User talk:Allahverdi Verdizade

Welcome message

It seems you don't need it, but it's good to have.

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
• If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! —Aryaman ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ايکي

Is the wrong spelling for this entry? I was under the impression that Azeri uses the dotless final ya. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

That's right, South Azerbaijani follows Persian spelling conventions, and Persian doesn't use the dotted final ya, plus google doesn't return any results in Azerbaijani under ايکي. Historierummet (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'd better find out if there are any more offenders. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Azerbaijani vs Azeri

Hi. I always wanted to ask the community to rename the language name for Turkic Azeri to Azerbaijani to distinguish it better from the Iranian language Azeri. Do you have any thoughts on this? --Vahag (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't agree any more. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Then I'll try to find time and bring this to the attention of WT:BP. --Vahag (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Could probably just post at WT:RFM. It's not an issue that will require a vote or garner a lot of interest. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ethnologue lists it as Azerbaijani, Glottolog as Azerbaijani, the endonym is Azerbaijani (Azərbaycan dili). True, there are other endonyms (türki 'Turkic' in South Azerbaijani and so on), but none of them is Azeri. So this Azeri-thing is really out of place.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

All right, I requested the change at WT:RFM. --Vahag (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Matal words

Jallo, I wonder, what do the words ala and aŋa mean? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. aŋa corresponds to English of and is used in all sorts of possessive constructions. Not sure about ala, could be a conflation of the local preposition la and some sort of particle. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

palax

Hi. Are the etymologies of dialectal Azerbaijani palax, yeryapalağı (“short”) transparent to you as a speaker of Azerbaijani? --Vahag (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. No, it's not transparent to me. I've never heard neither word, but I'm no L1-speaker anyway, so it's probably not very helpful. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. As long as they are not obvious inner-Azerbaijani formations, my theory of connection with Old Armenian բալախ (balax) has a right to exist. --Vahag (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe add "possibly" to clarify that it's not established.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I used "compare" in բալախ (balax). Can't get any more cautious. --Vahag (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

In the etymology section for palax it merely says "From Armenian բալախ (balax), dialectal փալախ (pʿalax)." If no Armenian connection is given in either of the two sources that are listed in the references, I think a "possibly" should be placed there as well. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about Etymology 2, with the meaning "short". --Vahag (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Azerbaijani templates

Hello, I completely forgot I was watching the talk page of the user who nominated those Cyrillic conjugation templates for deletion; he never replied and the templates were deleted. Do you think they should be restored? I don't speak the language, but they seemed fine to me. Ultimateria (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! No, they shouldn't be restored, they are outdated. What I think s/he did was replacing them with a more elegant, single template which encompasses all conjugations. It looks like a nice job when it comes around, it was just a bit unclear back then. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So now {{az-cyrillic-verb-conj}} needs to be created? Could you adapt that from the Roman script template? Ultimateria (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm no good with templates and trying to tinker with them... That's why I've been waiting for Metaknowledge to fix a template that I want for Azerbaijani verbs since last year, basically. I could perhaps take a look on it later, but it's really no rush - no one is creating entries for items in Azerbaijani Cyrillic alphabet, since it's barely in use any more, and all existing entries are doublets of the Latin ones.Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

söyüş usage example

please make a better usage example. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is your major malfunction, son? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It annoys me. 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 20:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, "it annoys you"? And why does exactly this example sentence, in a language that you obviously don't know a word of, annoy you? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding another usage example! By the way, can I remove the first one? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 21:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you cannot. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please? 2602:252:D2B:3AA0:85A2:1A9E:D7F7:47BC 21:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, IP user, please stop annoying editors. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your Javascript

Hi, thank you! Of course I can write one for English Wiktionary. But who should I contact to in order for this to be implied into Common.js page? Because it needs to be loaded on everyone. ~ Z (m) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you not make it like one of those user extensions, that are available optionally? Like this one https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Dixtosa/AjaxEdit.js Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi! Came bearing good news. :) I have finished the "EntryAdder" for this wiki, and it is much more improved than I wrote in Turkish Wiktionary. I am gonna transfer the same codes to there as well, because this one is better. Anyways, I suggested to use it here. But you can always test and use it by adding this to your "common.js" file:

mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:HastaLaVi2/EntryAdder.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Have a nice day! ~ Z (m) 22:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Looks very promising. I will create new entries using it and leave feedback and suggestions on improvements to you, if that's OK. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course! I would be very much appreciated by a users feedback on the gadget. :) Also if you are usually active on another wiki, I could also implement this into there as well (if wanted). ~ Z (m) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

qələmə

Hi. Can you translate for me this definition of qələmə from {{R:az:QADL}}: "qovaq ağacının bir növü, bəzi rayonlarda əbrişim, səhv olaraq çinar da deyilir"? As I understand, there are three tree names here. --Vahag (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"A kind of poplar tree, also called əbrişim in certain districts, as well as erroneously çinar (=chenar, plane tree, sycamore)"

Also, on the Pedia page Populus#India the following is said: "The trees are grown from kalam or cuttings [...]" No idea whether this has anything to do with anything, though.

Can you create յարամազ when you've got time? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess this “cuttings” word has to do with Arabic قلم. Fay Freak (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This “cuttings” lead is intriguing, but its Arabic etymon cannot explain կաղամախ (kałamax), because Armenian had no Arabic borrowings in the 5th century. Also, it contradicts my invention, so let someone else explore it :). յարամազ (yaramaz) is ready. --Vahag (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be referring specifically to Hindi क़लम (qalam, “pen; cuttings”) (which is indeed from the Arabic) which has been influenced by a native word कलम (kalam, “shoot, seedling”). I think the "cuttings" sense is a later Hindi (or Indo-Aryan) innovation. The term does not specifically refer to poplars either. —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Comapre Persian قلمه (qalama, “slip”). It is from Arabic قلم (“pen”) (because both are long and thin). Not connected with poplars. --Calak (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I am glad this was a dead end. --Vahag (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Proto entries with no descendants

Hi Allahverdi (nice user pager, BTW -- looks somehow familiar), could I ask that you not create proto entries without descendants, like your did with this page? Even if they are sourced, they should have descendants attached to them, if they indeed have any. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 19:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure they have descendants, in most of the 135 or so Chadic languages. There are long cognate lists in Jungraithmayr & Ibrizhimow. As to why I created the Proto-Chadic entries, they are useful for many contemporary languages' etymology sections. For instance, many Matal entries are linked to them. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In the example above, nothing is linking to it. If there are contemporary descendants, please include them in such entries. --{{victar|talk}} 00:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Etymology templates

Why are you doing this? Please use {{der}}. Per utramque cavernam 12:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's fine to link the non-standard script lemmas to their etymons, but only the standard script lemmas should use {{der|bor|inh}}. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed. I think the current situation is quite confusing; зејтун looks, for all intents and purposes, like a lemma form, complete with glosses, declension table, etymology section... Wouldn't it be better to remove the etymology and convert the glosses to something like "Cyrillic script form of zeytun"? Per utramque cavernam 12:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This solution is exactly what I've always wanted (maybe declension table is useful and should be kept, but the rest is just the same as in the Latin sctipt-lemma). But I don't know how to do it, technically. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the Cyrillic spellings should be a soft redirect to the Latin spelling. There is no constituency currently using the Cyrillic alphabet for Aerbaijani, like there is for Serbo-Croatian. --Vahag (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The process of replacing the content in Cyrillic entries with a redirect template has now begun. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

ayıq

Thanks for expanding it. I could really use some more Azerbaijani FWOTDs, if you have any more interesting words to offer up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge And there you go: mənimsəmək. Don't hesitate to correct the wording of the quotes' translations, if too unidiomatic. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge OK, this is a really good one: öndər. Ketiga123 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ketiga123: What makes it so good? The etymology is of some interest, but all that goes in to the FWOTD is saying that it's a fancy word for leader. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

okay then Ketiga123 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

amaç

Hi, According to "Divan-i Luqat-i it-Türk", "amaç" is a Turkic world, not Persian. Please take care of Turkic words. source: http://www.achiq.org/pitikler/dlt---.pdf (page 8)

There you go. Ketiga123 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

{{bdk-noun}}

Should nouns in this language have an inflection table? If so, then it's probably better not to use {{bdk-noun}} and instead keep all the inflection information in the inflection table. That way, only one template has to be maintained instead of two. —Rua (mew) 13:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but maybe just some crucial information can be included into the head template for the time being? Noun class in the first parameter, ergative singular in the second, ergative plural in the third? I've no idea how to use Lua, so the template is just an attempt. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

That's ok, you don't need to know Lua to make inflection tables. Lua just allows you to make them smarter. I can help with an inflection table if you like. Which forms are there? And does noun class refer to the inflectional class? —Rua (mew) 13:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budukh_language, "six 'gender-number' classes", Talibov 2007 "four grammatical classes".

Authier 2010:

• human masculine,
• human adult feminine,
• animate (which includes animals, plants, and non-adult human females, as well as some abstract nouns),
• inanimate,
• nonhuman plural,
• human plural.

Talibov 2007:

• I class - masculine
• II class feminine,
• III class animate non-human, things,
• IV class things, phenomena

Then there are 13 cases on top of that. The nominative is morphologically unmarked, the rest are formed with the ergative as the base. As I understand it, the noun classes do not really affect the case morphology; it is, however, affected by the insertion of different grammatical morphemes between the stem and the case suffix. Depending on the preceding grammatical morpheme the case suffix can take different shapes. The whole thing is quite complicated and it would take long time to create a full fledged inflection table. Therefore, I think, creating a head template with minimal grammatical information is necessary for the time being. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, the noun classes are more like genders then. For the purpose of inflection tables, they can be ignored if you say they don't affect case morphology. But they do need some special treatment in {{bdk-noun}}. Can you give a list of all the cases? I can at least make a table to hold them, even if the logic for creating the forms is not known yet. —Rua (mew) 14:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. As per Talibov 2007:

• Nominative
• Ergative
• Genitive I
• Genitive II
• Dative
• Instrumental-comitative
• Locative I
• Ablative I
• Locative II
• Ablative II
• Locative III
• Ablative III
• Ablative IV

The Roman digits have nothing to do with the nominal class numbers given above. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll see what I can do. Does Talibov go into more details about the differences between the numbered cases? For example, what is the functional difference between genitives I and II? I could put them in the table labelled as just I and II, but if there is a way to describe them better I'd rather use that instead. —Rua (mew) 16:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh and also, should the nominative not be called absolutive? Usually the ergative case is paired with absolutive in languages that have such a case system. —Rua (mew) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I've finished the table: {{bdk-infl-noun-manual}}. You give one argument for each form in the table. It's implemented using Module:bdk-nouns. Note that the table still shows two of the forms even when it's collapsed. This means it's not necessary to display these forms also in {{bdk-noun}}. Please give the template a try and let me know if there's anything you need adjusting. I did some researching myself on Budukh and related languages, and found that the "instrumental-comitative" is generally just labelled "instrumental", while the nominative is indeed rather the absolutive case. I hope you don't mind these changes. —Rua (mew) 16:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Rua! Great job! Talibov does go into detail about the cases. I will try to read the chapter about the noun declensions and get back with more details. It is also safe to re-label cases as absolutive and instrumental as well. I will now play around with the templates and learn how they work. Once again, thanks for the help! Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the two forms that should be shown when the table is collapsed are ergative singular and absolutive plural. Absolutive singular is always the same as the entry name. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave the absolutive singular there for now, because we always seem to show the entry name in other inflection tables, even in the collapsed state. Now that this is working, I can see about automating some of the generation of the forms, so that you don't have to fill in all of them by hand. But you'll have to tell me what the rules are for doing that, because I know nothing about the language. —Rua (mew) 20:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Rua, here we go. May God have mercy upon our souls. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

	Absolutive	Oblique stem (OS)	Ergative	Genitive I	Genitive II	Dative	Instrumental	Lokative I	Ablative I	Lokative II	Ablative II	Locative III	Ablative III	Ablative IV
OS identical with the absolutive	диде	диде	OS+ре	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<о>	OS+<з>	Dative+<ын> for all	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	Lokative I + <р> for all	OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох>	Locative II + <ун> for all	OS + <к>	Locative III + <ир> for all	OS+<вор>
	ада	ада	OS+ра	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<о>	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох>		OS + <к>		OS+<вор>
	гада	гада	OS+ра	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<о>	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох>		OS + <к>		Genitive II + <вор>
OS formed by addition of an epenthetic vowel	xьын	xьын-а	OS+ра	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS+<о> minus OS-final vowel	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ох>		OS + <к>		OS+<вор>
	риж	риж-и	OS+ре	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<у>	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух>		OS + <к>		OS+<вор>
	рих	рих-и	OS+ре	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<у>	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух>		OS + <к>		OS+<вор>
	зар	зар-ы	OS+ра	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS minus OS-final vowel +<у>	OS+<з>		OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>		OS minus OS-final vowel + <ух>		OS + <к>		Genitive II + <вор>
OS formed by the determinative -дж.	къепик	къепик-дж	OS+ир	OS minus OS-final vowel +<а>	OS + у. Applies to all below.	OS+ <ыз> for OS with back vowels or <из> for OS with back vowels. Applies for all below.		OS+ <а> for OS with back vowels or <е> for OS with front vowels. Applies to all below		OS + <ух> for the rest		OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
	ших	ших-дж	OS+ир	OS+ а for OS with back vowels or e for OS with back vowels								OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
OS formed by determinative -Vн	къанд	къанд-ын	OS+ыр	OS+a								OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
	тур	тур-ун	OS+ур	OS+a								OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
OS formed by the determinative -Vл	тӀутӀ	тӀутӀ-ул	OS+ур	OS+a								OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
	йыкӀ	йыкӀ-ыл	OS+ыр	OS+a								OS + <ык>		Genitive II +<вор>
	мез	мез-ил	OS+ир	OS+a								OS + <ик>		OS +<ивор>
OS formed by the determinative -(V)й	кьул	кьул-уй	OS+ир	OS+е								OS + <ик>		OS +<ивор>
	фу	фу-й	OS+ир	OS+е								OS + <ик>		OS +<ивор>
	кьолкидж	кьолки-й	OS+ир	OS+а								OS + <ик>		OS +<ивор>
OS formed by the determinatives -Vл-д	вак	вык-ыл-д	OS+ыр	OS+а								OS + <ик>		OS +<ывор>
	къуш	къуш-ул-д	OS+ур	OS+а								OS + <ик>		Genitive II +<вор>
	шег	шег-ил-д	OS+ир	OS+е								OS + <ик>		OS +<ивор>

Footnotes

Thank you, this is very detailed and will definitely help. —Rua (mew) 11:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Looking at this more, it looks like there is some kind of vowel harmony going on. The vowel in the suffix seems to depend on the vowels that are present in the preceding word. Can you confirm this? Knowing about the vowel harmony rules will make the job a lot easier. —Rua (mew) 17:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, definitely, there is some partial vowel harmony involved. But sometimes the vowel is also assimilated for low/high, not just backedness. Also, there are a lot of constraints.

I've now added inflections for all the words above that you created entries for. I hope I got them all correct, please check them! I was not able to create inflections for words with the determinative й, because I wasn't sure what you meant by "variable vowel" and which cases have such a vowel. I also haven't done the plural forms yet, as I don't know how to form those. I am slowly starting to get a feel for how Budukh inflection works, which will help me write code to do this automatically in the future. It has also made me curious why some vowels adapt to the previous one, but others don't, and why the ergative ends in a vowel sometimes and in a consonant other times. —Rua (mew) 18:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Great! I went through them and I didn't find anything incorrect, everything is according to the description. Regarding the footnote, you can disregard it, all you need to create the inflection is in the descriptive table. The forms for фу are фу-й-ир, фу-й-е, фу-й-у, фу-й-из, фу-й-из-ын, фу-й-е, фу-й-е-р, фу-й-ух, фу-й-ух-ун, фу-й-ик, фу-й-ик-ир, фу-й-ивор. As you can see, everywhere after -й-, where и я is possible, it occurs. That was what I meant by the footnote.

Regarding the plural, I'll have to dig deeper into it, but Talibov isn't very clear. One possibility is of course that for the plural, the plurality suffix (which is one of the two forms along with the "bare" absolutive and ergative that are given in the dictionary) is inserted, while the rest is business as usual. That is, that the paradigm is identical to the singular but includes one more morpheme.

Regarding the differences in how different words produce case forms, although Talibov isn't explicit about this, I think these different ways can be called declensional groups. Which means, that the reasons for this or that variance are arbitrary, at least synchronically. To automatize the template would be really great, but it requires consideration of more data than that given in the table above, which I can provide later. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, duno if you noted, but Genitive I and Locative I are formally identical. Not quite sure yet what the deal is. But I'm sure there is one. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

But according to the rules above, for къепик (qqepik) genitive I is къепикджа (qqepikdža) while locative I is къепикдже (qqepikdže). I'm not sure if that's correct or if the rules were mistaken. —Rua (mew) 11:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

къепикдже (qqepikdže) is the correct case form for Locative I. So I guess there are some formal differences, after all. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Etymology for Persian نوکر

I think you can give the etymology for Persian نوکر , which is cognate to Azerbaijani nökər, whose entry you yourself had created. So, نوکر is ultimately from Proto-Mongolic *nökör, via some Mongolic, and then (likely) some Turkic source; the latter (if so) being the immediate source of the Persian word. Thanks, —Lbdñk^{(⏳)·(🙊🙉🙈)} 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC) Lbdñk (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a splendid work plan, I think you're the right man to accomplish the task. Forward, to Glory! Ketiga123 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you have liked this etymology, then I would proceed, but it would be better if at least the Turkic language whence this Persian word came were identified. Nevertheless, the etymology section is missing, and something is better than nothing. :) —Lbdñk (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Use "From {{der|fa|trk}}, compare {{cog|az|nökər}}; ultimately from...", and then just copy the Mongolic etymons from the Azerbaijani entry. Also, consult Dörfer (Türkischie und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen) to see when it pops up in Persian for the first time. You have my blessing. Ketiga123 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Good job! "The meaning of "servant" is owing of a semantic shift" sounds weird, though. Rephrase it. Ketiga123 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Furthermore, that was only a typing error: I wanted to write "owing to"; in haste I wrote something amiss. I have now righted it. Lbdñk (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Karabakh

We need to agree on the categorization of place names in Karabakh controlled by us, such as Stepanakert and Agdam. There are two options. 1) Put them simultaneously in two categories: Category:en:Cities in Artsakh and Category:en:Cities in Azerbaijan. This is what Wikipedia does. Compare the categorization of w:Category:Populated places in Agdam District. We can use NKR instead of Artsakh, I don't care. Agdam goes there too, because according to the constitution of NKR, liberated/occupied territories are claimed as part of NKR. It does not matter that Agdam was not part of NKAO or the geographical region of Nagorno Karabakh. 2) Put them simultaneously in two categories: Category:en:Cities in Armenia and Category:en:Cities in Azerbaijan, because NKR is of course not a real country, but a part of Armenia. --Vahag (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: I will respond next week, busy now. Also, I am moving this discussion to user:Allahverdi Verdizade, as I will soon abandon this account. Ketiga123 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We should always display the actual power structures. So Nagorno-Karabakh is a state, irrespective of recognition, “international recognition” is only diplomatic window dressing. By law it is irrelevant. Statehood is identified by a banal subsumption of factual circumstances. For a state one needs state territory, state power, and state population, not recognition. Wikipedia editors are mugs in talking about things like “de facto states”, “de facto republics” and the like. There are only de facto states. Aside from this, it might also make sense to have a separate geographical system of categorization. So half of what is now “Poland” is also Germany (because historical structure is relevant), and what was meant is “Republic of Poland”; but Poland is valid too since it is effectively Poland (feels like it, innit). Problematic for Palestine where jurists doubt whether it is a state for reasons we do not want to roll up, and the Zionist entity ever grabs more territory, but in most cases one does know, and most importantly it isn’t a political question. Fay Freak (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: I beg you, refrain from ranting like this. The issue that will be talked about in this thread is about proper categorization of entries on Wiktionary, not about your thoughts on statehood criteria or your feelings on "Poland" (what's the deal with quotation marks?) or Zionism. Just a friendly request. Ketiga123 (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ketiga123 Where are the rants? I contended that categorization should document state power. And there are objective criteria for it. They are universally recognized in law. If a law talks about a “state”, then this is how you determine whether it is. So according to the laws of my country (i.e. if some state is a requirement for a legal consequence) there are entities that are states which aren’t recognized by the government diplomatically as states. What people write like in Wiktionary:Tea room/2019/August § Sukhumi about UN member states is a rant, a wrong assumption to which laymen tend. Recognition has some relevancy in the narrow field of international law, otherwise not. Has or had for a considerable time the Republic of Abkhasia power over city X? Has the state of Nagorno-Karabakh power over the mountain Y? Is the Republic of Abkhasia itself independent? These are questions that can be answered without political trench wars. For the State of Palestine it is difficult because its power is partial, one might need a special handling here, I just mention it to point out how far the criteria work. Else: there is no need to write “de facto” in front of every mention of these states, like in Agdam, this adds nothing substantial. Do you know what a state is or do you need governments to tell you? Well I answered it already. “State” is a polysemous word, and for the polity-meaning we mean here there is one context where recognition matters and others where it doesn’t, where you should lay aside the enmities. You see what Nagorno-Karabakh is. You see how real it is on one hand and how recognized or unrecognized on the other hand. How you appraise the reality is a different question. But first you have to distinguish these matters. Fay Freak (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: My proposition:

	Place	Agdam	Stepanakert/Xankendi	Şıxarx/Maraga
Category
langcode:towns in Azerbaijan		yes	yes	yes
langcode:towns in Nagorno Karabakh		no	yes	yes
langcode:towns controlled by the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic		yes	yes	no
langcode:towns in Armenia		no	no	no

Ketiga123 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding category 3: "...controlled by the self-proclaimed..." is unnecessary and breaks the category structure, all of which have the "Cities in X" format. Compare the contents of Category:en:Cities. I can edit the description to read "Langcode names of cities in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, an unrecognized Armenian-populated republic in the South Caucasus".

Category 2 is superfluous, because at the moment Wiktionary does not categorize by geographical region. Maybe we should.

The rest I agree. --Vahag (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't bring the conflict to Wiktionary. The current structure works well. Places outside of former NKAO de facto controlled by Karabakh are categorized into Category:Places in Artsakh whose description says it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. They are also categorized into Category:Places in Azerbaijan. If you capture places, I will put them only into the latter category, and vice versa (after the war, now everybody lies). Places inside of former NKAO de facto controlled by Karabakh are categorized into Category:Places in Artsakh only, whose description says it is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan. If the name "Artsakh" is what you object to, we can change it to "Nagorno-Karabakh" in category names, I don't mind. --Vahag (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You are bringing the conflict to Wiktionary by creating entries for place names in a controversial way. "The current structures works well" only means "I, Vahagn-blocked-nine-times-but-still-an-admin, like the current structure". Places outside of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast are not places in Nagorno-Karabakh. They are places in Azerbaijan. And yes, I do object to the name Artsakh, not as an Azerbaijani, but as a Wiktionarian: this is not a place for you to push your narrative, which you do when you put Artsakh as default in the definition line. Even Pedia with its legion of Armenian editors doesn't go with Artsakh as default, what makes you believe you could? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool off. We will talk after the war. I will not create place names for the time being. --Vahag (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

PS Sorry if the definitions seemed controversial, it was not my purpose. We will take whatever approach Wikipedia takes. We don't need to relitigate the issue here. The political status of places is not particularly interesting for a dictionary. We should focus on the etymologies, translations and pronunciations. --Vahag (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

خمبره

@Fay Freak: Tell me about the issue here. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade: I pinged you so you can check whether the Azerbaijani is from Ottoman or rather inherited. I doubted that xumbâre would give both the Turkish kumbara and the Azerbaijani qumbara parallely. It could be inherited, but Nişanyan traces it but to 1501 in the sense “jar”, and that is of course originally humbara, and probably because of weapon technique development alone the sense of a bomb must be later, and probably rather arose in Turkish. Don’t know the Azerbaijani meanings though (I have not added a gloss), you might want to create it. Fay Freak (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Unless we have an attestation of this word prior to the year 1500, which is the traditionally accepted time border between Old Anatolian Turkic and Ottoman (thus, prior to the separation between Azerbaijani and Turkish), there is no ground for positing inheritance into Azerbaijani. Also, the Azerbaijani were quite significantly behind when it came to employing canons in warfare, which led to heavy defeats at the hands of Ottomans in 16th century. It is believed that they took this technology from the Ottomans, which should have consequences for the issue at hand. As to phonological developments, it could be along the lines with Persian /xumpâre/ -> Ottoman /gumbara/ -> Azerbaijani /gumbara/; or Persian /xumpâre/ -> Ottoman /kumbara/ -> Azerbaijani /kumbara/ -> Azerbaijani /gumbara/. I don't know when exactly initial West Oghuz /g/ (or was it /q/?) went unvoiced in Ottoman. Keep me up to date. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is 1500 the date whence Azerbaijani (code az) starts? Where was the geographical border between ota and az? I am having a hard time classifying Armenian borrowings from Turkic. Our sources treat all your languages and peoples simply is "Turkish" and "Turks". --Vahag (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Just follow the Ottoman-Safavid border

The Ottoman-Safavid border

. The Qarapapaq of Kars can be disregarded, because they (at least partially) moved there from Transcaucasia in the XIX-th century. Even after that, their numbers were smaller than those of local Anatolian Turks. So, the establishment of the Ottoman-Safavid border in the early XVIth c. basically created, or at least strengthened the differences between the dialects of Anatolia and Azerbaijan. The differences grew in the course of decades and centuries rather than over night, of course, so the date 1500, as the time of emergence of the Safavid state, is to some degree conventional. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Yea, according to him it is 1500, I have accepted it so according to him. Recently he has also ordered Gagauz as descending from Ottoman Turkish instead of Old Anatolian Turkish – User:Victar/Turkic is based on an older revision. I think the sole purpose of this language “Old Anatolian Turkish” is to make Azerbaijani not a descendant of Ottoman Turkish because when people treat Ottoman Turkish it ends up to be 19th-century Turkish of which Azerbaijani is no descendant, save some few people who think Ottoman Turkish ended somewhere around 1700 and add Latin spellings of Ottoman words of 18th-century words as Turkish. It would be perfectly possible to have Azerbaijani a descendant from Ottoman Turkish since there is little a noticeable line between Old Anatolian Turkish and Ottoman Turkish, unlike for example New High German and Middle High German, if I don’t err (my Turkish is pretty peripheral). And I ask: If both Turkish and Azerbaijani are written in Arabic script as was common in the 19th century, does one even see a difference between Turkish and Azerbaijani? Apparently the Armenians didn’t, and the Westerners too saw it as a dialect (cool quote source for Allahverdi linked), not even requiring particular “Azerbaijani” dictionaries. A made-up language similar to Macedonian? The folk songs quoted on Bulgarian чу́тура (čútura) have been “normalized” in new editions to both Macedonian and Bulgarian, and I do not know which it is, while back then a reader of course saw them as Bulgarian. (Nobody told me yet when Macedonian starts …). Fay Freak (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of all that ranting, to tell the truth.

>"And I ask: If both Turkish and Azerbaijani are written in Arabic script as was common in the 19th century, does one even see a difference between Turkish and Azerbaijani?"

Yes, one can.

>"Apparently the Armenians didn’t..."

It's not that they didn't see the difference, they just didn't care. Furthermore, the Turks of Azerbaijan would refer to their language as türki, the label "Azerbaijani language" being adopted only in Soviet times.

>"I think the sole purpose of this language “Old Anatolian Turkish”..."

What's with the quotation marks? You make it sound like I invented the term.

>"A made-up language similar to Macedonian?"

I don't even know what to reply to a statement like that.

Maybe if you have so little knowledge about the languages you are talking about ("my Turkish is pretty peripheral", "not being a Turkologist anyway in the foreseeable future"), you shouldn't make such sensationalist announcements as "language X is a made-up language" or "the sole purpose of the language Y is to show Z..." You really surprised me there. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyways, thank you for sharing the link of "Dichtungen transkaukasischer Sänger", I did not know about this work and I see that it contains a lot of valuable material. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, provocative sentences. The reply is about whether one would see a different language in the states before Sovietization and Turkish language reforms (which gave both languages a “made-up” character of course, though not as much as with Macedonian, that’s just silly, just for contrast) through the Arabic script. One does see differences, but do they justify the classification as separate languages? I can also differentiate texts into “Croatian” and “Serbian” but not always, less so Bosnian and Croatian, in spite of understanding most texts completely; in fact I frequently have the issue of reading a text and not being aware of the language it is in even if they are distinct languages, like reading a Catalan text like Spanish, though I would know they are different languages. In the older Arebica even the usual markers of today could be hidden. Does that occur too with Azerbaijani and Turkish in Arabic writing? That’s the better question: Not whether there is a difference (clearly there is), but how extensively one sees no difference. That is particular also about Azerbaijani vs Eastern Turkish yore, because our view of “Ottoman” is often biased towards Constantinople. I would have to get a better reading proficiency of them both, and maybe you have already, that’s why I ask you, no rants here, ”I am just asking questions”.

I have not looked into who introduced the term “Old Anatolian Turkish” for Wiktionary or what was in the mind of the one who split that, I knew you didn’t invent it. But I find it problematic that if there were no Azerbaijani then one would probably not have this split of Old Anatolian Turkish (= Old Ottoman) from Ottoman Turkish; these both are treated monolithically by many works, not caring about Azerbaijani. Like: An Ottoman Turkish grammar based on the latest standard with remarks about Old Ottoman constructions. Fay Freak (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My current understanding is that Azerbaijani started to divert from eastern Anatolian dialects as a result of the ~1500 Ottoman-Safavid hostilities. Before that, the whole area constituted the eastern zone of the Western Oghuz dialect continuum.

And then there is the discussion between what is really OAT and Ottoman. The first is not so much a language as a text corpus (which of course indirectly represents something real and spoken), and the second is a standardized literary language. If we completely disregard the existence of literary languages, then we could remove both Old Anatolian Turkish and Ottoman from the discussion and just speak of Turkish. But of course we don't have so many samples of "real language" until quite recently.

The Ottoman-Safavid split does not mean, of course, that all contact disappeared. It seems that some contact-induced change still occurred, or maybe the tendencies that were present in both Azerbaijani and Ottoman before the split produced the same changes even after the split. Later, Ottoman Turkish starts to influence written Azerbaijani again after the Safavid decline and some writers and intellectuals of XIX-th and early XX-th century even adopt Ottoman traits in their writing to such a degree that it's barely a question about Azerbaijani any longer. But that's another story, and written language is a completely different matter. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your thoughts. Since there is no OAT dictionary, I can create only Ottoman Turkish entries and put there < 1500 Armenian borrowings. They can be moved if someone creates the OAT entry. --Vahag (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

طبانجه

How come Turkish tabanca corresponds to taban, but on the Azerbaijani side we have tapança against daban? Have you looked at the thing like that? I bet Azerbaijani tapança is reborrowed from Persian تپانچه (tapânča). I don’t know where the /d/ onset in Kurdish and Georgian comes from though, maybe from an earlier native Azerbaijani pronunciation, or else Old Anatolian one (as ط usually stands for /d/, and that’s the original Oghuz Turkic and Turkic sound), but a firearms meaning is not even yet there in Meninski 1680 and pistols were rare back then so technically Kurdish and Georgian need to have borrowed in the following two centuries. Fay Freak (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: you're probably right about the re-borrowing. As to Georgian/Kurdish borrowings from Ottoman, there are several possibilities: again, I don't know when the /d/ was devoiced in Ottoman, do you? This ought to be a question that one could find an answer to somewhere. It could also have been borrowed thither from Turkish dialectal forms. Last but not least, could be native post-borrowing processes in these languages. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: Bernt Brendemoen (2002) The Turkish dialects of Trabzon : their phonology and historical development. I-II, page 202:

In the 15th century, voicedness assimilations take place also in back vowel stems with initial dental stops, e.g. daş > taş. Today, the unvoiced forms are often found in West Anatolia (and also ST), while the voiced ones are typical of the east. 4) A parallel voicing of initial velar stops before back vowels commences in Azeri and Anatolian and Balkan Turkish [...] Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: On another note, can you make the quotation look less uggly here? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Why do you removed sibieran tatar to the Appendix:Turkic Swadesh lists, not to be negative vibing at all but to bea positive vibal guy and being a gentleman to you, you know? (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't do anything with any other languages in that list except for Azerbaijani, so you must be mistaken. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about what happen 9/28/19 about Appendix:Turkic Swadesh lists, Please forgive me? (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2019

Still dunno what you are talking about, but I forgive you. Walk peacefully, son. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

sosial məsafələşmə

Tjena! Jag tror att etymologin här har råkat blandas ihop med uppslaget om flockimmunitet! --Lundgren8 (t · c) 10:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Tack, fixat Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Doubt

@Allahverdi Verdizade Regards. I come here to consult the origin of the name "Dua". There is a singer named Dua Lipa, what I am arguing is that the name of that artist is Arabic despite the fact that she says that she is of Albanian origin. What I believe is that Dua is of Arab origin but that name also has its meaning in several languages, one of those is Albanian. I ask you to answer the question here. [1] Thank you. Alexismata7 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade Alexismata7 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alexismata7 Sorry, I am neither knowledgeable nor particularly interested in the etymologies of Albanian given names. However, although "dua" really means "prayer" in Arabic and in many languages that have been under the influence of Islam, I have never encountered the word being used as a given name, in any language. On the contrary, the word "love" is very often used as a female given name: cf. Slavic Любовь (Ljubovʹ), Люба (Ljuba), Azerbaijani Sevda, and, I am sure, many more. But hey, I've no idea, consult someone else. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

cərgə

Hi,

The Ukrainian че́рга (čérha) or черга́ (čerhá) and Belarusian чарга́ (čarhá) are apparently derived from a Turkic source. I could only find an Azerbaijani cognate cərgə, for which we don't have an entry.

My source for Azerbaijani Cyrillic "чǝркǝ" is https://goroh.pp.ua/Етимологія/черга (in Ukrainian). I couldn't find any other terms mentioned or any other descendents. Could you please confirm the etymology looks right and if I defined the sense cərgə correctly. Also calling @Vahagn Petrosyan, Benwing2. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cərgə is written ҹәрҝә in the Cyrillic script. Compare also Persian جرگه (“a circle, a ring, as of men”) Check Dörfer, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente, I have a feeling he discusses this word. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I know they have spelling issues for some other languages. It seems cərgə / ҹәрҝә are the right cognate for the Ukr. and Belar. words. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It is Slavic < Turkic < Mongolic. See here (page 26), here and {{R:trk:VEWT|page=105}}. --Vahag (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Yay, thanks, Vahagn! Any enhancements to the etymologies are welcome but I guess we want some sources blue-linked. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Common Turkic

What's the point of adding Common Turkic to Proto-Turkic reconstruction pages? All it does is mess up the page's formatting, and most people either don't care or already know that the Oghur languages developed differently from the rest. It's not even a unanimously acknowledged taxon, so why bother? —Alves9 (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What is not "a unanimosly acknowledged taxon"? Common Turkic? The fact that Bulgar split off from the rest quite early is as unanimously acknowledged as it can be. As to the ugly formatting, a solution might be underway, as we might soon split off Common Turkic from Proto-Turkic. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it's possible to infer that Chuvash has differents roots from Turkish without invoking the name "Common Turkic"; and especially without splitting the Proto-Turkic page in two, one part that has all Turkic languages, and another that has all Turkic languages, except the Oghuric ones. That just seems excessive, especially for a dictionary. But if you want to go ahead and do that, it might be better than the current alternative, which is not only excessive but also looks ugly (even though you may not find it so).—Alves9 (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw, the way I formatted the descendants table, it's not even that ugly. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not just a question of ugliness, it's a question of readability.—Alves9 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The readability is fine. Skipping the Common Turkic node creates the false impression that Bulgar split off at the same time as, say, Kipchak. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

USEX

It is also really obvious from the second example given here. Sahib1609 (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

It applies to English usage examples, obviously. This is supported by the well established practice of adding lemma-links in usexes in other languages: see a Russian example, a German, and a Chinese one. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

What is it that you don't understand in "For non-English words in the Latin alphabet"? Picking a couple of examples doesn't make a convention. Sahib1609 (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not a couple of examples, it is a commonplace and standard practice for some languages, so I advice you to stop your edit-warring. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Middle Kipchak

Kipchak is divided three , Armeno-Kipchak, Mamluk-Kipchak , Cuman, It's rename all?

몽골어 물리 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I answered over there; the short answer is no. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Anatolian transcriptions

I have been very consistent in putting transcriptions of Ottoman Turkish and Old Anatolian Turkish with the modern spellings, and this was done before already by Dijan (talk • contribs) when he started the Ottoman entries, whom I continued. It is advantageous as this aligns with the current Turkish and Azerbaijani alphabets. I mean ş, ç, ğ instead of š¸ č, ɣ. The mere categorization as “historical Turkic variaties” does not turn a switch in me to suddenly deem a different orthography appropriate nor can I agree with the notion that there could, would or should be a common notation for all the historical varieties; besides your choices contravene the Common Turkic Alphabet and you would have a hard time changing the thousand Ottoman Turkish lemmas and links that do it otherwise – it is probably pointless, as it does not matter which we use (I have no preference truly – I like the kvačice!), but it is annoying/confusing if there are different uses from one page to the other. And the use of q and k will not have consistency between the four languages anyway; it probably depends on whether one has a Turkish or Azerbaijani perspective which one uses for Old Anatolian Turkish. I wrote Wiktionary:About Ottoman Turkish so people make entries Unicode and transcriptions least offensively and consistently, to account for as much as possible. Fay Freak (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

>And the use of q and k will not have consistency between the four languages anyway; it probably depends on whether one has a Turkish or Azerbaijani perspective which one uses for Old Anatolian Turkish.

the use of q or k is not a matter of "whether one has a Turkish or Azerbaijani perspective", it is a matter of what letter the original has. There is exaclty 1 way to transliterate ق - namely, using the grapheme q.

When it comes to Wiktionary:About Ottoman Turkish, it should be rewritten or deleted. Especially outrageous is the paragraph "It’s like Modern Turkish". And while you're at it, take out all references to Azerbaijani which I already told you you are the only person in the world to think is derived from Ottoman Turkish. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Bashkir in Appendix:Turkic Swadesh lists

Hi Allahverdi Verdizade, I've noticed you've been editing the subj. Can you please leave the Bashkir there as it is now? Previously, I had edited it to the best of my understanding of what a Swadesh list is, and I was disappointed to see that you later edited it so it matched an earlier state.

Please discuss the edits with me if you feel like. I understand some of the edits you made may make sense from the standpoint of across-the-Turkic comparison, but they don't from the position of Bashkir.

Cheers, Borovi4ok (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you mean my edits from September 2019? Sure, I won't touch the Bashkir section. Btw, judging from the numerous errors I found and corrected in the Azerbaijani list, there must still be a lot of errors in other languages too, both when it comes to spelling and senses (and in some cases, whether the term in question exists in this language or that at all). Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade, @Borovi4ok: AryamanA has created a Module:Swadesh, which makes it much easier to create and maintain comparative tables such as this one. You simply have to enter the words in a page such as Module:Swadesh/data/hi, then you can invoke it through {{Swadesh list auto}} (see Appendix:Pahari Swadesh lists for an example of this). PUC – 16:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade, agree, there are all types of mistakes in other languages that I have some understanding of. Would be great to sort them out some day. Overall, would be great to have some type of a Turkic wiktionary meetup someday, somehow - there are lots of things to discuss and things to do together.Borovi4ok (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok Sure, let's have a Wiki-Kurultay in January. Let's create a page somewhere where everyone can post topics that will be discussed in advance. I have a few things in mind. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction

Thanks for your correction, appreciate it. --Altuunay (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

бир нече vs. бир-нече

Hi, These two seem to be the same entity. Perhaps would make sense to show one as a spelling version of the other. Borovi4ok (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Borovi4ok: Well spotted! I fixed it. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/BurakD53

This editor has done 58 edits to Proto-Turkic pages in the past couple of days, including boneheaded errors in the names of a couple of pages they created. I don't know enough about Proto-Turkic to tell if the errors extend into the content of their edits, but it merits attention from someone who knows more than I do. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I have now gone through his edits and fixed them. They are mostly copies from EDAL (Etymological Dictionary of Altaic languages/Starling) with varying degrees of mistakes. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Turkic

Eklediğim proto dillere yaptığınız debe için d>t, gErtme için g>k düzenlemesi yanlış. Dil bilimciler tarafından o şekilde kabul edilmiyor. Hangi dayanağa göre bu değişimi yaptınız? Kaynak olarak şu araştırmayı kullanabilirsiniz: file:///C:/Users/My%20Computer/Downloads/Sergei_Starostin_Anna_Dybo_and_Oleg_Mudr.pdf Proto Türkçeden sonra bazı ssözcüklerde d>t ve g>k değişimi olduğu dil bilimciler arasında yaygın bir görüş.

Vəəleyküm əssəlam. Altayçılardan savayı d- və g- başlayıcı səslərin ibtidai olmasını heç kim düşünməyir. Anna Vladimirovna da bizim dahi türkşünasımızdır, ona türkşünaslığa etdiyi danılmaz qatqılarına görə böyük hörmətimiz var, amma onun altayçılığıyla metodoloji cəhətdən heç cürə razılaşa bilmərik, və burada qəbul edilmiş nöqteyi-nəzərinə görə də altayçılıq rədd edilmişdir. Daha çox burada oxuya bilərsiniz. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

алма

Tekrar merhaba, iyi bayramlar! Wiktionary'de ingilizce алма sayfasında kökeninin kaynağının verilmeyen bir sürü from Proto-Turkic alma yazısı yazıyor. Bu eklenti neye göre? Ben internette net bir köken bulamadım. Buna rağmen Oğur grubuyla alma sözü Macaristan'a bile gitmiş, hatta kimi Ural dillerinde ve Çuvaşça'da ulma, ulpa şekillerinde. Ana Türkçe dilinde mevcut olduğu aşikar. Fakat Halaçça'da alumla/alômla imiş ve eski Common Turkic içinde almıla kaynağı var. Kökeni Latince mālum ile bağdaştırılıyor.(al mālum>almıla) Bilgili biri olarak sayfaya göz atabilirseniz minnettar olurum. Rahatsız ettim, kusura bakmayın. İyi günler.

@BurakD53: Sizinlə birlikdə. Bir başlanğıc olaraq *alma üçün məqalə yaratdım, halbuki hələ tam deyil. Sadaladığınız xalac, qaraxanid və latın kökdaşlar *alïmla məqaləsinə əlavə ediləcəklər. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

adding audios

You can add a trusted audio recorder (even if they use Lingua Libre) to User:Metaknowledge/audiowhitelist to save yourself some time. Their files will eventually be added to pages by User:DerbethBot. Ultimateria (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will do so. I will finish adding the ones I've got now manually, since not all audio files uploaded there are good to go. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

IPA transcription

I’m asking you to provide an audio link (with or without a Praat analysis) proving your transcription of Zaqafqaziya with final stress is true. Thanks. Don’t blame me :) It’s necessary for us. LibCae (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Accidental thank

Hi, just wanted to leave a quick note of clarification on your talk page saying that the thanks that I recently gave you for an edit was accidental, I unitentionally hit the "thank" button. That's all, take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it's a very important clarification. Good day. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

[the Thank you above was intentional, though] Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

what’s wrong with you

You should really put an end to the hard-line approach of yours. If you want to undo or delete something then just delete it by writing a reasonable summary. Not by getting salty Afb2011 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. But what I wrote summarizes it perfectly well: we are not interested in Altaic parallels, and most definitely not in Altaic reconstructions. You can search around talk and discussion pages to see it for yourself. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Turkic IP Edits

Lately I've noticed a good number of edits every day to Turkic-language entries from IPs that geolocate to the same general area of France. By itself that doesn't mean much, since there are lots of people from Turkic-speaking countries in France. That said, there's a notorious IP editor geolocating not far from there who likes to edit in difficult languages and has no qualms at all about making stuff up to fill in the gaps. They have also been known to add translations in dead languages for things like television and America that were unknown when those languages were spoken. I have an abuse filter that blocks them from editing in Japanese and reconstruction entries, but branching out into a new language family would be just like them.

Today, the edits in question are from 2A01:CB09:E002:8985:1848:7368:BA61:5447 (talk • contribs • whois • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • block • block log • active blocks • global blocks), but they never stay long on the same IP. Special:Contributions/2A01:CB09:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 gives a better picture, but that's broad enough to maybe pick up a few unrelated editors.

I was hoping you could take a look at least at their more recent contributions, just to be on the safe side- if only to tell me that I don't need to worry. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: They are mostly fine, some of them are incomplete as to missing important labels, one had incorrect definition an doen had to be moved because the IP didn't recognize that the form they used wasn't actually in the language they were creating the entry for. Maybe you can see the corrections to their edits that I made and judge for yourself whether the flaws are critical. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Was ێ really ever used in Azeri?

I noticed that you were the one giving the letter ێ the current Azeri phonemes /ɯ, j/, but as I checked the Wikipedia article, I found no documentation of it and it further claims that the Arabic-based letters continue to be used as they were in Iran which lack them (until 1929 (still used in Iranian Azerbaijan)).

What I found was another letter: ؽ. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not add it, it was added before me. I see that both letters are used, but the one you found is used more often, especially in printed works, such as the magazine "Varliq". Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. Well, you were the one who indicated the pronunciation that's used for another letter, and BTW, not the gide /j/. I flipped through source pages and found in page 23 only the one I told you about, ؽ. So, we shouldn't leave the current Wiktionary entry as it is now, suggesting it's the primary form. It should be noted! I believe, if people have been using the other diacritic in handwriting, then maybe they have been confusing it with the Kurdish one, ێ. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Khalaj alphabet

Well, i think it's better: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Xenos_melophilos/Khalaj_alphabet

Sorry for the duplication of the undotted "i", but is because khalaj is unique, very, unique. Then, ¿why not a unique spelling of that sound?

The circumflex is due for Persian, its transliteration

And the alphabet in general, is based on the Common Turkic Alphabet. Xenos melophilos (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the representation of long vowels. Macron would have been better. But you can also skip length indication in the pagename and only indicate it in the head template. Like, you make a Khalaj entry on the page süt and then use {{head|klj|noun|head=sǖt}}.

The question is though, are you planning to do solid work on Khalaj? Are you intending to become our Khalaj-man? For example, BurakD53 has become our Salar-man and has a good grip of it. If yes, we can discuss, and I would then like to know which sources you are going to use. If no, I don't think whatever you come up with and implement in 10 or 20 entries is guaranteed to be conformed to by whoever decides to work on Khalaj in the future. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

YES

I will base my work on Doerfer's investigations: Grammatik des Chaladsch" and "Khalaj materials", principally Xenos melophilos (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

with work i mean solid contributions Xenos melophilos (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

although i'll use more Khalaj materials than Grammatik des chaladsch, i'll cite them both Xenos melophilos (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

can i begin? Xenos melophilos (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

you can begin of course, I don't own this site :D Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Kaynak - şablon

Merhabalar, bu konu hakkında bilgim olmadığı için size danışmak, sormak istedim. Clauson'un "The Suffixes in Pre-Eighth Century Turkish" konusu adı altında yaptığı araştırmalar başlı başına bir kitap mı, yoksa "An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press" ya da başka bir kitabının içinde geçen bir kesit mi? Ve bir Proto-Turkic reference şablonu yapılabilir mi? Şimdiden teşekkürler. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Behold Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Teşekkür ederim. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

{{R:trk:Clauson:1962}} is currently a mixture between the 1st edition of 1962 titled Turkish and Mongolian Studies and 2nd edition of 2002 titled Studies in Turkic and Mongolic linguistics. They have different page numbering. Which one do you want to keep? Vahag (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I guess let's keep the 2002 edition since that's probably the one people are most likely to make look-ups in... Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Mine is 1964 edition and I couldn't find the 2002 edition. Does it cause mistakes? Because all the page numbers I wrote in the template are from the 1964 edition. Ardahan Karabağ (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've sent you the 2002 edition, use it I guess... Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

squirrel, weasel, or both?

Do dələ and mışovul mean both squirrel and weasel? For mışovul a web site also suggests fox. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

dələ means marten. Weasel is gəlincik. As for mışovul, I don't find a reliable answer. I don't know what that is. The explanatory dictionary says it's a "slender, nimble, small predator from the Mustelidae family." Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I found the same definition via {{R:az:Obastan}}. No uses in Google books. Online, I found an uninformative use in a page of advice to women[2]:

Rəfiqələrimdən hansı mənim güclü rəqibim ola bilər? ... Məsləhət: Hər bir kişiyə sevgilisinin rəfiqələrinə baxmaq maraqlıdır. Bu halda ən təhlükəli rəqib «boz mışovul» ola bilər. Flirti xoşlayan rəfiqən əlbəttə ki, əsl təhlükədir. Bu tip rəfiqələri yaxşı olar ki, heç sevgilinlə tanış etməyəsən. Yoxsa onun sənə qarşı ciddi fikri dəyişər.

That use might be consistent with a predatory animal. The rest of the uses are the name of a film. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

In that quote, it is used in the sense 'mouse'. 'Boz mışovul' is a calque of the expression "grey mouse" (obviously from Russian серая мышка, серая мышь (seraja myška, seraja myšʹ)), or as in Polish szara mysz or Danish grå mus. The Polish definition is a 1 to 1 match. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. In English the color of the figurative mouse is not mentioned. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I was doing some talk page stalking and saw this discussion. The Internet Archive looks like it has two uses, but they don't seem very enlightening since they're just lists:

Heyvanat aləmi Amur-Ussuriya və Sibir tayqa faunası komplekslərinin növləri ilə təmsil olunur: samur, ağdöş ayı və qonur ayı, maral, cüyür, uçan sıncab, mışovul, burunduk səciyyəvidir. [3]

Çöl qurşağında sünbülqıran, dağsıçanı, çölsiçanı, qartal, meşələrində ayı, vaşaq, samur, mişovul. [4]

There may be more helpful uses when searching the full declination paradigm. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

From my searching, I get a lot of hits for this collection works translated in Azerbaijani which may be useful for confirming the intended meaning of uses. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Which search terms exactly are you using? I get zero hits. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on previewing {{az-latin-decl-noun|u|l}} at mışovul, I've searched for mışovulları, mışovula (also here), mışovullara, mışovullar, (also here). —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not wise to rely on modern translations, encyclopaedias or other literary creations for determining the sense of a word. Authors of such works usually use whatever is found in dictionaries. If a standard Ru-Az dictionary translates ласка as mışovul, then the author will use mışovul in the sense "weasel". It is better to look at dialectal records to see how people use the word naturally. Here are some dialectal attestations of this word: pages 336, 359, page 106, page 49. See if you can figure out the meaning from context. I also found Karabakh Armenian մըշըղուլ, մուշուղուլ (məšəġul, mušuġul, “a mouse-like animal larger than a mouse”), apparently borrowed. I think it is Mustela nivalis. Vahag (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell what's going on there. One of them swims, I think, and the other eats plant matter. Does ovul have any meaning as a suffix? There is mışovul and there is qırqovul, both animals. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

According to {{R:az:Sevortyan:1966|page=238}}, -ovul forms verbal nouns and agent nouns from verbal stems. It is found in several animal names that are etymologically agent nouns but whose verbal stem is obscure: mışovul, qırqovul, sıçovul. In my opinion, mış- in mışovul can be compared to muš-, miš-, mɨš- in Turkic words meaning "cat" mentioned here: [5]. Vahag (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So you did lay hold of Sevortyan 1966! Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't difficult. Many Russian bookinists carry it. Vahag (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

If I search for мишовул I get a few hits. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijani compound-like templates

Hi. I see you've created a bunch of compound-like templates for Azerbaijani usage but with cryptic and generic names. E.g. {{abred}}, {{iz1}}, {{iz2}}, {{iz3}}, {{pcp-cmp}}, possibly others. Any objection to me prefixing these with az- and removing the language code? We should not be creating unnecessary generic templates. Benwing2 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC) @Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi Chuck Entz (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps no one is using them for other languages, but the derivational mechanisms they are supposed to capture are of course not limited to Azerbaijani. In that sense, they can be used for other languages. Unless you use these, how do you put in ablaut reduplication, the well-known three types of izafet found in all Turkic languages or participle compounds in the etymology section? Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi I have never heard of any of these processes so I suspect they are limited to Turkic languages. If so, they should have a trk- prefix (and IMO less obscure names). Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW I'd recommend adding glossary entries for each of these processes and linking to them, otherwise it's not at all obvious what is going on. Benwing2 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ablative reduplication is present in Germanic: Swedish snicksnack (“gossip”), English tip-top. Btw, why did you change it from compound to affix? Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi This sort of reduplication with vowel change is common in many languages but I would not call it "ablaut reduplication", because "ablaut" has a specific Indo-European meaning that is not the origin of these reduplications. Also I renamed compound -> affix because the code largely handles affixes rather than compounds, and the {{affix}} template subsumes compounding. Benwing2 (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the entry ablaut says. Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 06:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi Please see Indo-European ablaut. Benwing2 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW unless you have objections to the other templates being renamed, I'll go ahead and rename them. Benwing2 (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Which ones do you want to rename again, and to what? Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I Googled "ablaut reduplication" and I see it being used to refer to cross-linguistic processes so I'm fine keeping that as generic, but {{iz1}}, {{iz2}} and {{iz3}} are clearly Turkic-specific so I want to rename them to {{trk-iz1}}, {{trk-iz2}}, {{trk-iz3}}. As for {{pcp-cmp}} = "present participle compound", if this has a special meaning in Turkic morphology then it can be kept under the name {{trk-pcp-cmp}} or maybe better, something less obscure like {{trk-prespart-com}}. If it does not have a special Turkic meaning but simply means "a compound one of whose elements is a present participle", then this should be deleted; the generic {{af}} or {{com}} template with |pos=present participle or similar attached to the participle should be sufficient. Note that the values for the |pos= param can be abbreviations; I'm not sure if there's an abbreviation for present participle but I can easily add one. Benwing2 (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

>but {{iz1}}, {{iz2}} and {{iz3}} are clearly Turkic-specific so I want to rename them to {{trk-iz1}}, {{trk-iz2}}, {{trk-iz3}}

Fine

>the generic {{af}} or {{com}} template with |pos= or similar attached to the participle should be sufficient.

What happens to categorization in that case? If the categorization goes down the drain, I object.

Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What is a "present-participle compound", and what is special about it? Can there be "past participle compounds"? Are these merely arbitrary compounds of participles and something else? If so why do we need to categorize them in the first place? I'm not discounting your concerns, but I'd be concerned about attempts to categorize compounds by part of speech because there are so many parts of speech that can form part of a compound. We already have a whole system of compound types (e.g. dvandva, exocentric/endocentric, specializations such as karmadhāraya, tatpuruṣa, etc.) specified through the |type= parameter to {{affix}} or {{compound}}; does one of those not work? Benwing2 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

>karmadharaya, tatpuruṣa

Speaking about obscure names...

Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there, as they say (since it doesn't relate to the substance of my questions). Benwing2 (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I have a difficulty with people saying "what do we need that for". Well, what do we anything for. So I say: I don't have an opinion on renaming things, but I object removing categories just based on the argument "what's special about that category". If you want to make it az-specific, I'm fine with that though. Allahverdi Verdizade a.k.a. Verdi (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Internationalism

In the category in question, there is written Terms should be here preferably only if the immediate source language is not known for certain. Entries are added into this category by Template:internationalism; see it for more information.

I've left it for ambiguous cases like jurnal, but for terms like dinozavr or dekabr, there is no doubt that they came through Russian. It's best to keep the category as unclogged as possible. Shoshin000 (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't agree with Vininn's opinion on what should be in that category. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Because an internationalism in Azerbaijani is a word of ultimately Greek, Latin or, to a lesser degree, English origin, which is also found in X number of languages, usually entering Azerbaijani via Russian. Not all borrowings from or via Russian, Greek, Latin, English (henceforth S) are internationalisms, and not all internationalisms in Azerbaijani are from or via S. The category is thus not simply the sum of all pages in any of the categories "Azerbaijani terms derived from S" Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In any case you should settle that definition in the category. I personally prefer the current definition as something that gathers terms with etymologies that can't be further narrowed; when it comes to yours, I don't really understand the value it adds to the project. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity for jurnal or for any other "internationalism" in the languages of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. All of them are through Russian. The only way a Sovieticus saw a Frenchman was by watching Fantômas, in Russian dubbing. Vahag (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not true. Mamed could have heard it from Vazgen, who could have heard it from his auntie Louise who came "back" from France. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

As an especially cultured, transnational force Armenians are unique and indeed have direct European borrowings like թիմ (tʻim) and մերսի (mersi), but they have hardly influenced a Mamed or a Givi in modern times. Vahag (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha

More seriously jurnal may have entered through Ottoman Turkish ژورنال. It might be less likely than a borrowing from журнал, but by "ambiguity" I meant not 100% certain like for dinozavr or alkoqolizm. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Admin?

Still not an admin after so many a years! I would like to nominate you. Are you willing? Word0151 (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm all set for now. Thanks though. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)