Wiktionary talk:About Welsh

Proposed variation to the lemma for certain Welsh words
In response to a recent “Translation of the Week” request, which asked for translations for, amongst other things, child, I added the Welsh word, plentyn, defining it using a template that I created for that very purpose as:, which became  I did this because in Welsh, certain words’ simplest forms are plural, and they go on to form singular forms by inflexion (for child, the plural “plant” forms the singular “plentyn” by the addition of the singular suffix “-yn”), which is different from the invariable rule in English that words inflect for the plural, but not vice versa.

However, I was told by EncycloPetey that this is a tad controversial (see our conversation on my talk page). He went on to suggest that I post this proposal which asks that:


 * The lemma of certain Welsh words be the plural form, rather than the singular.

What have people to say regarding this proposal? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, are you proposing the following:
 * When a Welsh noun has no singular form, its plural form is used as the lemma.
 * When a Welsh noun's singular form differs from its plural form by the addition of the suffix [-yn]], its plural form is used as the lemma, and its singular form is defined using (q.v.).
 * When a Welsh noun meets neither of the above criteria, its singular form is used as the lemma, and its plural form is defined using (q.v.), as with nouns in other languages.
 * Welsh adjectives, verbs, and so on use the same lemmata and templates as their counterparts in other languages (masculine singular, infinitive, etc.).
 * ? (I ask because "certain Welsh words" isn't very precise; ideally, a proposal should be unambiguous, such that any two speakers would implement it the same way.)


 * By the way, is this standard practice in Welsh dictionaries?


 * —RuakhTALK 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is called the singulative number. There are words which add -yn and words that add -en. There are also words that take suffixes in both singular and plural. PierreAbbat 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Standardising Welsh entries
We need to have guidelines for how Welsh entries look, and to actually keep to them. is there anyone else active who cares about Welsh? If so, please ping them. Some things that I think are important: I'll add more concerns as I think of them. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Plural nouns: should these be in Category:Welsh plurals or Category:Welsh noun forms? I support the former, since mutations are another problem. We need mutation tables on plural nouns, right? Entries like bechgyn don't make the cut for me.
 * Mutations: should these use, , or ? I actually prefer the latter, because then we can specify which mutated form it is. In which case perhaps oughtn't to exist.
 * What about shortened words? I feel like chwe and 'r ought to be formatted the same way...
 * I think that all the templates in Category:Welsh mutation templates can be replaced with my, which is poorly written (so please test it!) but can do the job of all of them without any arguments, while keeping backwards compatibility with . However, we shan't be able to use it on mutated forms, but I think those entries shouldn't have mutation tables anyways. Please tell me what you think of all this. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 09:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I recently created for Irish, and for the other mutations I use, , and  with a lang= parameter. I've been thinking of making similar templates for Welsh: , , , or the same things without the "cy-" (but then taking a lang= parameter) so that the same templates can be used for Middle Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. There's also , which could be used for soft mutation if we're willing to refer to SM as "lenition" (which it is, though it isn't usually called that). Irish also has Category:Irish mutated forms with subcategories for mutated adjectives, nouns, numerals, pronouns, and verbs; I'd recommend the same thing for Welsh and the other Celtic languages. I agree that entries for mutated forms shouldn't have mutation tables, just like entries for inflected forms shouldn't have inflection tables. Since Welsh nouns don't decline, I think we can use Category:Welsh plurals rather than Category:Welsh noun forms. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What if instead we made it possible that e.g. "nasal" be an argument for and used that with  ? Also, do you think that mutation section should exist if the word can't mutate (just to show that indeed nothing changes)? I personally oppose it, by  does exist... Hmm, cleaning all this up looks like it'll be a monumental task; many of the entries simply haven't formatting at all (plaintext explanation). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding a name argument for would also work, but if we want it to categorize according to mutation type (as Irish already does: Category:Irish lenited forms, Category:Irish eclipsed forms, Category:Irish h-prothesized forms, Category:Irish t-prothesized forms) we have to make sure people put exactly the right name in. Current practice for Irish is already not to include a mutation table for nonmutating forms; I think anyone who knows the language well enough to know what the mutation table is there for will know when a form is nonmutating. The table is there more to supply links than to inform people with no knowledge of the language how to mutate. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was thinking that mutated forms could be created by bot. What would the categories be called, Category:Welsh soft mutated forms &c. or what? (Mark you, it may be much easier to go the easy way out and not categorise by mutation at all.) Also, you never addressed how to format entries like . Also, what would the headword line for mutated forms look like? ? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Either that or Category:Welsh soft-mutation forms if we're shy of creating new verbs. Categorizing by mutation isn't that difficult and I think it's beneficial, so I hope we do. I don't know what do with and ; they look fine to me as is, but that doesn't mean they can't be improved. The headword line for mutated forms would look like, , , and so forth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is categorising by mutation beneficial? Also, does this mean that we can delete ? Pinging User:EdwardH to join in the discussion. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess for the same reason categorizing by anything else is beneficial; things are easier to find when they're organized into smaller categories rather than lumped into one big category. I see no need for since Welsh nouns don't inflect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See a discussion in the Beer Parlour on Welsh noun forms vs plurals. I see no harm in creating categories for each mutation but I don't see them getting much use. However, I do think it would be worthwhile to separate plurals and mutations and to create templates which would be less error-prone than parameters on . EdwardH (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Colloquial conjugation template
I've adapted one of Angr's templates to show colloquial conjugation and was wondering if anybody had any comments about it. EdwardH (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't any time to devote to Wiktionary this week, but I'd very much like to get back to Welsh content. Re this template: I personally believe that if we don't show the periphrastic forms in a table, then we are obligated to have that line link to an appendix (like Appendix:Welsh conjugation) where they are explained and given in full. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to treat stems ending in an i when forming the future tense? For example, I'm pretty sure that 'ffonii' is not the correct way of saying 'I will phone'. EdwardH (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In literary Welsh, the two i's merge into one: the second-person singular future of is . I bet it's the same in the colloquial language. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've updated the template accordingly. EdwardH (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)