have there. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 10:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, would you like to check out and  and critique? — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 13:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok:
 * I've never heard of a form like or  for the m.sg.abs.
 * I think we should have only for m.sg.det. and only  for f.sg.abs. Of course, both were used for both, but there is no need to list all alternative spellings for everything.
 * We probably should include the very common and  as alternative forms for the m.pl.det.
 * Is "determined" the right word? I remember this usually being called "emphatic".
 * --WikiTiki89 17:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I followed the little table in Max Margolis's guide to Talmud Bavli Aramaic. He lists the -ī form of the m.p abs as a "newer" form. (I thought about making a note of the older/newer forms where relevant, but I'm not sure how to word this, or how to note that the construct basically fell out of use at a certain point.)
 * I'll add the -ē for m.p det, but Margolis says this is only used of substantivized adjectives, so I think I won't be able to avoid adding some kind of note to the table. Personally, neither determined (which is what the English translation of Margolis uses) or emphatic makes any sense to me... I'd prefer "definite," but if emphatic is the most common, I don't really have much problem using that instead. — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 18:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just note that the only Aramaic grammar I read was of Biblical Aramaic, so I'm not an expert on later dialects. I didn't realize there was a difference between nouns and adjectives in terms of vs. . I just thought that the latter was a later contraction of the former influenced by the construct. But I may have been wrong. Also, the construct state for adjectives was always fairly rare, well before it even mostly fell out of use for nouns. I'm curious where the evidence is for  and how it could be distinguished from . --WikiTiki89 18:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hah, ironically I've almost only read of Babylonian Aramaic grammar. I really should start learning about the Biblical grammar, but... anyway.
 * Of the for plural absolute, Margolis says it was only used for adjectives and participles. The table and notes to it are on page 28 of his book, which I'm sure can be found online somewhere. I can't remember exactly where I found it. The full title is "A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud." To be simple, I frequently find it infuriating, but it's better than nothing. :) — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 18:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But how do they know the pronunciation? I'll take a look at that grammar. BTW, for BA I recommend A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic by Alger F. Johns—short, sweet, and thorough. --WikiTiki89 18:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I couldn't begin to guess :) Thanks, I'll look for it — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (I didn't have to look far, turns out I already have it and didn't realize it lol) — <font face="Lucida console"> קהת — 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

חֶנְוָתָא
I got this one from Jastrow. — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 19:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe the ink is wearing off? I got it from CAL. --WikiTiki89 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol not unless it wore off in the same way three times; he lists alternative spellings חנוותא and חנואתא all with segol. — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * CAL has four citations from Jewish texts that have nikkud, all from Targum Jonathan: Jeremiah 37:16, Ezekiel 27:17 , Ezekiel 42:71 , Ezekiel 42:72 . I'm not sure where Jastrow gets its nikkud from, but I don't trust any vocalized versions of the Talmud to be accurate. The problem is Aramaic is a macro-language and we have made no decisions about what to use as our lemma dialect. --WikiTiki89 13:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

*θalg-
The IP that made that edit is our well-known IP who likes to insert unattested words, remove the * from links, and make other disruptive nonsense edits. They've been rather active lately. I have taken the stance that nothing by this user can be trusted, so I just revert anything that looks slightly suspicious or that I can't verify. That doesn't mean the edit is wrong necessarily, I'm just being cautious. —CodeCat 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The only part I resotred was the Akkadian script, which is phonetically correct. That doesn't mean it's definitely the correct spelling, but I'm willing to trust him on that. Most of his edits show that he does have at least some knowledge of the languages. --WikiTiki89 14:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Requests for deletion
Do you have any thoughts on this? It would be much appreciated if you could give your opinion. Thank you. --WikiWinters (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you nominated it at WT:RFD when it is already about to fail WT:RFV. If what you meant is that it someone should finally delete it and close the discussion, that is not what RFD is for. All you need to do is comment something like "RFV failed" in the RFV discussion and strike out the heading, and then (if you're not an admin) add to the page so an admin will find it and delete it. --WikiTiki89 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. --WikiWinters (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood a bit:
 * The RFV has already failed, you don't need to vote "Delete" on it.
 * You should strike the header of the RFV discussion, because it is over.
 * You still haven't added the template to the L.P. page (if you were an admin, you could delete the page yourself, but since you are not, you can add this template to request an admin to delete it for you).
 * No need to apologize. I'm not being critical; I'm just trying to teach you. --WikiTiki89 16:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you were trying to teach me, and I'm very grateful, so thank you! I was simply apologizing because my edits seemed disoriented, and I hate making things more confusing for other editors. Again, thank you for helping me learn how to go about this process! :) --WikiWinters (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I feel like we should have a page describing how RFD and RFV processes work. --WikiTiki89 18:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

за жизнь
Вот страница из орфоэпического словаря под редакцией Аванесова. Если у вас есть источник на вашу транскрипцию, то покажите его, пожалуйста.--Cinemantique (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

English pronunciation sections
Hello, again! I was wondering if my edits to the pronunciation sections of arbitrage and certificate were done properly. I added noun and verb senses, which I don't know if were properly listed, and I added IPA pronunciations. I also added rhymes. For rhymes, are you supposed to include the entire part of the word that is emphasized? For one of the senses of arbitrage, the emphasis is placed on all syllables from the start, so I assumed the rhyme was the entire word. Also, for the hyphenations that I added, are they supposed to be at the bottom of pronunciation sections, and what is the proper order? Thank you. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if a word begins with a stressed vowel, then the entire word is the rhyme. At least in English. It's not likely that it will actually rhyme with anything else, though. —CodeCat 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The pronunciation differences for arbitrage do not have to do with part of speech. --WikiTiki89 21:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but if I recall correctly, the second pronunciation is for the archaic sense, which I have just added. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's also a dialectal variant. --WikiTiki89 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very likely. --WikiWinters (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that British dictionaries give both variants, while American ones only give /-ˌɑʒ/. --WikiTiki89 21:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's probably why the archaic definition I saw used the variant pronunciation, as archaic words' pronunciations seem to resemble British pronunciation more often than American pronunciation. —  Wiki  Winters ☯ 韦安智   00:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

root cats
Should these indicate shin/sin, like התנשק is doing now? Just checking — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 23:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you do it wrong, I made it give you an error. Don't go crazy with it yet, though. --WikiTiki89 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm out of control. — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 23:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what else is new? ... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your face.
 * Your face is new.
 * — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 01:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey. - are we gonna use תו״י or תו״ה? — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that even the root? Maybe it's just ת״ו. --WikiTiki89 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Got it from the Academy — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I seem to have already disagreed with the Academy on and . Do you know any words related to ? I was thinking, but any verbs? --WikiTiki89 15:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nah, this is the first time I've ever seen it. — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 15:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * might be related. Enosh (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and there's and, so that settles it as . --WikiTiki89 13:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, now there is . See and . --WikiTiki89 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I like it.
 * שבת שלום. (וצום קל למי יצום). — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * שייבנה הבית ולא יהיה צום --WikiTiki89 20:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Any way you could take this a step further and have it parse everything from the page title if the parameters are left out? Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could if there is a good reason for it, otherwise it would be too much work. As it is now, it also provides a check to make sure you're creating the category on the right page. --WikiTiki89 13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

קו״ם \ קי״ם
I think these might be two separate roots. Bolozky lists קו״ם as being the root of verbs like and  and קי״ם as being the root of  and. What do you think? — <font face="Lucida console"> Z. [ קהת ] b"A. — 10:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bolozky is more interested in being useful than historically correct. I am fairly certain it's the same root, although I can't say for sure whether it was originally קו״ם or קי״ם (but I'm leaning toward קו״ם). --WikiTiki89 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
I'd just like to quickly thank you for my Whitelist nomination! Stephen MUFC (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. --WikiTiki89 12:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

About the goddess ˤntjt - Anat
Written as, should it be ˤntjt or ˤnt? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Written that way, it should definitely be ˤntjt. Also, am I interpreting the egg and cobra correctly to mean "daughter-goddess"? --WikiTiki89 14:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed the "btlt ‘nt" (Virgin Anat) in English Wikipedia. I'm curious why "‘nt" cannot be found. I would also interpret it as "daughter-goddess", since El addresses her as daughter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "btlt" is a Semitic word, not an Egyptian one. --WikiTiki89 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting Russian declension templates
(also ) I notice there are a bunch of old Russian declension templates. Is there a programmatic way to rewrite them to use e.g. ? If so, I could potentially do this in a bot. Benwing (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, each old template has a straightforward conversion to the new one (although there may be a couple left that are not fully supported yet by the new one). Let's start with adjectives, which are the easiest. Most of the old adjective templates work like this:
 * The new one works like this:
 * The short forms should be stripped of hard-coded links, but comma-separated variants should be left (preferably with spaces stripped after commas for aesthetic purposes). If the short forms are blank, the arguments should be omitted. Also, notice that the order of  and   is swapped. The   depends on the template number (although in most, but not all, cases it can be deduced from the ending of the word itself). Irregular ones are bolded:
 * : (not yet supported)
 * :  (and  )
 * :  (and , where   is the 8th argument; note that the hyphen must be added)
 * --WikiTiki89 12:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, this looks doable. What do you mean when you say "irregular ones are bolded"? Are these simply cases of irregular declensions or is the conversion from old to new irregular? I also presume that I can rewrite to  and treat  the same as ? BTW it would be could if you or Anatoli could add some documentation to  (and maybe think about implementing ). Benwing (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are the cases where the  parameter cannot be deduced from the actual ending of the word. And yes, everything you said in about redirects is the case. --WikiTiki89 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with is more of a conceptual error. It conflates the declension of the surname with the declension of the adjectival form of the surname and gives a table that is not a good representation of either. The same would be true of  and  as well, except that the adjectival forms happen to all match up with the actual surname forms. The entries that use them should really have two declension tables or even split into two POS sections. --WikiTiki89 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I wrote the script to convert these templates; wasn't too much work. I'll run it later. While I'm at it, what about the noun declension templates? Can you write out a similar conversion chart? Thanks! Benwing (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can, but it will take longer (there are simply more of them). I'm not sure whether I'll have time today. --WikiTiki89 14:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ... whenever you can get to it. Benwing (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * : (not yet supported)
 * :  (and  )
 * :  (and , where   is the 8th argument; note that the hyphen must be added)
 * --WikiTiki89 12:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, this looks doable. What do you mean when you say "irregular ones are bolded"? Are these simply cases of irregular declensions or is the conversion from old to new irregular? I also presume that I can rewrite to  and treat  the same as ? BTW it would be could if you or Anatoli could add some documentation to  (and maybe think about implementing ). Benwing (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They are the cases where the  parameter cannot be deduced from the actual ending of the word. And yes, everything you said in about redirects is the case. --WikiTiki89 12:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with is more of a conceptual error. It conflates the declension of the surname with the declension of the adjectival form of the surname and gives a table that is not a good representation of either. The same would be true of  and  as well, except that the adjectival forms happen to all match up with the actual surname forms. The entries that use them should really have two declension tables or even split into two POS sections. --WikiTiki89 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I wrote the script to convert these templates; wasn't too much work. I'll run it later. While I'm at it, what about the noun declension templates? Can you write out a similar conversion chart? Thanks! Benwing (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can, but it will take longer (there are simply more of them). I'm not sure whether I'll have time today. --WikiTiki89 14:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ... whenever you can get to it. Benwing (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with is more of a conceptual error. It conflates the declension of the surname with the declension of the adjectival form of the surname and gives a table that is not a good representation of either. The same would be true of  and  as well, except that the adjectival forms happen to all match up with the actual surname forms. The entries that use them should really have two declension tables or even split into two POS sections. --WikiTiki89 12:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I wrote the script to convert these templates; wasn't too much work. I'll run it later. While I'm at it, what about the noun declension templates? Can you write out a similar conversion chart? Thanks! Benwing (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can, but it will take longer (there are simply more of them). I'm not sure whether I'll have time today. --WikiTiki89 14:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks ... whenever you can get to it. Benwing (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A few more templates: It looks like all could be rewritten as indicated (with further conversion to Template:ru-decl-adj) except that they add the category Category:Russian participles. (Contrary to the docs, they don't add categories like Category:Russian past passive participles; this is done by the definitional template.) One thing I could do is create a template Template:ru-decl-part that is identical to Template:ru-decl-adj but also adds the category; or we could add a part param to Template:ru-decl-adj, perhaps with values like pres-pasv (or alternatively prp for short) if we're concerned about losing info that we might want to regain at some later point. Benwing (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Template:ru-past-pasv-part (rewrite like Template:ru-adj1?)
 * Template:ru-past-act-part (no short forms; rewrite like Template:ru-adj3 with ш added to the stem?)
 * Template:ru-past-act-part-sja (no short forms; rewrite like Template:ru-adj3-sja with ш added to the stem?)
 * Template:ru-pres-pasv-part (rewrite like Template:ru-adj1 with м added to the stem?)
 * Template:ru-pres-act-part (no short forms; rewrite like Template:ru-adj3 with щ added to the stem?)
 * Template:ru-pres-act-part-sja (no short forms; rewrite like Template:ru-adj3-sja with щ added to the stem?)
 * Yes, participle templates can be merged with adjectives, as long as the categorisation still works - by headwords or by templates. We can get rid of the currently required parameter for prepositional cases - о (before consonants) or об (before vowels) (no longer used with participles). They are predictable for 99.9% of adjectives and participles. There are just odd cases like "обо я|мне", "обо всём", "обо всех" (but о всех людях) where it's not one of the two. Besides, it's by far not the only preposition used with the prepositional case. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting Russian noun templates
OK, I'm guessing the following:


 * -> (and convert 1 -> an, note -> notes, leave n alone; BARE parameter omitted if omitted or empty in source)
 * -> (ditto above)
 * -> (ditto above)
 * -> (ditto above)
 * -> (ditto above)
 * -> (ditto above)
 * -> (  omitted if   is omitted)
 * -> with the value of   determined by:
 * If  +   =   (with the stress in the same place), then   =
 * If  +   =   (with the stress shifted to the  ), then   =
 * If  =   (with the stress in the same place), then   =   and   instead of   for the third parameter.
 * Otherwise, it is not yet supported (if such cases exist).
 * -> analogous to
 * -> (  omitted if   is omitted; assert that   =   + , i.e. the same as prepositional)
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * NOTE: Should be safe to rewrite ->  and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> (  omitted if   is omitted; assert that   =   + , i.e. the same as prepositional)
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * NOTE: Should be safe to rewrite ->  and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * NOTE: Should be safe to rewrite ->  and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * NOTE: Should be safe to rewrite ->  and process further
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> rewrite as and process further
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.
 * -> ??? unsupported?
 * -> Use ending removed from   to decide between   and  . Assert that   minus   =   minus  ; I'm 99% sure this should always be true. Also assert that the   goes with the   ending, i.e. that   was used with   and   with.

Benwing (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, the above is not quite right; e.g. seems to vary a bit depending on the value of N; some have the params as UNSTRESSED|STEM rather than STEM|BARE, and  has a weird plural. Benwing (talk) 06:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above is right for most cases, but as you noticed, the old templates have a lot of inconsistencies. Some of them have been recently updated by CodeCat not to need the unstressed parameters, while others have not. The weird plural of is handled by, but it is already orphaned (I just converted its one last use manually). The rest of them are fairly straightforward once you take into account those irregularities, except that  should use   rather than   as the third parameter to .--WikiTiki89 10:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll expand the conversion tables when I have a chance and ask you to look over them. Meanwhile, I added a -е declension for цыга́н; not sure if there are any other nouns that behave this way. Benwing (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you help with the last four entries above marked ??? ? Benwing (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I do that, can you make me a list of all the places where is used, especially where   is not   (if any such cases exist). --WikiTiki89 11:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that will take a little while, I don't have access to my machine with pywikibot set up on it right now. Can you explain to me when exactly the "bare stem" (4th arg to ) is used? I'm trying to figure out how to convert some of the and  templates, which have a "reduced" form (param 1) and a "stem" form (param 2 or 3) (both of which can be missing, e.g. in the call to  in ), but esp. the "reduced" form (param 1) is often missing). The "stem" form does not appear to always be the same as the "bare stem" form of . Benwing (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The bare stem is used when there is no suffix (more accurately, when there is no syllabic vowel in the suffix). This is usually the m.sg.nom and n/f.pl.gen. In the module, it is all the suffixes that are,  , or  . In cases where one or the other is missing, they are both the same. I guess which one is allowed to be missing may be different in different templates. This is one of the reasons I made this module, because the old templates are such a mess. --WikiTiki89 12:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you happen to know ? Because if you do, the above rules would be more concisely and accurately described in a Prolog-inspired syntax. --WikiTiki89 12:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know Prolog unfortunately, studied it in a programming-language class in college but never really learned it. But I might be able to make sense of the rules if you write them out -- Prolog is basically just logic, I think. Benwing (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW take a look above at, which has some weirdness; not sure what to do with it. Benwing (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prolog is all about pattern matching. I'm not going to rewrite the rules now that they are there, but I will keep it in mind for the future. As for : As far as I can tell the  is only for alternation of е/ё, in which case it should be merged with the regular  .   is something I already had in mind when writing the module and decided that these should just use overrides. This is in fact just another stress pattern, which maybe we could add support for as   and   or something, but it may not be worth it. --WikiTiki89 13:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)--WikiTiki89 13:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, have you ever used Scala? It also has pattern matching in it (as do other functional languages like Haskell). Benwing (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW are you sure about "STEM or UNSTRESSED or BARE or PAGENAME"? E.g. in the template code for, BARE is not a backup of STEM or UNSTRESSED, and having it as a backup will fail when BARE has an extra "epenthetic" vowel in it compared with the stem. Benwing (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But Prolog is only pattern matching; there are no if-statements or anything. Yes,  will have an extra epenthetic vowel, but (for the masculine and   declensions) so will  . So if the stem is not specified, there is nowhere to get it from anyway and it must be assumed it is the same as  . --WikiTiki89 14:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense concerning BARE. BTW take a look at Template:ru-noun-vel-3 above -- it has LOCSG and LOCPL. AFAIK your module doesn't support LOCPL; is this a spurious form that never actually exists for any nouns? Benwing (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the locative plural is never different from the prepositional. --WikiTiki89 16:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mention above that ru-noun-це should have decl class о; does this also apply to ru-noun-sib-е? Benwing (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it does. I don't know why I had it in my mind that it was just ц. --WikiTiki89 17:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Finished table above. Note there's one "unsupported" case; perhaps we should support it. Benwing (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! That case actually is supported, but was the only entry that transcluded it, so I fixed it manually. --WikiTiki89 18:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please check bot changes for rewriting adjective declension templates
I had my bot do the first 27 adjective changes. Can you check them to make sure everything looks OK? It should be the latest changes; if not, they were made around 5:10AM UTC on August 13. Thanks. Benwing (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I went through them all. Your bot did everything fine, but I did find that in the case of, the short forms were in the wrong order to begin with. Perhaps your bot can also check to make sure that they all have the right endings (-, -о/е, -а/я, -ы/и). --WikiTiki89 05:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did implement the check for endings, and it's already found some problems; I'll post them when it's done. I'm not sure how to check for the masculine singular -- can it assume that it shouldn't end with any of the other endings?
 * Also, the old declension templates add the pages to Category:Russian adjectives, which the new one doesn't do, and which consequently moves pages like and  out of the category. Should we add back the category? Benwing (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Masculine singular always ends in a consonant (including ь). I consciously decided that categories should be added by the headword template and not by the declension table. Theoretically, we might use an adjective declension table in a noun section, for example. The entries you mentioned are missing headword templates, so adding them would put them back in the category. --WikiTiki89 07:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Short adjective declension warnings

 * Page 146 англоязычный: WARNING: short plural англоязы́чн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 200 асексуальный: WARNING: short feminine асексуа́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 200 асексуальный: WARNING: short neuter асексуа́льна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 286 безудержный: WARNING: short feminine безу́держнf doesn't have right ending
 * Page 286 безудержный: WARNING: short neuter безу́держнj doesn't have right ending
 * Page 286 безудержный: WARNING: short plural безу́держнs doesn't have right ending
 * Page 342 бисексуальный: WARNING: short feminine бисексуа́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 342 бисексуальный: WARNING: short neuter бисексуа́льна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 466 вероломный: WARNING: short feminine вероло́мно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 466 вероломный: WARNING: short neuter вероло́мна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 497 влажный: WARNING: short plural вла́жн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 507 внешний: WARNING: short feminine вне́шне doesn't have right ending
 * Page 507 внешний: WARNING: short neuter вне́шня doesn't have right ending
 * Page 516 водный: WARNING: short feminine во́дно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 516 водный: WARNING: short neuter во́дна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 603 вышесказанный: WARNING: short neuter вышеска́занн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 603 вышесказанный: WARNING: short plural вышеска́занн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 626 гетеросексуальный: WARNING: short feminine гетеросексуа́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 626 гетеросексуальный: WARNING: short neuter гетеросексуа́льна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 653 годичный: WARNING: short feminine годи́чен doesn't have right ending
 * Page 653 годичный: WARNING: short neuter годи́чна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 653 годичный: WARNING: short plural годи́чно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 685 гравитационный: WARNING: short feminine гравитацио́нно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 685 гравитационный: WARNING: short neuter гравитацио́нна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 808 достижимый: WARNING: short neuter достижи́м doesn't have right ending
 * Page 813 дошлый: WARNING: short plural о doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1103 квалифицированный: WARNING: short feminine квалифици́рованa doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1103 квалифицированный: WARNING: short neuter квалифици́рованo doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1429 многоязычный: WARNING: short plural многоязы́чн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1489 надменный: WARNING: short plural надме́нно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1510 насильственный: WARNING: short feminine наси́льственен,наси́льствен
 * Page 1510 насильственный: WARNING: short neuter наси́льственна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1510 насильственный: WARNING: short plural наси́льственно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1514 настольный: WARNING: short feminine насто́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1514 настольный: WARNING: short neuter насто́льна  doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1530 неблагоприятный: WARNING: short plural о doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1585 некрасивый: WARNING: short feminine некраси́в doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1608 необыкновенный: WARNING: short plural необыкнове́нн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1659 непромокаемый: WARNING: short feminine непромока́емый doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1755 обратный: WARNING: short neuter обра́тна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1864 отрицательный: WARNING: short feminine отрица́тельн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 1888 пёстрый: WARNING: short plural пё́стро,пестро́ doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2012 положительный: WARNING: short feminine положи́тельн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2030 портативный: WARNING: short feminine портати́вно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2030 портативный: WARNING: short neuter портати́вна  doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2159 прожорливый: WARNING: short feminine прожо́рлив doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2223 пятнистый: WARNING: short feminine пятни́ст doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2223 пятнистый: WARNING: short plural пятни́ст doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2323 русскоязычный: WARNING: short plural русскоязы́чн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2383 сексуальный: WARNING: short feminine сексуа́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2383 сексуальный: WARNING: short neuter сексуа́льна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2476 снегоуборочный: WARNING: short feminine о doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2660 толерантный: WARNING: short neuter толера́нтна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2683 транссексуальный: WARNING: short feminine транссексуа́льно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2683 транссексуальный: WARNING: short neuter транссексуа́льна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2791 устойчивый: WARNING: short plural усто́йчив doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2864 художественный: WARNING: short feminine худо́жественен, худо́жествен doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2864 художественный: WARNING: short neuter худо́жественна doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2864 художественный: WARNING: short plural худо́жественно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 2952 широкий: WARNING: short plural широ́ко, широко́ doesn't have right ending
 * Page 3022 язычный: WARNING: short plural язы́чн doesn't have right ending
 * Page 3029 яростный: WARNING: short feminine я́ростно doesn't have right ending
 * Page 3029 яростный: WARNING: short neuter я́ростна doesn't have right ending

Benwing (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed them all. Glad there weren't too many. --WikiTiki89 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Benwing (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One masculine warning here: яблочный; fixed. Benwing (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

stress should be removed in Module:ru-noun for one-syllable words
I converted to use  but I had to accent the stem, and it shows up accented in the nominative/accusative sg as well even though it's only one syllable. Formerly it didn't and I think the accent should be removed from one-syllable words. Benwing (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not wrong to have an accent in one-syllable words. In fact, I find it makes declension tables more consistent and easier to read when the one-syllable forms have a stress mark. --WikiTiki89 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a phonemic difference between presence and lack of stress? —CodeCat 12:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually yes, and monosyllable nouns do have stress on their only syllable. Some particles and prepositions are entirely unstressed. --WikiTiki89 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Combining Module:ru-noun and Module:ru-noun-old?
It seems like there's lots of code duplication here. If I'm not mistaken the main difference is the declension types themselves -- the two could be combined by e.g. creating the old declension under  and creating entry points   and   with the implementation largely shared. Similarly for Module:ru-adjective and Module:ru-adjective-old. Ultimately you might want to combine the noun and adjective modules as well, since it appears there are nouns that decline according to the adjective declensions. (Module:ar-nominals has them combined, for example -- although granted this is a significantly more complex module that does all sorts of things.) Benwing (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I diffed the two modules and they definitely can and should be combined. They are already starting to diverge due to code getting inserted into the new one and not propagated to the old one -- exactly the typical situation with duplicated code. It looks in fact like you can systematically generate the new declensions from the old ones with a few substitutions. Benwing (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can generate the new declensions from the old ones and I considered doing that, but decided not to because that would require anyone who wants to add declensions to have to know the old orthography. If it were possible to do it the other way around (derive the old declensions from the new ones) I would have done it that way. I guess the real reason I made separate modules is because it was easier to just copy and paste it. There are a few differences, however, in how links are generated. For old declensions, I decided to strip the ё to е in the link. --WikiTiki89 12:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and merged the two; you should delete Module:ru-noun-old. I preserved the differences and generated the new decls from the old ones. Someone who wants to add only a new-style declension can do it if they really want to by adding to  instead of  . Benwing (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't think that was the best idea, but whatever. --WikiTiki89 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please check Category:Pages with module errors. They seem to be all cases of declension types not recognized by this module. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * fixed. Benwing (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporting a separate plural stem in Module:ru-noun
Looks like we need to support a distinct plural stem for certain nouns. I've been running code to convert the noun decls and has complained about бесёнок and пизда and чертёнок. There's also око and небо and озеро and господин and ухо and such, which are handled currently by manually specifying all the case forms using. Is this something you can add? Benwing (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can try adding -ёнок/-онок, they are rather common for baby animals. The others are special cases, there will be many more - сосед, татарин.  --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand now how the module works (never learned how to properly debug modules) but котёнок and мышонок are typical for -онок/-ёнок declension, чертёнок is irregular. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The -онок/-ёнок declension is already supported. To debug modules, the only way is with print statements, either using error or mw.log. Benwing (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I implemented the special pl stem. Benwing (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed a bug; the module errors will disappear in time. Benwing (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been meaning to dot this myself, but you beat me to it. --WikiTiki89 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest round of warnings

 * Page 1451 бесёнок : WARNING: Strange plural:
 * Page 1813 бросок : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 1959 бюллетень : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 2334 водовод : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 2426 вокал : WARNING: Can't locate stem in, skipping
 * Page 3364 двойка : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 3427 дежа : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 3732 дождик : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 4075 железа : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 5851 консилер : WARNING: Can't locate stem in, skipping
 * Page 6054 костяшка : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 6465 лапша : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 6497 левша : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 7549 моча : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 7598 мультиплекс : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 8645 опричник : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 9317 переселенец : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 9438 пизда : WARNING: Strange 'irregular' plural пёзд, not substitutable for stem пизд, skipping
 * Page 10270 правша : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 10515 приманка : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 10929 пунктир : WARNING: Can't locate stem in, skipping
 * Page 11204 раскольник : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 11477 ржа : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 11634 рулет : WARNING: Can't locate stem in, skipping
 * Page 11843 саранча : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 11923 свинец : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 11981 северянин : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 12027 село : WARNING: Strange 'irregular' plural сёл, not substitutable for stem селу́, skipping
 * Page 12681 спасатель : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 12703 спецназ : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 12777 срыв : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 12849 стегно : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13020 ступень : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13052 судимость : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13319 телеканал : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13486 тишь : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13547 торг : WARNING: Unexpected locative plural на торга́х:
 * Page 13815 тысяча : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 13974 улочка : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 14599 холдинг : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 14883 черемша : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 14907 чертёнок : WARNING: Strange plural:
 * Page 15255 штоф : WARNING: Can't locate stem in, skipping
 * Page 15303 щепа : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 15304 щепка : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 15441 энергетик : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping
 * Page 15614 ямча : WARNING: Extraneous parameters in, skipping

Can you check the declensions of these warnings? The ones that say "Extraneous parameters" are probably OK (note that the template given is after expected params have been removed; if all params appear blank it's because there's an extra blank param), and if so you don't need to correct them, as I'll just add some code to remove all extraneous params; the others might need to be corrected. Thanks! Benwing (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW I made one fix, on the page ат. Hopefully it is correct. Benwing (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * улочка lacks stress marks. Checking others, mostly look good! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * щепка is wrong. See щепка@ru:wikt. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I fixed those. Can you also check the five nouns listed above with the warning "Can't locate stem"? All of those needed to be fixed; hopefully they're correct. Benwing (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, is "thousand-ruble banknote" correct? Doesn't look it. Benwing (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also fixed, please check. Benwing (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's up with село? Does it have a locative ? Benwing (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Something is wrong with the decl for приманка and двойка and костяшка. Benwing (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checked all. Fixed some. The unusual plurals (пизда, чертёнок) are correct. Both locative and prepositional for село is селе́, so locative is unnecessary. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rename ->,  -> ?
For consistency, I wonder if we should rename ->  and  ->. This fits with the name of and with the naming scheme in other languages, where there's e.g.  and. Likewise ->  and  ->. What do you think? Benwing (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. If they are true exceptions. Some are just using those templates but they are standard. Ideally, irregular declensions should also be handled by the module. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been meaning to propose this. --WikiTiki89 17:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Misc warnings
One warning left, from the adjective decl not agreeing with the page name: Benwing (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Page 883 клёво: WARNING: Page name клёво doesn't end in expected ый, skipping
 * Does it persist? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cinemantique fixed it. Benwing (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Adjectives like 3-ий
These adjectives need to use, or something; they have (or had) a manually-formatted headword. I changed 3-ий but I'm not sure the best way to format the fact that they're abbreviations. The others are 9-ый, 8-ой, 7-ой, 6-ой, 5-ый, 4-ый, 2-ой, 12-ый, 11-ый, 10-ый, 1-ый, 0-ой. Benwing (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These abbreviations can be declined as their full forms by replacing the stem with the number + "-", e.g. =, etc. but I am not sure I can easily convert to use  right now. I need to get more comfortable with the new ways. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is what it should look like ideally. Is it really spelled ? I would have thought . --WikiTiki89 10:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right, "ь" or "ъ" are never used after hyphens, it should indeed be . In all other cases, the stems could be replaced with numbers, I think. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Russian possessive adjectives
The old, , , , , all put the adjective into Category:Russian possessive adjectives. We can have Module:ru-adjective do the same for, and  because they have special declension types, but not so easily for  or. But in any case this maybe isn't the right approach. Should we instead maybe change the headword template to be ? Benwing (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, except that the uses of and  are mostly actually proper nouns ... Benwing (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am personally fine with sacrificing Category:Russian possessive adjectives. They are just a different declension type. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Participles like снижающийся
These used to be categorized as adjectives. Currently they're categorized only as participles and as non-lemma forms, which doesn't seem quite right. There are four such cases: снижающийся, извозюкавшийся, пенящийся, увлекающийся. Benwing (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems OK to me. They are indeed participles, not adjectives. If they are (also) adjectives could be used as well but the declension is identical for participles and adjectives (also ordinal numerals).
 * Please note participles and numerals never have short forms and for adjectives, only qualitative adjectives (usually) have short forms (currently short forms are a bit misused here and @ru:wiki). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Anatoli, passive participles have short forms.--Cinemantique (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, thank you @Cinemantique! @Benwing. Yes, that should be addressed in the module. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would say that they are both adjectives and participles. --WikiTiki89 10:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sibilant nouns with -ья plural
I would expect these to have genitive plural in -ьей but the only example I can find,, has gen pl -ей. Are there other such nouns and if so, how do they behave? Benwing (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This word is unique in its declension, there are no other such nouns., are also unique, AFAIK. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Benwing (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See also plural nom. and gen. of and . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Historically speaking, the ь is the е in the gen pl -ей, so there is no reason to expect -ьей. --WikiTiki89 10:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:ru-decl-adj-table
Why did you revert this? What features does my new version not support? The old way will not autolink multiple variants for a given form, for example. I would rather use the same module for everything; this makes it possible e.g. to change the format in one place, if we want or need to do that. Benwing (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO the old way on сей looks terrible
Because the numbers aren't superscripted. Benwing (talk) 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they are (for me at least). Also, I think we should try to use modules less for things that don't need them. --WikiTiki89 11:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, never mind, I do see the superscripts. As for using modules or not, you seem not to care much about code duplication, which surprises me ... in this case we have lots of HTML formatting and such duplicated between the template and the module, and junky things like Template:ru-table entry-adj. Benwing (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My preference is to have as much HTML formatting as possible in templates. I'm even considering having the module invoke the template to format the table at the end. is very useful because it allows you to easily create table templates. See how  is implemented, for example; it's very simple and clean and uses modules only to format the links themselves. --WikiTiki89 11:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took another look at and got what you were talking about (that is, if you were referring to the hackish way it is different form ). It's not ideal, but I can't think of a better solution that still keeps it simple. If I had it my way anyway, we would transliterate -ого as -ogo and not need any of these special cases. --WikiTiki89 12:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

More warnings (about Latin chars masquerading as Cyrillic in the decl template)

 * Page 1030 атеизм: WARNING: Stem aтеи́зм has Latin chars in it: a (index 0)
 * Page 1942 бык: WARNING: Stem бык (animate) has Latin chars in it: a (index 5), n (index 6), i (index 7), m (index 8), a (index 9), t (index 10), e (index 11)
 * Page 1942 бык: WARNING: Stem бык (inanimate) has Latin chars in it: i (index 5), n (index 6), a (index 7), n (index 8), i (index 9), m (index 10), a (index 11), t (index 12), e (index 13)
 * Page 7017 марксизм: WARNING: Stem мaркси́зм has Latin chars in it: a (index 1)
 * Page 8235 носач: WARNING: Stem ноcа́ч has Latin chars in it: c (index 2)
 * Page 10197 потомок: WARNING: Stem потóмк has Latin chars in it: ó (index 3)
 * Page 10197 потомок: WARNING: Bare form потóмок has Latin chars in it: ó (index 3)
 * Page 14551 Хезболла: WARNING: Stem Xezboll has Latin chars in it: X (index 0), e (index 1), z (index 2), b (index 3), o (index 4), l (index 5), l (index 6)
 * Page 91 Айова: WARNING: Stem А́йoв has Latin chars in it: o (index 3)
 * Page 673 Дюймовочка: WARNING: Bare form Дюймóвочек has Latin chars in it: ó (index 4)
 * Page 735 Золушка: WARNING: Bare form Зóлушек has Latin chars in it: ó (index 1)
 * Page 1413 Самуил: WARNING: Stem Cамуи́л has Latin chars in it: C (index 0)
 * Page 1586 Тамара: WARNING: Stem Тaма́р has Latin chars in it: a (index 1)

Benwing (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --WikiTiki89 12:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot to convert nouns is running
It might take 5 hrs or so. If the meantime, if you see any thing wrong, let me know, and if something goes drastically wrong, please block the bot, because I'll be offline for awhile. Benwing (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Entries needing headword line templatized, and remaining warnings
Four acronyms needing headword line templatized:


 * СПИД
 * ГЛОНАСС
 * г-н
 * СМЕРШ

Warnings concerning lack of accents in the declension line:


 * Page 1338 бега: WARNING: Stem бег lacks accents (ru-noun-3-а)
 * Page 5039 ишак: WARNING: Stem ишак lacks accents (ru-noun-vel-2)
 * Page 5067 каблук: WARNING: Stem каблук lacks accents (ru-noun-vel-2)
 * Page 6032 косарь: WARNING: Stem косарь lacks accents (ru-noun-ь-2-m)
 * Page 6032 косарь: WARNING: Stem косарь lacks accents (ru-noun-ь-2-m)
 * Page 10780 простец: WARNING: Stem простец lacks accents (ru-noun-ц-2)
 * Page 10930 пузырь: WARNING: Stem пузыр lacks accents (ru-noun-ь-2-m)
 * Page 12776 срамота: WARNING: Stem срамот lacks accents (ru-noun-а-2)
 * Page 13253 талыш: WARNING: Stem талыш lacks accents (ru-noun-sib-2)
 * Page 16 Абдулла: WARNING: Stem Абдулл lacks accents (ru-noun-а-2)
 * Page 1073 Маяк: WARNING: Stem Маяк lacks accents (ru-noun-vel-2)
 * Page 1 СПИД: WARNING: Stem СПИД lacks accents (ru-noun-1)
 * Page 2 ГЛОНАСС: WARNING: Stem ГЛОНАСС lacks accents (ru-noun-1)
 * Page 3 г-н: WARNING: Stem г-н lacks accents (ru-noun-1)
 * Page 1 СМЕРШ: WARNING: Stem СМЕРШ lacks accents (ru-noun-sib-1)

Thanks. Benwing (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Fixed all the stresses, did not templatize the headword lines yet. --WikiTiki89 21:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you help delete now-unused Russian templates?
There are a lot of them. All listed in Category:Russian noun inflection-table templates. I processed all references to these templates in the main space, but you might want to check for any other dangling refs. Thanks! Benwing (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Real-life emergency has come up
Something important has come up in real life and I need to take an unplanned Wikibreak for a few weeks. If you need to contact me please use email. Thanks! I'll be back later. Benwing (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All the best with whatever you're doing and thanks a lot for your great efforts! --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

новости
This has a module error, but I have no clue how to fix it. Could you take a look at it? Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Declension modules
Hi there, are you the one who programmed the modules for Russian?'Modules like this are clearly the future of Wiktionary. As I've been working on Lithuanian lately, I'd be interested in helping to create modules for Lithuanian too. Inflection type is almost entirely predictable, and these templates could easily be covered by a simple module. Lithuanian phonetics is very conservative and the modules should generally be easier to create than Russian. I can probably take on the bulk of the work myself, but I'll need some assistance with coding. Could you help me out? --Itsacatfish (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could help with that. Just a question, though, do all nouns that end in -dis, -dys, -tis, -dė, -tė, and -ti change the -d- or -t- to -dž- or -č- in the appropriate places, or do some of them keep the -d- or -t-? --WikiTiki89 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That is just a regular phonetic change. -t- and -d- become palatalized before non-syllabic -i-, which is represented orthographically by an -i- before back vowels, i.e. -ia-, -ią-, -io-, -iu-, -iū-, -ių-. This is a universal regular phonetic rule, so I suppose it should be put into Module:lt-common.
 * The only word I can think of that is totally irregular is, although the irregularity is simply a different plural stem "žmon-"
 * The words ending in -uõ-, and one word in -ė̃- have eliptical nominative forms, and their oblique stems contain an additional -en- (e.g. ), -un-  or -er-  when inflected.
 * The fourth declension -is (gen. -ies) is probably about 70% feminine, but can sometimes be masculine. The only difference in declension is the dative singular form (m. -iui-, f. -iai-) The notable irregularity here is that the genitive plural is mostly -ių- and sometimes -ų-  (note that in the case of the latter both are acceptable).
 * That's just about all the irregularities I can think of. Practically all variations in verbs are covered already in the template lt-conj-mixed, although to cover various stress patterns, I was forced to create three additional ones.
 * I understand that it is a regular phonetic change, but are there every any exceptions, for example in loanwords? --WikiTiki89 15:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it also affects loan words in endings. The combinations tiV and diV occasionally occur in loanword stems, but never in endings.--Itsacatfish (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. This should be pretty easy then. --WikiTiki89 17:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to some detailed information about the stress patterns? The Wikipedia articles are not very good. --WikiTiki89 20:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably you saw the Wikipedia article on ? Although granted this isn't perfect. I also know about the tables in (first/second accent patterns) and  (third/fourth accent patterns). The best English-language resource I've seen on this is the book "Beginner's Lithuanian" by Leonardas Dambriūnas, which is full of accent-pattern tables (and which one reviewer on Amazon says is "Great for linguists, but maybe not really for beginners" :-) ). If we can't find any better tables online, I can try to scan the pages out of that book and upload them. Benwing2 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw that Wikipedia article and the first table made sense to me, but then the three tables after that are not labeled so I have no idea what patterns they are talking about. The ones after that make some sense again. --WikiTiki89 21:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * * In the second table, the nouns are respectively I, II, III, IV; I, II, III, III, IV, IV.
 * * In the third table, the nouns are respectively I, II, III, IV; I, II, III, IV, IV.
 * * In the fourth table, the nouns are respectively I, II, II, III, IV.
 * Class I has fixed accent (that is never ending-stressed, I think); Class II has ending accent on the acc pl but not the other pl cases; Class III does not have ending accent on acc pl, but does on the other pl cases (maybe excluding nom pl); Case IV has ending accent on acc pl as well as the other pl cases (maybe excluding nom pl). Benwing2 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, you've given an explanation of the stress in the plural, but the singular looks a little more complicated. --WikiTiki89 23:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See the links above to utexas.edu. They have explanations of the accent class patterns. E.g. for class II they say "The penultimate syllable has the circumflex or the short intonation. The circumflex or the short stress remains constant, except: in the (a) instrumental singular and (b) accusative plural. If the noun ends in -as, then in addition to the two cases above, the locative singular is also stressed on the ending, e.g., loc.sg. batè 'shoe'. If the noun has -a in nominative singular, then this -a is stressed, e.g., nom.sg. pupà 'bean'." Benwing2 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One thing I might suggest for your verb conjugation templates is to name the underlying table template something like rather than just ; that way you can reserve  for a future general verb-conjugation template that uses a module rather than just template code. Benwing2 (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is all the information I've collected regarding noun declension and stress patterns. Essentially the information there should be all you need. Another couple of things that may or may not be useful.
 * In my declension table, the longer (bracketed) forms are literary. The shortened forms are very common colloquially. When a word is ending-stressed, the stress always falls on the final syllable of the ending.
 * For some nouns and adjectives an illative form exists in -n. These are generally seen as fossilised adverbs now, but historically this was a productive case.
 * If the stem has acute stress, we always see stress pattern 1 or 3.
 * If the stem has non-acute (circumflex/short [`]) stress we always see stress pattern 2/4 in monosyllabic stems (katė̃, kiaũlė). In polysyllabic stems, stress patterns 1/3 are also possible. 3a is used to indicate acute stem stress, 3b is used for circumflex.
 * The stress in stress patterns 1/3 always alternates between the first and last syllable. (the only exceptions are compound nouns where variations are sometimes possible - e.g. angliakasỹs → acc. añgliakasį OR angliãkasį, and the numerals, , .)
 * The stress in stress patterns 2/4 alternates between the last and penultimate syllable.--Itsacatfish (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rude?
It was the software being rude. When I posted my post, yours wasn't in there. —CodeCat 22:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry about that then. --WikiTiki89 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about your change concerning 6ins/2ins?
There is apparently no such thing as 4ins but your change will trigger it as well. This is a problem unless you're sure there are no class-4 ь-f nouns. And are you sure that 2ins/6ins occur only and always with ь-f nouns? Benwing2 (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason there is no 4ins is probably because there are no "ь-f" nouns with stress pattern "4". I'm pretty sure the reason for this is that the -ю in the instrumental is never stressed anywhere ever, so it's not really a different stress class, but an unstressable ending. --WikiTiki89 01:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Names for declension categories
I am thinking of having Module:ru-noun create categories like Category:Russian nouns ending in -о, both to make it possible for users to browse the categories and to make it easier for editorsto see what is in each category in case I have to verify the declension or make changes that may affect a whole category. Some possible categories -- please comment:


 * Russian nouns ending in a hard consonant [or should these cats say "Russian terms ..." since some aren't nouns? An alternative is a pos= param so that e.g. pronouns go into "Russian pronouns ending in ..."]
 * Russian nouns ending in -о
 * Russian nouns ending in -о with plural in -ы
 * Russian nouns ending in -о with plural in -и [or should I combine the latter two classes, something like "Russian nouns in the о-ы declension class" or "Russian nouns in declension о-ы" or whatever?)
 * Russian nouns in accent class 6 [do we really want "Russian nouns in accent class 6*" with a star, or should we substitute a prime symbol (')?]
 * Russian nouns with locative singular [or just "Russian nouns with locative" or whatever?]
 * Russian nouns with irregular genitive plural [based on overrides]
 * Russian nouns with irregular plural stem [based on pl=]
 * Russian nouns with reducible stems [based on param "bare"; should this be "reduceable", which is what the old templates used but which looks wrong and which Google corrects?]

Benwing2 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd decl feminine nouns that don't follow the retraction rule for ins sg
пять and other numbers. The multisyllabic numbers have a strange pattern with initial stress in nom/acc and ending stress elsewhere, similar to accent class 5 and 6 in the plural although all these numbers decline as singular. Monosyllabic numbers like пять would be expressible by accent class 2 if not for the ins sg retraction. Benwing2 (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The numbers just have irregular instrumentals, all of them seemingly shifting their stress to the end (probably conditioned by the requirement of a following noun, which receives more phrase-level stress). This applies to the smaller numbers too, which stress a syllable that doesn't even exist in other instrumentals. I wouldn't sacrifice the regularity of everything else just to conform to the numbers. Also, the regularly stressed , , etc. also exist but with another meaning. --WikiTiki89 01:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Added some autodetection to Module:ru-noun
I added code to the module so you can specify the full stem including the ending, and either leave the declension type blank or just specify a gender, and it will figure out the correct declension type from the ending. So for example, or or. Currently it ignores the gender except in nouns ending in -ь, where the gender is required. In the case of reducible nouns, you still have to specify the main stem, which is not always the stem of the nominative singular; I'll fix that soon. I'm also planning on making it so you can specify irregular plurals as -а, -ья, -и or -ы and it will still autodetect the stem type and convert it if possible into the variant incorporating that plural type.

A question: Currently the autodetection code detects the special -ёнок/-онок ending (with plural -ата) but not yet the special -ин ending with plural -е; that's because I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that nouns in -ин always belong to this declension. Are there -ин nouns that don't have plural -е, and if so how common are they compared with -ин nouns that do have plural -е? Are there other features that I can use to make the guessing more accurate? E.g. it seems a lot of those -ин nouns are in -нин or even -анин. Benwing2 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * is a rare exception, behaves differently from other -ин nouns but it's an exception. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added tracking code to check for other exceptions and unfortunately there are a number of them, see . E.g. аргинин, камин, магазин, апельсин. Except for they all look like loanwords but of course the module can't figure that out. Benwing2 (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to use only -анин/-янин. And look at the animacy.--Cinemantique (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well there is also, and maybe others. I just don't get why autodetection is necessary. The ending is really easily split off by a human. It would be more useful if it were possible to fully omit the word, but then there is no way to mark the stress. Also, this ends with having to put the wrong stress on non-masculine words of stress patterns 2, 4, and 6 (as you did with голова above), which is confusing. (Forgot to mention, I appreciate the Twin Peaks reference.) --WikiTiki89 01:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, in addition, боярин, господин (with irregular nom_pl ending -а́), болгарин, хазарин, татарин (all with irregular nom_pl ending -ы), шурин (with irregular plural шурья́, шурьёв... along with type 1a), хозяин (with irregular plural хозя́ева, хозя́ев...)–the same way домохозяин, квартирохозяин, сохозяин. That's all. Exceptions from the animate nouns ending with -анин/-янин are гражданин, согражданин (both with irregular stress in plural forms), and семьянин (standard). Other exceptions should be very rare.--Cinemantique (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Then there's the matter of жабры, which seems to have stumped the module. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The stress pattern was left out, I fixed it. --WikiTiki89 13:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Code to implement Russian declension, stem and stress categories
I wrote the code; it's sitting in Module:User:Benwing2/ru-noun. Please try it out. To try it out, you will need to copy/paste it into Module:ru-noun without saving, and use the preview pane with specific page names.

First try a page like небо and you'll see how I expect things more or less to look. There's a traditional declension category, a singular-ending category, a plural-ending category, a combined singular/plural ending category, a stress-pattern category and in this case a category because of the irregular plural. яблоко is another one to check out, with a couple more categories specific to velar stems. For more complicated pages like мост there may be a few more categories. However, for some pages there are clearly too many categories, e.g. житие; this is because there are less-specific and more-specific categories being triggered in various combinations. Perhaps you can suggest how to reduce the category numbers. You may think there are too many categories even in небо; if so, let me know what you think should be taken out. I think this code should be safe to save in Module:ru-noun provided you set 'enable_categories = false', which will disable all category insertion; but I'm not gonna do that yet until the code stabilizes a bit. Benwing2 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think to reduce the number of categories, we can limit each category to one feature. You can already get intersections of categories with, so we really do not need to do it manually. --WikiTiki89 11:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is ? How does it work? Benwing2 (talk) 05:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See w:Extension:CategoryTree. In short, it lists pages in categories (like in ), but it has more features than we actually make use of. But I may have been mistaken about the intersection feature, as I can't seem to find it in the documentation. I swear I thought I saw it there before. --WikiTiki89 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. w:Extension:CategoryTree links to a deleted page. I reduced the number of categories by eliminating the less-specific/backup versions of various categories. Benwing2 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry typo: mw:Extension:CategoryTree. --WikiTiki89 06:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also really like User:Atitarev's opinion on which categories we should and shouldn't have. --WikiTiki89 06:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I redid the categories to further reduce their # and eliminate redundancy. Benwing2 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , I would still like your input here. --WikiTiki89 13:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not easy for me to decide on categories. I think, ideally, nouns should have A. Zaliznyak's declension types (and subtypes and anomalies) and stress patterns numbers as categories. For this, you would need to cooperate to with Cinemantique, even if your implementation is different. Since you're using a different approach, it may not be possible, I don't know. Tiki, I can send the reference file to you as well, if you send me an email. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I sent you an email. --WikiTiki89 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently I'm classifying by traditiional declension type (1st/2nd/3rd), by gender, by hard/soft/palatal and by stem type. I don't completely understand Zaliznyak's way of classifying the declension types and genders; I know he has types 1 through 8 but these seem to have a lot to do with stem type more than anything else. Benwing2 (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, figured it out; it's simply stem type 1 through 8 plus m/f/n. I redid the categories to more closely match Zaliznyak's declension types. Basically the categories are equivalent except that they have more descriptive names instead of just numbers, and the category's documentation specifies the corresponding numbered Zaliznyak stem type. A typical noun will have 3 categories, e.g. for яблоко they will be (using the current notation)
 * Category:Russian velar-stem neuter-type nominals
 * Category:Russian velar-stem neuter-type accent-1 nominals
 * Category:Russian nominals with accent pattern 1
 * Note that "neuter-type" means "has a typically neuter ending"; this wording is to account for nouns whose gender and ending disagree.
 * As for the anomalies, his * anomaly corresponds fairly closely to the category Category:Russian nominals with reducible stem. His ° anomaly (-ин, -ёнок/онок, -ёночек/оночек) and ① anomaly (a particular sort of irregular nominative plural) are handled a bit differently currently; I have a more general system with categories such as Category:Russian nominals ending in suffix -ин with plural -е and Category:Russian nominals ending in a consonant with plural -а (only nominals with unexpected nominative plural have such categories). Finally, his ② anomaly (a particular sort of irregular genitive plural) is currently handled only through Category:Russian nominals with irregular genitive plural (which is triggered by manual overrides) but will eventually be handled differently. Benwing2 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding Zaliznyak's declension types, I'm not sure we should categorize by them or by all the details of them. Are these declension types and codes something that most Russians would recognize, or are they unique to Zaliznyak's dictionary? --WikiTiki89 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Zaliznyak's declension types are essentially a combination of the gender, the animacy, a stem-type number (1 through 8), and the accent class (a through f plus b', d', f', f&#39;'). The meaning of the number 1 through 8 is 1 = hard, 2= soft, 3 = velar, 4 = sibilant, 5 = ц, 6 = vowel or й or ь, 7 = и, 8 = 3rd-declension. As mentioned above, I don't directly categorize by the stem-type number but by an English description of it, hence we have Category:Russian velar-stem neuter-type accent-1 nominals corresponding to Zaliznyak's type 3a neuter. Russians should recognize the descriptive terms, I imagine. Benwing2 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't object to the usage of descriptive terms. Sorry for the long delay. Zaliznyak's dictionary is the most comprehensive dictionary of the Russian inflections but probably the only one of this level. No, not all Russians know it or know who Andrey (Ukrainian: Andriy) Zaliznyak is. In schools conjugations and declensions are not taught on this level (but they should). I have sent a copy of the dictionary to Tiki (please confirm the receipt). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I received the file, thanks! The reason I asked about whether Russians are generally familiar with Zaliznyak's dictionary is that I am opposed to including classifications that are specific to one dictionary if this dictionary is not even widely known. Descriptive categories that can be understood by Russian speakers such as the ones Benwing is already using are much more preferable and can even match up to some of Zaliznyak's categories. --WikiTiki89 15:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Old gen pl of ёнокъ?
Module has -я́т, should this be -я́тъ? Benwing2 (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. --WikiTiki89 12:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nouns in ёночек?
Vitalik's module has a special case for nouns in -ёночек, nom pl maybe in -я́тка. Should we support this? Benwing2 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, it would be -я́тки. Second of all, these are usually treated as separate lemmas (see ) and to me that feels right, against all logic. If we do decide to put them in the same table, then I think  parameter should suffice. --WikiTiki89 12:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversions of OCS?
Why the unexplained reversions of additions of pronunciations to OCS entries? OCS pronunciation has been reconstructed in considerable detail by e.g. Lunt among other sources, which are generally in agreement, minor details aside (e.g. [ŭ] vs. [ʊ], [ĭ] vs. [ɪ]), and it seems we are fine with classical pronunciations of dead languages (Category:Latin terms with IPA pronunciation comes to mind). Any reasons for the rollbacks? Vorziblix (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is more subtle than that [ŭ] vs. [ʊ] is a question of which symbol to use and says nothing about the pronunciation itself. Thus, I would probably prefer that we use [u] for ъ and [uː] for оу to avoid making statements about the quality of the vowels. Anyway, the only pronunciations we can accurately provide would be redundant to the spellings themselves. If we do decide to include pronunciations in OCS entries, then we should create a module that generates them automatically. I'll ping some people: What do you guys think about including OCS pronunciations and which symbols we should use? --WikiTiki89 22:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Early Slavic pronunciation was a lot more complex and involved tone and vowel length that was not indicated in spelling. Moreover, people used letters out of tradition ("this is how it's supposed to be written") but those letters might have widely different pronunciations depending on location. оу might represent both [u] and [uː], depending on which word, which inflection of the word, and which dialect. Ukrainian ѣ was a highish vowel, while in Bulgarian it was low, and in Serbo-Croatian it was mid. щ was št in Bulgaria but a palatal ć further west and north. I can say with confidence that ъ was not a close vowel though, it was indeed a near-close or even close-mid vowel. But it is ambiguous as to rounding and backness; attested outcomes imply back rounded (Russian) and mid unrounded (Czech, Bulgarian). —CodeCat 22:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, we would need an individual reconstruction for every pronunciation we wish to include. Therefore, I don't see how it would be a feasible task to include pronunciations in OCS entries at all, except maybe in a few cases where we do have such an individual reconstruction. --WikiTiki89 22:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OCS is a literary not spoken language, so it cannot have pronunciations. Letters meant different things in different areas and periods. All extant MSS come from the period where scribes didn't even know what exactly sounds the letters originally designated, and we know that because of the errors they made. The variation is evident in the discrepancy between Cyrillic and Glagolitic which don't map 1:1. Individual Church Slavonic recensions have their own pronunciations described in the books, sometimes even proscribed and those could be added. What could be done however is to collect those variations and generate all of them at once from a single spelling in phonetic transcription as Wikitiki9 suggested, but there is most likely no literature on that. Since the alphabet was properly designed and not a result of historical accident, the letters are almost completely phonological so having pronunciations explicitly written in phonemic transcription is not of much value. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

adding a more informative declension-table line
adds an informative declension-table line that describes in more detail the declension of a word instead of just saying "animate/inanimate", but it uses Zaliznyak's codes, which are cryptic to people not familiar with his dictionary (example: ). I added a similar line but in a more descriptive fashion. Originally I had a second line listing the specific irregularities for irregular declensions, but it didn't look too good so now it just says "irreg" for any irregularities (e.g. in or ). What do you think? If people would rather, I could e.g. consider abbreviating some of the terms. Benwing2 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection with the descriptive fashion and you can use some abbreviations. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea, but it makes the table much wider than it needs to be. We have to use smaller text and abbreviate things more (and perhaps link to an appendix page). --WikiTiki89 14:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I made all these changes. I'm not completely happy with the blue text that's used to indicate the appendix link but I'm not sure what else to put there or how to frob the CSS to change it. If you have a better idea, you're welcome to change the code (look around line 938 in compute_heading). Benwing2 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

aver
You seem competent with Ladino and the Hebrew alphabet. Can you tell me how to write ‘aver’ in the Hebrew script? Gracias, --Romanophile (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * . The letter ב would usually have some sort of diacritic over it, whether a dot, two dots, or a line, but I'm not sure that should be included in the page name. --WikiTiki89 12:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you spell kontra in the Hebrew alphabet? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * --WikiTiki89 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

And ay? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. It's either or . I'll do more research and tell you for sure. Keep in mind that these spellings are specific to Ladino, because different languages that use the Hebrew script might spell the same sounds differently. --WikiTiki89 19:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

¿Cómo se escribe sovre? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * with the same note about the ב as above. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

-- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * --WikiTiki89 15:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

porke; por ke -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 09:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * or . I can't tell you whether they observed the same distinctions between the spaced and unspaced forms. --WikiTiki89 14:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought that קי was spelt קה. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, in Ladino orthography (not to be confused with Hebrew orthography), קה could only be ka. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Does ayi mean both ahí and allí? How’s it spelt in Hebrew? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 03:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it's spelled. I have some guesses, but I'm not confident enough in them. I believe that the Ladino equivalents of ahí and allí can be spelled either the same way or differently, depending on the dialect of Ladino. --WikiTiki89 19:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that both can be either or, but  is usually . But I may be wrong. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

How does one spell kual & kualo? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * is . seems to be  (and  ), but I didn't know that such a word existed; what does it mean? --WikiTiki89 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It means ‘what’ or ‘which.’ It can be interrogative or relative. Kual es tu orden? What is your command? kualo is interrogative and is a synonym for ke. Kualo esta azyendo? What is she doing? Compare Spanish cual and cuál. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was only confused about kualo and kuala. I didn't know that Ladino put in an extra -o for Spanish . --WikiTiki89 15:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They may have been added by analogy, but I don’t have a source for that. Judging from my dictionary, kuala is the feminine form of kual. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 16:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What's your dictionary? Is it online? --WikiTiki89 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (Spanish version; what I use). (English version). -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 17:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --WikiTiki89 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

desde -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Both and . --WikiTiki89 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

muncho -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * with a diacritic over the ג like the one I described above for the ב in . --WikiTiki89 20:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean גֿ and גﬞ? You may be thinking of the diacritics ֿ & ﬞ (they are synonymous, as far as I know). -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Unicode has one specifically for this purpose. Some people use the rafe diacritic: מונגֿו. But looking at actual printed books in Ladino, the form of this diacritic varies by publisher. Sometimes it does look like the rafe, which itself looks like a macron; sometimes it looks like a breve; sometimes a geresh is used (מונג׳ו); sometimes it's just a dot (מונגׄו); sometimes it's not written at all. --WikiTiki89 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that Ladino was usually printed in the . --WikiTiki89 21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The ‘breve’ is called a varika. Source: . -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Where does djogo (game) come from? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See juego. --WikiTiki89 19:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but surely it was not borrowed directly from Latin. Old Spanish jogo and iogo are attested, but they appear to be quite rare compared to juego & iuego, so I myself suspect a loan from Portuguese jogo. The only problem is that most (but not all) dialects pronounce the j as /ʒ/. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 20:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ladino went through some leveling of the ue/o distinction and in many places has o where Spanish has ue or ue where Spanish has o (same applies to ie/e). In this case, I'm guessing the leveling could have been caused by djogar. Also, Ladino did not go through the either of the /(d)ʒ/ > /ʃ/ or /ʃ/ > /x/ shifts. Thus, what is /x/ in Spanish can be any of /dʒ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, or /ʃ/ in Ladino. --WikiTiki89 20:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Etymology for words in -чко
I'm thinking of adding some words in -чко that aren't yet in Wiktionary but are in Zaliznyak. In some of these, -ечко seems to act as its own suffix e.g. вре́мечко, те́мечко, и́мечко, у́тречко from время, темя, имя, утро. In others it looks like -ко (Proto-Slavic -ĭko? But shouldn't the progressive palatalization yield -це?) was added in the Proto-Slavic stage to a word that was already a diminutive (or at least ended in -ко), with corresponding sound changes, e.g. окошечко, лычко from окошко, лы́ко. In others, the suffix is more like -чко or -очко, e.g. ча́дочко from чадо. In yet others it's unclear, e.g. is ведёрочко derived from ведёрко or directly from ведро́? (BTW a similar case is with окошечко, where the existing entry says it's diminutive of both окошко and окно.) How would you describe these various cases under the etymology section?

Also, the meaning of -чко in many of these words appears to be both diminutive and endearing; what is the normal linguistic term for "endearing"? I thought it was "affective" but this seems to have a different meaning. Benwing2 (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Words like and  are sometimes referred to as the first and second diminutives of . The second diminutive is clearly derived from the same Proto-Slavic suffix reapplied twice. Sometimes the first diminutive does not exist when it is phonologically awkward, but the second diminutive might still exist. The original form of the suffix was *-ъk-, *-ьk-, and *-ik- (the exact distribution of these three variants seems pretty complicated), followed by a gender suffix *-ъ, *-o, or -*a. The potential palatalization of the *-k- was based on its surroundings. The combinations *-iko and *-ika were both always progressively palatalized to *-ice and *-ica. The combination *-ьko was usually progressively palatalized to *-ьce, but it seems to have remained *-ьko after *-k/g/x/n- > *-č/ž/š/š- (including when that was from another *-Vk- suffix). I cannot explain why *-n- palatalizes to *-š-. As for meaning, it may be either endearing or just extra diminutized; this is determined by context and not lexically, so I don't think we should mention it. As for terminology, we do use the term "endearing", so there is no need to replace it with "affected" or anything else. --WikiTiki89 21:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. The reason I want to use "endearing" in the defn is that ruwiki has it for various defns, specifically given as ласк. or уменьш.-ласк. or умласк. where ласк.=ласкательное. BTW there's at least one noun with -ико in it that wasn't progressively palatalized, viz. плечико. Also, you didn't really answer my question how to describe these in the etym section. My instinct is to write words like молочко as молоко + -ко but темечко as темя + -ечко since in this case -ечко seems to function as its own suffix; the alternatives I guess are темя + -еко + -ко or to write it back in Proto-Slavic as тѣмѧ + -ько + -ько except there's no guarantee that this was formed during Proto-Slavic times. Also, if you don't like "endearing", would you have a template ? Benwing2 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is fine to combine them into one suffix -чко/-ечко. --WikiTiki89 15:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Module:he-verb
I'm interested to know why you stopped working on it (it seems at least) and is it possible/worth it to try to continue working on it. I think it'll be better than the templates. Enosh (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I stopped because I was too overwhelmed by the inconsistencies between verbs. My mindset makes me want to handle every possible case with a small set of parameters. When I began to realize that not only is it impossible to predict when a חטף vowel is used in place of a שווא נע, but in many cases both variants exist, and that כתיב מלא is also impossible to predict, it just became too overwhelming for such an idealistic software developer as myself. Maybe I could pick up where I left off, I haven't looked at it for a while (in two years, as you can see!). I did the same thing for Yiddish, but I ended up going back and finishing the Yiddish one a few months ago, so I guess I can go back and finish the Hebrew one as well. Ideally, I want to support every verb type in Tarmon and Uval's Hebrew Verb Tables, but there are 235 of them. --WikiTiki89 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Doing the really-rare/rare cases manually is probably the only sane option. As for כתיב מלא, I found a while back this, which might be a good resource. Enosh (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. I started working on the module again, and it actually seems more do-able now. Not all the forms are correct yet, but check out User:Wikitiki89/he-verb-test. --WikiTiki89 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you see if you can find any mistakes in the pi`el conjugations? I think I've handled everything except that the ktiv male is wrong when there is a vav or yud in the root. --WikiTiki89 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comparing with Milog, in verbs with a tseirei under p, the module places a kamats and Milog a patakh, the to-infinitive, imperatives and some other forms but not for verbs with khirik which have a patakh. Enosh (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Even-Shoshan and every chumash and siddur I've ever seen, Milog is mistaken. But it's not surprising, considering I've seen many Israeli textbooks and dictionaries that don't bother to properly distinguish between kamats and patakh. --WikiTiki89 03:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The to-infinitive of is, an exception to חפ״ן. While searching about that I found that the academy has a list of rules. Enosh (talk)
 * Yes, there is a lot of stuff wrong with the pa`al conjugations right now; they are much more complicated than pi`el. --WikiTiki89 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unrelated, I made some changes at now powering  and I'm wondering how do you get WT:ACCEL to work. Enosh (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I've never messed with it before. You could try reading WT:ACCEL and/or ask User:CodeCat for help. --WikiTiki89 14:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CodeCat added it. Now I'm trying to make it so the module automatically adds makafs at the end of construct forms. I added a function to Module:he-common and tried this which doesn't work, what am I doing wrong. Enosh (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Did fix it? --WikiTiki89 18:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I get this error with the changes above. Enosh (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Screenshot of Module he-headword 2015-11-03.png
 * That's because you are passing an extra argument lua to lua. You should be passing it to lua. --WikiTiki89 20:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, the main reason I have not switched yet to use the module is because the module does not yet support certain minor features of  such as , which displays "no plural forms". --WikiTiki89 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well I added "no plural forms" and  "no construct forms", there's no   but do we need it and some categorisations are missing (into Category:Hebrew nouns without construct forms and Category:Hebrew nouns without plural forms which wouldn't be hard to add). See the errors at User:Enoshd/חום do you think we need to gracefully fail all of them? Enosh (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need, because we don't have transliterations for any of the other forms. The categorizations should be added. I fixed the module error to fail more gracefully in those cases, but ultimately I think we should completely ignore empty arguments. --WikiTiki89 15:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the categorizations but doing it through yet another lua parameter maybe better. Enosh (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made Category:Hebrew noun entries missing plural forms, Category:Hebrew noun entries missing singular construct forms and Category:Hebrew noun entries missing plural construct forms hidden categories.
 * Are there more missing features you can think of? Enosh (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any. What matters is whether there will be any backwards compatibility issues. Once everything we are sure there won't be, then we can switch out the template for a module call. --WikiTiki89 15:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one argument that breaks backwards compatibility, in the template it's equivalent to  , and in the module it's nonexistent unless the number is dual or plural in which case it can be used to link the singular form. For example at User:Enoshd/תחתונים. We can have   equivalent to   only when the number is singular or replace it where ever it's used, it's not so common. Enosh (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * instead of  is deprecated, so we can go ahead with using the module and just replace every instance of   with  . --WikiTiki89 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added tracking with Module:debug (list) and made User:Enoshd/כלב an example. Enosh (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Let's go for it then! --WikiTiki89 18:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also added tracking for completely empty form parameters: Template:tracking/he-noun/empty-form-param which so far has only produced Enosh (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added dual construct and a way to track when both a parameter and its wv exists template:tracking/he-noun/param-and-paramwv. There were 1418 instances initially. I'm now going through them slowly and improving other stuff on the way. Another interesting statistic is that is used on 3104 pages out of the 3809 in the category. Enosh (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about automatically populating Category:Hebrew masculine nouns with plurals ending in ־ות and Category:Hebrew feminine nouns with plurals ending in ־ים with the module. Enosh (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * These are all good ideas. Another idea I had was automatically linking to the defective spellings in the headword, resulting in: . And multi-word phrases would look like this: --WikiTiki89 14:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be nice. I remember I did something like this manually when I was really new and someone reverted me and said it was cool but too ad hoc.
 * A ~month ago I created some conjugation and declension tables User:Enoshd/he-decl (examples) and User:Enoshd/he-verb-conj, see if you like any of them. Enosh (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They look nicer than the current ones, but still too spacy. I am currently working on Module:he-noun and you can see how its layout looks here. Feel free to change the layout and color schemes in either of Module:he-verb and Module:he-noun if you want. --WikiTiki89 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to do the categorisations but I'm not sure how to handle when lua is empty or nil correctly. See the two commented out sections at Module:he-headword. Enosh (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I think we should use grey links for the linked defective spelling. Enosh (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem. Essentially, if-elseif blocks need to represent mutually exclusive scenarios, which they were not doing. If by gray links you mean black links, like in inflection tables, then that's not a bad idea. Also, could you please take a look at User:Wikitiki89/he-noun-test and tell me what you think (about both the syntax of the template and the functionality)? --WikiTiki89 16:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah black links, not sure how to add them though. My attempt, because  is a bi-directional character entering these is a bit annoying but it's better than having all named parameters I think. Enosh (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I at least used Latin characters to separate the plural and feminines, because they at least put the groups in left-to-right order. Also, it would be, because the singular construct is the same as the indefinite and does not need to be given. The עצכם form might need to be given, but I can't find any sources on what it should be. Black links are added somehow through the CSS class "inflection-table". For example: . --WikiTiki89 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The academy's Ma'agarim has 8 citations of with various clitics (search for עץ and click כל צורות הערך). At MediaWiki:Common.css I see it's a property inherited from somewhere but I can't find from where and that might be a legacy thing, because it talks of a now non-existent  deleted at a May 2007 . Re  I meant   which is also not needed I guess.  Enosh (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget, you can just use the code I gave you above. Also, I'm unsure about עצכם (for a singular tree), not about עציהם or עציכם, which can only be עֲצֵיהֶם/עֲצֵיכֶם. --WikiTiki89 18:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes it non-bold though and I think there's a rule against that, right? Enosh (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it really? It works fine here:
 * (red link; bold)
 * (black link; still bold)
 * If that still doesn't work, then try replacing the  with  . --WikiTiki89 19:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It also looks fine for me here but not when I try in show preview so I went with . Also what am I doing wrong here?  Enosh (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You forgot the dagesh on the shin in the plural definite. I'm probably gonna change the module to allow using the indefinite instead of the definite if the vowel of definite article is easily predictable as in most cases. --WikiTiki89 20:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I created rough documentation for . Enosh (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At, is 3ms ? which the module doesn't recognise. There is a cite for . Enosh (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * is the normal 3fs ending for a plural noun. But where did you find ? The normal 3ms would be . --WikiTiki89 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about automatically categorising בגדכפ״ת בראש מילה? Should we do it for all lemmas or only nouns? (I've never heard כשכתבי and the like without a dagesh on ב) May be also terms not following it. Enosh (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (thus also ) is always followed by a dagesh chazak. However, verbs can be preceded by, giving . And can precede any part of speech at all, so we should do this for every part of speech. We also have to be careful not to add this category to words like , which never has a dagesh, and , which always has a dagesh. Although incidentally, I saw yesterday in my vowelized chumash, in the commentary of the Ramban, the word  (with a dagesh on the first ). --WikiTiki89 14:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny sounds unnatural to me. It's like a reverse rule: if it doesn't have a dagesh at the start it has one when not.
 * Is this bit ok. The category names can be improved. Enosh (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The category names definitely need to be fixed. Also, you need to use the lua function I added to Module:he-common in order to make sure the dagesh comes before the vowel. --WikiTiki89 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm using lua. I've tried adding this with many changes, temporarily, with Module:debug. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/he-headword/dagesh-after-begedkefet and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:tracking/he-headword/vowels-after-begedkefet. At first I thought it wasn't working but it seems to have been a cache delay, and now the lists look pretty good. Enosh (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great! So what are we doing about words like, where there is a dagesh, but it cannot be dropped? --WikiTiki89 14:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We can make a usage notes template. Enosh (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what about the categorization? We don't want them categorized with ordinary בגדכפ״ת words. --WikiTiki89 15:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The simplest solution, I think, is to add a parameter which changes their categorisation. Unrelated can you look at Module:frm-headword and User:Enoshd/frm-adj-test. Enosh (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess so. I fixed the errors in Module:frm-headword. --WikiTiki89 16:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added nouns to Module:frm-headword, but for some reason the head parameter doesn't work (see the first two examples on User:Enoshd/frm-noun-test), can you help? and thanks for last time. Enosh (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * was the problem. --WikiTiki89 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I orphaned a while ago should I RFD it.
 * I orphaned a while ago should I RFD it.

Also some options for the category names. And for, etc, I think Hebrew terms always keeping a dagesh (then matching what we chose for above, like "at the beginning of a term")
 * 1) Hebrew terms following/not begedkefet
 * 2) Hebrew terms following/not begedkefet at the beginning of a term
 * 3) Hebrew terms following/not begedkefet at the start term
 * 4) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet
 * 5) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet letter
 * 6) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet at the beginning of a term
 * 7) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet letter at the beginning of a term
 * 8) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet on first letter
 * 9) Hebrew terms following/not dagesh on begedkefet on first letter of a word
 * None of these are great but I think I'd default on option 7. Enosh (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "Hebrew terms beginning with a begedkefet letter" and "Hebrew terms beginning with an unchangeable begedkefet letter"? --WikiTiki89 22:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added and created the categories and the parameter unchangeablebegedkefet. Enosh (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Noah's
@Wikitiki89 Thanks for the edits on Noah's. However, why did you delete the references? Are these generally unwanted? Am I wasting my time putting them in? Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We much prefer quotations over references to other dictionaries. Your time would be better spent finding quotes from Google Books that both illustrate the usage of the word and simultaneously prove that it exists. In fact we delete words that are found in dictionaries but not in the real world. See WT:CFI for more information. References are only helpful if they provide additional detailed information that we would not include on Wiktionary. --WikiTiki89 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reopening of alcohol poisoning RfD
Seriously, man? You don't think that's a clear consensus? That's better than 2-to-1. Anything that's been open for a week or more, has five or more votes, and is better than 2-to-1 in one direction should be closed. There's no requirement that RfDs have to be dead for a week to be closed. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89  22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the discussion is still active. --WikiTiki89 23:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be. As I said above, there's no requirement that RfDs have to be dead for a week to be closed.  We shouldn't clog up RfD with things that we know are going to go a particular way.  In order for alcohol poisoning to be deleted, it would need to receive about seven more delete votes even if it received no more keep votes.  It's also piss-poor of you, who voted delete in the discussion, to reopen it. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "re-opening" it, I'm objecting to its closing. See my response at WT:RFD and please reply only there. --WikiTiki89 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It has now been six and a half days since the most recent vote. If there are no votes by tomorrow, you request that we wait for it to be dead for a week will have been satisfied and I will close it as kept by a 9-4 margin. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   18:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See? The world didn't end by waiting a week. --WikiTiki89 18:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ج history
Hi,

Did you modify the entry for ج (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AC) right after I posted the comment for its pronunciation? Or is it just a coincidence?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Atitarev#Incorrect_information_on_the_.D8.AC_page
 * Yes, I saw your comment. --WikiTiki89 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there an IPA symbol for the letter as described in the video by the way? --50.240.204.101 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is See . --WikiTiki89 00:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The (Classical/Fus-ha) Arabic ج is an affricate, not a stop. sounds closer, though still not 100%:. --50.156.109.161 04:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it did sound more like an affricate in the video. But classically, I'm pretty sure it is believed to have been a stop. --WikiTiki89 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have citations for that it was classically believed to be a stop? --50.156.109.161 05:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will find you some. --WikiTiki89 16:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Janet C. E. Watson, The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic (2007) § 2.1.6 “Palatals”:
 * The phoneme known as jīm, which was realized either as a voiced palatal stop (Gairdner 1925: 13; Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 105; Watson 1992: 73) or as a voiced palatalized velar stop (Schaade 1911: 73; Cantineau 1960: 58) in early Classical Arabic, is realized in most dialects today as a voiced palatoalveolar affricate or velar stop.
 * The voiced palatal stop has the IPA symbol [ɟ], and the voiced palatalized velar stop has the IPA symbol [gʲ]. --WikiTiki89 21:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have also heard that ج was classically a palatal (or palatalized velar) stop. It's also believed that ض was classically a voiced lateral fricative or affricate (there is a description in Sibawayh to this effect, and apparently there are still places in Saudi Arabia or Yemen that preserve a lateral sound for ض). It's also believed that ش was [ç] or similar (Wikipedia claims [ɕ], but also identifies it as "palatal"and in the same place as [ɟ]). Benwing2 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's also believed that ض was classically a voiced lateral fricative or affricate
 * It was a fricative. There are Quran reciters that still preserve its pronunciation. See for instance:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOXcdYwFQbY&t=65
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYr9fH58aRY&t=85
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8fe2yRq9AA&t=30
 * --50.240.204.101 23:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I have seen references that say fricative (and Wikipedia agrees), and at least one that said affricate. Keep in mind that modern pronunciation even in Quran recitations isn't necessarily reflective of pronunciation 1500 years ago. Benwing2 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime! While you do have a point, there are several Islamic references, such as by Ibn-Katheer and Ibn-Taimiyyah, that explicitly say that ض sounds extremely similar to ظ; to a point that it is forgivable for a layperson to pronounce ض as ظ during prayers, if he is unable to pronounce the former since it is a difficult letter. The pronunciation in the links above falls in line with that description.
 * ش is interesting, but I have not read that it was ever an affricate like you mentioned ([ç]). The Quran reciters also seem to preserve its pronunciation as [ɕ]: http://www.arab-eng.org/vb/uploaded2009/26606_01296129369.jpg (it is sharper than the English (sh) sound). Though I did read somewhere that the old ش (before Islam) was a voiceless lateral fricative [ɬ], which seems to still be spoken by speakers of Mehri and similar languages in South Arabia today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcDkqWVIklU&t=174
 * --50.240.204.101 02:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that both the references you cited are from the 14th century, long after Koranic times. ض has merged with ظ almost everywhere; it sounds from those references that this had already occurred by the 14th century in normal speech, with the older lateral pronunciation preserved in Koranic recitation. Also, [ç] is not an affricate but a palatal fricative (the corresponding affricate is [cç]). (As it happens, it's been suggested that Semitic sibilants like ش, س and ص were affricates in Proto-Semitic times, but this was thousands of years earlier. Note that Hebrew still has an affricate pronunciation [ts] of the Hebrew letter that corresponds to ص. It's debated how old this pronunciation is, but it's at least possible for it to be original.) And you are right that ش was once a lateral fricative and that this pronunciation is preserved in the modern South Arabian languages. The corresponding Hebrew letter sin ש [with a dot on the upper left] was still lateral in biblical times; hence borrowed pronunciations like balsam for Hebrew . Benwing2 (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * True, the references do mention the mistakes in ض among the public, and the authors were attempting to clearly distinguish it from ظ for reciting the Quran. I looked up the palatal fricative, and you're right, it also sounds quite close. Authors like Sibawayh and Al-Jizri list ي ,ش ,and ج as coming from the middle of the tongue. I'm going to look more into it (I found these two so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOXBbeXOJjA, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_HhhCRQi5A). How became balsam is interesting, a similar phenomenon occurred when القاضي became alcalde in Spanish, with the insertion of the letter L, clearly showing the lateral characteristic of ض.
 * --50.156.109.161 05:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's right about alcalde. Benwing2 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, the exact form is not actually attested, and is only indirectly implied in one place, Song of Songs 5:1, where it is . The usual form is . Another example is  which became . --WikiTiki89 15:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

חנוכייה
Would you please add a quotation to this entry? I was thinking it would be nice to use it as a FWOTD this week. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added two quotes and a declension table. Enosh (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! The table is really great; the quotes were a bit strange, and I tried to fix them a bit, but I still don't understand the second one... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 19:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a song. The is the one jug of oil. --WikiTiki89 20:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian Noun/Adjective Declension Table Designs
Hello!

First off, thanks for fixing my mistake on the ru-adj-table template; I'm new to Wikitionary (and editing Wiki- sites in general) as you can probably tell, and wasn't aware at the time between the distinction between the | and !

Second, with regards to the design of those two tables, what are your thoughts on my tweaks? So far I've only changed two (the one I mentioned above and the ru-adj-table-unc templates. While I think my change makes the tables much easier to use, and makes them much clearer, it's a massive undertaking to change each one of the templates for nouns and adjective declensions, and so my question is: do you think it is worth it, and if so is there a quicker way to do it than individually editing each one? I also don't want inconsistency, and so if you don't think it worthwhile I may revert my changes on the two I've changed. I'm asking you because you seem to be the creator of most, if not all, of the templates, and I've no idea who else to ask.

Thanks in advance TDanino (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your changes. The only minor problem with them is that the notes section looks a little bit awkward, but that's ok. Don't bother changing most of the templates for noun/adjective declensions as they are actually obsolete and have been replaced by the Module:ru-noun and Module:ru-adjective modules. So all you need to do is change them there. --WikiTiki89 15:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I'm glad you do. With regard to that notes section, actually: in the ru-adj-table template, for example, there is an extra column at the end of the notes row - is this meant to be there? (same for the ru-adj-table-unc template). And I'll get onto changing those modules. Thanks for your help and advice! — TDanino (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the extra column is meant for spacing. It didn't look good when the notes section extended all the way to the right end of the table, so I made it one column shorter. But when you essentially put borders around the cells, this put a border between the notes cell and the dummy cell to the right of it, making it look strange. It would be ideal if there were a way to remove the border just in that one place between the notes cell and the blank cell to the right of it. --WikiTiki89 16:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which templates are you referring to when you say it's a massive undertaking to change each one? There should only be maybe 2 adjective templates and 3 noun templates left that have tables in them; there used to be dozens but they've all been deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going off these two pages as an indication of how many there were to change (which in hindsight is still not that many, but I was more trying to ask if there was an easier way), Category:Russian_noun_inflection-table_templates and Category:Russian_adjective_inflection-table_templates, and I also wanted to change these ones Category:Russian_inflection-table_templates for consistency. I'm a bit confused, though, because half of those "template" pages don't actually have templates on them? And how do I edit modules (that is, what the hell am I meant to change? I'm guessing it's the bits down the end of the Module:ru-noun and Module:ru-adjective modules, but I want to make sure. — TDanino (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, the noun templates that have -z in them are indeed obsolete. As for "half of those "template" pages don't actually have templates on them?", it sounds like you're confusing templates and tables. Not all the templates have tables in them; some of them depend on the modules to display the tables, and some (like ) don't display tables at all. You're right about how to change the modules, it's the stuff at the bottom. Benwing2 (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see. As mentioned, I'm very new to all of this, and so thanks for clarifying everything, and for your patience, but also sorry for taking up your time that could have been better spend - it's appreciated. I'll get to work changing them. Thanks again, — TDanino (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Benwing2 (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

שלום !!!
I added this pronunciation to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94 it it correct ? Please make corrections as you seem fit :) Adjutor101 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just added a stress mark to it. --WikiTiki89 22:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your work on Wiktionary !!! May Allah/Elohim/YHWH bless you :) Adjutor101 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:yi-conj
Could you please write up the documentation for this? I can figure it out for the most part by looking at the module, but it's not a simple template and could really use some documentation for other users. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll do that just as soon as I'm done fixing the bug that causes it to use autotranslit for the infinitive when it shouldn't. --WikiTiki89 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you made edits like this one. In general, though, I appreciate your Yiddish work, especially with fixing my edits when I've buggered them up. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was cleaning up Category:Yiddish terms with Hebrew-only letters needing transliteration. Currently, a ה not followed by a vowel is interpreted as a Hebrew-only letter. Maybe that should be changed if we are going to be adding more entries like that. --WikiTiki89 03:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. It's a relatively common orthographic feature of German, but one that might confuse Yiddishists, so I thought those entries might be especially helpful ones to create. I'll try to transliterate them from now on to avoid filling that category. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you mind creating ? I know it's "our father" in Hebrew and used after the name of a patriarch, but I'm really not sure how to handle it as an entry. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Module:yi-verb
There are a couple of Yiddish entries in Category:Pages with module errors that seem to be there due to your recent edits to the module. Please take a look. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * . --WikiTiki89 16:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)