text:
User talk:Bogorm/archive5

Antecedent confabulations
Auguſt-November 2008 December 2008-February 2009 March-May 2009 June-December 2009

Are you still interested...
...in being an admin? If so, I'd like to re-nominate you. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 11:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. Thank you for your confidence. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's done – you just need to accept, at WT:VOTE. < class="latinx">Ƿidsiþ 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Administratorship
Congratulations! :-) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Raifʻhār. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Please add an entry to the list at Wiktionary:Administrators. Also, whenever you are editing here, please have a second session monitoring Recent Changes (ideally from the time you last left the wiki). You can then mark good edits as patrolled, revert vandalism, and block users when you feel the need. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I shall try to do my best. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

German citations of vitam impendere vero
Would you be able and willing to translate those German quotations at vitam impendere vero (the one about Schopenhauer and the one by Nietzſche) to the English, please? †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Die Unzeitgemäßen Betrachtungen are available in English here, so I just copied the translation. Regarding the second sentence about Schopenhauer I can propose the following:
 * and grumbling did he seclude himself to Frankfurt am Main in order to, as he put it, vitam impendere vero, to devote his whole life to the procession of his thoughts on innumerable facts from nature and life here, unconcerned about the lukewarmness of his coëvals contemporaries.
 * I expanded the scope of the quotation a bit. Check my translation for errors and add it, if you find it satisfactory. I did not add it on myself, because both German and English are foreign laguages for me. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The entry coëval which we have here, does not indicate the possibility of this word being applied to human beings. Can it indeed refer to human beings - my coëvals, the people living in the same age as I? If not, replace it with contemporaries or with whatever you præfer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * That’s great; thanks. :-) is very similar to, but has the more specific sense of someone or something of the same age (e.g., two six-year-olds would be close coëvals); given the context, do you think this meaning is appropriate? (It certainly can be used of human beings, but undefined: may be better if the intended meaning is simply “people who live at the same time as him”.) †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, given the context, contemporaries suits better. Which spelling do you consider recommendable from an etymological point of view: coëval or coæval? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I’ve added your translation. is the etymologically præferable spelling (cf. ), and it is also easily attestable; if the ligature is to be eschewed, however, then a diæresis or hyphen is then necessary (rendering  and, respectively), so as to guard against the misinterpretation of the undefined: as an etymological diphthong, which would render the mispronunciation * and the misspelling *, which error is itself easily attested . †  ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I ask why you requæsted a translation for the German quotations, but not for the French one? Do you expect it to be more easily understood? Perhaps French is more widespread among English speakers as a foreign language than German, is it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same with regard to Dutch - I do not understand Dutch at all and most English speakers perchance too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

супруга
Re this (a bit belated response, I know): you can find the complete answer here, §389-391 (p. 153-154). That book is highly recommended as regards the intricacies of SC grammar. --Ivan Štambuk 08:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

salut
merci pour ton message.

je vois sur ta page d'utilisateur que tu te poses la question du lien entre baraque et le bulgare baraka (qui veut dire quoi ?)

Pour baraque, voici ce que dit le TLFi :

Par l'intermédiaire de l'ancien provençal (cf. baraca en 1381 dans une charte de Marseille) du catalan de Valence barraca (« petite construction primitive servant d'abri ») attesté depuis 1249, d'origine très obscure, probablement préromane : barraca serait un dérivé préroman, soit de *barra « barre transversale », soit de *barrum « argile », mot préroman ibérique, l'argile et le bois entrant dans la construction des premières baraques catalanes.

P. Aalto, Neuphilol. Mitt., t. 39, pp. 375-386, s'appuyant sur la ressemblance entre un type de temple babylonien et la baraque de pierres sèches courante aux îles Baléares, propose comme étymon du catalan barraca le syriaque parakkā, de l'assyrien parakku « temple, palais », mais cette hypothèse, séduisante, manque de fondements linguistiques : le mot manque en arabe, langue qui aurait pu servir d'intermédiaire, et aucune attestation en catalan ancien de barraca ne se rapporte aux Baléares.

Le tchèque barák, le russe барак a le même sens que le français baraque et a sans doute été emprunté soit directement, soit via l'allemand Baracke, lors des guerres (guerre de trente ans, de Succession d'Autriche, guerres napoléoniennes, etc.) - c'est un mot fréquent dans l'argot militaire.

--Diligent 11:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there.
Hey there Bogorm :) Feel like adding some translations?  demonology could use quite a few translations, and I think that you'd be able to add quite a few :)  Cheers, Razorflame 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

nargila
please create the entry :) with all the nuances you know of. 81.68.255.36 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can requæst the creation of the entry at Wiktionary:Requæsted entries:Serbo-Croatian. I am no native speaker of Serbo-Croatian and am not experienced in creating Serbo-Croatian entries. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic
It's not because I don't consider it Aramaic, it's because the words have Aramaic categories but not Aramaic sections. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but Syriac is to be regarded as a variety of Aramaic. This means that if something is Syriac, then it is Aramaic. Syriac is (according to some scholars) a dialect of the Aramaic language or (according to the rest) a language of the Aramaic language family. In both cases the Syriac words are Aramaic words and I suspect that this is the reason why 334a (who is our only Aramaic/Syriac contributor) has added the arc cathegories. If you have any doubts, you can address him on arc wikipedia or per e-mail. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also curious that you removed the arc cathegories from the entries in the prædominant Syriac spelling, but not from the alternative spellings (which contain the header Aramaic). It would be also interesting to know why 334a has decided not to add the header Aramaic to the entries in Syriac spelling, but as you can see from the pages of the alternative spellings, the language is the same. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

scita and scienda
Hi Bogorm. Forgive the spam, but I need to know urgently what the two Latin words and  mean. My guess is that they're related to either or  (which we don't have), or to both of them. They have a specialised use in English as terms of political science, as demonstrated by this quotation: "As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings.' (taken from Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn)" Any help you can give me with these words (the greatest being the creation of entries for them) would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi, Doremítzwr. No, it is not spam, for the application of Latin words in English texts always raises my inquisitiveness and is something I find intriguing. scitus is the past participle of and means known. scita is either the nominative or ablative feminine singular form or the nominative or accusative neuter form. In our case I think it is the neuter nominative plural form, which means the known things. The past participle of  is scitatus, which is different from scita/scitus. scitus may be the past participle of the verb scisco (I investigate, seek to know) as well, but I would not bet that this is the meaning in this sentence. As for scienda, it is gerundivum or participium futuri passivi (in our case again neuter plural) and its translation into English would be the things which ought to be known or the things which one ought to know. In this case the only possible verb whence this form derives is . The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you; that's very clear. I understand well now. I looked up in my Latin dictionary; it listed the senses "to seek to know; to search, inquire", "to learn, ascertain", and  "to assent to or approve after examination, to vote for, enact, ordain". I light of those senses I have no doubt that  is the nominative neuter plural form of the past participle of undefined: — the intended meaning in English is clearly "those things that have been sought to be known and learned [by the people and their representatives] and [that they have] enacted by vote" (which is an excellent word for the job, I must say). As for, your assessment makes sense and is intuitive to me; however, it is not reflected in the conjugation table given for undefined: (it says that that verb has no passive-voice forms). Moreover, my dictionary lists the verb as undefined:; is the final vowel indeed short, or is my dictionary incorrect in this assertion? Thanks very much for your help.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I have no idea why the past participle of scio is not visible in the entry, but Dvoreckij lists it, so it is undoubtedly attested. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Do you care to correct the entry?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I would like to, but after this objurgative discouragement from EncycloPetey I struggle to abstain from editing Latin entries contenting myself with fixing some blunders in the etymology sections of non-Latin entries which I spot. However, in this case, I shall be bold and risk another objurgation relying on your explicite exhortation :) The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to add the participle, but from all three templates for Latin 4th conjugation verbs (Template:la-conj-4th, Template:la-conj-4th-depon, Template:la-conj-4th-nopass) only the one for deponent verbs contains perfect participle and is no deponent verb. Fixing templates is beyond my capabilities. If you addressed EncycloPetey on this issue, I am sure that he would respond more obligingly than if I did. But Dvoreckij and Korol'kov’s dictionary lists scitus as the perfect participle of  and . The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * To interrupt, I can't see why a petty argument almost a year ago should stop you from editing more significantly in Latin. You yourself say you have a proficiency of 3 (able to contribute with an advanced level of Latin), and so it feels as if we are wasting a good opportunity for valuable edits, especially since there are so few contributors. Regarding the two requests, scita and scienda, I added them yesterday, with some of their related terms; if you see any errors, please correct them. Caladon 07:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I do not see any errors. It is just that I cannot figure out how the perfect participle can appear on the entry sciō, if from the three templates for 4th conjugation Latin verbs only the template for deponent verbs allows perfect participles. If you can add the participle, please do so. I addressed the issue at Talk:scio as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is vital to link sciō to sciendus and scītus somehow. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * There is no perfect active participle, only the perfect passive participle; hence, why for the deponent template, it is listed under active, since it acts like an active participle. Unless you mean why someone has added the no passive template for sciō; this will need more investigation, and I am not sure as to the difference between scio:'s parts and scisco:'s parts as they appear to be share the third and fourth principal parts. For some inchoative verbs, we don't list the third and fourth parts anyway. Caladon 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, I meant the perfect passive participle. The Template:la-conj-4th allows for it, so perhaps one ought to switch to this template. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, Bogorm, for your work on these Latin entries. I've now added entries for their English descendants. I needed this information for an academic paper I had been working on, and which had me rushed off my feet (hence my absence for the past several days). I'm pretty busy with things IRL ATM, so I shan't be editing much here for a while. BTW, thank you for congratulating me. <tt>:-)</tt>  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:hr:Fantasy
If you have the time I would very much appreciate it if you could work on the things in this category. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

While I'm at it, could you also tell me if đul is really Bosnian-exclusive and adjust the entry? Thanks. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite having learnt the Serbo-Croatian language at an intermediate level, I am not sufficiently conversant with it in order to determine whether a word is used regionally or not. You need to address Ivan with this issue. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, never mind then. :) Ivan gave me links for SC resources before and the weekend is coming up so hopefully I'll have the time to sort it out myself if I can. 50 Xylophone Players talk 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

غومبه (γumba)
Hi Bogorm, thanks for adding the cognate to غومبه. I also added synonyms and the other meaning (mushroom). Avestan Pashtun 09:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

деведесет
Do you know if this word means the numeral ninety in Bulgarian? Thanks, Razorflame 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the Bulgarian spelling is деветдесет (90) and the stress falls on the last syllable (devetdesét) in order to præclude the possible phonetical misapprehension of the numeral as 9-10 (which would be -, dévet-déset), when pronounced. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

паразит
Kad imaš vremena, bi li poboljšao bugarsku sekciju? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Уређено. Нисам знао да учиш српскохрватски језик, свака част. Када пишем на српскохрватском, увек преферирам ћирилицу, јер она је моја матерња абецеда. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Свиђа ми се ћирилица, али треба ми значајна свота времена да је читам :D — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

негов, неин
Привет, какое ударение в словах негов и неин (his, her), négov и néin? --Anatoli 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Да. Правильно угадал. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Мерси :) --Anatoli 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

слънчев вятър
Could you check the pronunciation I added? I'm about 80% sure on it, and that's not enough for me. I'm also gonna try to add declension, but I've never used the Bulgarian declension templates... So I might need a hand with that aswell. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the inflection. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

空間, et al
Hi, thank you for your Mandarin contributions. However I'd like to ask you to please abide by the standard Mandarin formatting on Wiktionary. For more information, check out How to Create a Basic Chinese Entry or How to Add a Chinese Translation. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask them on my talk page. Cheers. ---> Tooironic 05:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian translations
Hi, How are you? I kindly encourage you to do more Bulgarian translations and check existing for transliteration (presence and accuracy). I've been doing this along with other languages but I thought, since we have an active native speaker, he could do a bit more. :) I often struggle with determining the word stress. Meaning friendly only, we need more Bulgarian and other Slavic presence! --Anatoli 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I am fine, thanks; and you? I shall do my best, but you have probably noticed that during my activity in the main space I am focussed on the etymology, quotations, der. t., rel. t. sections, so I edit only now and again the translations sections. However, we have two regular contributors (two anons - 213.191.193.62 and 93.152.180.56) who are prolific in their translations, but are not particularly keen on providing them with transliterations. I could go after some of their edits and provide them with due tranliterations. Whenever you have any doubts regarding the stress, feel free to ask me. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting snippets
Re: "If you, EncycloPetey, and Dan, are unwilling to accept apologies from Sven, however pænitent and unambiguous they may be (such as the one I quoted from meta), then please at least do not publish excerpts from his e-mails without his permission. The procedure Conrad followed is the proper one - forwarding e-mails to the person who demanded them. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)"

I have posted no excerpt from an e-mail. But tell me, do you have a hyperlink to an explanation of why posting snippets from abusive e-mails online is bad? What online resources or books say that posting snippets from e-mails is bad, and what online resources explain why it is bad? I had a vague recollection that it could be something to be better avoided, but have no clear idea why. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you (to be præcise - thou) have(hast) not posted any excerpts from e-mails, but you (to be præcise - ye) declined Sven’s apology. Posting excerpts from any e-mail online is unacceptable. In the same section above you(thou) can(st) notice the proper way e-mails are to be forwarded - to the e-mail of the person interested in them (as Conrad did), but not online. Conrad’s reluctance to publish e-mails online suffices to prove the inadmissibility of this approach. Please bear with mine archaism this time(ye, thou), because it is the only way to clarify the issue and the addressed person(s) (by distinguishing between thou and ye). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "Posting excerpts from any e-mail online is unacceptable." Why? Any hyperlinks? Anyone who thinks the same? Let point out the distinction between publishing complete emails online and publishing one-sentence snippets. Archaisms suck. --Dan Polansky 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re "Conrad’s reluctance to publish e-mails online suffices to prove the inadmissibility of this approach." One person's reluctance to do something can hardly prove anything. And, in a way, prescriptive statements such as those containing words "should", "ought to" and "inadmissible" cannot be proved at all, only descriptive statements. That said, prescriptive statements can be meaningfully discussed. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not intent on wading through the legislation of vaious UN members about publication of personal data(such as text from one’s e-mail), but if you have any doubts, refer to Conrad. I relied on his reluctance, because he is far more conversant with computer and data protection issues than both of us. Please, address him. You admittedly had a vague recollection that it could be something to be better avoided, which I had as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have stated in an unambiguous tone something that you can neither justify nor provide hyperlinks to. I have stated my uncertainty; you have failed to state your uncertainty. I am asking for hyperlinks, so I can find out more about the subject. If you have no hyperlinks, and can recommend no books that I should look into, then say so clearly. --Dan Polansky 09:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched for certain documents concerning explicitly the content of e-mails, but I found only this: an article (138) from the Criminal Code of the Russian Fœderation stating that the breach of confidentiality of the personal correspondence is to be punished... an so on. E-mails are personal correspondence. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is in Russian :(. --Dan Polansky 10:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it undoubtedly criminalises the breach of confidentiality of correspondence (нарушение тайны переписки) with up to 80 000 RUB = 2 100 EUR (and e-mails are personal correspondence). I could not find (at least not speedily) similar documents from the legislation of other major Europæan countries (France, Germany). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) It is in Russian, it does not define "breach of confidentiality of correspondence", and it is from a Russian legal code. I mean, I really am not interested in the legal code of Russian federation. --Dan Polansky 10:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in here, feel free to revert. Here's a decent link. Try a google search with 'email confidentiality etiquette' for more. Ultimately, this falls under the realm of etiquette, not law (there may well be laws about email confidentiality, but the issues being discussed are most certainly outside of their scope). As such, it is not defined and published by an authoritative body, but is rather a part of a general social awareness, which may well be different in different cultures. I can only speak of my own feelings on the matter, which perhaps could be taken to be typical, but certainly not normative. When someone posts something on Wiktionary (or similar), it is assumed that the posting is public, because that's just the way this project works. When someone sends another person an email, it is private by its nature. The acceptableness of reposting contents of an email really depends on the context. If Ivan sends me a link to a great linguistic resource (which he actually has, numerous times), then I would feel pretty free to forward that email to anyone I think would find it useful, as it's not really private, personal information, nor something that Ivan could be embarrassed about. However, if someone, say, sent me an email about a painful abusive situation they were in (this hasn't actually happened, that I can think of, at least not in regards to Wiktionary, it's just a good example), it would most certainly be wrong to divulge that to anyone without the sender's permission, as the contents are deeply personal. In regards to the issue at hand, I'm not sure I agree with Bogorm, though I'm not sure I disagree. There are two things which make me think that it might have been ok for EP to quote Sven. First, it was evidence used in a discussion of the sender's character, and such is directly relevant to the conversation. Secondly, I think that Sven abnegated some of his rights to courtesy by such vitriolic comments. Again, I'm not sure. Anyway, that's my two cents. I hope it's useful. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I mostly agree with you (Atelaes) regarding posting e-mails publically in general, but in the specific case of posting e-mails on Wiktionary, there's the additional issue of the WMF Terms of Use, which state in part:
 * If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license.
 * E-mails are not generally available under such terms.
 * —Ruakh TALK 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 * While that is generally true for complete texts, we usually do not worry when making short quotations from sources. The posting of complete e-mails, especially with the address of the sender, would be unethical (even with the sender's permission, in my estimation).  However, see also the MW Privacy Policy #3 (a link to this policy is displayed when using the send e-mail feature). --EncycloPetey 03:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
I will be creating an account soon, its just that I did not have time during the last 2 edits I made. I've been using Wiktionary for quite a long time now so I think I can find my own way easily enough. I have made a few minor edits before but now I think I will make an account and possibly become more active. Thanks 86.146.20.52 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ps. What languages do you speak and to what levels? 86.146.20.52 13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

pss. Forget about that last question, I've just seen your user page 86.146.20.52 13:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you create your own user page, you may want to indicate the languages you speak by inserting with the necessary parameters, e. g.  . You can also refer to the description page of the template. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created my account now. I'm confused as to how you created the scripts box and your time zone box. Can you help me there? Hhaayyddnn 13:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for helping me start in the right direction. Hhaayyddnn 14:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

sh interwiki
I see you keep adding it manually again. Why is that so? Interwicket misses sh.wiktionary completely or..? --Ivan Štambuk 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Interwicket does not handle sh interwikis. There is a bot VolkovBot which I once spotted doing that, but I observed it once adding the sh interwiki 3 or 4 months after I created the article on sh wiktionary. Is there a way to run VolkovBot more often? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Contact the bot operator, Volkov, on the Russian Wikipedia. He will get around to it eventually. Razorflame 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 * seems to handle it now. I could write a bot that could do just that (it would take like ~5 minutes), but now it seems unnecessary (I forgot about this discussion altogether until now). --Ivan Štambuk 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian help
Hey there Bogorm. I've come across this Bulgarian word: развален in my searches across the Internet, and I translated it as broken. Could you possibly make this entry for me please? Thanks, Razorflame 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer is jein - it means broken in the senses not working, not operational, but not in the sense of fragmented. It is the past passive participle of the verb развалям (corrupt). Hitherto, I have never created entries about participles, but I shall try. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looked good, expect for the fact that you forgot to add the adjective sense ;) I did so for you :)  Razorflame 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not necessary. The meaning I mentioned is easily derived by the verb (развалям-corrupt, but also cause malfunction). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can it also mean "fucked" (pardon my French) ? --Ivan Štambuk 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the senses at hand at fucked it can mean not operational, but it is never used for computers (as in the example sentence at fucked). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh btw I removed the =Adj= and replaced =Verb= with =Participle=. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check kiss me - bg, mk
Hi,

Could you add the word stress, please for Bulgarian and Macedonian? Any Bulgarian additions to Category:English_phrasebook would be great. :) --Anatoli 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the Bulgarian translation and added three more. Before I add translations to phrases, I need to know how many of them will survive this discussion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the mk translation, you know, I do not consider it necessary. You are perhaps aware that once there was a Siberian wikipedia with separatist agenda whose language is of course Russian and it has been closed after people on meta realised that. But we do not allow Siberian translations, do we? However, mk enjoys the status of being proclaimed an official language in a certain country, which is not the case with Siberian and this leads some people to think of it as of a distinct language arguably not identical with Bulgarian. You may want to catch a glimpse at Talk:Macedonia and Talk:Macedonian, if you are interested. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Bogorm. I won't ask you for mk translations any more. I see your feelings about it - I didn't know. What exactly do you suggest with numerous Macedonian entries, translations, grammar tables - remove, merge with Bulgarian, nest like dialects? I will read the discussions later. I have certainly heard and read about this issue. The trouble is, if you want to provide the information only - although Bulgarian and Macedonian are mutually comprehensible, standard Macedonian and Bulgarian are far from identical, even if we ignore some spelling differences. Although I support a unified approach for Serbo-Croatian language(s), I don't think it's the same situation with Bulgarian and Macedonian. We don't even have templates like we have for Hindi/Urdu where you can always see the spelling in the sister language. In other words, we don't have any reality in Wiktionary to support your point. --Anatoli 22:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I shall try to explain why the difference is seemingly significant. Firstly, FYROM has existed as an entity since 1944, whereas nationalist regimes in Croatia and BiH have been ruling since 15-20 years. Secondly, when the brand new Bulgarian grammar of Prof. Ljubomir Andrejčin was issued (after the abolition of the yat and ѧ), the Yugoslavian authorities delivered a copy to their subordinates in Skopje and told them: make what you wish, but codify mk as a language as dissimilar from Bulgarian as you can (this was explained by Prof. Božidar Dimitrov). So they introduced the Cyrillic letter j amd џ from SC, the letters ћ and ђ under the guise of к and г with dome strokes above them, introduced a series of Serbisms and Turcisms otherwise completely obsolete in Bulgarian and the process became virtually irreversible. Besides, in contemporary FYROM it is virtually inconceivable to declare yourself a Bulgarian - you can declare yourself being a Turk, Albanian, Greek, Serbian, but if you try with Bulgarian, persecution is imminent (there are numerous examples from the recent times). This was meant as a simple deviation which you will not find on those two discussion pages. As for the templates, I am willing to create templates for spelling differences, but how is the community to be persuaded to let me implement them, if nobody except me consider the Slavomacedonian speech a dialect of Bulgarian? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please!
Pretty pretty please refrain from at the very least the long s in the Beer Parlour? I understand that sometimes it is done in jest at something, but it's truly difficult and makes catching up on things difficult. I really don't mind if you use archaicisms of grammar but if you could keep the archaicisms of spelling to one or two pointedly chosen ones per comment would make my life so much easier. I hate to nag and remind you, but it keeps springing up and then it takes me ages to decipher a comment (especially if I do not have my screenreader on to begin with, at which point I have to turn it on). Danke. --Neskaya contribs–talk? 06:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I shall not use it anymore except in my signature. I am sorry for the laboriousness and trouble it caused. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for having to be [potentially] annoying about it. But I appreciate your helpfulness in this matter more than I can easily express.  And do, do keep the grammar bits, though -- those make your writing distinct and interesting to read even without the archaic spelling.  And interesting is good, because well, variety is the spice of everything.  :)  --Neskaya contribs–talk? 07:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the elating feedback. What do you mean by grammar bits? Some grammatical blunders which I commit? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I never actually thought it was grammatical blunders.  Sometimes, your use of grammatical features seems a little more formal and archaic than the standard English casual register, but it's always nice to read when I can in fact read it. :) —Neskaya … gawonisgv? 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

pleasey please
I would love your input at "Proposal for (toned) pinyin words" at BP. So far I've gotten very little response. Thanks. ---> Tooironic 08:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Meta
You've been mentioned. --Ivan Štambuk 18:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Funny how when we do something people don't like here, people mention wikipedia policy pages... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apprising me thereof. I retorted at the accusations. By the way, how on Earth did you unearth (sorry for the tautology) this issue on meta? I appear over there once in a month and I would probably contrive searching through all user talk pages containing my nickname once in a year. How do you keep track of the relevant discussions there, Ivan? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally I would have ignored Meta as I have no business there, but ever since my name was mentioned at several occasions, and my person and actions thereof were discussed, without anyone bothering to notify me for days, I keep close tabs on it. With a bit of elementary programming, one can do wonders in keeping track of cyberspace. --Ivan Štambuk 20:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But this user perseveres in his canvassing, which he has already inflicted on a third user on meta. I am at a loss as to how to respond, since this user does not seem to comprehend why the flag of a separatist entity may be admissible on wikipedia user pages, but is not on wiktionary user pages, in spite of the circumstantial explication I provided. Am I supposed to wait until people on meta get tired of him? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 * That's what I would do. I suspect that the Meta folks will tire of him quick enough.  And even if, worst case, unlikely scenario, he does convince someone important that you're a terrible person, I rather doubt it would amount to much.  The English Wiktionary protects its sovereignty rather fiercely, and if some random Meta person tried to come over and desysop you I suspect that no one here would accept it.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Flibjib8
Atelaes and I have responded on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

spam eh?

Uhhh yaa, I'm a Spick'n'Span PR-guy trying to promote my product on an online dictionary...

gimme a break.

It was a valid alternate definition. I don't care if you disagree with my edit.. of course you're welcome to remove it.. but try assuming a little good faith before labeling things as SPAM. I found that very offensive because I'm very much against spamming. -- OlEnglish 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 * It should be borne in mind that spam has a more general definition here. Bogorm was not necessarily accusing you of anything malicious.  Generally, we don't include entries (or definitions) for brand names unless they have entered the general lexicon to mean something more than a simple reference to the brand name (i.e. bandaid is often used to refer to adhesive bangages, regardless of manufacturer).  Bogorm was right to remove the definition.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I see. Sorry then. I'm kind of new to Wiktionary, and I generally define spam by its intended meaning, a deliberate attempt at advertising, which was NOT my intention. I understand now not to add any brand names, thanks for explaining. -- OlEnglish 13:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian
Yo Bogorm! What's happening? Anyways, I was wondering if you could make some Bulgarian entries :) Like, could you mass make Bulgarian entries? ;)  That would be awesome :)  Cheers, Razorflame 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Most Bulgarian entries here are made by Arath. I must admit I am not equipped with the tools Ivan has at his disposal in order to propagate Serbo-Croatian entries. However, I have noticed the implementation of similar automatic tools by Arath (when he was creating Bulgarian entries en masse) and if you entreat him, he will most likely accede thereto. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the information. Razorflame 07:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Note
On this edit, you say something which is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that if Wanjuscha were to make any new Russian verb entries, if s/he could add a to before the words in those new Russian verb entries. I know that the three words that I mentioned in this talk page message aren't verbs, but to pickle, etc. are verbs, which was what I was trying to get at. Furthermore, I do know how Russian verbs end :) Razorflame 12:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But this to is completely dispensable for everyone who has the slightest idea of Russian grammar. Exempli gratia, очередь, when translated as queue, can be interpreted neither as the verb queue (because its ending does not match those three), nor as the adjective (because it does not end in -ый, -ий or -ой). Therefore, it is the noun queue. The same applies for other parts of speech. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving entries
Hi. Can you explain to me how to move an entry to its correct spelling? I don't know how to do that. Xoolanguage 13:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out. Xoolanguage 14:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

fathom
You said:

I don't think that fathom as in "grasp an idea" is obsolete. —This unsigned comment was added by Georgeghodgesiii (talk • contribs) 05:16, 8 May 2010.

Of corse, it is not. Who claims that? Only one of the nominal senses is obsolete, but none of the verbal ones. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 05:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer per Wiktionary:

fathom (plural fathoms)

1. (obsolete) Grasp, envelopment, control. 2. (nautical) A measure of length corresponding to the outstretched arms, standardised to six feet, now used mainly for measuring depths in seas or oceans.

[edit]

Georgeghodgesiii 05:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You claimed that the verbal sense, the sense of fathom as verb, was obsolete, whereas, as you already copied, only one of the nominal senses, id est the senses of fathom as a noun, is marked as obsolete. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

haiþns
Здрасти. Can you check my Gothic spelling in, please? --Vahag 08:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Привет, Вааг (by the way, привет is also used in Bulgarian). The spelling is correct. However, in Köbler's dictionary this Gothic adjective is marked as reconstructed. There was no attestation for it, but once it is listed, the possibility of its having been used in the Gothic language is reasonably high. Perhaps it ought to be tagged with an asterisk though (see carp). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --Vahag 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bogorm/archive5


text:
Rhymes:French/ik

One syllable

 * bic
 * bique
 * biques
 * brick
 * bricks
 * brique
 * briquent
 * briques
 * clic
 * click
 * clicks
 * clics
 * clique
 * cliquent
 * cliques
 * cric
 * crics
 * crique
 * criquent
 * criques
 * flic
 * flics
 * fric
 * nique
 * niquent
 * niques
 * pic
 * pics
 * pique
 * piquent
 * piques
 * tic
 * tics
 * tique
 * tiquent
 * tiques
 * tric
 * trick
 * tricks
 * trics
 * trique
 * triquent

Six syllables

 * psychophysiologique
 * psycho-physiologique

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rhymes:French/ik


text: flics

title: flics


text:
Talk:koberec

Etymology of koberec
 * Note: see also User talk:Bogorm/archive4.

Greetings, in the appreciated etymology of Czech "koberec" you write "The Slavic word derives from Old Norse kögurr (“‘quilt’”)". Which Slavic word do you mean? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Proto-Slavic which I could not find as reconstructed. Its descendants include, as noted, the Czech, Slovak, Bulgarian and Russian words. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When you write "The source for the Slavic words is ...", do you mean "The Slavic words "koberec", "ковёр" and "губер" are derived from ..."? --Dan Polansky 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I have rewritten the etymology in koberec into the following format: "From, according to ; cognates include ", as is usual with English etymologies. Hope it is okay with you. The formatting rests on the assumption that the main information in the etymology section is the etymology, while the cognates are of second importance; and also that statements about the subject matter come first and scholarly sources backing those statements come second. --Dan Polansky 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I made the etymology of the Slovak entry consistent with the Czech one. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On another note, I have removed Slovak interwiki from "koberec", as the Slovak Wiktionary does not have the entry yet. --Dan Polansky 11:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for apprising me of the interwiki, I would have failed to descry it. It should have been a Serbo-Croatian interwiki, but I must have been distracted when adding it or thinking about the Slovak entry there. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Okay, so let me do the word lookup for the words that I do not know by heart: "apprise" - to notify; "descry" - * to see * to notice carefully; to detect.
 * I think you'd better leave interwikis alone, avoiding their manual entry; they are added by a bot automatically.
 * I have now found a link to your source, and am beginning to wonder.
 * Can you please translate for me the following sentence from the source?:
 * Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл. ko<gurr "ковер, одеяло" (Миккола, Мém. Sос. Néopħilol. 1, 389 и сл.), происхождение которого в свою очередь неясно (Хольтхаузен, Awn. Wb. 171).
 * Why, when the source (Vasmer) seems to mention several possible etymologies, you mention only one in Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky 11:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source is at ковёр. I did not quote it under the Slovak and Czech entries, because I do not expect most people learning those two languages to be able to read sources in Russian, therefore in the Russian entry. I suppose you found it out there. However, if you insist, I can henceforth provide the sk and cs entries with the source from Vasmer as well. The source præsents two theories - the one from Mikkola which is critically mentioned by Vasmer (your quote is from the Russian translation, the original is das von Mikkola als Quelle angesehene kögurr genügt lautlich nicht=k. which Mikkola considers to be the source does not suffice phonetically) and the Turkic origin, which he favours. I mentioned both of them, not just the one of them, which I cherish. What exactly is your objection? I did not pick up just one of them, as you imply. However, I am not capable of formatting entries in Turkic languages, because I do not have any knowledge ( soever, skip this word, if you will) in any of them, therefore I just mentioned the theorised Turkic origin. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the bot, it not only does not add interwiki links to sh wiktionary, but erases them. I already complained about that here, where the diffs from the removals are visible, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Therefore interwiki links to Serbo-Croatian wiktionary can not be handled for the moment by this bot. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) If I understand correctly, you are using Vasmer as your source, yet Vasmer thinks that "kögurr" is implausible, preceding his note on "kögurr" with the following sentence:
 * "Источником было, возм., дунайско-болг., волжско-болг. (др.-чув.) *kavǝ̂r--из *kebir; ср. ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz, чагат., вост.-тюрк. kigiz "войлочное одеяло", тат., казах. kīz, монг. kebis "ковер", калм. kews̨; см. Рясянен, FUF 29, 196; ZfslPh 20, 448; Рамстедт, KWb. 230."
 * This sentence explicitly mentions Turkish "kiviz" and "küwuz" and some hypothetical roots: "*kavǝ̂r", from "*kebir". So your source seems to mention the Turkish etymology as the main one, while mentioning the Old Norse "kögurr" only as a hypothesis that he finds implausible. By contrast, what you posted to "koberec" reads exactly the other way around: "kögurr" is positively asserted, while Turkic origins are merely claimed to be "theorised", which reads like "hypothesized", without the specific Turkish words being mentioned. This makes the etymology entered into "koberec" look untrustworthy or misleading, to me anyway. But there is also the possibility that I have misunderstood something, as I have rather little knowledge of Russian.
 * Given that you speak Russian and I do not, I think it would be best if you give all the etymologies considered by Vasmer equal standing in Wiktionary, indicating in the etymology sections of Wiktionary as candidate etymons all the terms that are considered by Vasmer, your source. --Dan Polansky 13:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is talking about Turkish etymology, the theory as favoured by Vasmer speaks about Turkic theory and the distinction is crucial (at the time of the borrowing the ethnogenesis of the Turkish people had not begun). The source is not mine, it is the one which I consulted at that moment for this word. And it also mentions the explanation of the venerable Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who is a classical scholar in linguistics. When tha classics are not consistent in unifying around one theory, it is our duty to præsent all possibilities as stated by them. what I posted in koberec read the following way "kögurr" is positively asserted by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola, while ..., this distinction is crucial as well. Had I mentioned only the ON origin without a single word about the Turkic theory, then it would have been misinterpretation of the source. I have not acted this way, instead I added both theories and even explained which prominent scholar embraces the ON theory and what other theories apart from his there are. I explicitly mentioned by whom it is asserted in order to fend off similar objections, when the classical scholars dissent in their theories, which is always my wont, my habit, whenever I stumble upon such dissensions (confer the etymolgy of кайгана where the Greek origin is also asserted by one of our classical scholars in linguistics, academician Stefan Mladenov, whilst another linguists embrace the Turkish theory - this time the Turkish/Persian word of the concurrent theory is not reconstructed, is attested, even has its entry here, so Ilinked them, which is by far not the case with unattested Turkic (supposedly Turkic, as is the case with Proto-Bulgarian) languages). And yes, the Turkic theory is theorised, because the Proto-Bulgarian root is unattested unlike the Old Norse word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the scholar himself, see the Polish article about Jooseppi Julius Mikkola - he has written Die Chronologie der türkischen Donaubulgaren, has specialised with Proto-Bulgarians, and even though he considered them Turkic, if he could not link the Slavic words with the Proto-Bulgarian reconstructed word, then this is what makes to me personally embracing the Turkic theory misleading. But notwithstanding, both theories should have their place at the etymology section regardless of mine or your personal præference for the Old Norse or Turkic origin, since both stem from classical scholars in this realm. This is what I struggled to accomplish. However, if you wish, you may add the supposed Turkic reconstructed root. I am not conversant with Proto-Turkic roots. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I figured out why you mentioned Turkish - ср.-тюрк means Middle Turkic. тюркский (Vasmer: тюр.) in Russian means Turkic, whereas турецкий (Vasmer: тур.) means Turkish. In the second half of the first millenium anno Domini speaking about Tukish does not have much sense. If you are interested in other Russian abbreviations in Vasmer's dictionary and/or you intend to use it, I can always answer your quæestions about the abbreviations, as can Vahagn Petrosyan as well. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is another problem which I noticed now, when I observed more carefully the Russian translation. In this case, it is too bold, because Источником было means the source was... (no probably, no perhaps... alas), whereas the German original is die Quelle ist wohl and wohl means probably, arguably and was omitted by the Russian translation. This wohl means that Vasmer asserted with a temperate and not absolute certainty the Turkic origin, as the Russian translation implies. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in Vasmer, I recommend you the German edition, since your German is at intermediate level according to the Babel box. Consulting it can spare us of such lengthy discussions in the future. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) My mistake in confounding Turkish with Turkic; the term that I have misread was "ср.-тюрк. kiviz, küwuz".
 * What is your source of the etymology? Is it Vasmer or do you have a work by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola? That Jooseppi Julius Mikkola is (a) classic and (b) venerable does not speak in his favor, in my eyes anyway; scholarly sources should be as modern and reliable as possible, not classic and venerable. Aristotle is classic and venerable, yet I rely on him neither for physics, nor for philosophy.
 * What do you need "præference" and "quæstions" for? Are these spellings recognized as a valid ones by your favorite spell checker? In contemporary English, these are spelling errors.
 * As regards what is theorized and what not, while the existence of the Old Norse term is attested, its being an etymological root is no more theorized than the other options that Vasmer considers.
 * I guess what got me suspicious was that you entered a particular Old Norse term into etymology, while omitting all other particular terms mentioned by Vasmer. As regards the omitted "wohl" meaning "likely" or "probably", that does not change the fact that Vasmer proposed a Turkic origin as the probable one, and the Old Norse as an improbable one. --Dan Polansky 14:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it does not change his præference, but it does not change the fact either that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola favours the Old Norse origin and that both Mikkola and Vasmer are authorities (if the word classic is undesirable for you) in linguistics. I understand you suspicion about not adding the supposed Turkic root - for two reasons: 1) it is unattested, but this is not a problem per se, since I add reconstructed Gothic words, when I can consult more sources, i. e. when I have sources for checking the spelling before adding it (which is not the case with Turkic languages - the second reason), because reconstructions may vary in time (unlike attested words) and above you just expressed your desire for the newest reliable source.
 * præference and quæstion are established dated (archaic, if you præfere) English spellings. If you do not believe me, ask Doremítzwr, he is a native speaker and cherishes them as much as I do. I am fond of ſ|the ſharp ſ as well, but for the moment I refrain from uſing it.
 * Neither theory is more or less theorised. The Turkic one by Vasmer, the Old Norse by Jooseppi Julius Mikkola. A reader of wiktionary is likely to expect a comprehensive review of the theories about the origin of koberec and I did my best in trying to provide one with the help of Vasmer. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Okay. But that means we have two authorities disagreeing, one authority being more modern - Vasmer, another more dated - Mikkola. Thus the etymology about which the two authorities disagree is contentious.
 * I have tried to make the uncertainty clearer by adding "possibly " to the etymology of "koberec", to weaken the claim. --Dan Polansky 17:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Returning back to the issue, I have removed the Old Norse etymology from koberec, the one that Vasmer deems implausible. The reasoning behind the move is that the source that is cited does not support Old Norse etymology, and that you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies. If you can cite the Old Norse etymology in a modern source, it can be put back.
 * On another note, the reader of Wiktionary does not not expect to find a comprehensive overview of what was in the past deemed knowledge. The etymology sections of Wiktionary should not document the revision history of the allegoric wiki tracking the development and changes of human knowledge, as it were. The etymology sections should not list hypotheses that have been superseded or rejected by a modern research. That is why the term "classical" or "classic" as applied to etymologies is rather pejorative than anything else. --Dan Polansky 09:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This etymology seems to be deemed plausible at least by Karl Brugmann (apart from Jooseppi Julius Mikkola) who is an uncontested and prominent authority in the realm of linguistics as well as by the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie. Your blatant præference exclusively for the brand-new editions over the ones issued a certain amount of time ago, concomitant with the absence of source from your side, id est with your criticism of extant sources without quoting refuting sources, if any, is about to deprive the etymology of this entry of a well-founded theory supported by Brugman, Mikkola and the Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie (all are quoted under koberec). I am eager to remind you that this is about linguistics, not physics or genetics, where only the brand-new sources are revered, in this realm classical sources must be taken into account. Hardly anyone would quote Newton in a dissertation in physics (not least because he wrote in Latin and the knowledge of this magnificent language among contemporary physicists is anything but common), but in etymological works cites date even to the 18th century and in order to show you how a breakthrough in linguistics could not be superseded for more than a century, I need only to refer you to the Monier-Williams dictionary of Sanskrit, which Ivan frequently cites, which has not been superseded neither in volume nor in quality and which was published in 1899. Dvoretsky's Latin dictionary published in the 1940s has not been superseded in volume and exhaustiveness either. Now I am too tired to draw edificatory conclusions, I would liefer leave that for you.
 * you have a track record of pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies - as for this argumentum ad hominem, exactly this sort of accusations has compelled me to quote almost everytime the source for the descendence from Old Norse of words in English and other non-North Germanic languages, leading to a needless waste of time and resources. Obviously I need to keep referencing etymology sections, whenever Old Norse or Gothic are mentioned (outside da, no, sv and is entries for Old Norse of course), as was and is still my wont here, because of your suspicious attitude. Now, I would be truly reconnaissant, if you commit yourself to finding a refuting source, modern or not, regardless for me (why regardless, I already explained with the help of Monier-Williams' and Dvoretsky's dictionaries), because erasing quoted sources without finding due refutation seems too distrustful. And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility. And I assure you that all the Old Norse etymologies which I have been adding for more than a year are all based on linguistic sources and no one is botched up by me. These, which I myself suspect, are to be found only on my user page and in no other place. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for your discontentment from my writing style, I converse much more often with Ivan, who is no native speaker of English either, and he has not complained hitherto thereabout. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on your last comment and removal of a significant part of the etymology I am already convinced that your appraisal of the initial shape of the etymology section as appreciated etymology (your comment from 13:45, 27 November 2009) was meant to be ironic, was it not? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Re: "And I would require a proof that I have been pushing implausible Old Norse etymologies (except from the inception of my activity here, when I was unoriented), because with no such proof this is to be considered a breach of civility." -- heh, what you have put into parentheses as if it were marginal is exactly what is at stake. I was indeed referring to your beginnings at Wiktionary. Hence my suspicion when I see Old Norse etymology added inspite of the modern source--Vasmer--deeming it dubious. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that has nothing to do with civility and incivility; a personal attack has to do with civility. I am not calling you any names; I am mery stating a fact about some of your past contributions. In any case, the track record is there in the oldest archive of your talk page.
 * As regards you writing style consisting of using archaic spellings and rare archaic words, I merely indicated that I don't like it and that it makes reading what you write more difficult - how else would you know if I did not let you know? Apart from not liking the archaic spellings, I have also mentioned words that I had to look up, which I do not need to with the words used by other contributors. You are intentionally making it more difficult to understand what you write. That Ivan did not complain may be caused by his better acquaintance with archaic English than I have. I am not particularly interested in archaic English; I am interested in building a dictionary and communicating with its editors in modern English. Which, again, "liefer" is not, and I had to look it up. --Dan Polansky 11:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am relieved now, if you are referring only to this first week of my activity here in August 2008. Yes, I admit that I was unoriented then, but I also atoned that and have never since added an Old Norse descendence claim without looking for confirmation. The archaic language from my last post was as caustic as was ironic your appreciated etymology at the beginning of this section. Ok then, I shall restrict the use of those favourite words of mine when conversing with non-native speakers of English. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please translate the following: Snad bude východisko přece jen románské (bud' stfr. carpite nebo sloveso fr. couvrir); b jest hledati asi v severní Itálii. - I understand that some connection to couvrir is supposed, by I am eager to know whether it is mentioned critically or with a high probability. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I did not mean "appreciated etymology" ironically or sarcastically; at first I was glad that you have added etymology to a Czech entry.
 * Re translation: I estimate that term "východisko" is used to mean "origin"; "přece jen" could be rendered as German "doch". An imperfect translation could read: "The origin would perhaps be Romance (either Middle French carpite or the French verb couvrir); b is likely to be sought in the northern Italy." The following terms in the source text weaken certainty of statement: "snad .. přece jen", "asi". Overall, to render it as "highly likely" would be a mistranslation; even "likely" seems to be too strong. My impression is that the author indicates his best estimate in which he is far from sure. Hope that helps a bit. --Dan Polansky 13:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does help. It would be advisable at least for the Romance theory to be mentioned, since its proponent issued it in 1957, whereas the work of Mikkola is half a century older than that. Machek also mentions the possibility of German origin: Mor. a slc. k. možno míti též za přejaté z něm. Kober nůše, ale významy jsou ponekad rozdílné - Moravian and Slovak k. may be conceived as loaned from German Kober (nůše ?), but the meanings sometimes differ - do I understand it aright? Kober is an archaic German word for some sort of basket according to Grimm. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Moravian a synonym for Czech? I thought Moravia is only a geographical term, not a linguistic one... I also noticed that most verbs from Category:Czech verbs end in -t, whereas in Machek they end in -ti. Is -ti a dated ending? Was there a spelling reform in Czech between 1957 and 2000? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable with only the Turkic theory left in the etymology section, when Vasmer describes 4 and Machek another two. Please, try to understand my concern. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Sorry for the belated reply. There are some dialects of Czech spoken in Moravia, but it is unknown to me that one of them or all of them collectively would be called "Moravian". "-ti" is an obsolete ending of Czech verbs; the modern ending is "-t", plentifully present in Wiktionary; so "dělati" is obsolete and "dělat" is modern.
 * I think Machek and his speculations can be left out from Wiktionary without much loss. This is not a moral criticism of Machek; he honestly indicates the uncertainty of his estimations, as he should. I have no problem with other options mentioned by Vasmer being mentioned in Wiktionary. I for one would not have a problem if you add the more speculative etymologies to the talk page, under a section "Czech - etymology", or of the sort. The talk page is just talk page, and can contain also hypotheses that are refused, as long as these are sourced and not wholly arbitrary. Other editors may differ, though. Other than that, I would leave a further discussion of etymology of "koberec" to you and Ivan, as you are both intensely interested in etymologies. --Dan Polansky 12:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(Haven't read the whole discussion). Bogorm, it's highly unlikely that's it's from Old Norse. Even Vasmer explicitly says so ("Невероятно фонетически заимствование из др.-исл" :) The word is from Turkic (as Vasmer claims), if you don't believe see p. 710 of the 2003 Altaic Etymological Dictionary by Starostin, Dybo & Mudrak [online entry here] (which is much more recent source than either Vasmer and esp. Brugmann & Mikkola) which unambiguously states (on the topmost entry for Proto-Turkic word for "carpet"): "Chuv. (Bulg.) > ORuss. kovьrъ ‘carpet’." Old Norse theory is really not worth mentioning. I can understand your passion for finding ancient Germanic loanwords in the Slavic, but they are not that numerous as Brugmann & co originally thought :) --Ivan Štambuk 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ivan, above I explained how distorted is the original German die Quelle ist wohl wolgabulg. ... (wohl expressing a temperate certainty like exemply gratia probably) as compared to the absolute certainty expressed in the Russian translation, where the word wohl has not been translated... I also stressed that many breakthroughs in the realm of linguistics such as Monier Williams Sanskrit dictionary (1899) or Dvoretsky's and Korolkov's Latin - Russian dictionary (1949) remain unsurpassable up to modern times and it is inacceptable to dismiss some linguistic source simply because of the edition year, this is neither physics nor genetics after all. I only wanted to prove that accepting only the brand new in linguistics is faux pas. Dan has not præsented refuting evidence, but you have come up with those two sources. I feel particularly suspicious that Jooseppi Julius Mikkola who has specialised in the field of Proto-Bulgarian history (according to the article about him) does not even mention the possibility of Proto-Bulgarian origin (in the 1900s), that Vasmer hæsitatingly indorses the Turkic origin (1950s), that Václav Machek mentions some connection to carpet and couvrir or to German Kober again with no discussion soever of the alleged Turkic origin (1957) and that finally at the beginning of the 21st century this Turkic version has been imposed... But well, I am not against it being mentioned, I even added it as a possibility to the article, but I would like to ask whether concurrent theories should be expurgated, what do you think? Mikkola and Karl Brugmann indorsed it, Vasmer mentions it, albeit critically, so why remove it, as Dan made? The principal opposition to well-established classical works is not an option in linguistics, is it? And what worries me about Starostin is that he supports the highly controversial appurtenance of the isolated Japanese language to the Altaic language family (according to the article about him), which would obviously strengthen the positions of Turkic/Altaic theories. Therefore I feel much more inclined to Jooseppi Julius Mikkola and Karl Brugmann and feel particularly aggrieved when their achievement is being removed. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

 * No, they're simply too old to be valid uncontroversial references. Linguistic science of IE etymology was very primitive back then (there were lots of ad-hoc explanations and "rules"). The topic of Germanic loanwords into Slavic is also very contested, and 90% of what used to proposed as some alleged prehistoric borrowings are simply nonsense by today's standards (also is valid for so-called "Iranian borrowings"). Find a work published in the last 30-40 years (and by that I don't mean work merely referencing Brugmmann or Mikkola's theory, but critically examining it at concluding that it's plausible) that supports Germanic origin and we can add it. Controversial theories must be well-sourced. I don't know what Machek is hallucinating about, this word was borrowed more than 1000 years ago and has nothing to do with modern-day German, English or French. Also, the disputed status of Altaic and of other Starostin's work in no way invalidates this particular Turkic etymon of Old Russian word mentioned in that book. --Ivan Štambuk 14:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan translated it above from Czech. Of course not modern French, but some Old French præcursor carpite and the præcursos of couvrir. Another possibility according to Machek is archaic German (well, the OHG prædecessor) Kober, which means basket - if přejaté means loaned, I asked Dan about that. I know you are particularly distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis which was supposed to stress the links between the languages at the beginning of the 20th centuries and which was subsequently dismissed, but... Well, I shall try to find out something. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is attested in Old Russian is a very strong case to dismiss any German/English/French origin (Vasmer also notes that). I'm not really distrustful of the Germano-Slavic hypothesis, it's just that I tend not to take sides with the preference of hypotheses on the basis of some ideological convictions. There are lots of ancient isoglosses (lexical, e.g. words for "thousand", and phonological, e.g. the reflexes of PIE syllabic sonorants..) that Slavic shares with Germanic, but this word has nothing to do with that: it is obviously some kind of a late borrowing in Slavic, and the only question is from which language. Turkic simply makes the strongest case here, given the widespread distribution of the term (in all 3 Slavic branches), and the history of interaction of Slavic speakers with Turkic people. --Ivan Štambuk 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:koberec


text: guds

title: guds


text: gudens

title: gudens


text: guders

title: guders


text: gudernes

title: gudernes


text:
semistable

Adjective

 * 1)  Describing a form of elliptic curve having congruent roots

title: semistable


text:
sextic

Adjective

 * 1)  Of the sixth degree or order.

Noun

 * 1)  An algebraic equation or function of the sixth degree, e.g. a polynomial of degree 6; a curve surface etc. describing such an equation or function, especially a quantic of the sixth degree.

title: sextic


text:
simplifaction

Noun

 * 1)  simplification

title: simplifaction


text:
spirality

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being spiral.

title: spirality


text:
stationarity

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being stationary
 * 2)  The condition of a series in which the value at all points is the same; the stationary value itself

title: stationarity


text:
subequation

Noun

 * 1)  An equation that forms part of another.
 * 2) One of a series of stacked equations in a document.

title: subequation


text: quens

title: quens


text:
subphotospheric

Adjective

 * 1)  Occurring beneath the photosphere

title: subphotospheric


text: nokre

title: nokre


text:
subposet

Noun

 * 1)  A subset of a poset

title: subposet


text: subschemes

title: subschemes


text:
nokor

Etymology
From, from.

Pronoun

 * 1) someone, anybody, some

title: nokor


text:
subscheme

Noun

 * 1)  A subset of a scheme

title: subscheme


text:
supercircle

Noun

 * 1)  A special case of a superellipse having equal semimajor and semiminor axes.

title: supercircle


text:
superembedding

Noun

 * 1)  A supersymmetric extension of classical surface theory to the description of superbrane dynamics by means of embedding worldvolume supersurfaces into target superspaces

title: superembedding


text: égards

title: égards


text:
superequilibrium

Noun

 * 1) The condition of a system in which the value of a parameter is greater than the equilibrium value

title: superequilibrium


text:
superhard

Adjective

 * 1) Having a very high hardness.
 * 2) Highly strengthened against attack.
 * 3)  Having a hardness between that of boron nitride and that of diamond.
 * 1)  Having a hardness between that of boron nitride and that of diamond.

Noun

 * 1)  A tyre whose compound is harder than a normal hard tyre.

title: superhard


text:
tenkja

Etymology
From late, from earlier with influence from. Akin to 🇨🇬.

Verb

 * 1) to think

title: tenkja


text: tenkje

title: tenkje


text: tenka

title: tenka


text: superisation

title: superisation


text:
superization

Noun

 * 1)  The extension of a manifold to a supermanifold

Antonyms

 * desuperization

title: superization


text:
supersoft

Adjective

 * 1) Very soft.
 * 2)  Describing astronomical X-rays of very low energy.
 * 3)  Softer than soft, harder than ultrasoft and therefore harder than hypersoft.

Translations

 * French: supertendre

title: supersoft


text: supertransformations

title: supertransformations


text:
supertransformation

Noun

 * 1)  The formation of a supertransform

Related terms

 * supertransform
 * supertransformant

title: supertransformation


text:
supertransform

Noun

 * 1)  The transform of a supermeasure.

title: supertransform


text: symmetrised

title: symmetrised


text: symplectomorphisms

title: symplectomorphisms


text:
symplectomorphism

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  An isomorphism of a symplectic manifold; a diffeomorphism which preserves symplectic structure.
 * 2) * 2001, A. Dzhamay, G. Wassermann (translators), V. I. Arnol'd, A. B. Givental' Symplectic Geometry, V. I. Arnol'd, S. P. Novikov (editors), Dynamical Systems IV: Symplectic Geometry and its Applications, Springer, 2nd Edition, page 39,
 * Poincare's argument is based on the fact that the fixed points of a symplectomorphism of the annulus are precisely the critical points of the function $$\textstyle F(x, y) = \int{(f dv - g du)}$$, where $$u=(X+x)/2$$, $$v=(Y+y)/2$$, true under the assumption that the Jacobian $$\partial(u,v)/\partial(x,y)$$ is different from zero.
 * 1) * 2008, Ana Cannas da Silva, Lectures on Symplectic Geometry, Springer, 2nd printing with corrections, page 63,
 * The symplectomorphisms of a symplectic manifold $$(M,\omega)$$ form the group
 * $$ \text{Sympl}(M,\omega) = \lbrace f : M \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} M\ \vert\ f^*\omega= \omega \rbrace$$.
 * $$ \text{Sympl}(M,\omega) = \lbrace f : M \overset{\simeq}{\longrightarrow} M\ \vert\ f^*\omega= \omega \rbrace$$.

Translations

 * Italian: simplettomorfismo

title: symplectomorphism


text:
teleparallel

Adjective

 * 1)  Of, pertaining to, or exhibiting teleparallelism

title: teleparallel


text:
rereguarde

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1)  rearguard

title: rereguarde


text: Category:fro:Military

title: Category:fro:Military


text:
teleparallelism

Noun

 * 1)  An early attempt at unifying electromagnetism and gravity, according to which a spacetime is characterized by a curvature-free linear connection in conjunction with a metric tensor field, both defined in terms of a dynamical tetrad field.

title: teleparallelism


text:
spørjast

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to get known
 * 2) a condition (requirement); to be dubious or uncertain
 * 1) a condition (requirement); to be dubious or uncertain

title: spørjast


text:
toral

Adjective

 * 1) Of or pertaining to a torus

Adjective

 * 1) main

title: toral


text: vaillants

title: vaillants


text:
tracial

Adjective

 * 1)  Of or pertaining to the trace of a projection.

title: tracial


text: vaillante

title: vaillante


text: vaillantes

title: vaillantes


text: Category:Old French present participles

title: Category:Old French present participles


text:
transplanckian

Adjective

 * 1)  Associated with energies greater than the Planck energy

title: transplanckian


text:
džber

Etymology
.

Noun

 * 1) tub a round open-top container

title: džber


text:
Mahumet

Etymology
From.

Proper noun

 * 1) Muhammad prophet

title: Mahumet


text:
tribimaximal

Adjective

 * 1)  Describes a combination of the trimaximal and bimaximal methods.

title: tribimaximal


text:
trimaximal

Adjective

 * 1)  Having three maxima

title: trimaximal


text:
tricategory

Noun

 * 1)  A higher-dimensional form of category

title: tricategory


text:
spørjas

Etymology
From.

title: spørjas


text: User:Robert Ullmann/CS redirects with links/January 2010


text: User:Robert Ullmann/CS redirects with links/February 2010


text:
umbilic

Adjective

 * Of, pertaining to, or having a navel or umbilicus

Noun

 * 1) The navel; the center.
 * 2)  An umbilicus.
 * 1)  An umbilicus.

title: umbilic


text: User:Robert Ullmann/CS redirects with links/March 2010


text:
unapplicable

Adjective

 * 1) Not applicable.

Synonyms

 * inapplicable

title: unapplicable


text:
uncondensed

Adjective

 * 1) Not condensed

title: uncondensed


text:
underluminous

Adjective

 * 1) Insufficiently luminous

title: underluminous


text:
weightedness

Noun

 * 1) The condition of being weighted

title: weightedness


text: worldline

title: worldline


text:
world line

Noun

 * 1)  A path in spacetime, especially that traversed by an elementary particle from its creation to its destruction.

Translations

 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * French:
 * German: Weltlinie
 * Japanese:

title: world line


text:
esmer

Etymology
Inherited from, present active infinitive of , possibly with the prefix (cf. Medieval Latin ). Eventually replaced with a borrowing in Middle and modern French, as this word came too close in pronunciation to (similar due to this word later became pronounced like modern *êmer).

Verb

 * 1) to estimate; to work out through thought
 * 2) to like; to love; to respect

Etymology
From, from.

Adjective

 * 1) having a rich olive skin tone; tan, tanned, dark
 * 2) brunet or brunette (having brown or black hair)

Noun

 * 1) someone brunet or brunette

Synonyms

 * kara
 * (obsolete) karaşın

title: esmer


text:
olaglig

Adjective

 * 1) illegal

title: olaglig


text: cumpain

title: cumpain


text:
cumpaigne

Noun

 * 1) campaign (usually military)

title: cumpaigne


text: Category:Kazakh adverbs

title: Category:Kazakh adverbs


text: Category:eo:Human

title: Category:eo:Human


text: Category:gn:Anatomy

title: Category:gn:Anatomy


text: Category:hy:Taxonomy

title: Category:hy:Taxonomy