User talk:Word dewd544

Hi there. There is no need to add inflected forms manually. We have a bot that does it automagically (if there is an inflection table). You can make requests at User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme. SemperBlotto 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since there is no single 'Slavic language', to link you need to use {{proto}}, like {{proto|Slavic|vojnikŭ|lang=ro}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: [1] Well, not really. It comes from the Vulgar Latin oblique feminine plural, which amalgamated the non-nominative Classical cases. --EncycloPetey 21:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

When you create links to other terms in etymologies, could you please use the {{term}} template instead of cursive bare links? Thank you! —CodeCat 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wonder where you got all the Aromanian words from; I'm curious. --Lo Ximiendo 02:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm getting them mostly off online dictionaries like http://www.freelang.net/online/aromanian.php and http://www.jargot.com/dict/armaneasca/ and http://giony.ro/. For now I'm just making entries for words on a standard "Swadesh List" for basic words, like http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_Swadesh_a_limbilor_romanice_de_est. I also have some relatives that are part Aromanian as well who speak a little of it if I need to ask them about certain words. Word dewd544 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why empty that page? --Lo Ximiendo 19:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I realized that isn't really the main way to spell it and put the main definition at brats, which I found was the way it was listed on other sources (being a neuter noun this makes sense, corresponding with the Romanian as well as other words with the same ending, like sots). With Aromanian, there isn't really a standard way to spell words, especially with a Latin script, so various sources use different ways to spell out the same sound, and there are regional variants of words also. That was one that I'm not sure was completely correct, or it may have even been referring to the plural form; I'd have to check with someone to verify this. I guess I shouldn't have totally erased the entry, though. I didn't want to move the whole page either since there is an (unlikely) chance another language's word may also coincide with it later. Word dewd544 23:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

If the spelling is not the main spelling but is still used, you could use {{alternative spelling of}} ? —CodeCat 23:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Actually now I can confirm it is the plural form, corresponding to Romanian brațe. That's why I didn't want to just put alternative form at the time. I'll change it now. Word dewd544 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you creating etymologies of inflected forms? This is not the norm on Wiktionary. Also, please read the message I posted a few weeks ago. Thank you. —CodeCat 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I guess I thought to add them since it may not be immediately apparent how they are linked to the Classical Latin forms, which are different in some cases. For -are conjugation endings it's pretty obvious, but for others like -ere it's different. Also, in some sources, if the inflected form, or participle in this case, has an extra or separate meaning or becomes substantivized, they sometimes list the etymology specifically, just for people who are interested in how the word evolved, especially words that entered English somehow. About your message, you're referring to the use of {{term}} rather than just [[]]? I've been doing that most of the time, but sometimes I didn't when editing a page that already had them. Word dewd544 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The problem is mostly that inflected forms can often be changed by analogy with other forms within the paradigm. This makes it hard to trace them back to an origin. In essence, what is inherited from the parent language is not the individual word forms, at least not usually. Instead it's the entire paradigm as a whole that is inherited, or the 'stem' along with its 'inflectional class' if you will. So if the Catalan infinitive is inherited from the Latin infinitive (like our etymologies already state) then you can assume the same for the participle or any other form of the verb. It seems a bit meaningless to add this separately because it's entirely predictable. The only part that isn't predictable is the form of the Latin participle itself, but you can always look it up using the link in the lemma's etymology. —CodeCat 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense, I suppose. I am aware that they inherit an entire paradigm of forming inflections that are applied analogically to all words of that type, and in some cases even those that didn't exist in Latin. I was just doing that for comparison purposes between languages, mainly, and since some lingustic essays I've seen do mention hypothetical or attested Vular Latin -utus participles as the source for Romance language participles. But I guess these are just there as a basis to demonstrate from what paradigm they evolved and don't necessarily mean that Romance words came directly from them. Anyway, I won't add anymore from now on. Word dewd544 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Where did you find that etymology? As far as I know it comes from the name of a tree (w:Cnidoscolus quercifolius). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 04:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I got it from here: http://www.infopedia.pt/pesquisa-global/favela. I guess they were basing it on the fact that those neighborhoods resemble honeycombs somehow? But after reading up more on it, English dictionaries list it as being derived from the tree, and that's what Wikipedia also says, about how the hill with the favelas was named after a hill with the tree. It may be the more accurate etymology actually. Maybe we should have it as being either from this or the other? Word dewd544 05:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see. I'm more confident it's named after the tree; in fact, the Brazilian History Channel airs some short videos by writer Eduardo Bueno during breaks, one of which explains the origin of this word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRLjb0pFy1w). But since that site mentions favo + ela I think we can leave it too. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 05:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

delicio was not attested before deliciae, nor was lacio; therefore, doesn't this etymology need to be fixed? Caladon 20:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've seen several sources derive it from delicio and then lacio, but you might be right; they might not be that accurate or just outdated perhaps, but that seems to be the general consensus. If it really wasn't attested at all until well after deliciae, that could show that it was the other way around. I guess we'll just take down the etymology for now until someone finds one then? Word dewd544 21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Some of your contributions contain formatting errors which need to be cleaned up. Often you put References as an L4 rather than an L3 header, for example. DCDuring TALK 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry. Got it now. I think it started because I might have seen a page that had it done incorrectly with a level 4 header and just thought that was right. I'll remember that from now on. Word dewd544 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The problem is, L4 references are all right per Wiktionary:ELE#Additional headings. I don't like them either. --Dan Polansky 08:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

{{sc}} is the code for Sardinian. {{sro}} is Campindanese Sardinian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

While you're at it, would you mind working out the mess with (deprecated template usage) radish, radis, and radicchio? Or is it just that (deprecated template usage) radicula is getting in the way? Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word dewd544,

I've noticed that you have tried to talk to Torvalu4 about changes made to Romanian etymologies of presumed Albanian descent.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you won't get a straight answer from this user. I undid the changes made to sâmbure, because Torvalu4's changes were fundamentally incorrect (alternative forms of sâmbure were never - and I repeat never - simbure and sumbure).

If you have the time, please keep an eye on Torvalu4's modifications to Romanian etymologies and let me know if other disputable changes are made and I'll bring the subject to the attention of administrators.

Keep up the good work!

Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Robbie SWE: I can't help but interject, but simbure and sumbure are dialectal forms listed by the Dicționarul etimologic român (1955-68), so if there's a problem, it's with that dictionary. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "won't get a straight answer"; since we've never spoken to each other, you couldn't have any basis to say that. I welcome yours and anyone else's discussion. Torvalu4 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

it may be possible that sâmbure does come from that, though I don't see why that can be the only explanation, especially given the obvious phonetic and semantic differences. Either way, it would have had to have been a very old "borrowing", if you could even call it that, due to the shift of 'l' to 'r'. This usually happens when an intervocalic 'l' in a Latin-derived word is altered to an 'r', which is one reason why I think the Latin etymology may be plausible, since almost every other case where this happens it is an inherited word from Latin. Additionally, the 'e' at the end often results from a Latin '-a' ending or its plural; why would there be an 'e' at the end and where would it have come from if it came from 'thumbull'? (the Aromanian version is sãmburã as well, and I could see how 'symbola' could lead to that phonetically as it follows pretty regular sound shifts; plus there are other occasions where 'y' turns to 'u' in Rom. Also, the existence of the variant 'simbure' is noteworthy perhaps) Simply because it coincides with a vaguely similar sounding word in Albanian, which doesn't even have the same or similar meaning ("fruit pit" vs "button"?), doesn't necessarily prove a direct borrowing. And you're basing the etymology of 'thumbull' ("button") on that of 'thumb' ("thorn, sting") as well; I can't say I know much about the nuances or intricacies of Albanian and how their words are formed but is that etymology a 100% probability? If not, then it may make its link with the Romanian even more tenuous.

You're exaggerating their differences; the words don't differ significantly, especially when the dialectal forms are considered. l > r is apparently regular for the ll [ɫ] sound: viezure (Transyl. viezune [!]) < vjedhull(ë), zară < dhallë, brusture < brushtull, etc. As for the internal development of thumbull (var. sumbull) < thumb, phonetically there's nothing unusual; for the meaning, thumb more fully means "protuberance, knob, thorn, sting(er), prick, cleat, jab, etc." - basically any pointy thing that sticks out; buttons aren't pointy, but they're small and a type of knob; but none of that really matters. The Romanian meaning of a round "pit/stone of a fruit" isn't a big leap from "button". Torvalu4 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This isn't the only word he's edited; most of the words that have an apparent relation between the two languages have been edited as coming from Albanian. I don't know if there's much to do now really if it's just going to be changed back every time someone tries mentioning the old etymologies. And apparently it's news to me, but now it's supposedly academically accepted that Romanians migrated to their current land from around Albania?? The evidence for that is not conclusive at all. Bit of a stretch to be using alternative theories as the main source for these etymologies on this site and present them as if they're the main ones.

Word dewd544 (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

"he's" - are you talking to yourself? No, Romanians wouldn't have migrated from Albania per se, just the Balkans, but you're getting caught up on the history. The primary method for establishing the link is phonetic and semantic. If you take, for instance, viezure, we know it comes from older viedzure, so there's a nearly identical sound correspondence - V-I-E-DZ-U-re < V-J-E-DH-U-ll, where already it's been shown -ll- > r is common. Plus, they mean exactly the same thing. Vjedhull is clearly Albanian, because it's a derivative of vjedh "to steal" (in any case, r > -ll- is totally unheard of). It's pretty solid, and the other "alternatives" have no real support. If you can't provide a good argument for something and cite your sources, then, yes, I'm afraid I'll revert your reversions. Wiktionary can't be a forum where you dump every theory from the past and give them all equal weight. Wiktionary would be useless if that were allowed. Torvalu4 (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Sorry that I forced this discussion upon you. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo sir. May I ask where you acquired that ‘t’ from? It does not match with the Italian descendant. I believe that a more likely model is *nivicāre from *nivicō, either that or *nivāre of *nivō, though the latter (which may be either an alternative form or a synonym) is more in synch with Ibero-Romance. I do not distrust you, but this ascendant looks incongruous. Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, wow. I think that must have been a accidental typo or something, because yes, it definitely would come from a form *nivicare, which would make sense. Thanks for catching that. I changed it now. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alabo los trabajos de vuestra merced, los cual serán muy útil debería finalmente aprender estos lenguajes. Espero que un día igualare el nivel de información lingüística de vuestra merced; he estado fascinado por los idiomas romances un poco recientemente, y estoy poco a poco aprendiendo en español y francés, pero idealmente y espero que la información que acumularé debería hacer lo aprender más fácil en el futuro. Podemos siempre usar más de los romancistas en el proyecto, especialmente para los idiomas romances obscuros.

En adición, ¿ha vuestra merced ya examinado Appendix:Vulgar_Latin? Vuestra merced pueda agregar más términos ausentes a las listas de los descendientes. Chau. --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I understood all that you said, but my Spanish isn't as good anymore, so that's why I'm replying in English. And no, I didn't see the Vulgar Latin appendix until now, but only a few terms under it. That can be useful to add hypothetical words to, especially if many languages seem to have descendants from the same word. I'll remember that. Thanks.

Word dewd544 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hola otra vez. ¿Es la ortografía de ésta correcta? Chau. --Æ&Œ (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, I changed it now. It was supposed to be attitiāre but there was an accidental typo. Thanks for noticing that. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Salut. Elle est épelée autrement comme « attītiare » dans atizar#Etymology & dans attiser#French. Sait Votre Grâce pourquoi elles sont ainsi ? Ciao. --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Je crois que c'est la même forme pour touts les étymons, *attitiare dans le latin vulgaire. C'est correct. Chaque langue a évoluée différemment. Merci. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Hope that you're well! I don't know if it was brought to your attention, but the matter of Torvalu4’s edits was discussed in the tea room. If I'm to understand the input from other members correctly, we're free to revert edits where modern Albanian terms are presented as sources of Romanian words - in other words, most of the terms in that category. I've started, but it's quite a long list. Let me know if you're up for it - it's ok if you aren't cause I see that you've been busy with Dalmatian and Aromanian. Why aren't you contributing in the Romanian Wiktionary? Your knowledge of these languages is impeccable! ;-) Keep up the good work! Best Regards --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's not that big of a deal to me anymore regarding the edits with the Albanian sources. I actually do think a good number of them have some potential to be true, but not all of them, and they need to be examined on an individual basis, as the real picture can be complex and doesn't always have to work completely one way or the other (i.e. all the cognate terms must be either from Albanian or from Romanian or substratum). I admit Torvalu did have a point for some of them when he explained them (some of them seem to follow regular sound shifts; whether this is evidence of borrowing or just the way they evolved separately from a common source, I can't say with certainty as of now, since I'm not an actual pro linguist and this is more of a hobby to compile data from around the web and other resources into this free online dictionary; even the professionals can't seem to agree on an easy answer for this), but I still thought the old alternatives could at least be mentioned. I'm going to do some further in depth research on any published papers on the issue later probably to get a better idea on recent theories or updates. Like I said before, it would be useful to have some opinions from people who regularly work in this field and have strong background knowledge on both languages developments and histories. And yeah, for now I'm just doing basic Dalmatian and Aromanian terms due to my interest in Balkanic Romance; there's not too much to go there. I may end up also editing the Romanian wiktionary at some point. Thanks for the offer to help though; you're welcome to change any of those as you please of course.

Word dewd544 (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late response. I've started to scrutinise Romanian terms edited by Torvalu and the problem is that a substantial number of them violate etymology guidelines, especially NPOV. For instance baltă and daltă (N.B. they're reverted now) were changed so that their origin was from modern Albanian, despite being two of the oldest terms of Slavic/alternatively Balkan origin, even in Albanian. I'll asses the terms individually - if you oppose any changes, let me know and we could discuss it here or you can send me a message. Best Regards --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I didn't even notice baltă and daltă were changed, since I was also under the impression those were of potentially Slavic origin anyway, or some other more obscure ancient Balkanic one. Yeah I think the problem is the fact that the vast majority of cognates that are linked to an Albanian term are automatically branded as coming from Albanian, whether its in a South Slavic language or Romanian, mainly I assume because its presumed to be the most ancient or "native" language in the area, which isn't entirely objective, though of course some may have that origin. Then again there are a few where he did give them a common Slavic origin, like copil/kopil, copac/kopaç, and flojere was listed as coming from the local Vlach/Aromanian language, so it's not entirely one sided and it does seem he did research on it certainly. But we should be careful about this. I guess simply with the information we have to work with now, there's no way of knowing for sure what the true etymology of each of these words is, or which came from what, but it's best to keep it as NPOV as possible, I agree.

Word dewd544 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've been going through Romanian terms and I've noticed that some of them include references to Aromanian cognates. Since I'm no expert in Aromanian – although I do try my best to keep myself updated – I'm asking you which is the preferred orthographic norm for inclusion of Aromanian terms. E.g. bască. I suspect that bascã is more appropriate, but I'm not sure. Also, Torvalu4 added quite a substantial amount of references to Aromanian cognates which didn't seem to be correct. Is caš correct for Aromanian? Judging from baş, the correct form should either be caş or cash. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well there is no one standardized orthography for Aromanian as far as I know, unfortunately, but most official sources I've seen online use the symbol 'ã' to stand for an equivalent of both Romanian 'ă' and 'â' (this can get confusing since one letter can mean different sounds depending on the word and location, so that's why I'm thinking of adding pronunciation guides at some point maybe). Some documents use 'â' in Aromanian instead, but more rarely, but this still doesn't help differentiate between the sounds. And yeah, in the same vein, I've usually seen 'sh' used as an equivalent for what would be 'ș' in Romanian, but some also use that character. Also, 'ts' is usually used for what would be 'ț' in Daco-Romanian. I think it's best to just stick with this style that's as standardized as possible to mainatain consistency between entries, so I use 'ã', 'sh', and 'ts'. Sometimes I noticed 'ts' is used instead of 'c' followed by a vowel for some words, but it varies even within the sources I get, so I'm not fully sure how to handle that. I'll have to look more into it. Also, there are variants of pronunciation within the language itself to account for.

A few entries have apparently been made for Aromanian before I started adding many words, like baș for example, and whoever made those apparently chose to just use the 'Daco-Romanian' equivalent for the letter. This isn't technically wrong I guess, as there are documents that opt to use this orthography, especially ones written by Aromanians in Romania who acquired that style. But I use the 'bash' entry as the main one in the descendants and translations pages, and list the other form in the 'Alternative forms' header at the top of its page. And Torvalu I suppose is just using another way to express those sounds, such as with carons like 'š' often used in Balkan languages, but these aren't actually used in written Aromanian as far as I know, and may just be used by academics or linguists in writing about it to transliterate that sound to something familiar. These entries should be edited to the correct form to maintain consistency and not have links that go nowhere since there is no entry for the orthography he used. I also noticed he occasionally included accent marks on certain links to both Romanian and Aromanian terms in etymologies, which don't actually appear in the words themselves, so these would be incorrect. They can optionally be added in the second bracket to guide pronunciation better, as with Latin macrons, which don't show up as part of the main entry. But I don't see the need to do this too often, unless trying to demonstrate some sound similarity in an etymology.

Thanks Word dewd544 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cheers! Thank you for bringing some clarity to this subject. I'll keep it in mind next time I stumble across Aromanian articles. Torvalu4 included accent marks on certain Romanian words, because he/she copied them from some online - alternatively literary - source. DEX always provides its terms with accent markers, for instance. I'm not completely convinced that he/she knows Romanian, but that's another discussion. Best Regards, --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bonne nuit. Ne devrait pas être {{alternative form of|veglju|lang=rup}} ? Saludos. --Æ&Œ (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oui, merci. J'ai oublié. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why did you remove the Old Portuguese descendant from carrico? — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I thought the policy was not to include "Old" versions of languages if the word is the direct ancestor of a modern one of the language and essentially the same. Or at least not as a separate line from the main language's. I thought for instances such as when Old French had a popular, inherited form vs the modern French learned form or neologism, it was okay to include them separately. But it seemed in this case they were the same word at two different points in history in the same language, which didn't seem necessary. I guess that's not a rule, but I read some other people's discussion of the issue in the policy section I believe. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Do you remember where you saw these discussions? I’ll surely contest them. BTW, Portuguese and Old Portuguese aren’t the same language; Portuguese is just one of Old Portuguese’s descendants, and if the words being different is necessary to list it, every Old Portuguese is listable because the infinitive suffixes -ar/-er/-ir became -al/-el/-il in one of its descendant languages (Fala). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was quite a long time ago; over a year or more ago I think. And yes, I know they're not the same language, especially since Old Portuguese gave rise to Galician as well, but I wasn't sure of the exactly policy here, since the word was the same (thought it was better to just include it deriving from Old Portuguese within the Portuguese etymology itself rather than descendants). I think Mglovesfun may have been someone who mentioned it. Personally, I have no problem with it either way. It's just that I thought it would make the descendants lists somewhat cluttered or reduntant if we were to include every Old language, like Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, etc, along with the modern versions, respectively. As to how they should be incorporated, should the overall lists still depend solely on alphabetical order, meaning all "Old" languages count as starting with "O" and appear separately from their modern descendants, or should they count as if they began with the first letter of the actual language, like "P" in the case of Portuguese? And should the modern ones be nested/bulleted under the Old version if they are direct descendants? Last time I checked, which was a long time ago, this was still being debated and I guess is simply a matter of style.

Couldn't find exactly the discussion I was looking for, but this page mentions the issue of descendants and bulleting. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2011/November#Tabbed_Languages.2C_again Word dewd544 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I prefer nested lists, like we do in appendices, because such a list would contain much more useful information. This is how I used to do it before I became more familiar with practice, but was told not to ([2]). — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 19:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I support 'Old' languages in these sections, but not nesting. Nesting discourages IPs who don't know about the development of Romance to add descendants if they don't know where to put them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add them like this (diff), instead? Thank you. —CodeCat 16:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

All right. It's just that the sources I use have different ways of writing the (hypothetical or reconstructed) words than the ones used with the proto-Slavic template here, so I didn't want to cause confusion or discrepancy with the ones that already exist, since using that automatically links to the term. For example it seems they have Cyrillic characters mixed in. I guess I will have to check the form the other etymologies from Slavic languages use and match it with that so it all flows better. Apparently the right proto-Slavic from was *veverъka based on the Polish etymology I found. But thanks for letting me know; there's a lot of etymologies which were done incorrectly that need tweaking now. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think the practice here is to use Czech and Polish-based spelling (č, š, ě, c, ę, ǫ etc.) except for the short vowels ъ and ь, which are written in Cyrillic. Personally I think that is a bit strange (I would prefer to write them as ŭ and ĭ like in Old Church Slavonic transliterations) but this is what is currently done on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please use the {{term}} template, like this: diff? That would help a lot. —CodeCat 20:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ehhh…est‐ce que vraiment du roumain ? Ciao --Æ&Œ (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hullo again. Could you please explain why you changed recons to term in this edit? If it isn’t exactly from Vulgar Latin, would it not be more appropriate to label it as being from (regular) Latin? I am confused. --Æ&Œ (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is Vulgar Latin actually, but the page was created originally as a regular Latin entry page, but simply labelled with Vulgar Latin at the top. I guess technically it should be a recon page. But since no one actually made a page like that for it yet, I switched it back to linking to the existing (normal) excambio page for now at least, since all the other descendants still linked normally to it as well. I can try to make a recon page modelled off some other ones. I believe there's a special template you need to use for them Word dewd544 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Je déteste te molester nouveau, mais est‐ce que le ancien provençal vraiment emprunte du moderne français ? Ummm… --Æ&Œ (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you use {{etyl}} and {{recons}} for Proto-Tocharian etymologies as well, not just for Proto-Indo-European ones? Thanks! —CodeCat 04:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd be glad to, but I didn't know there was an 'etyl' template or language code for Proto-Tocharian yet. What would it be exactly, since there isn't one single one for it (unlike with 'sla' for proto-Slavic 'sla-pro' or 'gem' with proto-Germanic 'gem-pro' for example)? There's 'xto' for Tocharian A and 'txb' for Tocharian B. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You can always make a request for a language code if one doesn't exist yet. We currently have {{etyl:ine-toc}} for the Tocharian language family. So presumably the code for Proto-Tocharian would be "ine-toc-pro"; I've created it now. —CodeCat 21:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay thanks. That should be helpful. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you go back to your earlier edits and update them so that they use this code and link to the Proto-Tocharian entries with {{recons}}? See Special:Contributions/Word dewd544. —CodeCat 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The counterpart for {{l}} when linking to proto-languages is {{lx}}. {{recons}} is the counterpart of {{term}}. —CodeCat 22:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does it take a while for the template to be useable or to register or something? I used that code and it didn't seem to work, at least yet. But the one for Tocharian "ine-toc" does work apparently. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so, it should work right away. It works fine on āknats. —CodeCat 22:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind I apparently put 'pro' and 'toc' in reverse order accidentally. I'll get back to the others and change them later Word dewd544 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure this wasn't an adverb? PIE probably didn't have true prepositions, but had adverbs that could be combined with a noun in a certain case to express more specific meanings. Also, it's believed that they were originally postpositions instead. See w:PIE particles. —CodeCat 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right. It should be an adverb or maybe just listed as a root if anything. I made that based on what characterizes the descendant language forms accidentally, which doesn't apply in this case. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's not a root though, not just because it doesn't have the shape of a root (I don't think a root can end in -ǵʰs-) but also because roots aren't words, and this is. —CodeCat 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I didn't use the right word. I meant to say particle. Maybe that's the best way to describe these kinds of PIE words that can act both adverbs and postpositions Word dewd544 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would say that the word for such a thing is just "adverb" but I don't actually know if all PIE adverbs behaved that way, or only some. Still, it would probably best to call them adverbs for now. —CodeCat 03:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't think your reasoning in the etymology is really correct. It's true that Gothic is the only other attested language to keep the -d-. But that doesn't mean it's the only one altogether. In fact, linguists now generally believe that Crimean Gothic descends from an East Germanic language that was not Gothic, so the etymology isn't even right. It's probably more correct to just say that East Germanic as a whole retained the -d-, but we have only Gothic and Crimean Gothic to demonstrate that. —CodeCat 22:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking the same thing but just decided to go with that to simplify things. I guess it wasn't the best way to handle it. Word dewd544 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reordering all the descendants like you did at *fedwōr? According to WT:AGEM, it's preferred not to do that, and I agree on the principle that each 'line' in the list of descendants should be a language, not a group of languages. (Keep in mind no Proto-West Germanic is known to have existed) —CodeCat 00:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I did that so Gothic and Crimean Gothic could fit neatly under their own East Germanic category, and then also grouped the others into the major three divisions as they're usually seen. I know there's not a proto-West or East Germanic attested language, but I was kind of basing it off the other language families like Slavic, which often break them apart in the three major groups of South, East, and West, and Brythonic vs Goidelic or P vs Q or Insular vs Continental in Celtic, etc. Sometimes even some Romance etymologies break it down by the type but I could see that causing problems as some people may be uncertain where a certain language fits. Though I have seen some etymologies use a hypothetical "west Germanic" term in them, especially if its a word unique to them, but that's not common. Thought it would make it more clear in the descendants sections, but I didn't see that page you posted until now. Word dewd544 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The descendants at Appendix:Proto-Slavic/svętъ should probably be Czech "svatý", Polish "święty", and the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know, I was in the middle of editing it and was about to change it when I got interrupted by something and had to leave. Am going to do that now Word dewd544 (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of categorisation, please be careful to add headline inflection, like so: [3]. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Also, please be sure to use {{compound}} (like {{prefix}}, {{suffix}}, {{confix}}, etc) as I did here. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your input is kindly requested here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Old High German doesn't use the letter þ. —CodeCat 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

My Romanian is awful, but shouldn't there only be one i at the end? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, because it is the definite articulation of the genitive form of 'mână' (so literally, joint of the hand) Word dewd544 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please add all pages that you create or edit to your watchlist? There is an option in the preferences to do this automatically. I am asking this because I often have to fix up your entries. Rather than telling you about it, if you keep track of your watch list, you will automatically see what others have changed. Because it seems like you are rather oblivious to this and keep doing the same thing over and over. See my edits to *dvьrь to start; I have had to do the exact same thing (add {{reconstructed}}, {{sla-noun}} etc) to at least 10 of your Proto-Slavic entries by now. —CodeCat 13:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

All right, sorry about that then. I was just basing it off some other already existing entries to make it quicker and copying the frame of the entry, which didn't write those the correct way. I'll keep in mind to just add it that way then (which I usually do in most regular entries). I still put them in a category anyway so they would show up for that on the page, though. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you are adding etymology sections to entries. Do you think you could do the same for the Proto-Slavic entries I have been creating, by adding the Proto-Slavic etymology to each of the descendants? It would be much appreciated! Try to go easy on the cognates though; they aren't really that important if they are already listed in the Proto-Slavic entry. Two or three should be plenty. :) —CodeCat 20:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

You added a link to haim at Appendix:Proto-Germanic/haimaz, but it's not an attested word. Can you fix it please? —CodeCat 23:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I thought using the "lx" in appendices linked to the appendix (not attested) page link, as with the PIE entries. Or was that "lr"? Using "recons" gives it an italic font, as Old Dutch itself appears on the Frankish appendix page, but is this the right way to do that? Word dewd544 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

{{lr}} is the equivalent to {{recons}}, and it's the right one to use. {{lx}} should only really be needed when making templates that have to work for all languages. —CodeCat 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

PIE roots are always cited in the full grade (e-grade), except a few roots that have no full grade. So when you add etymologies like you did to 𐌼𐌿𐌽𐌸𐍃 (munþs), please only add the full grade form of the root. —CodeCat 22:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hola señor. Es‐tu certain que la forme correcte n’est pas bună dimineața ? Saludos, --Æ&Œ (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're right. It was an accident. Thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

You shouldn't list both of these together in etymologies, because they are really one and the same thing. PIE, not being an actual written language, has no real standard spelling, and different linguists use different ways of writing the same sounds. But this isn't the same as an "alternative spelling" because there is no spelling in the first place, just transcription - different ways of representing the sounds. On Wiktionary, we follow a standard representation which is detailed at WT:AINE, which says that we use *lewgʰ-. That means that listing alternative representations is redundant because they really are the same thing, and they will always redirect to each other if they exist. —CodeCat 14:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay, gotcha. I know they're the same, but I for some reason did that because I noticed some entries already had one or the other, and just wanted to account for both, but what you say makes more sense. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I reverted your edit to Template:termx. I think consensus here is that -i- glides for PIE are represented by "y"s (as -u-'s are with "w"s). Leasnam (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes that's more or less the same as the post I made just above this one... —CodeCat 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hola. As‐tu n’importe quelle requête à lui ? Saludos, --Æ&Œ (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Unfortunately, I don't think there's enough information on Dalmatian conjugation that exists to make a template, as far as I know. The language is only partially attested and rather limited. I remember seeing a site that had some parts of verb conjugation, but I forgot what it was. I'll try and look for it. Here's one link I found with a partial example, but it's not the one I was looking for: http://wiki.verbix.com/Languages/Dalmatian Word dewd544 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the modern linguistic consensus is that Proto-Baltic and Proto-Balto-Slavic are one and the same. —CodeCat 16:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I thought it was referring to a stage that preceded the individual Baltic languages that occurred after the split from Proto-Balto-Slavic though; not sure if that is necessary to include, however. In some cases, Baltic and Slavic words of common PIE origin can be rather different, though usually they're pretty similar. But from what I've seen, you're right. Even the sister project Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for Proto-Baltic alone. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it's a fairly recent idea but it is gaining acceptance. The main point is that Slavic clearly remained unified for a while after splitting off. This in turn had the effect of making it seem more strikingly different from the rest of the Balto-Slavic languages, which made it easier for linguists to suggest that they simply split into two groups. But what really counts for a proto-language is shared innovations, and it turns out there are no innovations relative to PIE that are present in all of the Baltic languages but not also in Slavic. Said differently: Proto-Slavic is just as "Baltic" as the Baltic languages themselves are as it has all of their characteristic features (of course it also has its own innovations, but those don't count). This strongly suggests that Proto-Balto-Slavic was also the latest common ancestor of the Baltic languages. That the Baltic languages have certain vocabulary similarities to one another can also be an areal feature: languages that are in proximity to each other often share features and vocabulary. This is not unheard of elsewhere, either. It's often stated that there was no Proto-West-Germanic language, even though the West Germanic languages certainly do share features. More recently, modern Frisian has many grammar and vocabulary resemblances to modern Dutch, even though it is historically closer to English and shares many early sound changes with it. And the case of the Finnic languages is even more interesting. Linguists agree that the south Estonian dialects (Võro and relatives) were the first ones to split off from Proto-Finnic because they have innovations that can be traced back to Proto-Finnic that no other Finnic languages share. And yet in modern times, they resemble standard Estonian more than they resemble standard Finnish, even though historically speaking Estonian and Finnish are more closely related to each other than either of them is to south Estonian. —CodeCat 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I see what you mean about the areal factor in this: I know that while Frisian's ancestor was originally closer to English's, it's been drawn more toward Dutch throughout most of its later history due to geographic proximity and other reasons, now being a minority language. And it seems the Baltic languages are quite conservative among Indo-European in general, and are closer in many ways to Proto-Balto-Slavic than individual modern Slavic languages are. So I guess the Proto-Baltic Template:bat-pro doesn't really need to be used except for exceptional cases? The Latvian etymologies tend to include that and don't often include a Proto-Balto-Slavic, from what I'v seen. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it really would be a problem if we just treated such etymologies as Proto-Balto-Slavic instead. I doubt there is any difference at all. —CodeCat 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would be more careful than that. As we discussed on my talk page, the general case is not that. PB has already been done; PBS mostly hasn't; and I don't know of anyone (yet) claiming that we can simply equate them. Why not wait and see? --Pereru (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

D’où trouvas‐tu cette orthographe ? ¿De dónde encontraste esta ortografía? Donde encontraste essa ortografia? --Æ&Œ (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

http://www.ditzionariu.org/home.asp?lang=eng Word dewd544 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen that you've added Avestan words that use 𐬬 (v) and 𐬫 (y), but these letters are used only in initial position, for anywhere else 𐬎𐬎 (uu, two "𐬎"s) and 𐬌𐬌 (ii) are used for v and y respectively; so 𐬰𐬌𐬌𐬃, not 𐬰𐬫𐬃, and 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬎𐬎𐬀, not 𐬛𐬀𐬉𐬬𐬀. --Z 15:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Salut. Sais‐tu une bonne source de trouver les cases en aroumain ? Je veux que créer une modèle pour démontrer eux. (J’espère que ce message est compréhensible, sinon, je peux replier en anglais.) --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I’m guessing that you are silent either because my French was incomprehensible or you simply know no source for this. I was fairly certain that Aromanian sported a case system, which is why I’m dissatisfied with the current layout. --Romanophile (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I understood. It does have a case system, but I don't know how to actually make templates for something like that, so I just add the basics like gender and plurals for now. I guess someone else could work on a template. It would just be confusing given all the variants and lack of standardization for the language. Also, I'm still looking for a good resource on that. There's not much out there. Honestly, I'm just gathering stuff based on a variety of sources and compiling it into this dictionary in a somewhat standardized form to be more easily accessible, but there are still a lot of gaps and holes in accessible and reliable online information on the language as a whole. I'm mostly working on just the main vocabulary/lexicon for the time being. I'll keep looking for now and let you know if I find anything worthwhile! Word dewd544 (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

In this edit you inserted a "See also": heading, 1., after the Anagrams heading and, 2., over semantic material not better located under another heading. Both of those are not correct. Anagrams appear below all semantic content and References and External links. And "Synonyms" (before translations, at level 4) is a more appropriate heading for jealous. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was a mistake; I accidentally put it below Anagrams when I didn't mean to. Also, I thought it would have fit better under Synonyms myself but since I didn't see it already there, I figured there was a reason for that and it may have been different enough in meaning to go somewhere else, but I fully agree with you. Thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Word dewd, do you know any good online resource for Aromanian available online? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've just been using a variety of sources, though orthography and spelling isn't standardized across them unfortunately. In addition to the ones I mentioned in the question under number 5 on my page, there's http://www.aromanii.ro/aromanii/dictionar.php. Also http://www.scribd.com/doc/24978294/Dictionar-Roman-Aroman and http://aurelmunteanu.wordpress.com/dictionare/dictionar-roman-aroman/. Some info here too http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aromanian.htm, or on Wikipedia maybe. But there doesn't really seem to be any one main authoritative resource for it. And for some of them, some basic knowledge of Romanian can be useful. Word dewd544 (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. You might be interested in this Megleno-Romanian dictionary. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pourquoi les verbes lemmatiques sont‐ils en première personne ? --Æ&Œ (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Parce-que il n'existe pas un infinitif dans l'aroumain; donc, par défaut la première personne est utilisée. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

As an update to the original question, I found another quite useful Aromanian dictionary which actually uses the most common orthography and is based on the most common dialect http://dixionline.net/index.php (one reason why I've been changing some entries; earlier I'd been basing it on a combination of Romanian sources, which didn't use the most common dialect, orthography, and word varieties, and my direct exposure to Aromanian through family, which turned out to be a dialect that was not the most common overall and was likely influenced in some ways by Romanian, since the speakers had lived there for a long time. Basically, some of my experience with it had been filtered through Romanian sources and interpretations since direct sources are not often easy to find). Word dewd544 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I believe we had a vote a few years ago where it was decided not to ever use "<" in etymologies again- all of them were removed via bot and AWB quite some time ago. Secondly, I'm pretty skeptical about there being a separate "Baltic" branch of Balto-Slavic, since Old Prussian is so different from both the living Baltic languages and Slavic that it seems wrong to lump it in with either group. I think the main reasons for the concept still lingering in the mainstream are politics and institutional inertia. At any rate, this is the only remaining member of the deleted Category:Lithuanian terms derived from Proto-Baltic, which I really don't want to undelete. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please use {{term}} or {{m}} (as you prefer), like here? I also noticed you've been adding etymologies to Latin 3rd declension words but with the accusative following without any template. Could you use the templates there too, like say {{m|la||ratiōnem}} or {{m|la|ratiōnem}}? —CodeCat 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit on stat to the see also section. I honestly don't know how I missed that. I appreciate it! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just created a list template for the days of the week in Friulian ({{list:days of the week/fur}}). Could you add the plural form and gender for each of them? Besides, where do you get your Friulian words from? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm getting them mostly from this dictionary (which actually doesn't use the standard orthography but a different one, called the Nazzi-Fagin type from the authors), but using the standard style when adding the (primary) entries. http://www.sangiorgioinsieme.it/Friulan-English.pdf and also this dictionary which uses the normal style http://stel.ub.edu/labfon/amper/cv/publicacions/Vocabolari_Furlan_1_2010.pdf, among a few other sources. I learned some of the words from a great-grandmother of mine from the region who spoke it as well. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can't get into the Sangiorgioinsieme website. What could I do about it? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not sure, here's another link to them http://www.sangiorgioinsieme.it/Diz-friulan-english%20.htm, and here's a version on scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/82109820/Friulan-English Word dewd544 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think we ought to create a conjugation table template for Friulian verbs; so first off, we need someone who is an expert in making templates like that. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here's {{fur-conjug}} to possibly get things started. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that definitely should be useful. Only thing is, I don't really know anything about actually creating templates. Guess we should try to find someone who does. I've been meaning to learn it anyway at some point, so maybe I'll look into it some more. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pick me! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV Were you the one who created the Portuguese and Italian conjugation templates? If so for the latter, you're welcome. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Neither. I am working on a new template for Portuguese conjugations though. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) could help out? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Let me know what you come up with then or if you need anything. I admit it can get to be a bit of a hassle manually doing the conjugations each time. Word dewd544 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Send me a list of the suffixes of the primary conjugation paradigms, and what you want the table to look like. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV You could have a look at the Friulian verb curâ for an example if you want. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

What's taking Ungoliant so long to make that conjugation template? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is this supposed to be? Is it early Modern German? Old High German? Old Low German? Just any old German? Right now, the entries with this are all categorizing it as Modern German, which doesn't look right- especially since it seems like it should be a noun, but it isn't capitalized. It doesn't help, either, that that Duden Online doesn't recognize it. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure, I wasn't aware that was even attested either. It likely entered Italian in the early Middle Ages, so perhaps something like a very early form of Old High German may make sense, but you'd have to find a source for that. Could have been from as far back as a common continental Germanic either as far as I know, through Medieval Latin. 'theod' differs enough from the OHG descendants listed, 'diota'/'diot', anyway, and it's certainly wrong to list it as descending from modern German, though I'm not sure how to really deal with it in this case. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

In general, it's a bad idea to be more specific than your knowledge warrants. In this case, I would just use the "gem" family code:

From Medieval Latin theodiscus, from some Germanic language, ultimately from Proto-Germanic *þiudiskaz (“of the people, popular, vernacular”), from *þeudō (“people”) (from Proto-Indo-European *tewtéh₂) + *-iskaz (“-ish, -ic, -al”) (from Proto-Indo-European *-iskos (suffix)). Compare Old English þēodisc, Old High German diutisc, German Deutsch, Gothic 𐌸𐌹𐌿𐌳𐌹𐍃𐌺𐍉 (þiudiskō).

Or something along those lines. Also, don't forget todesc and todesco, which have the same problem. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense actually. Forgot about the simple 'gem' family code; that works when it's otherwise ambiguous I guess.Word dewd544 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. What is your source on this? --Vahag (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to use the correct spelling in translations. DTLHS (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The thing is, which one is the correct spelling? I've seen both used, and using the 'rm' language code makes it Romansch on here, but I've noticed in Wikipedia and many other places, Romansh is used more. I originally used Romansch on here all the time until I realized the other seemed more common, at least in English language documents. Word dewd544 (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

You may want to comment here. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 07:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Qu’est‐ce que cela signifie en roumain ? Est‐ce synonyme de sută ? --Romanophile (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, it only refers to a subdivision of foreign money, like the American, Canadian, Australian cent, etc. It was borrowed from English and French, I believe. Another meaning has a specialized sense in referring to musical intervals, referring to a hundredth of a semitone. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Connais tu des synonymes à sută? --Romanophile (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid there are not any. That's the only word for hundred (interestingly, the only number of non-Latin origin in Romanian). If you're referring specifically to the banknote for a hundred lei as 'sută', you can use 'sutar' as a familiar synonym. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added the Istro-Romanian word nås to the Istro-Romanian Swadesh list. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. You added the descendant dinken for Low German. I'd like to have your source for it and would like you to tell me for which dialects it applies, if you can provide that. (I'm not doubting your entry, I just ask out of personal interest.) Korn (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe I obtained that from this site http://lowlands-l.net/grammar/strong_verbs.htm, listed as an alternative to denken. It should be found in the German dialects of Low German/Low Saxon (Plattdüütsch/Nedderdüütsch). I think I also found dinken mentioned or referenced in a few old books from a century ago after searching online. But we can remove it if it doesn't have enough other attestation. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Applying a strict attestation requirement to Low German is probably counterproductive to this project. Most dialects only have oral traditions. As said, I only ask out of personal interest, since there are one or two sound shifts from /ɛ/ > /ɪ/ whose geographical extent I cannot pin down. Korn (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I’ve never seen this Latin word before. Is it a hypothetical variation? --Romanophile (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that was a typo when editing it. Fixed. Word dewd544 (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, what's your source for this etymology? --ContraVentum (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please see this. Also, the Picture was specifically a sheep Liver, so I have recaptioned the image. Abhinav paulite (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi WD, could you please be more careful in the future when adding etymologies, as you've made a few mistakes with Template:etyl, getting the language codes incorrect, which means we've had to clear up a lot of entries with bad etymology, for example here. --A230rjfowe (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Qu’est‐ce que l’étymologie de ce pronom ? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 05:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probablement le Latin mi. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Est‐ce l’î préfixal ? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 01:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Je crois que oui.

Hi there! I've seen you working on French etymologies. Therefore: do you know anything about the etymology of this particular word? The Trésor Informatisé says that it's first attested in the 16th century, seemingly in northern France. The etymology given derives it from a Norman/Picard word meaning “little goat” (standard French chevrette) because, apparently, the animal jumps like a goat. According to French wiktionary, the Norman form for “little goat” is actually kevrette, and crevette is a metathesis thereof. — Now, in itself one may consider all of this plausible or not, but the contemporary (16th century) form of Dutch kreeft (“lobster”) is Middle Dutch / early modern Dutch crevet. There's relatively little doubt in my mind that this is the actual origin of the word. But I don't work on French and I don't read sources, so... I'd like to take yours as an expert's opinion :) Thanks in advance.Kolmiel (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS: If you should check, it was also myself who asked to verify the etymology on the French talk page, but that has come to naught. Kolmiel (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm thinking it's more likely the Dutch (should go first), but both can be listed as possible etymologies in this situation. I don't have further information about this particular word, unfortunately. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Given that you're an experienced editor, I didn't think I'd have to tell you this, but... can you please use linking templates like {{m}} to link to terms in etymologies, rather than writing them in italic? —CodeCat 21:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Est‐ce numéral & un article indéfini ? Saludos, --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 12:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oui. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

De quelle langue se dérive le mot Tuone ? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 08:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tuone=Antonio/Antoine/Tony/Anthony, it's ultimately derived from Latin Antonius I suppose.Word dewd544 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Était‐ce un mot dalmate ? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

[[4]]

Confirmed? --kc_kennylau (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It just seems to be a variation of the word. I found it in a poem from the early 19th century. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You think they weren’t inherited by modern Portuguese? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It just seems a little uncertain that they were directly inherited, so I felt it was safer to use the {{|der}} template for now. But then again, that depends how you define borrowings. It's a name that was clearly taken from the Bible or other Christian texts, probably in Medieval times. Does that count as a borrowing or a natural evolution of a name? It gets tricky with names. Were such names often used in the Latin-speaking world, or were they adapted later from the Bible by Christians? Plus some of the sound changes you would expect from an "inherited" Latin word are not there; they seem too unaltered or close to the original form. I should correct that and say they were certainly inherited from Old Portuguese, but beyond that, it's unsure exactly. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was talking about Old Portuguese to [modern] Portuguese step only! I don’t have a problem with the change of the Latin to Portuguese step to der. You were right to correct those, as it’s probably the safe choice. As for the lack of expected sound changes, a lot of Christianity-related words were loaned from Greek after the important Vulgar Latin sound changes had already taken place. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yeah sorry, I realized what you meant as I was typing that. It makes sense that some of these were loaned from Greek. Some sources may say they were taken straight from Greek, while others put a (Medieval or Ecclesiastical) Latin intermediate, without really explaining why. It be some were re-"Latinized" or "Hellenized" later to make them look closer to the original source name? I do wonder about some of the really common names like João. Word dewd544 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Que signifie ce mot istriote ? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Je ne suis pas certain. Probablement, il a la même signification que l'italien largo- large. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in learning about the Dalmatian language, what resources are you using to add these words? I can find very little online, there are a few websites that seem to have disappeared, and Matteo Bartoli's 2-volume study Il Dalmatico appears to be out of print. This summer I may see if it's possible to check out the copy at University of Toronto (I live in southern Ontario). I'd also be interested to know where you're finding Istriot vocabulary. Wannabe rockstar (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I didn't see this until now. The majority of words I got for it were from here http://dalmatianlanguage.yolasite.com/dictionary.php, and I also occasionally used this digitally archived old source https://archive.org/stream/schriftenderbalk5190kais/schriftenderbalk5190kais_djvu.txt, but it's harder to use, as it takes a bit of digging around. Some of the words have incorrect letters due to errors when it was compiled or scanned, so you have to try to make out what they're actually supposed to be, and the spelling isn't always consistent throughout the text. You can also use the Italian translations that they provide to help. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

re: this.

Do me a favor and please make sure to slap yourself for me. Dear me, another module error from a hasty, unexamined multi-item edit- what a surprise. Harrumph!! _{As you were...} Chuck Entz (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, there's just so many thousands of words to go through again now that we decided to make the distinction between inherited and otherwise. I'm trying to save time by knocking out entire pages at once, but I must have accidentally moved too fast and not double-checked the language code there. I wish there was a better way to do these than just manually, but there isn't. At least with wikis, things can always be corrected. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: who pissed in your cheerios? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can understand how it can get a little annoying having to clean up errors. I'll try to be more careful and use the preview function more often. In my defense, I do usually catch a lot of my mistakes right after doing them, and correct them. For big pages though, I sometimes miss it since I'm in a rush

If you have your preferences set to see hidden categories, Category:Pages with module errors will show up at the bottom of the page. If you think about it, most of what you're doing is about categorization, so you should always check the bottom of the page anyway. That will also spot the use of a wrong, but valid code, or parameters in the wrong order. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apparently you just did... Seriously, though, there were several clues above that I wasn't serious- how often have you seen me use "Harrumph" in a comment? Chuck Entz (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: my sarcasm detector was in the repair shop because a Haketia speaker accidentally broke it after I begged her to quit using Comic Sans. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word dewd. Please try to slap {{attention|la}} or {{rfinfl|la|noun}} onto a Latin entry if you're going to create it without any inflectional information. If you don't, it's hard to find such entries, and they tend to fall between the cracks without getting the basic attention that all Latin entries should have. Thanks! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's good to know. Thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Concerning this diff: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=fronde&curid=1195234&diff=38930842&oldid=37836522

It's a relatively minor thing, but you added this in the text:

*''flunda''

I believe this would be better, if it's ok for you:

{{m|la||*flunda}}

My reasons are:

• When you add FL text and don't specify the language (Latin in this case), it gets labelled as English along with the rest of the text, and I'm told this would make screen readers read it wrong.
• When you format a mentioned term ({{m}} = mention) as "hardcoded" italic text instead of using {{m}}, it's the same as assuming everyone wants to see italic terms, when in fact they can use CSS to change how exactly they want to see the terms. The italic style was voted in 2007 and could conceivably change in the future. (not that I want it to change, it looks good IMO) If it changes and all entries use CSS, we'll only have to edit the CSS. If the entries are using "hardcoded" formatting, we'll have to change the formatting in all entries.
• I believe the asterisk is part of the term, too, for CSS formatting purposes. My User:Daniel Carrero/vector.css formats some terms as large text with red background so I can easily find them. When the asterisk is not inside the template, the asterisk looks tiny by comparison.

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll keep that in mind from now on. I do sometimes use that method, but I've been using the two more or less interchangeably and do the "shorter" method when I'm in a rush. But if there is a better reason to do it the way you showed, then I'll do it like that from now on. Thanks. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word dewd544! Just noticed that recent changes to etymolgy sections of Romanian entries (e.g. viezure, barză, mazăre) have caused grammatical errors. Just wanted to give you the heads-up. Keep up the good work! --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. You should use the |notext=1 parameter in such cases. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay then. I might've overlooked that and caused unwanted errors when editing. I only meant to change the part that categorized the etymology, as there is no actual solid evidence of a direct link between Romanian and Dacian, at least linguistically, and it wouldn't be right to categorize it definitively like that simply based on vague or simplistic assumptions of occupying the same geographic space (and we know next to nothing of the latter language). It may sound strange coming from a Romanian, but after substantial and in-depth research, I'm leaning more toward an Albanian origin for many of the supposed "substratum" words, as the evidence is more compelling. That's what the edits were for. Anyway, that was just a slight mistake on my part; I normally add the notext when needed. Fixed now. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just regenerated this, if you're interested in helping. DTLHS (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for informing about that. I'll try to address some of the ones on there that may have been accidents on my part or are relevant to the types of words I'm working on. Word dewd544 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm trying to add etymologies to Catalan entries from Diccionari.cat (except when it's a dubious surface analysis...), and I'm wondering when a term is considered inherited or borrowed. Is there a certain time period that I can use for reference? They often have the date of first use. Ultimateria (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, unfortunately I'm not sure there's a sure-fire way to make that distinction based on dating alone, although yes, earlier words are more likely to be inherited. Some of the earliest semi-learned or borrowed terms in Romance languages may have starting entering the languages as far back as the 13th century or so; however, the majority happened later, around the 15th and 16th centuries. Some of these ended up undergoing some changes characteristic to the languages over time, especially the early ones, or were adapted to their features. What's the earliest dates you've found on there? For example, Dante introduced a fair amount of what were then neologisms in his writings, and this played a role in the later formation of literary Italian. Many entries on that language's dictionaries are dated to the 13th and 14th centuries, but they make no distinction between borrowing or inheritance. I recall Spanish and French etymological dictionaries listing even a few 12th and 13th century words as borrowings.

I agree some of the entries on that Diccionari site have dubious surface analyses. I'm still looking for a better source, but haven't had much luck yet. We can really only rely on what we know of linguistic rules of the phonetic transition from (Vulgar) Latin to Catalan, and some words can still be uncertain even then. I'm not sure if anyone's ever attempted categorizing every Romance word according to inheritance or not; it's a pretty big task. I prefer starting with what we know as inherited from some lists of a few thousand words given in some linguistic papers, and then dealing with the rest later. Also, there are words disputed by linguists too. And unfortunately, various users keep adding borrowed or dubious words as inherited, causing me to do extra work. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That was my main purpose in asking; to not make more work for you, because countless words will go without etymology for years if you're not the one to do it (no pressure though...haha). Off the top of my head I think early entries tend to be 12th-14th with a lot in the 15th-16th. If I recall correctly a handful have claimed 11th. But in cases of doubt, I guess I'll leave it formatted the old way, unless you have any objections. Ultimateria (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

That works for me. And no, I didn't mean that you were creating any extra work for me. Eventually it all should be done, ideally. But yes, most entries probably wouldn't even have been edited for a long time... I just kind of wanted to get things started and was hoping other users may eventually help out and fill in the blanks, as the wiki project intended.

By the way, another caveat I thought about for this issue was that some words, even if they appear for the first time in written texts only as late as the 14th or 15th centuries, may still be inherited, but just more obscure or perhaps used more in the spoken language as opposed to proper, written language. Which makes sense. So dating alone may not be the most elucidating characteristic. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

... for your work on French doublets. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I'm gradually working on doublets for all six major Romance languages. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

[5]. I'd really like to read it. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Would you know why second conjugation verbs show two different phonetic reflexes: plaisir, gésir, loisir, Old French nuisir (from nocēre), but valoir, avoir, etc.? --Clitar Hero (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure, actually; I was wondering about that myself. I remember reading an academic paper on a somewhat similar issue for Ibero-Romance a while back, where it said that some of the -ir forms were due to later, learned alterations of older forms, but this is different. Plaisir is also interesting in that there is another form, plaire that either came from a variant Vulgar Latin *placĕre, or more likely was formed from plaît or perhaps remodeled after faire. Anyway, I can try to look up more about it sometime or ask an old professor of mine if they happen to know. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just looking at your examples, I would hazard a guess that low/back vs. high/front consonants and vowels in the stem might be involved, but that's obviously not enough data to draw any real conclusions from. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've found this link, and this one ("after stem-final ć, -ēre yielded -ir, a phonological process which gave the impression of involving a switch to a different conjugation class"). --Clitar Hero (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was going to say, those first three French words' Latin sources all have -c- before -ēre. This process seems to be unique to words like that. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Funnily, if this document (page 11) can be trusted (it refers to Pierre Fouché, Le verbe français : étude morphologique, Paris, 1967, but I unfortunately don't have access to it right now), all the words concerned by this rule have analogical forms: gesir, loisir, luisir, nuisir, plaisir, taisir vs. gire, loire, luire, nuire, plaire, taire. --Barytonesis (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi WD. Please be careful with etymologies. Many times I've had to correct them myself - changing Spanish to Portuguese, or Spanish to Latin. Thanks. -WF

Olá.

According to DLE the two senses of Castilian grillo have different etymologies. Also according to this dictionary, grelo (hoja tierna y comestible de los tallos del nabo) comes from a Galician word meaning grillo in the sense of “sprout”.

The dictionaries of Galician suggest that grelo comes from germinello. While DLE suggests that grillo in the sense of “sprout” comes from *gallellus. Why then did you write that grelo is from grillo in the sense of “cricket” (of Greek origin)? Are you certain that is what you meant?

--Lukenji (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

No the second part, that included grillo, must have been accidental. Should just be grelo. In the RAE, they mention Galician grelo being the equivalent of a secondary sense of Spanish grillo. Feel free to edit as you wish. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Olá. Where did you find these etymologies? — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 23:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Here, here Word dewd544 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word Dewd. I’d like to know why you added that compreender is a semi-learned form. Is it because of the lack of -h-? — Ungoliant ^(falai) 16:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That was part of the reason, yes, but... well I guess you might as well call it a borrowing. It looks like it's basically an adaptation to the Portuguese way of handling those kinds of Latin words. But it seems like it's treated as basically being the same word as the variants comprehender (which made no effort to adapt to Portuguese and is now obsolete), and comprender (which seems like the natural form but is now obsolete), as opposed to a real doublet. The entries treat them as different spellings as opposed to different forms, so I'm not quite sure how to handle this. It could just be a different spelling of comprehender. Also, there seems to be some ambiguity about semi-learned terms, or "semi-cultismos" as they're referred to in many of the Romance language dictionaries. I guess we should actual restrict semi-learned forms to those words that were once borrowings long ago but over time due to usage underwent some but not all of the evolutions or sound changes characteristic of the language... as opposed to words that were intentionally taken by scholars from Latin and from the start adapted partly to what they thought they would sound like in the vernacular tongue, to make them fit into the language more naturally and not look blatantly erudite? I don't have much background info on the history of this particular word within Portuguese, so I can only base it mostly on the forms of the words.

Another reason I hesitated it to call it a complete borrowing was that the word empreender, which has the two e's, is listed as driving from Vulgar Latin on here, which would mean at least that word is not a borrowing, and I don't see a form emprender. However, it seems such a form existed in older Portuguese from some 18th and 19th century dictionaries (along with emprehender) and has since been replaced by its modern form for some reason... Word dewd544 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, it is certainly not unreasonable to call words semi-learned borrowings on the basis that they suffer certain adaptations to fit into the language more naturally; but if we applied this principle consistently, we would have to describe the vast majority of Latin loanwords in Portuguese as semi-learned, since very few suffer no adaptations at all (status, gens, per se, etc.). However, in this case the lack of -h- is merely orthographic and does not reflect any distinct Latin-to-Portuguese adaptation process. Even when the word was spelt comprehender (and vehiculo, aprehender, etc.), it was not pronounced with an extra consonant.

Since we are on the topic of what we want to label semi-learned borrowing, I can think of the following possibilities:

• loanwords that undergo non-trivial adaptations; (by trivial I mean things like English ablatio retinae being pronounced with [ɹ] rather than [r] and Portuguese status being pronounced with [ʃ] in dialects that don’t allow coda [s])
• loanwords that undergo atypical adaptations (eleição)
• inherited words, or those borrowed long ago, that undergo changes by influence of the etymon (imperador, sustância, família)
• whatever the hell explains espádua
• loanwords that suffer sporadic sound shift after being loaned (ato and auto as opposed to acto)
• words that are loaned but never used in contexts where “cultismos” would be used (salamaleque, domisteco)

I, too, have never seen any definitive definition of “semicultismo” that we could use. I honestly have no idea about what we should do.

Side note: things get more complicated once we take comprender into account. Given that even today compreender is often pronounced with three syllables rather than four and a hiatus, it is plausible that compreender is a continuation of comprender (which is attested in Old Portuguese) whose spelling and, partially, pronunciation were influenced by the etymon, as happened with família. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with pretty much everything you've mentioned. I do think compreender and comprehender are just attempts to make the naturally evolved/inherited comprender closer to the Latin, as was done with many other words in Portuguese. They're not treated as different words. It's the same with empreender, along with the obsolete emprehender and emprender, the latter which was the naturally inherited form. The forms with the double e seem to have been introduced later and favored in orthography as time went on, to reflect the Latin more. On the other hand, in the case of aprender, there seems to be a solid distinction made with apreender, which can actually be seen as a legitimate doublet. Portuguese in particular is often messy in regards to semi-learned and doublet terms since it seems to sort of merge loanwords and inherited terms, or makes an effort to mask certain borrowings well, while at the same time modifying other inherited words to make them more Latin-like, like replacing initial -e- with -i-. Also, unlike with Spanish, Romanian, and French, I can't find a very in-depth etymological dictionary on it (or Italian for that matter). The ones I've found simply list the words origins regardless of whether they were borrowed or not.

As far as how to treat semi-learned/cultismos overall, I'm not sure. I wonder if this warrants a broader discussion in the Community Portal? I think I'm one of the few people who actually works on this thing here. I do like that we distinguish borrowings from inheritances because eventually we'll have a list of the core inherited lexicon of each Romance language (without all the clutter of thousands of loanwords), which can be quite useful for those studying comparative linguistics, but the policy did lead to some tricky situations, I'll admit. I don't think that a new category should be made for these kinds of words, though, since they fall into so many different types, as you've mentioned in your list above. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another message; sorry for the spam. I often wonder as well where to look for Italian. Do you have access to 1) Battisti Carlo, Alessio Giovanni, Dizionario etimologico italiano and 2) Manlio Cortelazzo, Paolo Zolli, Dizionario etimologico della lingua italiana? If yes, what do you think of it? There's also the Tesoro della Lingua Italiana delle Origini. --Barytonesis (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the TLIO before; it's actually a pretty good source, as it often lists the precise year of first attestation, and sometimes includes further linguistic notes. Although it too does not note if a term was borrowed or inherited. I don't have access to those other two but they seem like they could be interesting resources. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Could you spell out the steps that led from Latin certitudo, certitudinem to Spanish certidumbre? Are there other instances of this suffix in Spanish? --85.201.168.136 09:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Latin '-tudine' changed into VL. '-tumine' > '-tumne' > Sp. '-tumbre' > '-dumbre'. Similar to what happened with hominem > hombre and *nominem > nombre, etc. There are a few other instances, such as muchedumbre, servidumbre, dulcedumbre, mansedumbre, soledumbre which correspond to Latin terms, as well as pesadumbre, probably formed internally, but it doesn't seem to be a productive suffix anymore. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've completed the mansedumbre entry. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:30A5:2263:3866:A710 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Spanish costumbre, another one ;) --Barytonesis (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't suppress requests for a term without a very good reason. I have undone some of the cases where you did this in Catalan etymologies, please do the rest yourself. —Rua (mew) 16:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

K. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Do you know if there are other descendants to Latin pistrīnum than French pétrin? He's feeling a little lonely... --Barytonesis (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Portuguese seems to have a pistrina, meaning bakery, from the plural; may be a borrowing. Same with Italian pistrino. Catalan has a popular or colloquial term pistrincs, meaning money, which is an alteration of earlier pasta, pastim, also having variant forms pastrim, pastrén, pastreny, pastriny, etc. It came mainly from Latin pasta, but reveals influence by Latin pistrinum. Word dewd544 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm coming to you because you seem to have added etymology sections for a lot of those. If you go back to them someday, might I ask you not to analyse them as you've done here or here? I realise it's visually convenient to write that impulsio comes from impulsus + -io, but it's just wrong, it's really impello + -tio. I'm saying this because I've just finished cleaning up Category:Latin words suffixed with -io (abstract noun), and you can now see true instances of the suffix -io. Thanks! --Barytonesis (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey dewd, I noticed you marked all your edits to *wadanio as minor. I think that might be a misuse of the minor edit marker. --Victar (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Right, sorry. It's mostly from a habit I have of doing that since I do a lot of edits and thought it would just be easier to mark most as minor unless it's a major change or new entry, but I guess the things you mentioned may warrant a regular edit. Word dewd544 (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Word. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

You added two Romanian sections to this page. DTLHS (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's been corrected. Word dewd544 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re your revision of 3 October 2017‎ to Latin seco. Is English sect really from seco, or is it from Latin sequor? (As per http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/secte) --Caoimhin (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure you've got the right person? I don't think I edited the sect page before. But anyway, I'm inclined to think French secte derives from sequi/sequor. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. It was the seco page you edited on 3 October 2017, adding English sect as a descendant of the Latin. So I guess that was a mistake and should be removed?
https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=seco&diff=47629242&oldid=47588706
--Caoimhin (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

for loads of etymology on Spanish entries. Yeah, you make some mistakes with format sometimes, but that stuff eventually gets picked up and corrected. Keep it up, WD. --XY3999 (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The mistakes are from trying to address lots of words at the same time I guess; I'll try to be a bit more careful. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No worries - I make more mistakes than you, anywya. --XY3999 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Word dewd544, there seems to be a flaw in ocărî: shouldn't it read "third-person singular present ocărăște, past participle ocărât"? Sorry, I'm starting on Romanian, so I'm very cautious yet. Best regards, --Griot (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was just at typo. Fixed now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Word dewd544 (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just heard you're taking a break – is it only from etymologies or Wiktionary entirely? You're contributions – for me, especially Romanian, Aromanian etc. – are going to be missed and I really hope you come back. I'll do my best to keep an eye on the kind of changes you mention in your Beer Parlour post. Take care and make sure to enjoy the summer! --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've asked recently here about an explanation for the etymology of cuc#Catalan, and it seems you added that etymology here. Can you please explain what you meant? Thx --93.136.121.180 16:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added the source now, the Catalan etymological dictionary. I'm not sure why they came to that conclusion, but that usually means a word that's created to express some kind of idea, often through onomatopoeia, or based on something in its nature. How 'cuc' is expressive of a worm, I'm not really sure, as it doesn't really make that sound or anything. This isn't the best case to illustrate it, but it happens in most languages. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I also thought of onomatopeia and was equally confused. I wish we could know what the author meant. 93.136.20.32 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! In my wanderings around here adding Spanish etymologies, I've noticed you've added some nice ones that I intended to add. Seeing that you're quite active in the realm of Romance linguistics around here, I wanted to invite you to a Discord group, something I think you and I will find beneficial as Wiktionary editors of Romance language entries (although I mostly just do Spanish and Old Spanish). This is an invite link. You could also consider joining the English Wiktionary discord (invite link.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 05:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I might check it out soon! Word dewd544 (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I noticed this Dalmatian word today that is absent from Bartoli's lexicon, drecno. What is its source? It'd be great to include it (and I'd love to know of other sources of Dalmatian words).--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 21:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nevermind, saw it in the REW! (EDIT: Incidentally, the REW also reports a French descendant "rouane" that I can't find in any other dictionary... Hrmrm.)--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 22:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I've added a template for Aromanian word but it does not seem to be funtioning : https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Template:R:DIXI

It is similar to R:DEX (Romanian). Did I mess up? Can you fix it or is this template obsolete and has to be deleted?

Thanks in advance. Bolt Escargot (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

While I'd like to help, I'm not really great with the code and template creation aspect of Wiktionary, so I may not be the best one to ask about this unfortunately. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really great with the code and template creation aspect of Wiktionary, so I may not be the best one to ask about this unfortunately

Ok. It is understandable. No harsh feelings. But, whom to ask? I'll try Robbie SWE.@Worddewd544

By the way, thank you for the amazing contributions you've made so far, especially the ones concerning Aromanian (I am a native speaker of the language). It's thanks to you that I created an account and started contributing myself. I have made many anonymous edits. I hope I did not cause any harm.

Now last but not least, I apologiz for not seeing the 10-days old message you posted. I thought you forgot to answer. Bolt Escargot (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. Glad I could help out. I learned some basic Aromanian from my grandfather and took interest in the language, and wanted to document some of the main vocabulary for this endangered and often forgotten language on a site like this, so others could pick up and expand on it in the future. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see that you too consider(ed?) it important to distinguish Romance terms borrowed from Latin, or from other Romance languages, from inherited ones. Wiktionary is general has done an abysmal job of it, as people are not aware of the criteria for distinguishing the two. Do you think it would be helpful if I typed up a rough guide to doing so- would people actually read it and think about it before before adding {{inh}} tags?

Best, Nicodene (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I've been slowly trying to fix a lot of that over the years manually. There are lots of problems and we got a long way to go. Sure, a guide could help people maybe. The thing is, I feel like you need to be someone who is already fairly well-versed in etymology, phonology, and historical linguistics to know when something is inherited or not; the average "layperson" shouldn't be casually editing and calling things inherited or not just based on their own perception or guess, without any underlying understanding. This doesn't apply only to Romance, but also many other languages, including modern Greek. I think there are literally hundreds if not more terms for that language that should not be listed as inherited but are, probably because people just assume "well Greek is descended from Ancient Greek, therefore this term must be inherited", which is simplistic and doesn't take into account the nuanced history of the language and its evolution. Or possibly they don't even know how to distinguish the two; I've seen etymologies where the actual text says it is a "learned" term and it still has the 'inh' tag, so clearly the person who did that didn't know what that meant... My main focus for several years was getting the main inherited core lexicon of Romance languages taken care of, starting with Romanian, which I think has the least (and that I believe is mostly done by now). Italian, French, Spanish, etc probably still have a few hundred more terms left, but I haven't checked in a while. What is annoying is when people who don't know what they're doing later go back and edit these, and every now and then when I check on the inherited category lists, I notice a glaringly obvious borrowed word wrongly in the list and have to remove it... So if you think you can type up a guide, by all means, please. Let me know if you need help. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

One potentially problematic thing to consider is that some cases are not clear-cut, and even authoritative dictionaries may not have a definitive answer on their inherited vs. borrowed status (for example something could follow the expected sound shifts and still be borrowed or semi-learned, depending on the date of attestation and other factors, and there are a few exceptions to the rules at times). There still is admittedly some occasional guesswork in the absence of enough information. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

So I've written up Appendix:French terms inherited from Latin and Appendix:Italian terms inherited from Latin. Feel free to mention or edit in anything that you deem relevant. (I imagine you'll find everything that's already there obvious.) Now the question is: how does one get random editors to read something like this before using {{inh}} or {{bor}} tags on Romance entries? Nicodene (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Looks great, thank you for that! Pretty comprehensive from what I can tell so far. The Italian guide is particularly useful, since it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. Maybe adding something for the Latin -cl(u)- consonant cluster producing Italian -chi(o)- can be added (This can apply to Latin words naturally having -cl- or also Vulgar Latin contracted forms of -(u)culus- I guess the borrowed doublets would have -colo in that case). And maybe something for for -l- after other consonants, like p (leading to pi) and g (leading to ghi). Indeed, the real problem is getting people to actually read these guides, or if they do, getting them to care enough to pay attention and follow it. That may be outside our control. It's not like we can force users to read that before being able to add certain tags. I do like that you made a distinction between words that were initially inherited and then later modified to be closer to the Latin etymon and actual semi-learned borrowings, which were adapted to the language, either through use and the passage of time, or intentionally to fit the sound changes of the language better. But I'm not sure what the best way is to handle that and indicate these differences tag-wise. I think I once made a thread about it and the result was sort of inconclusive. Also, I wish I could read German as that dictionary seems very useful in confirming things. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of Latin -cŭlum/-a > Italian -colo/-a, I'm not sure that all words with a lack of syncope are borrowings. Most certainly are, though, so I'll mention that.

The stronger counterexamples include piccolo, moccolo, mescolare, scapolare, bazzecola, and zoccolo; etymologically *(?), *mucculum, *misculāre, *excapulāre, *(?), and soccolus. It would be difficult to explain them all as later coinages, since Italian lacks precise counterparts without -ola/olo. (One has an approximate counterpart in Old Italian mescere, but were a new verb created from the latter, it would probably have been *mesciolare not mescolare.) They are unlikely to be Latinisms due to sound changes in the last five, the absence of the first five from literary Latin, and the mundaneness of all six.

Weaker counterexamples include spigolo, forcola, bazzecola, carrucola, roncola, and fragola- all explainable by analogy with, or re-formation from, a noun without the ending. (Fraga 'strawberry' did exist in Old Italian.) Fiaccola appears to have resulted from facula > */fakkja/ > */fjakka/ > fiacc-ola; if so, syncope did take place there. Nicodene (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are right; I should've mentioned that there are definitely exceptions to that, and sometimes -(c/g)ulus is inherited (indeed in some cases you see Romanian preserving it also, like in lingură, grangur, and several other examples I can't think of at the top of my head that end with -ur/-ură). To use the facula example you mentioned, that produced flacără in Romanian, which it seems took it a step or two further from the expected form *facură > *flacură (but compare also fachie, which is a simple doublet that seems to come from the syncopated form facla). Another Italian word that has an unusual development is coniglio. Do you want to check in the German dictionary if you can verify the inherited or borrowed status of that? You would think it would be *conecchio or something like that, so I wonder if there is some other influence there from northern Italian or Occitan. Word dewd544 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The FEW says that it is 'perhaps from French [connil]', but I think Occitan conilh is also quite plausible. For comparison, below is an assortment of Italian words with similar endings. All of their etymologies are taken from Treccani, with my own comments in brackets:

• ventriglio < Occitan ventrelh < Latin ventrĭculus (Old Fr. ventroil is incompatible)
• caviglia < Occitan cavilla < *clavīcla < Latin clavĭcula (French cheville is incompatible)
• ciniglia < French chenille < Latin canīcula (Occitan canilha is incompatible)
• griglia < French grille < Latin *cratĭcula (Occitan grasilha is incompatible)
• periglio < Occitan perilh < Latin perīculum (French péril is plausible)
• artiglio < Occitan artelh < Latin artĭculus (Old French arteil is plausible)
• vermiglio < Occitan vermelh < Latin vermĭculus (French vermeil is plausible)

So we have three more words that could derive either from Occitan or French.

Note how Occitan -elh (or French -eil) is adapted to Italian -iglio, a native ending of unrelated origin:

• fondiglio < Italian fondo + -iglio < Latin fundus + -ilia
• barbiglio < Italian barba + -iglio < Latin barba + -ilia
• fanghiglia < Italian fango + -iglia < Latin barba + -ilia
• graniglia < Italian grano + -iglia < Latin barba + -ilia

-iglia is of course the older version.

During my search, I also encountered numerous borrowings from Spanish which reflect an unrelated Latin diminutive:

• cartiglia < Spanish cartilla < Latin charta + -ĕlla
• pastiglia < Spanish pastilla < Latin pasta + -ĕlla
• mantiglia < Spanish mantilla < Latin mantum, -a + -ĕlla
• maniglia < Spanish manilla < Latin manus + -ĕlla
• bottiglia < Spanish botilla < Latin buttĭcula (?!)
• puntiglio < Spanish puntillo < Latin punctum + -ĕllum
• polviglio < Spanish polvillo < Latin pulvis + -ĕllum

Spanish botilla of course cannot reflect Latin butticula; the latter actually yields botija. Spanish botilla (for which we do not have an entry yet) derives from bota (“wineskin”) + -illa (diminutive ending), and so etymologically Latin buttis + -ĕlla.

But that is still probably not the source of the Italian word. I agree here with the FEW and DCVB. Latin butticula > French bouteille/Occitan botelha → Catalan botella, Spanish botella, Portuguese botelha, Italian bottiglia.

Before I veer even further off-topic, I will stop here. Nicodene (talk) 08:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Got it. For some reason a lot of etymological dictionaries didn't mention much on coniglio or that it is not native, oddly enough, so that's why I wanted to check in with you. It does match the -iglio paradigm from Gallo-Romance. Also, for those borrowings, I wonder what prompted the etymology to specify Occitan or Old French for any given one? It may have been arbitrary, as you can see they could have come from either. Even the case of Old French ventroil - you would expect an earlier, perhaps unattested ventreil which might be compatible. But thank you. Word dewd544 (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Quite right that we would expect an older ventreil, and that does seem to be attested. That makes for a total of five ambiguous cases, including coniglio. I do not see what prompted Treccani to opt so confidently for French or Occitan- it may be best to mention both possibilities in each case.

Edit: Curiously, the source does acknowledge both possibilities for periglio. Nicodene (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

By the way, for Spanish terms, a good etymological dictionary that distinguishes between borrowings and inherited words is the Corominas one, which I've used for several citations. Here is a copy of it: https://desocuparlapieza.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/corominas-joan-breve-diccionario-etimolc3b3gico-de-la-lengua-castellana.pdf

You have to be able to read Spanish, which luckily I can well enough. But if you aren't able to that well, I will point out that for inherited terms, the Latin etymon is written in all caps, while for non-inherited terms, they are written in lowercase type, and preceded by the abbreviation Tom. (for tomado, or borrowed/taken). If we ever plan on making a little write-up/guide for Spanish too, that is worth including. As for Portuguese, I still have unfortunately not found one that makes the distinctions we need, but I'll keep looking. Word dewd544 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I can now read Spanish decently, thanks in part to perusing some dozens of Corominas' entries over the past year. I favour the longer Diccionario crítico etimológico, which is available on Libgen.

I haven't had much luck either in finding a source of comparable quality for Portuguese. Da Cunha's etymological dictionary at least provides dates of first attestation, which can be helpful for identifying Portuguese latinisms. Nicodene (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Nicodene I wonder whether you've had a chance to look at the Houaiss dictionary (2000, or 2001 according to Portuguese Wikipedia), in case it contains etymologies that identify borrowed latinisms as such? I know for a fact it contains etymologies, because of this article by Corriente that aims at correcting some of its Arabic etymologies... This article by Viaro on Portuguese etymological resources also mentions José Machado's Dicionário etimológico da língua portuguesa (1952-1977) as essential along with Da Cunha's. Neither Houaiss nor Machado are libgenable.--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 02:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Houaiss one looks pretty good. Like Da Cunha's, it doesn't explicitly state whether a term is a Latinism, but it does provide a date of attestation. For example I searched for acumulação, a definite Latinism, and it says 1563. While mulher is dated to 972, among the earliest texts. Word dewd544 (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ser be etre shi @Word dewd544

I have a bit of good news, though not for Portuguese. As it turns out, Treccani indicates Italian borrowings from Latin with 'dal lat.' Compare the entry for verecondia (a latinism) with the entry for the inherited doublet vergogna. I have checked several other entries, and this appears to be consistent. Nicodene (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

@NicodeneOooo, I think you're right. Awesome, good catch! Thanks. Though I wouldn't have known, for example, that acquoso is actually a Latinism... interesting. I guess they have their reasons for it, maybe the dating and such. Word dewd544 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi. I see you marked impedicare as an inheritance. This seems rather unlikely to me so I am changing it to a borrowing; can you explain why you think it's an inheritance? Benwing2 (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

What would make it clear either way? There aren't any obvious phonological criteria to use here. Treccani claims it's borrowed, Sapere gives it as an inherited form. The FEW does not mention it at all, though it presents various regional Italo-Romance forms as inherited. Nicodene (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. A bit of an odd request today. I've been interested in learning about the nature and history of Aromanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian. Are there resources you'd recommend checking out (incl. in Italian or Romanian, etc.)? I guess I could figure out some things just by looking at synchronic descriptions and by comparing them with Romanian, but I'd like to hear what you'd mention. Thanks.----~~ Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 15:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't really have too much. https://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Romance_Eastern/Eastern_Romance.html

https://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/V325/pdf

https://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A27553/pdf

Word dewd544 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. By the way, someone pointed out to me this 1971 free-access PhD dissertation describing Istro-Romanian. Enjoy!

https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:bfb29e35-e2b8-4613-97cf-3b62bdb6a1f6

Hurren, H.A. 1971. A Linguistic Description of Istro-Romanian. 493pp.

--Ser be être 是^talk/stalk 16:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

See fēta, *fētō, fētus. What do you think? Nicodene (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Looks good, thank you! Word dewd544 (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled upon some old work of yours and took to adding some more meanings. Sense #3 struck me as odd, in that I don’t see, in its current presentation, how it is any different from #2. Can you please give me examples for both in order to see what you mean? --Biolongvistul (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, now that I look at it, they are quite similar. They can be combined. Word dewd544 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Were it not for all your prior work I would’ve never had the motivation to take up the improvement of Romanian myself. To build upon groundwork already laid is one thing, but to be the one who solitarily tackles an ample project of uncertain prospects takes a special kind of drive and capacity for lonely, thankless grind. ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Haha, thanks man. Yeah I was really into laying the groundwork for it several years back, but I treated it as sort of a fun little hobby to do on the side. Another reason I was into doing the etymologies for Romanian is because there are lots of misconceptions out there that I hoped to address. I'm not as active anymore these days but I'm glad the project is still chugging along and being improved. Good luck, let me know if you all need anything! Word dewd544 (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I’ve left alone the etymology you gave, but how does the Slavic etymology proposed in various dictionaries sound to you? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

They may be valid. I'm not particularly well versed in Slavic etymology and linguistics so I don't have a strong opinion on it to be honest. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Word dewd544. When adding a new word, e.g. as you've been doing recently for Megleno-Romanian, would you mind indicating where you have found it? If not with a normal citation at least with a URL or such in the edit summary. Nicodene (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

They're mostly coming from a combination of mentions in the Romanian dex.ro and:

Petar Atanasov, 1990, Le mégléno-roumain de nos jours, Balkan-Archiv, Neue Folge, Beiheft Band 7, Amborg, Helmut Buske Verlag.

May need to make this into a reference template or something. Also some from https://fdocuments.net/document/ipa-based-vlach-oeawacat-ipa-based-vlach-ipa-based-vlach-as-of-march-25th-2017.html?page=2

You're right though, I should add these into entries. Word dewd544 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've just made one for Atasanov. If you want to cite e.g. page 117, that would be {{R:ruq:PA|117}}. If you want to cite DEX on a Megleno-Romanian entry, you'll have to manually specify the name of the entry (a Romanian word). E.g. for the entry călcǫn' that would be {{R:DEX|călcâi}}. Nicodene (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply