User talk:Mnemosientje/2021-2023

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 2021-2023.

A Removal Appeal

The article that you removed ”Latin Pseudepigraphic Literature in Medieval Period (2018)” is, in my opinion, an important piece of evidence in my idea that the Gothic term jiuleis has a Hebrew origin. This article was mostly inspired by the Jubilees Palimpsest Project which started in 2016. Since I argue that the Gothic calendar is a Jubilees calendar I should come up with a plausible explanation as of how the idea of this calendar reached Northern Italy. A Latin version of the Book of Jubilees is a solid piece of evidence. In addition, only after I have my articles published I've become aware of the existence a manuscript of 1 Enoch in the British Museum. Had I been aware of it earlier, I certainly would have included it in my published articles.DavLan762 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Remember and respect, please, that this is a dictionary, not a literature review, nor a soapbox for a single author with a view that, judging by the literature, is a fringe one. And although unconvinced by it, I thought your theory was worth mentioning when I first found it, which is why I added some references to it on the entry and edited the entry's etymology to reflect your view back then. But that was not an invitation for you to add to the entry literally everything you have written on the subject or on related subjects. That is not the purview of any dictionary. The entry is already cluttered beyond what is usually accepted here, where conciseness is usually aimed for. This latest addition, like the 107-page pdf on digital methods I just removed as well, was unpublished and of marginal relevance to a dictionary audience - in fact, it did not even mention the word jiuleis at all. If people are interested in the background of your research, they can look up these pdfs themselves, but Wiktionary is in my opinion not the place to just dump all of them. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

When I realized that my writings were mentioned in the entry of jiuleis in the Wikipedia, I was happy. True, one article related to the subject appeared in the Transaction of the Philological Society and two others in Namenkundliche Informationen of Universität Leipzig, both peer-review publications, however if a high standing scholar, Mnemosyne, as you seem to appear from your résumé, has studied the topic thoroughly and decided to use it, then of course I was content. However, as appears from your dealing with my text, I've concluded that you aren't a first class scholar and that you actually haven't studied my papers properly.

The origin of the family of words that jiuleis belongs to has kept scholars busy probably from the days of the Venerable Bede of the 8th century. That led (Tille, 1899) to suggest that people should look beyond the box, which is what I've done. I've examined the Pseudepigraphic literature and suggested a solution related to it. Do you know what the Pseudepigraphic Literature is? In fact, major studies of those books are a result of the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. Had you understood this, you wouldn't have deleted my article (2018).

In 1833 the German scholar Hans Ferdinand Massmann visited Milan, examined the manuscripts and came up with the word naubaimbair. When I studied the topic the existence of this word there didn't make sense to me. Examining a photo I received from Uppsala University library and composing an appropriate digital filter, I was able to demonstrate that there is no naubaimbair in the manuscript. My study was published in 2006 after a thorough peer review. In 2016, the Ambrosian Library in Milan provided me with very high quality photos and also let me examine the manuscripts themselves. Believe me, one is not allowed to touch them! Had you looked properly at the 107-page pdf article that you deleted, you would have noticed that I marked in the reference line the 2 pages where I deal with jiuleis and naubaimbair as I saw them with my own eyes. Moreover, those 107 pages are the result of studying 7 manuscripts. In this collection there are 350 manuscripts, which means that have I studied them all I would have come up with more than 5000 pages. Indeed, my paper is “unpublished” as you wrote. As a matter of consideration, publishing this kind of material needs fresh thinking. In any case, in the entry there's only a link and the study itself is in my own digital space.

From your arrogant behavior it seems that you have some editorial authority in the Wikipedia. Maybe you think that the Wikipedia belongs to you and that you can do whatever you wish. I'm quite certain that you will not like my response. So, what are you going to do? Will you remove my name and links from the entry? In my opinion that would not be a civilized thing to do. Instead, I suggest that you restore the links to my two articles. DavLan762 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed them, as I said, because a dictionary isn't the place to dump links to all your unpublished works which even vaguely relate to this word. I was the one who added your theory and links to two of your (published) articles to that entry in the first place. The reasons for removing all the others are simply because you are cluttering the page with articles that are of marginal relevance to dictionary readers. This isn't Wikipedia, by the way.

As for the personal attacks, I will ignore them, but I think I understand the late Snaedal's frustrations better having read this rant. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 17:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@DavLan762 You do realize that this is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, right? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Their goal is to explain things in depth, using published references to support every detail. Wiktionary is a dictionary. Our goal is to provide information about words and phrases in a concise, streamlined and uniform format. As a descriptive dictionary, our primary source is usage, not authoritative references. Etymologies are an exception as far as sourcing, but not as far as the concise, streamlined and uniform format. As it is we get complaints about the size and placement of our etymologies from people who just want to know what words and phrases mean, and how to use them.

Simply put, this is the wrong place for what you want to do. Explaining your theories and providing supporting references in a dictionary entry is like trying to publish an epic novel on 3 x 5 index cards- it's theoretically possible, but no one would want one. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't aware of the distinction between Wiktionary and Wikipedia. Now I know, so I've learned something new.

In practice, I haven't touch the text itself, neither adding one single letter nor deleting one, and this is easy to check. In other words, the text itself is, as far as I'm concerned, as concise as it was before I became aware of it. As for the reference list, well, this a different story. In his entry for jiuleis Lehmann,Winfred, Philipp, 1986, A Gothic Etymological Dictionary: Based on the Third Edition of Vergleichendes Worterbuch Der Gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist(1939) wrote: “No etymology, but numerous conjectures” and continued with a list of references. That's the way a scientific dictionary works. As far as I know, nobody uses Gothic as his or her mother tongue.

In the midst of this discussion one major point is getting lost. The transcription of the Gothic Ambrosian palimpsests we use was prepared by Count Carlo Ottavio Castiglioni (1784-1849) at the first half of the 19th century and in my opinion wasn't thoroughly revised since then. As I have demonstrated in this 107-page pdf file that was deleted, a great deal of the text is a reconstruction, skillfully done. With due respect, the entries of Gothic words in Wiktionary are no more than recycling old knowledge. Around 2000 I suggested to Snaedal that we join forces and using digital technology go through those manuscripts, however he declined. Meantime he passed away and I retired, so the position of revising the Gothic manuscripts is still open. DavLan762 (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I use Lehmann's dictionary daily, I am aware of how it works, thanks. What Lehmann for example doesn't do is refer to 5 different essays, of which 2 unpublished, to address a single conjecture which has found no support among academic linguists and historians thus far from what I can tell. My disagreement doesn't concern the content of your theory, it's about not giving undue weight to a single conjecture and not cluttering an entry with links that are, again, of marginal interest to the reader. Nobody is trying to persecute you or discredit your theory, we just don't want to link to your every work on the Gothic calendar and your digital methods. But honestly I'm done with this tiresome discussion, you and I seem to be talking past each other. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Gothic: Bliggwan

Why is in Gothic "bliggwan" a class 2 verb but "siggwan" a class 3 verb? "Bliggwan" seems to have the same vowel pattern as "siggwan" (and the other class 3 verbs such as "hilpan") and seems to have a different vowel pattern from the other class 2 verbs such as "biudan" (2A02:1810:9528:8B00:6C53:83B0:F5BA:66F1 12:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Fair question. Class 2 strong verbs had an ablaut vowel (manifesting as -i- in Gothic in these verbs) followed by a -w-.

The -ggw- in bliggwan is the result of Verschärfung from Proto-Germanic *blewwaną, a strong verb with ablaut vowel followed by -w-, that is a class 2 strong verb.

Class 3 strong verbs had an ablaut vowel followed by a consonant cluster.

Thus siggwan, in which there was no Verschärfung and where the -ggw- which derives from -ngw- in *singwaną, is a class 3 verb like its Proto-Germanic etymon. Hope that helps. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

it does help, thank you! (2A02:1810:9528:8B00:6C53:83B0:F5BA:66F1 12:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Category:Chinese terms with uncertain pronuncation

Why was this deleted?! 72.76.95.136 23:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Simply creating a page consisting of a single sentence does not create a category. Wiktionary has a very extensive category architecture that new categories should be integrated into.

How is anyone supposed to know the category exists? How do they find it if they don't know of an entry that belongs to it? How do entries get added to it if you're not around to do it?

Not only that, but you really should bring the idea to the community of editors who work with Chinese characters so details can be worked out and a consensus can be arrived at. Does it apply to characters used by other Chinese-character-based written languages? What about characters whose pronunciation is unknown for specific stages in the language or regions? Also, there's a difference between "uncertain" and "unknown", so it's a bit uncertain what the category should be used for. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

dobberneger

Hi Mnemosientje, just out of interest: is dobberneger used for all Mediterranean boat migrants (refugees and non-refugees, blacks and non-blacks) or only for black refugees? I have also added a label chiefly Netherlands as the term isn't used (afaik) in Belgium and Suriname. Morgengave (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suppose it's mostly used to refer to black people given the second part of the compound, but I'm not sure. Possibly some of the kind of people who use terms like these might use this word for brown people too. Difficult to determine based on the attested uses, anyway - the word is dismissive by nature. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Morgengave The coining was probably specifically with black people in mind, because it was part of rhetoric about economic migrants and those supposed economic migrants using the Mediterranean route claimed are stereotypically considered to be black people for the most part. I don't know to what extent the people who use the term still maintain the distinction. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo, Mnemosientje: I was asking it as many (most?) Mediterranean boat refugees/migrants are not black (e.g., Libyans, Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds...), and hence it could have been a term for all of them. Morgengave (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

𐍃𐌻𐌴𐍀

Why shouldn't we add Gothic verb forms? — 69.120.64.15 20:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We should, but only if they're attested (WT:ATTEST, and cf. WT:AGOT). (That form is unattested as a verb form, predictable though it is morphologically.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. You did not say so in your reversion.

Perhaps declension tables should specify which forms are (un)attested. I realize how tedious implementing that could be, but perhaps a list of all attested forms can be compiled and an automated solution can work off of that list. — 69.120.64.15 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(Though I realize that would be pretty tedious on its own, and its only real benefit would be to distinguish that forms like the verb *slep which happen to overlap with other attested forms are unatested—which wouldn't be automatomatable from just a list of Gothic words, so it would seemingly defeat the purpose of automating it at all…) — 69.120.64.15 22:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

cicisbeo

I removed that definition because I see no evidence for it. I think it's just people misinterpreting the second definition, unless you have any citations that show a cicisbeo as a servant. A cicisbeo was someone whom a Italian gentleman allowed to accompany his wife to various entertainments or official gatherings, so that man and wife could have somewhat separate lives and interests; it shaded into meaning a woman's lover, although they weren't always lovers. But I've been reading a lot around 18th century Italy recently and I see no sense in which a cicisbeo was ever a ‘servant’ in the way we generally understand that word. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Widsith Interesting, I thought the removal might have been an accident given the definitions at the Italian entry for the same word and reverted on that basis. Should the Italian definitions, too, be changed, or is there a disconnect between Italian and English usage of the word? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Tea room discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room/2021/May § cicisbeo. J3133 (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi i may need some help!

Hey, I don't know if you know how to translate proper nouns, such as names for different languages, but im trying to find my name in japanese but as such is not there, only the words ( nouns ) what can i do about this, as i need to know what my name is in japanese, thankyou for your time! EzeeWiki (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

مخ and מוח

Hi

Earlier this year I added that مخ and מוח are etymologically cognates with one another, and you reverted the edit. They are, aren't they. I was wondering why you reverted my edit. Thanks. BasilLeaf (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with mentioning that the Arabic and Hebrew words are cognate, but it was also very unnecessary, because the entry links to the Proto-Semitic etymon. But you didn't just do that — you also mentioned the Persian cognate, which is a borrowing from Arabic and therefore definitely irrelevant. Given that you added something that did belong, but was wholly unnecessary, and something that didn't belong, I would've reverted it too. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Frankish or Old Dutch for Belgian toponyms?

I got a recommendation from Lingo Bingo Dingo to (re)pose this question to you: I've recently been upgrading a few of the Dutch exonyms of toponyms in Wallonia, and there's some that have reliable etymologies that can be added (on the basis of Gysseling's Woordenboek). I was wondering whether it's more correct to add Frankish (frk) derivations for these toponyms, as most of the settlements can be dated to the expansion of Frankish groups into the Low Countries and Northern France. However, Nederlandse plaatsnamen verklaard also contains toponyms from the northern Netherlands dating to this expansion, but that publication seems to treat Frankish and Old Dutch as synonyms. Do you have any recommendation on which should be used? The one example I've got until now is Bevekom. I'm fine with either, mainly interested in learning what the usual general preferred etymology is 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@030NogBeterHe: I am really not sure either, my knowledge of Dutch toponymy is also limited. Frankish may be warranted in some cases but I think using Old Dutch would be 'safer', which for lack of certainty as to how to proceed may be a good idea. Honestly the status of Frankish on Wiktionary has been a bit confusing to me since the Frankish-to-Proto-West-Germanic move a couple of years ago, which also contributes to me preferring Old Dutch in this case until someone sorts it out. Guess you could seek a third opinion as well, but I haven't been super active in the Wiktionary community this past year and am not sure which active editors would have cogent ideas concerning this specific problem since User:Rua has become less active. (Asking the Etymology scriptorium is always an option, I suppose.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mnemosientje: Will do, as things stand it seems like going for Old Dutch is both a safer and more convenient bet but I'll give the scriptorium a shout as well, thanks for the help! 030NogBeterHe (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Gepide

Weet jij misschien ook hoe Gepide beklemtoond wordt? En de lengte van de eerste klinker? (Ik zou verwachten dat het lang is...) :) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo: Current IPA seems fine, but I'm not 100% sure what syllable should be stressed. Intuitively I'd say the second syllable should receive the stress here, similar to other words in -ide. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Niffo

Die vraag—en tevens andere vragen over Sranan—kun je beter aan @Appolodorus1 stellen. :) ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks voor de tip! @Appolodorus1 weet jij of het Sranan-woord achter niffo van het Nl. neef komt, of het Engelse nephew? Elders werd het van Nl. afgeleid dus heb dat maar overgenomen, maar wist het niet zeker. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Leuke vraag @Mnemosientje en moeilijk te zeggen. De Europese basis van Sranantongo is het zeventiende-eeuwse Engels, dus zelfs het Engelse neve zou tot de mogelijkheden behoren. Nadat Suriname in 1667 in handen kwam van de WIC gingen Engelstalige plantagehouders niet van de ene op de andere dag weg; 'Early Sranan' ontwikkelde zich door in een omgeving waar Nederlands en Engels door elkaar werd gesproken door de witte bovenlaag. 'Neef', 'neve' en 'nephew' kunnen dus alle drie 'nefo' beïnvloed hebben. Ik zou neigen tot "and/or" :) Appolodorus1 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Appolodorus1: Helder! Ik heb de etymology van niffo aangepast om die Engelse woorden als mogelijke etyma te noemen. Zodra het Sranan-lemma wordt aangemaakt kan daar de etymologie nog verder worden uitgewerkt. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

dat is echt een lange etymology chain voor iets redelijk onzekers. ik heb reverts gekregen voor zekerdere dingen Synotia (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: Heb nog wat kleine veranderingen aangebracht om de onzekerheid beter te weer te geven, zijn er specifieke aspecten aan de etymologie verder die je bedenkelijk vindt? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm een deel van mij vindt dat gwn Sranan Tongo het aanduiden waard is, een ander deel vindt het wel grappig om aan te tonen hoe dicht Surinamers zijn bij Proto-Germanen :D dus weet ik niet echt, als het zo blijft is het nog aight i guess... Synotia (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

nl-headword

I saw you undid my addition to the nl-headword module, saying it was causing errors. Could you say what kind of errors and where? because I thought I had tested it sufficiently. Stujul (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Stujul: Iirc it was the line local qual = pl_qualifiers[i] which was causing errors; saw it on a diminutive. You could reverse my reversal temporarily to see for yourself (I first saw the error at tijgerblauwtje, but I saw it on other entries too.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot that diminutives use their own template. It should be fine now, but let me know if there are other bugs Stujul (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

enigst/enigste

Hey, ik zag je edits rond enigst/enigste.

Ten eerste vind ik het taalgebruik nogal formeel voor iets colloquials, maar dat is niet het belangrijkste; Ik weet niet hoe het in Nederland wordt gebruikt, maar in België zou men absoluut zeggen "'t enigste da 'k zie is bomen". Enigst klinkt tegennatuurlijk in mijn oren ;) Synotia (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Mijn toevoeging was ook vanuit historisch perspectief, je hebt gelijk dat "enigst" als voornaamwoord tegenwoordig vooral in de vorm "enigste" wordt gebruikt, ook bij onzijdige woorden, maar historisch is dat niet het geval geweest (toen was het ook niet per se "colloquial", overigens, het idee dat dit een onjuiste of lelijke vorm is, is pas in de 20e eeuw gemeengoed geworden, lijkt het). Goed punt wel en dat gaat ook op voor NL, ik heb de entry aangepast om dit te weerspiegelen. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Kun je mij met het formatteren van dit helpen

wie een vrouw trouwt om haar lijf, verliest het lijf en houdt het wijf... Synotia (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: (Just as a heads up I'm gonna use English from now on again to stay within the project's norms and as a courtesy to others who may be interested, it's en.wikt after all.)

To get to the point: looks good, didn't change much but a couple of things stand out:

1) I am not sure what the lemma form of this should be. The lemma form you chose does not have many hits on Google, but neither does literally any of the alternatives I tried, although clearly one should be favored to serve as lemma. It's difficult to choose due to the alternation between die and wie, the alternation between om and voor, and the omission or inclusion of schoon; everyone seems to have a different opinion. Forms with "vrouw" do exist too it seems, but perhaps we should view them as secondary, as the chiasm which makes the original proverb flow so well is lost somewhat in those versions? Perhaps a form very close to the original such as die een wijf trouwt om het schoon lijf, verliest het lijf en houdt het wijf should be preferred (even though that does not yield many results either when searched)? Blegh. I don't mind if you keep it at the current lemma either to be honest.

2) I am also not sure what alternative forms merit inclusion in the alternative forms section. As mentioned, many variants are hardly encountered on the web at least, or even not at all. (Btw, usually we use the {{alter}} template for alternative forms, but that creates a single-line comma-separated collection of forms, which with such long alternative forms doesn't seem desirable, so the current bullet-point list with {{l}} is probably fine.) Generally speaking, WT:CFI applies to alternative forms as well, so an alt-form should at least be attested.

3) Translating "wijf" as "bitch" seems a bit much; I don't think historically (or even now, in most contexts) the term has had such hefty connotations as bitch has in English. I replaced it with "broad" for now, and replaced the translation of "lijf" as "flesh" with "body". Feel free to change them back to the earlier translations if you prefer them, but these are my suggestions.

Not much else to add other than that! Are there specific things you need help with in terms of formatting? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

and I find my translation to rhyme better.

And "bitch" seemed fitting enough to give the message :) I'm not sure Dutch was standardized at the time, so "wijf" might have been stronger in Brabant than in Holland, who knows. In any case, the phrase is still used now with the word wijf carrying its current connotation. Synotia (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

initially i was gonna translate "kot" to "crib", but that sounded too rap-like :D although it might be more fitting... Synotia (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Just realized you were talking just about the formatting, so like 60% of my reply wasn't really necessary, but ah, whatever! The points do stand, I am not sure yet how to resolve them. I think moving the lemma is a logical course to take at some point in any case, and might do so soon. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow that's a lot of words, haha. All I wanted is help with putting the translation next to it instead of under it... :) Synotia (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: Yeah, I was thinking out loud more than I was answering your question lol. Anyhow, I fixed the formatting of the poem, and moved the whole thing to die een wijf trouwt om het schoon lijf, verliest het lijf en houdt het wijf to address the concerns I was spouting at you earlier uninvitedly, with a note that many variants exist (instead of listing the tens of possible variant spellings). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Just FYI, "bitch" is nowadays a very strong word in English. I don't know Dutch but Google translates the above phrase like this:

Whoever marries a woman for her body loses the body and keeps the woman.

It's hard for me to see, given the sentiment of this sentence, how "bitch" would fit. There are plenty of other pejorative terms for women that aren't quite as strong and might be a better fit. Benwing2 (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2: I agree and changed it to something somewhat more neutral. Honestly given the 17th-century date the author probably did not intend 'wijf' to have a derogatory meaning at all as that is a recent development (19th century or so), so this is a compromise between Synotia's version and what I assume was the author's intent. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

eliminating Template:got-verb form of, Template:got-nom form of

I have deprecated {{got-verb form of}} in favor of {{verb form of}}, {{present participle of}} or {{past participle of}}. Note that {{verb form of}} is merely a slight variation on {{infl of}}, the only difference being that internally it knows it's a verb, which can affect categorization. In this case there's currently no special categorization for Gothic verb forms (beyond CAT:Gothic verb forms, which comes from the headword), so {{infl of}} would work just as well. {{got-nom form of}} is next. Note also that I recently added an |enclitic= param to {{infl of}} and variants (which can actually take a comma-separated list of enclitics, optionally with inline modifiers). You can see an example in the doc page for {{infl of}}. This could probably replace all current uses of {{got-compound of}}. Benwing2 (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I should add that the only potential impediment to deprecating {{got-nom form of}} is the |comp-of=, |sup-of=, |presptc-of= and |pastptc-of= params. The usual practice in such cases is either (1) to just link to the comparative/superlative/participle, and its entry in turn links to the base lemma; (2) to link directly to the base lemma and list the intermediate relationship among the inflection tags (e.g. "weak nominative masculine singular comparative form of LEMMA" or "inessive of past active participle of LEMMA"). Would one of those two work here? I normally prefer (1) as it more clearly shows the relationship between base non-lemma, lemma and intermediate form. (I don't know the best term for this, maybe "intermediate [base] form", "derived base form" or "[derived] pseudo-lemma"; "pseudo-lemma" in that it's a non-lemma form that behaves somewhat like a lemma in having its own inflections.) My only concern would be in the case where the intermediate base form is unattested but it has an attested derived form; I don't know if there's an issue creating an entry for the intermediate base form in such a situation. It would be possible to add support for lang-specific params such as |comp-of= to {{infl of}} so e.g. for 𐌱𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌶𐌰𐌽𐍃 (batizans) you could write e.g. {{infl of|got|𐌱𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌶𐌰||nom//acc|m|p|comp-of=𐌲𐍉𐌸𐍃}} and it would display something like

nominative/accusative masculine plural of 𐌱𐌰𐍄𐌹𐌶𐌰 (batiza), comparative of 𐌲𐍉𐌸𐍃 (gōþs)

although with comparative properly linked to the appendix and the transliteration for 𐌲𐍉𐌸𐍃 (gōþs) not in bold. There would probably be other languages that could make use of this as well but I'm not sure whether it's needed here specifically. Thoughts? Benwing2 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI I implemented |comp-of=, |sup-of=, |prespart-of=, |pastpart-of= for Gothic. Benwing2 (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Hey, I was largely unavailable for a few weeks, but will have a look. If I find a use case covered by the deprecated templates not yet covered by the new ones I'll let you know (or fix the involved templates/modules myself). If you hear nothing from me it probably means there's no issue! In any case, first impression: good job on these changes! I don't particularly mind using other templates, and I think using fewer language-specific templates where possible is cleaner anyway. I will try to replace existing usages of the deprecated templates where I find them, if I remember to :) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Headword parts of speech of Dutch case forms and automatically generated labels of the template inflection of

The part of speech in the headword for Dutch case forms (see Category:Dutch case forms, which you recently created) is nonstandard in some cases, as non-lemmas use noun forms as opposed to noun case forms. This has been met with objection on the chat. Changing them should not affect the categorisation, as it seems to be handled by the inflection template. To be fair, I know that the nonstandard headwords were not introduced by you at all. Would you be open to discuss a resolution acceptable to all parties?

As for another matter, I'd also like to alert you to the fact that the {{inflection of}} template automatically generates a label but not an appropriate categorisation; see e.g. haars#Dutch. The module involved is Module:form_of/cats#L-448. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lingo Bingo Dingo Mogge! I wouldn't mind simply using "noun forms" instead of "noun case forms" in the headword at all, it seems more logical to me also and I was surprised to find these nonstandard part of speech values in the head template.

My recent edits have not been focused on that though, but rather on the module behind {{inflection of}} which, as you mention, handles the "archaic" label and which in fact does also handle categorization. I'll give you an update on the changes.

• Previously, Module:labels/data/lang/nl used to add entries to the Category:Dutch noun case forms category whenever the case-form variant of the "archaic" label (added by {{inflection of}} when it detects a case form) was present.
• In practice, this meant that "inflection of" used to blanket categorize all case forms (including, say, adjective case forms) in Category:Dutch noun case forms, which was very suboptimal to say the least.
• Therefore, I moved the categorization logic from the Module:labels/data/lang/nl module to Module:form_of/cats. In the latter module I changed a couple of things: a) I added support for a default case where no (or no supported) part of speech is specified in the "inflection of"-template, in which case these case forms are now categorized in Category:Dutch case forms, and b) I rewrote the code a bit to make it easier to add support for other POS case form categories besides Category:Dutch noun case forms, which until a few days ago was the only case form category that existed for Dutch.
• As a result, we now also have Category:Dutch adjective case forms, as adjectives are the only POS I have added explicit support for, so far. (Categorization in these specific POS case form cats as opposed to the newly created Category:Dutch case forms umbrella cat is achieved by adding a p=$POS parameter to the {{inflection of}}-template, e.g. p=adjective.)

I am mostly just trying to make a shitty situation less shitty, but perhaps more fundamental changes are necessary. So if you have any suggestions regarding the logic of "inflection of" categorization for Dutch, let me know! I'm not sure the current situation is ideal, or what would be the best way to handle case form categorization in Dutch. All I know is that just yeeting it all in the noun case form category was very counter-intuitive :') — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

𐌿𐌽𐍅𐌰𐌿𐍂𐍃𐍄𐍅𐍃

Is it a hapax if it occurs twice within the same Bible verse? —Mahāgaja · talk 11:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Good point, hadn't looked at the verse properly. Hapaxes by definition of course occur only once, so I'll leave out the label (although "occurs in just one verse" feels more or less the same as a pure hapax imo). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it needs a label like "near hapax". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Indische slangenhalsvogel

@Mnemosientje I believe this was a mistake, friend Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Stríðsdrengur The rollback was intentional: many of your recent Dutch pronunciations have been faulty, so too the one you added on that entry. I see from the discussions on your talk page that this is not the first time people have raised the point of your adding pronunciations for languages you lack experience with, so as a general point: please be careful, and ideally stick to improving entries in languages you genuinely know. That way your time on Wiktionary is most usefully spent, with no inconvenience to others. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok man sorry Stríðsdrengur (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Diminutives

Why are the Dutch diminutives not categorised as lemmas even though they often have different meanings than the words they're derived from? Afaik, every other language and dictionary categorises them as separate lemmas. After all, they are, grammatically speaking, normal nouns, and semantically, they aren't merely synonyms of their basewords because their pragmatics makes their usage slightly different. 22Pikachu9988 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@22Pikachu9988 Honestly? I never really thought about it, as it's always been this way since I started editing. But if I'd have to guess, I suppose it was decided based on the fact that diminutives in Dutch are incredibly common compared to other languages, to the point that basically every noun has a diminutive which can be used plausibly, especially if they aren't abstract nouns (but even many abstract nouns have them). It then becomes tempting to simply view them as a kind of inflected noun form (like plurals &c), which are usually treated as non-lemmas on Wiktionary. (Note that Dutch diminutives with one or more meanings that can't very readily be inferred from their base words, e.g. drankje or tientje, are conventionally treated as lemmata on Wiktionary, as are words that exist only as diminutives [diminutiva tantum] and have no base word, such as lieveheersbeestje.)

I'm curious what other editors' views on this are though. Maybe an idea to post about it in the WT:Beer parlour for input? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not say that they often have different meanings. For most countable nouns there is no significant difference and for most mass nouns the diminutives have a singulative meaning. I do think that a parameter to set a head template to a lemma would be useful, as would a parameter to override the plural form manually . ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

statusblik

A source from 1975 gives this as an ironic term for any car. Did you see that anywhere? ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)