User talk:Surjection/archive/2020-2

June beetle

I agree with your statement. BTW, do you think we would need a standard template for this kind of situations? I have, at least up to now simply deleted requests for non-existing translations and written a comment in the edit summary. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

There is Template:not used, which for some reason doesn't support custom labels (it always says "not used in X", which works in most cases though). Using that or even just adding an italicized text instead of a translation are probably better options than not having the translation listed at all. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Translating a Book Title into Finnish, Continued

Remember when I asked you to translate a certain book title? It turns out, that it could also be translated as Kuinka kommunismin aave hallitsee maailmaa at the Clear Harmony website. --Apisite (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Koreaboo

Hi. Could you please review edits I made and attempt to merge? — This unsigned comment was added by TrelloBode (talk • contribs).

Wiktionary is not the place to promote terms you have invented yourself. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Back at the Barnyard

Let me set you straight, friend. What Back at the Barnyard showed you is wrong, and I don't mean animals having arms and talking (which is obviously wrong). Cows and bulls are the same species. Thinking cows are a separate species from bulls is like thinking hens and roosters are separate species. It's amazing there are adults who don't realize this. --2001:5B0:4DD3:12E8:7116:1594:D462:F421 20:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The way people use language doesn't change just because you change the dictionary. As much as it may bug you that people use cow for cattle in general, that's not really something you can do much about (not to mention it clearly says (formerly inexact but now common)). Your changing the definition (to make it redundant to the first one) isn't going to achieve much. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that Wiktionary is descriptive. Its purpose is to describe how language is. Anything else is secondary. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstood. It bothers me that people think bulls are a separate species from cows, and that male cows produce milk and female bulls fight matadors.--2001:5B0:4DD3:12E8:7116:1594:D462:F421 21:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

So be it, even if that complaint does not even align with what you are trying to edit-war into the entry as the definition clearly states that bulls are included in that definition not because they're not Bos taurus, but because they're male. Not that being a source of personal annoyance is a valid reason to change the dictionary, either. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you're the one who misunderstood. Cow (with its plural kine) originally referred to all Bos taurus, regardless of age or gender. When it became specific to adult females, that left a hole in the language that cattle never adequately filled. When people refer to a bull as a cow, they're using the old definition, not getting confused. Tell me: what gender are the animals tended by cowboys/cowhands/cowpokes/cowpuncherss? Why are there only cow chips and not *"bull chips"? What about cow catchers? Censoring the dictionary won't change anything, just ruin the dictionary's credibility.

Just try and find a dictionary that doesn't have that sense. The New Oxford American Dictionary app on my computer says "(loosely) a domestic bovine animal, regardless of sex or age." the main definition for cattle reads "large ruminant animals with horns and cloven hoofs, domesticated for meat or milk, or as beasts of burden; cows."

You're free to make up your own silly rules and observe them on your own, but don't try to insist that anyone else follow them. Next thing, you'll be censoring smoker, because people who consume tobacco products aren't really on fire... Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

category redirects

You've been populating some of these. You should take a look and decide whether they should be converted back to normal categories. Ultimateria (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be populated. Any entries in those are there solely by mistake. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

pre-sequel

just giving a definition — This unsigned comment was added by 73.93.54.201 (talk).

uwu

Hello I was trying to copy the text and paste it somewhere else but I didn’t know I pasted a ton on the wiki page itself. Sorry! 70.30.43.102 02:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

kiitos!

Thanks for finishing what I was doing with -ta :) — 69.120.64.15 07:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible defamations at SIMP

The two relatively recent edits by 2601:ce:c181:7da0:60b5:c148:8154:b160 on the page SIMP look like defamations to me. I suppose they should be hidden. Mölli-Möllerö (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Simp

In regards to your previous reverted edits on simp, I edited the definitions to include anyone of any gender, as while the term "simp" is most commonly used by men to describe other men, it has also been used more broadly, to describe women and men who are targeting their affections at women or men. I still left the "most commonly a man" bit, since people who are unaware of the word will probably see it in relation to that, but since lesbians can simp, and gay men can simp, I thought it best to edit it to include all of the possible meanings. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The gender-neutral term should be an extension and not a replacement of the original definition, since it was originally and is still by far most commonly used of men who fawn on a woman or women. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, the resulting entry is acceptable. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your gender

I just wanted to know whether you are male or female. I don't want to know anything else about your property.

What is your gender? — This unsigned comment was added by Star2548 (talk • contribs).

You don't have to answer that, SJ. Candle-holding servant (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing on page for "lintu"

Hi, I'm new to Wiktionary, so I am not sure how everything here works. I tried adding native pronounciation to the page about "lintu", but I seem to have accidentally also removed the pre-existing, non-native pronounciation. Then I saw that you had edited the page after me. Did you remove the non-native pronounciation? Rudde99 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Rudde99

Yes, I did. I added the request (and a few others that can be seen here) so that we could replace the non-native recordings with something better. The templates can have quite a learning curve over here, especially since Finnish has a custom template for pronunciation info. Thank you for the recording! — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

taser

What is wrong with changing the definition to how most people use the word? Aren’t you the one who said the dictionary should match how people use the language? --172.58.59.30 18:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly tasering (or tasing) someone does not automatically leave them unconscious. It's also pretty easy to find uses online where animals have been tasered. It seems more like you're somehow trying to prove a point, which is never a good way to approach things on a collaborative project. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of a taser is to render the target immobile. It may also render the target unconscious, or it may not. I've seen plenty of videos where someone gets tasered and starts swearing the second the electric current stops. You seem to be projecting your misunderstanding onto everyone else: I don't think people really pay attention to the distinction between immobilizing and rendering unconscious, so I don't think we should, either. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

hekuma

Hi. Can you date the quotation at hekuma? I think it's the only undated Finnish quotation. --Darren X. Thorsson (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Should be better now. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 07:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

in the annex to the poetry of Horatius, the land of Viator or the land of Hercules .. "the place to which travelers entrusted themselves"

What whos wrong on edition? Im new hier..something whos not correkt? Coagulaberyl (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Several things. The language wasn't specified. The definition isn't in the proper format. We don't document every term used in a fictional work. The formatting was not correct either (WT:ELE). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Milon

Greek milon means apple Old Turkish Almila means apple, too Milon, a word with an uncertain etymology, has a 100% similarity to Turkish Almila that means apple and very similar to milon, in meaning and form? UzunbacakAdem (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That is not a word with a "100% similarity", especially with the older form mêlon. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The fruit apple comes from Central Asia. There were always Turks living. They called this fruit, ALMILA. Al means red and mila could mean fruit. The Greeks took this from the Turks and called their fruits Milan. German linguists are not sure about the origin of 'apfel', either. An Idea is that this comes from Turkish Alma. Check this out here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Äpfel

That's why, it is not possible to say, they are not similar to each other. MILA and MILON/MELON are, of course, similar to each other. When apfel could derive from ALMA, it is possible that Melon derives from AL-MILA.

Little of what you just wrote makes sense. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

You wrote very shortly, so I can not judge! You have a word with an uncertain etymology. So I can give a certain one and it makes sense. And you write such a comment? Milon/melon and almila, they are similar. You can not accept this, because it is not a IE root. 19:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I will not respond in detail, because you should realize that the field of historical linguistics is not a competition for who can make the most arbitrary and untenable connections with Turkic vocabulary (or perhaps what you claim as such). — surjection ⟨??⟩ 20:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Greek μῆλον (mêlon, “apple”) is really a form of Ancient Greek μᾶλον (mâlon), and the pronunciation of "η" as "i" is fairly late. The superficial similarity doesn't hold up when you look at the chronology. Also, Old Turkic is only attested from the 7th century, and μῆλον is attested from a thousand years earlier. Your etymology isn't certain, and it doesn't make sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

7th C is only the last word of the Runic Turkish, not the first one. What kind of languages the Anatolian Peoples spoke, we do not know, dark ages, who these were, we do not know, either. Many Greek deities and word are of unknown Anatolian origin. Acc. To your logic the Turkish lang exists since 700 because we find it on the stones since 7th C. A language is not a meta. It lives without attests and stones. That the Greek lang is more attested doesnt mean, that it is older than any in this region. Sometimes we call everrhing Greek, whether Anatolian or Thracian and spontaneously we accept these all as IE. For example: Why is Thracian an IE lang? What we have is not much and can be explained with any other languages:

UzunbacakAdem (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Update with a new and interesting paper:

https://iris.unito.it/retrieve/handle/2318/1722950/563887/agricultural%20words%20Turkic%20and%20Greek-revised.pdf

Some agricultural words common to Old Turkic and Greek Etymology of ‘apple’, ‘honey’, ‘bull’, ‘mow-‘:

When you have time to read!

UzunbacakAdem (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Uzunbacak Adem

käyminen

I noticed that you edit many Finnish word articles.

Please take a look at «käyminen» for example. The term can have the meaning of "fermentation" but not exclusively, and certainly not as a noun in its own right distinct from the fourth infinitive of the verb. The verb «käydä» is a very, very ancient pre-proto-Indo-European root, a true cognate to English "go" and Swedish "gå".

Say, for instance «hevosen käyminen» is a horse's "gait" or how the horse walks on its feet.

When milk "goes", («maitoa käy»), it becomes viilia or piimää in Finnish, so «käyminen» is the "going" or the fermentation of the milk, so to speak.

The destination of "going" or «käyminen» is either in the inessive or in the essive case, not the illative or translative, because «käyminen» is an irreversible "going" from which there is no possibility of returning or coming back.

Poika käy koulussa. (The boy goes to school.)

Mies kävi vapaana. (The man went free.)

In the dialect of Finnish spoken by the old ones when I was very young, the third and fourth infinitives of verbs are not considered nouns in their own right because they lack the partitive, essive, and translative cases, for which the elative, inessive, and illative cases, respectively, are generally subsituted.

So:

käymistä --> käymisestä

käymisenä --> käymisessä

käymiseksi --> käymiseen

--Justinacolmena (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, käyminen doesn't only mean "fermentation". I'll edit the entry to reflect that.

I'd like to make some responses, though:

• The destination of "going" or «käyminen» is either in the inessive or in the essive case, not the illative or translative, because «käyminen» is an irreversible "going" from which there is no possibility of returning or coming back.

I would argue it is the opposite. käydä specifically refers to instances where there is an implication that whoever goes does come back. For example, käyn kaupassa to me implies that whoever says that will come back from the store (they'll visit the store and then come back), which is something menen kauppaan ("I (will) go to the store") does not (necessarily) do. I think the used case here more emphasizes the time at which point one was at the location, rather than focusing on the going (or coming back).

• the third and fourth infinitives of verbs are not considered nouns in their own right

This is still the case, although the fourth infinitive is identical in form with the verbal noun (-minen) but only has nominative and partitive cases. It is used in expressions like minun on sinne käyminen and minulla ei ole sinne käymistä to mean "I am to go there, I must go there" and "I am not to go there, I must not go there", respectively. These kinds of expressions are now considered formal and stilted.

• The verb «käydä» is a very, very ancient pre-proto-Indo-European root, a true cognate to English "go" and Swedish "gå".

käydä is a Germanic borrowing, but it does not seem to be related to go or gå. Rather, the Germanic root is *skēwijaną.

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 08:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

𐎱𐎢𐎫𐎠𐎹𐎠

I noticed you removed the etymology section I added to the 𐎱𐎢𐎫𐎠𐎹𐎠 page and I would like to know why was it removed when I provided a scholarly source as reference for that edit. 102.116.121.157 11:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The formatting was completely broken, for one. Second, it seems you misread the source - it doesn't seem to state that the word arrived in Old Persian through Akkadian (or "Babylonian" as it calls it). In general, you're making a bit of a mess of etymologies and many of them have had to be reverted. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the proper formatting to be used? I looked around on Wiktionary, but I did not find any guide for more complex edits. Indeed, I noticed this mistake and was about to correct it when I saw the section was removed altogether. Can I know which etymology edits did I get wrong and had to be removed so I can do my best not to repeat this error? 102.116.121.157

You don't know etymology formatting, but you still have edited existing entries with correct formatting and even used the etymology templates? The etymology was correctly formatted in other entries you have edited. As for the edits of yours that had to be corrected, Special:Diff/61369746 is a good example. (For the record, it seems you are the same editor as Special:Contributions/24.105.170.133 and Special:Contributions/68.191.50.83, who has also edited carelessly in the past.) — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I simply looked at the source for the etymology sections other pages and copied the coding where the content of the sections were similar to the edits I was intending to make. The edit to the اصفهان page was definitely mine, and the source for that etymology is the entry for Isfahan on Encyclopædia Iranica, which is a reliable scholarly source. However, although I have definitely edited Wiktionary in the past, those two specific contributors are not me and I don't remember editing any of the entries these contributors have. 102.116.144.209 09:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to the formatting, the main issues were the lack of a L3 (level 3 heading, with three equals symbols on both sides) for Etymology, as well as References being an L2 instead of L3. This is easy to see if you compare it to this entry you edited earlier. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So can I re-add an etymology to the 𐎱𐎢𐎫𐎠𐎹𐎠 and اصفهان pages if I format it properly and don't repeat the mistakes I made? 102.116.110.115 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I can only talk about the formatting issues in the former. Talk to whoever reverted you in the latter if you so wish. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you 102.116.110.115 17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Module:descendants tree

There's still one error left (at բող, due to բոխի). I wonder if it has anything to do with it having the |id= parameter in {{head}}. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it has. Currently the code in Module:descendants tree can only find {{senseid}} templates. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)