User talk:Mnemosientje/2020

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Mnemosientje.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

This page shows conversations on my talk page from 2020.

Greek inherited or?

Hello! about όλισβος and the question whether inherited or later reborrowing. It is not included in Dictionaries of Modern Greek at all. It so happens that we sometimes use ancient words (here written in monotonic script, after 1982).
But for many many other words (which are now under Category:Greek terms inherited from Ancient Greek or from Koine) greek etymologists make a distinction between inherited and learnedly inherited or internal borrowings always separately from external borrowings (because internal are such a large Category). The terms used are diachornic internal borrowing, learned internal borrowing, revived or reinvigorated words. Some dictionaries use the symbol < which does not say whether inherited or revived. But {{R:DSMG}} always marks the distinction. There is no such Category in en.wiktionary, so, i often add the word «Learnedly» before {inh|el|grc|....}. In el.wiktionary, the Category is named Αναβιώσεις (Revivals).
Also, they make a distinction between twice-borrowed and reborrowing external borrowings, but i do not know if there is a difference for the English terms. One is Rückwanderer (αντιδάνειο 'counter-borrowing') and the other is a word that is borrowed 2 times as a doublet (αναδανεισμός). Sorry for too much of greek-specific ety.Categories, and Thank you! ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 10:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sarri.greek So would you call this a case of learned use? Then I think we could just use {{learned borrowing}} on that entry. If it is as you say and it is not in common use (per the dictionaries) but may be used occasionally by people trying to "revive" an ancient word, that looks a lot like what per Wiktionary standards would count as a "borrowing" (considering, as Wiktionary does, Ancient and Modern Greek as two different languages). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, ultra learned. We refer to ancient words often. All the words from Liddell-Scott may be 'mentioned'. For this particular entry, i cannot find any real use in a contemporary text.

As for the greek revivals, they are a special case. They are very common words, widely used, like Έλληνας, like δημοκρατία, all these are revivals, or learned inheritance. Moving them to 'learned borrowings' would mean that they are a foreign language. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 12:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I think for Wiktionary purposes those are still categorized as borrowings; compare Category:English terms borrowed from Middle English and Category:English terms borrowed from Old English; the latter includes a common word like sibling. Older stages of a language are technically treated as different languages (they have different categories and so forth), so any revival of a word from such an older stage would be a borrowing in our etymology system, from what I can tell of precedents in other languages. Inheritance seems to be reserved for those words which remained in continuous use over the ages. But the case of Ancient Greek is complicated as the ancient and modern languages are remarkably close to each other and modern Greeks it seems too me tend to see Ancient Greek as pretty much their own language except a bit old-fashioned perhaps. I don't really agree with that, looking at the grammar and pronunciation etc. of Ancient Greek it is really quite different, but that seems to be the status quo. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not explain well: Yes, of course greek etymologists name them borrowings too, like every etymologist in the world would do. But because they are so many, a special Cateogory is made for them learned diachronic internal borrowings (estimated ~20,000 words or more), otherwise the 'learned borrowings' category would have thousands of words, which does not produce a comprehensive statistic for them. (And some more greek-specific categories, like cross-borrowing). Anyway, it does not matter. Thank you very much for your interest. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 15:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC) +added the estimated number. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ | 15:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wodan

Hello,

Why did you remove the Old Saxon and Old High German entries for Wodan? The Old High German entry even had attested quotations.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the edit comment? They've been moved to wodan, since the quotations were all lower-case. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah just realised that. Forgive me.

Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Also relevant is this discussion. As I didn't follow up on that for various reasons, there is currently no consistent treatment of upper/lowercase for proper nouns in languages written in scripts without case distinction. So I won't mind too much if someone moves it back, tbh - the status quo for Latin-script medieval Germanic languages has been to use case distinctions, so my edits were, well, experimental I guess. (The only Germanic language which currently consistently has lowercase entries is Middle Dutch.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved them back myself, so currently the only Germanic language in Latin script consistently using lowercase is Middle Dutch. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Frēo as woman in Old English

Hello,

I've noticed you've reverted my edit. I got my etymology from Wright, Joseph, and Elizabeth Mary Wright. Old English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 191, page 138. I believe this is the correct etymology as there is a cognate in Old Saxon of Frī. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried discussing this at Reconstruction talk:Proto-Germanic/frijō and got no response - please take more heed when people try to contact you elsewhere (you also rarely respond on your talk page or if people start discussions about your edits/entries elsewhere and tag you). My thoughts:

1. Regarding the etymology in question: I am not at all sure you are wrong and have semi-reinstated the etymology for that reason (I was too hasty in reverting your edits there). Truth is, your source is very old (Bosworth-Toller also mentions the association with the OS frī, supporting your etymology - but BT is also an old source) and the edits, which were messy, conflicted with our current etymology which also seems to make sense. I have reconciled the situation by listing both etymologies as possibilities until some good argument is presented excluding one or the other option.
2. Not related to the etymology specifically - a) the sense 'free man' at freo is, as Erutuon explained, likelier derived from the adjective (substantivized) than the second etymology which is why I reverted your most recent edits there; b) "Noun 2" is not a valid part of speech header, after years of editing here you should know this (WT:Entry layout; "noun 2" etc. is explicitly disallowed). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Tyr and other deities

Hello Mnemosientje,

It is indeed a great insult and quite frankly blasphemic to put any deity under the category of "mythology" for it makes them seem profane. We do not see this for Vedic deities. I will revert your edit. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Leornendeealdenglisc Objectively, Týr is primarily known as a member of a mythological pantheon. Your personal beliefs do not change that. We categorize Zeus in Category:grc:Greek mythology, and we categorize Týr in the Norse mythology category. It's not a statement, just a description of how language is used. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Primarily known to who, [Tyr] as a member of a "mythological pantheon"? Why is there this double standard that Vedic deities are regarded as legitimate while Greek and Norse are put under the rug of "mythology"? In the case of Greek gods, there is a historical text called "On the Gods and on the world" by an ancient writer named Sallustius who explains the gods in great detail. Further, to these ancient peoples, the gods were not some Jungian, Joseph Campbellian archetypes. They are metaphysical personalities. If we have personalities, why would the gods be less? This is not my "personal" belief. You can read Sallustius, the Rigveda, the Bhagavad Gita. These ancient works agree with what I'm saying. So please, try to understand where I am coming from. Thank you. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As usual, you're not paying enough attention to the details. The only difference between Category:Norse mythology and Category:Hindu mythology is that the latter has Category:Hindu deities as a subcategory.

You also seem to be unaware that the myth in mythology is not the same as the myth in mythical. A mythology is the collection of stories about how the world came to be. The Greeks were calling their stories about gods myths while they were still offering sacrifices to those gods in their temples. It's only medieval and later Christian revisionism that reduced them to fanciful folk tales.

Really, the only double standard is between Christianity, Judaism and Islam vs all of the religions with mythology categories. There are large parts of the Pentateuch that could be classified as a mythology- and I'm saying that as a practicing Christian. The problem is that this is deeply ingrained in English-speaking lexicographic practices and the expectations of our readers. We would need to make sure we had a solid consensus before trying to change it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Chuck Entz has summarized it well enough. Don't revert my rollback again, please. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Leornendeealdenglisc Please stop doing this. The conventional scholarly view of him, as with all the other figures from early Germanic heroic poetry (excepting clearly historical figures like Odoacer, Attila and Ermanaric where they feature) is as a legendary figure, no matter your beliefs. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

IP-created สา

You asked if สา (sǎa) were any good. Well, it could be a bitch, so I'll just add the 'dog' meaning, meaning number 1 in the definitive Thai dictionary. Meanings 2 and 3 are dialect words, quite possibly not meriting entry as Thai; the relevant dialects are treated as languages here. Meaning 4 (very roughly, 'if') needs a lot of work to bring the meaning out, and I don't know the word. The etymology ('Hariphunchai') makes me ask why it too isn't a dialect word.--RichardW57 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌽 is the origin of mozarabic liastari

hello. you erased my contribution, i don't know why. According to the arabist Federico Corriente, the word 𐌻𐌰𐌹𐍃𐍄𐌾𐌰𐌽 was brang by visigothics in Hispania. It's one of the words that remained in hispanic medieval latin and the origin of mozarabic "liastari" and, perhaps, spanish word "lastrar" too. Nowadays, academics mozarabic consider mozarabic language as legitimate heir of visigothic latin.

Might have been a bit of a quick revert. I am aware of those words, but the semantic gap seems a bit big. Guess we can keep it if it is a commonly claimed ety. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion on this

I've been watching Rudi Laschenkohl (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) lately. I know you're aware of them, since you posted on their talk page a while back. However, I'm not sure whether you're aware that they're now adding massive amounts of Gothic translations to English entries.

At first I thought they were a bot, since all of their translations are added to words that appear in the definitions of the Gothic entries, and they always use exactly the same edit summary for a given language: "Adding Gothic translation." and "Added Ancient Greek translation of this word.", but not "Added Gothic translation of this word." Then I found a case or two where they tinkered with the wording of an English entry next to the translation table, and occasionally they add a Gothic translation to a word that's not in the Gothic entry's definitions, but then add the word to the Gothic definitions afterward.

Not that I've ruled out the bot theory, but it's less likely. If I could find any instance of their ever using a talk page, though, it would be easier to rule it out. I also think PUC was onto something with his question about other accounts and an IP that happen to have had identical behavior- down to the exact wording of the edit summaries.

There seems to be some misrepresentation going on, but nothing even remotely actionable as far as I can see. As long as all their edits are correct and helpful, it's not really a problem. Still, I would appreciate if you would take a systematic look at their Gothic translations and let me know if there's anything to be concerned about. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed these translations - they're flooding my notifications - but from a quick glance they seemed fine. I'll check a sample of their Gothic edits more closely when I get back from vacation. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Had another look. Couldn't find any real problems with the sample I checked. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

hi why did you delete the section I added in gender critical?— This unsigned comment was added by 2406:E003:FD3:C301:904A:3587:F929:DD67 (talk) at 09:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC).

Because the additions were poorly written, incorrectly formatted and generally not dictionary material. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Catalan avaria

Neither the Diccionari de l'Enciclopedia [1] nor the Alcover Moll dictionary [2] make any mention of transmission via Old Italian. If I had Coromines handy, I'd consult him, but I expect he says the same. Catalan mariners were in direct contact with Arabic-speakers during the period and there's ample evidence of independent transmission of cognate terms, e.g. Catalan drassana which was borrowed independently of Italian darsena. (In fact, both forms coexist in Catalan.) I think the burden of proof in this case is on those who claim an Old Italian source. Linguoboy (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Clear enough, thanks for the detailed reply! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wynn vote

Hi Mnemosientje. I undid your revert because I believe you went too far with your interpretation of the anti-wynn vote which succeeded. Wynn entries have been removed and indeed they can no longer be created. However, there is no prohibition against mentioning attested forms of the words which actually existed. — Dentonius 20:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. "Linking templates" were mentioned. I'll remove it from "alter". — Dentonius 20:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)