User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 5

Sorting

It's very easy to fix these templates, so please don't add sort keys just for that. Can you fix the template? If not, can you ask me to? I've fixed {{comparative of}} now, diff. As it turns out, that template never even supported sort keys at all... (now it does, but it makes its own too) —CodeCat 22:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I didn't want to do it the "old-fashioned way" with sort={{{sort|}}} because I was hoping there would be a way for it to automatically strip diacritics off the way the headword-line templates do. Even better would be if manually added topic categories automatically stripped diacritics off too, but since they don't involve templates I don't know if that's even possible. —Angr 23:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you add them with {{categorize}}, {{catlangname}} or {{catlangcode}} then you can. They are meant purely for categorising in just this situation, although they're used in templates too. —CodeCat 23:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Module:grc-translit

Hi, I want to add this to Module:languages, which means Ancient Greek terms in linking and headword templates without "tr=..." will have a transliteration generated by this module, can you please take a look at the module to see everything is OK? BTW, can we bear with long vowels being transliterated without macron when they shouldn't be? I think it's still better than no transliteration. --Z 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's better than no transliteration. The same problem exists for Gothic as well, where length is ambiguous for u and a. The default is short, but it can be overridden when it's known to be long. See 𐌱𐍂𐌿𐌸𐍃 (bruþs) for example. —CodeCat 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I also agree that missing macra are not the end of the world. —Angr 15:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't remove word stresses or translit

Hi,

Re: diff. There must be at least something to indicate the word stress. If you remove the transliteration, please add the word stress. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry. —Angr 01:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I have fixed the Belarusian word stress (my own previous mistake). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

I'm slightly confused as to why Modern Norwegian barely resembles Modern Icelandic even though they are descended from the same branch of Old Norse. Now, while I understand that Norwegian was (for quite a long time) under extreme influence from Danish, and Iceland is in an isolated location that would have historically limited outside influence, I don't see why those things alone would be sufficient to make them be so radically different from each other. Plus, Icelandic has obtained quite a bit of influence from Danish as well when it comes to vocabulary, yet it is remarkably more Old Norse-like.

Is it, perhaps, that the "political stigma" exerted by Danish sovereignty to "speak Danish" was taken differently by the two peoples? Icelandic is very conservative, so I wouldn't be surprised (it also seems to have actually influenced Danish slightly, as one might note the reintroduction of /ð/ into Modern Danish phonology), I don't know very much about Norwegian, though, as I never really cared to study it.

Do you, perhaps, have an answer? Tharthan (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

At the time that Old Icelandic split off from Old Norwegian, all Old Norse dialects were about as archaic, so Icelandic wasn't particularly unusual at the time and it didn't "stand out" the same way that it does today. After the split, though, the closest social and linguistic ties that Norwegians had were with Swedes and their dialect, so Norwegian developed along similar lines for a while. This can be seen in particular in the development of the long vowels, which changed the same way in both languages. The Nynorsk spelling preserves parts of this earlier stage, with its full vowels in unaccented syllables, which all collapsed into a single "e" in the Bokmål spelling. This is no doubt Danish influence, as this merging of vowels happened first in Danish and was carried over to Norway, where it affected especially the places in the east that had the closest ties with Denmark. The speech of these areas became "Danishised", while the western coastal areas preserved more of their late-medieval heritage. I think you would get a good picture of what Norwegian used to be like by comparing the state of the three languages around 1500-1600. —CodeCat 22:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Lower Sorbian declension

While I think it's good to follow an established classification system in the templates, people who make such classifications don't make them with our templates/modules in mind. It's not helped that they've used numbers to label them either. So as it stands now there is really no way to get a good overview of the different templates and which words they should be used for. Could you write such a page, for example at Appendix:Lower Sorbian nouns, and link to it from the documentation of every declension template? —CodeCat 22:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure; what's a good pattern to follow? Is Appendix:Russian nouns the sort of thing you want? Using the numbers makes life very easy for me, because all the more recent dictionaries use the same numbering system, so no matter what dictionary I find a term in, I know exactly which template to use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What I am looking for is mainly something that helps users decide which template to use, if they are not familiar with the numbers. Let's say a Lower Sorbian speaker comes and they don't know much about the grammatical descriptions of their language, but they do know how to speak it and they want to add an entry for a word. They know all the forms of the word, now they need to find out which template goes with that. —CodeCat 11:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've created Appendix:Lower Sorbian nouns. Take a look! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's very useful. I'm kind of baffled by the way the number system works, though. It seems rather illogical and not really fitting for a Slavic language, the way it divides nouns by the last two consonants... —CodeCat 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's mostly the last single consonant, and that can be hard or soft (and velar or non-velar) in a very Slavic fashion. The twist that Lower Sorbian has is that palatalized tʲ/dʲ didn't stop at ć/dź as they did in Upper Sorbian and Polish, but moved on to ś/ź (leading to productive alternations like nom. awto ~ loc. awśe) except after sibilants, where they did remain ć/dź (hence nom. město ~ loc. měsće), so sometimes it's necessary to specify the last two consonants. On top of that, many palatalized consonants are spelled with j-digraphs (bj, mj, nj, pj, rj, wj), but in principle that's no different from Serbo-Croatian lj/nj (except that in Lower Sorbian nj and rj are spelled ń and ŕ when not before a vowel). I don't think there's supposed to be any logic to the number system (the numbers aren't predictable from the declension behavior in any way); they're just there to make it easier to look up the inflection class in the Grammar sections of the various dictionaries (the numbers apply to all inflecting parts of speech, running from 1 for feminine nouns in hard consonant plus -a through 62 for the highly productive verb class in -owaś and on to 106 for irregular comparative forms of adjectives. I wouldn't worry about the number system too much; it's only helpful behind the scenes for editors, not so much for readers (which is why I don't have the templates display the number). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's useful that the list you made shows which numbers match a given noun. But the numbers seem to be listed in a more or less random order, and I didn't even notice at first that some are listed many times. So maybe an explanation of the meaning of the numbers would also be good. Compare Appendix:Finnish declension, Appendix:Finnish conjugation and Appendix:Estonian declension, Appendix:Estonian conjugation, which also follow a numbered scheme. —CodeCat 00:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

They're explained in the documentations of the various templates. I don't think the numbers are worth worrying about enough to bother with appendices like those for Finnish and Estonian. Frankly, I have no desire to make them. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Removing interlanguage links

Hi, Angr.

I just checked and my bot has been removing good interwikis since Saturday Thursday night. At that time I had stopped and restarted the bot. My guess is that I had got some bug from the Pywikipedia framework source code someone had added recently. I re-ran the bot against some of those pages and it correctly reinserted the interwikis previously removed.

I will restart the bot at the very first page I noticed it removed good links from. It will correct its "wrong deeds" and re-add the interwikis to those pages here at en.wikt. Thank you very much for your notice! Malafaya (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Correcting category error

Thanks for correcting my edit to Wiktionary:Information desk‎. What happened when I missed out the leading colon? (Why did I need to insert "Wiktionary" to get the Information desk link to work?)

And out of curiosity, what does "This user has an intermediate understanding of Katakana." entail?

Imaginatorium (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The way to add a page to a category is to simply write [[Category:Whatever category]] on it. Which means if you type [[Category:Whatever category]] on a page, the page gets added to that category, but no link to the category appears. If you want to have a link to the category without actually adding the page to the category, you have to type [[:Category:Whatever category]] with a colon. You have to insert "Wiktionary" because we have different namespaces here, and if you don't write the name of any namespace first (the part before the colon), then the software assumes you're linking to a dictionary entry. So because there is no dictionary entry called "Information desk" (least of all with a capial letter!), Information desk is a red link; the name of Wiktionary's information desk is Wiktionary:Information desk. You can use "WT:" as an abbreviation for Wiktionary:, so WT:Information desk works too, and you can abbreviation "Information desk" to ID or INFO as well, so WT:ID and WT:INFO will also work. "This user has an intermediate understanding of Katakana" means, in my case, that I know in principle how to convert English words to katakana, I can recognize most of the katakana characters when I see them (except for the really rare ones that aren't used for foreign words), but I don't always remember them entirely if I try to write them myself, and I don't actually speak Japanese. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

adding code to Template:es-conj-ar

Any chance you can add the following lines of code to Template:es-conj-ar? --ElisaVan (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

|vos1={{#if: {{{ref_stem|}}}|se|}} [[{{{1}}}ás]]
|vos2={{#if: {{{ref_stem|}}}|se|}} [[{{{1}}}és]]
|vos3={{#if: {{{ref_stem|}}}|se|}} [[{{{1}}}á]]

What will it do? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Make vos forms appear in the table. --ElisaVan (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --ElisaVan (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Metaknowledge#Module:yi-translit

If you feel like Yiddishing. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

im

You reverted a usuage note I made on im (German). You said: That's not true. Now, I'm pretty sure everything I wrote is true. So could you please explain what you mean? If there's anything you don't like about that entry, fair enough. But I just don't think that any of the information I gave was wrong. Thx.

It isn't true that the contraction of in dem to im is obligatory when dem is not demonstrative, though it is true that the contraction is not possible when dem is demonstrative. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ogham "Koi"

ᚕᚑᚔ ... please help! I know it's not a noun, but I'll be damned if I know what it is classified as. --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 05:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenation

Re "Do we really need to list the hyphenation of a monosyllabic word?": Well, how would you know it's monosyllabic if not by giving the hyphenation? Of course there's the option to mark syllable borders in the IPA transcription, but rarely an entry does this (it would also lead to problems for words such as Kette, Affe, Flüsse, etc.). Longtrend (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, anyone who knows German well enough to be interested in hyphenating it is bound to notice that Dachs has only one vowel letter in it, and therefore has only one syllable. As for indicating syllables in IPA, I'm generally opposed to it because in languages where it's unambiguous, like French, it's unnecessary, while in languages where it's ambiguous, like English and German, it's unclear where to put the dots (as you point out). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Spelling pronunciation

Hi, your creation of this page makes me think that, as of yet, categories which would gather words that underwent this phenomenon don't exist. Do you think it would be useful to create it? --Fsojic (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. It would be a little weird to have, say, Category:English spelling pronunciations since our entries are for words, not pronunciations. Category:English words that have spelling pronunciations is a bit better, but I have no idea whether other people will think it's necessary. Why not ask at the Beer parlor? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

greylag goose

Why did you delete the Northern Sami translation: ránesčuonjá? I checked Wikispecies. They have the same. Are their translations unreliable? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It's already there listed under N for Northern Sami. I deleted the duplicate listing labeled simply "Sami", which isn't a recognized language of ours. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh. sorry. I hadn't checked that. I've had the question of of Wikispecies translation reliability on my mind. Do you have any thoughts on that? DCDuring TALK 18:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, no. For Burmese, I'm lucky that the SEAlang dictionary usually includes genus and species info in its entries, but of course most dictionaries don't. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Notification made because one day has almost passed since you last replied. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete words

Could you please delete the entries g wächs, g milk and wächs? Or tell anyone to? (I don't know the procedure.) The former two entries are obvious errors. And wächs also doesn't exist, since umlauts never occur in the imperative or first person singular (not even colloquially), as you probably know. — This unsigned comment was added by 93.206.138.166 (talk) at 23:00, 28 January 2014‎ (UTC).

Done. I wonder how that happened (they were all created automatically by bot). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Unfortunately there are more of them: ggewachsentet wächs, gtest wächs, gten wächs, gte wächs, get wächs, get wächs, gest wächs, gen wächs, ge wächs, gt wächs, wächs an, wächs aus. Also in anwachsen and auswachsen an umlaut imperative is given in the conjugation table. Somehow I don't know how to fix that without making the 2nd and 3rd person singular "umlaut-less" as well. Kolmiel (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiosity

Could you explain the reason behind doing this? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bare links using [[ ]] do not label the language, so if a page has multiple languages on it, the link doesn't know which language to go to; also, the software doesn't know what script information to apply. Using {{l-self}} is just like using {{l}}, except that with {{l-self}} if the term enclosed by the template appears on a page matching its own name, then it appears in bold and without a link rather than in blue and with a link (since a link would just take you back to where you already are anyway). Using a bare link does that too, but has the disadvantages I mentioned above. Thus if you go the page [[Haus]] and write [[ ]] on it, it appears as Haus, but is not identified as being German. If you write {{l|Haus|lang=de}} on it, it appears as Haus, i.e. a blue link that takes you right back to the German section where you already are. But if you type {{l-self|Haus|lang=de}}, then it appears as Haus. This makes {{l-self}} very useful in inflection tables, especially where some inflected forms happen to be identical to the lemma. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the need of using links if it is identical to the page name. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

When you make an inflection table you don't necessarily know ahead of time which forms will be identical to the page name and which ones won't. A certain form might be identical to the page name in some words but not in others. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

See Special:PrefixIndex/Template:de-decl-noun-m and you'll know what I mean. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that {{de-decl-noun-n}} be reworked so that it can split into cases to avoid linking to itself, or check each parameter whether a link is needed or not. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want to do that, go ahead, just don't break it. But using {{l-self}} seems easier to me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding interwiki-links

Hi Angr,

it's not necessary to add interwiki-links to the German Wiktionary. I'll run my bot on this weekend and he'll add all new entries started by SemperBlotto. ;-) Best regards --Yoursmile (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I know it's not necessary, but if I'm checking a word against German Wiktionary and have the edit box open anyway, I go ahead and add the links. Gives the bots more time to do other things. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:de-decl-noun-n

Broken? See Oberlandesgericht at the bottom. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it. I don't see that anything I did could have caused that, though. Maybe one of Kenny's edits made just before mine? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

kennen lernen

Before I attempt to botify it - is the conjugation right (&#32 (a space character) at the end of "6=kennen") ? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you - answered my own question. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad you figured it out! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm only a de-1, but did you make sure that the conjugations are correct? I'm not sure if the "subordinate clause"s are correct. Do you have a source? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, looked at de:wikt and confirmed. This "prefix" kennen just bothers me. Sorry for bothering you. --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, that's part of the reason why verbs with separable prefixes are considered compounds. Kennen isn't a prefix; kennen lernen is a compound verb, regardless of whether it's written with or without a space. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

-wenden verbs

Hi there. Should anwenden, bewenden, einwenden, entwenden, verschwenden, verwenden and wenden have the same pattern of conjugation as abwenden, aufwenden and zurückwenden? And are there any others? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• p.s. German Wiktionary gives weak conjugations for entwenden and verschwenden, and both weak and irregular for wenden itself. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Verschwenden is not a form of wenden, so it's definitely on its own here. I'm about 85% certain that all of the others follow the same pattern as wenden itself, i.e. can be conjugated either regularly (wenden, wendete, gewendet) or with Rückumlaut (wenden, wandte, gewandt), but I want to double-check them all with Duden before committing myself. Maybe I'll have time this evening (Central European Time). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • On further reflection I'm pretty sure verwenden is only regular and is never conjugated with Rückumlaut. verwandt may be etymologically related to verwenden but synchronically it is not even an alternative past participle to it. The others I have to look up; my German's pretty good but I'm not a native speaker. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Duden contradicts the above statement; verwandt is an alternative past participle to verwenden. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, I found a little time now and have checked all the blue links and corrected them as necessary. einwenden is just like wenden, anwenden, abwenden, aufwenden, and zurückwenden. bewenden is said by Duden to be an irregular verb, but they don't provide any conjugation information. AFAICT it's usually if not always used in the compound verb bewenden lassen, practically always in the phrase es dabei bewenden lassen "to leave well enough alone", in which case bewenden would only occur in the infinitive form anyway (just like kennen in kennen lernen). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. I'll see if I can easily modify my bot to fill in the red links. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Flitzkacke

Could you fix this please. (not in Duden or de.Wiktionary) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It's in Boogle Gooks, though, along with the variant Flitzekacke. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

German nouns

Hi there. When you have some free time, could you look at the contents of Category:German nouns having red links in their declension table. I think that, now, all of them are there because {{de-decl-noun-m-es-unc}} shows a second genitive form ending in -s instead of -es. We already ignore the archaic second dative form. I was wondering if we should also ignore the second genitive. Cheers. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Of all the nouns currently in that list, only Kaffeeklatsch even has a second genitive form ending in -s instead of -es. All of the others have genitives in -es only; the template shouldn't be providing them with -s genitives. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I've updated the template accordingly. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

lagern

Hi there. Could you check the conjugation of lagern please. (See "discussion" on my talk page). SemperBlotto (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It's fine. I've responded at the new guy's talk page. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

lager

It is colliquial for sure. Poems follow their own rules because of the rhythm.

Sure. But someone reading that poem whose German wasn't very strong might come here to look up what "lager" means, and then they ought to be able to find it at lager. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Deutsche Worttrennung

Sei die Worttrennung der Verlobungen nicht Ver‧lo‧bung‧en? Ich spreche Deutsche nicht, und ich nur frage. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, Ver·lo·bun·gen is correct. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Aber werde die Aussprache /ˌfɛɐ̯ˈloːbʊŋgən/ sein, wenn die Worttrennung Ver.lo.bun.gen ist? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it's /ˌfɛɐ̯ˈloːbʊŋən/. I'm afraid the written syllable division doesn't follow the pronunciation in this case. Other consonant groups that represent a single sound (sch for /ʃ/, ch for /x ~ ç/, and since 1996 ck for /k/) don't get split up, but ng for /ŋ/ does. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Danke. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)