User talk:Hazarasp

Welcome

Hello,welcome to Wiktionary,and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look atHelp:How to edit a page.It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or createhyperlinks.Feel free to practice in thesandbox.If you would like a slower introduction we have a shorttutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout(EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check outLanguage considerationsto find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• OurCriteria for Inclusion(CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister projectWikipedia,then you may find ourguide for Wikipedia usersuseful.
• If you have any questions, bring them toWiktionary:Information deskor ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add aBabelBoxto your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Vahag(talk)05:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for ME additions

I adore your additions to Middle English entries, a topic that is sadly often overlooked. You seem to be so knowledgeable on this and I greatly appreciate it. If you don't mind me asking, how do you know all this? Do you use specific sources or books or just your memory or something?--Sigehelmus(talk)15:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I mainly use theMiddle English DictionaryandAn Elementary Middle English Grammar,along with Wikipedia's Middle English coverage, though I sometimes depart from their choices (for example, I use the most frequently attested form of a word rather than using the MED's normalised orthography).Hazarasp(talk)00:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Alternative forms

Should probably not be chained together (alternative forms should not have their own alternative forms).DTLHS(talk)03:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

thanks

hi thanks for creating entries in wiktionary

schulder

When you make a Middle English entry into an alt form, be sure to get rid of the etymology and descendants sections in favour of centralising them as well. (This is one of the entries that's my fault, so I saw it pop up on my watchlist.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}02:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yok

Why did you revert my edit onyok?It is an adjective! I have two dictionaries that state that it is. I speak Turkish. The Turkish Wiktionary page states that is. What is going on?83.226.234.17508:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiktionary sometimes has different policies for determining the part of speech of a word compared to other dictionaries; you being a native speaker of Turkish doesn't change that fact. I don't know what Wiktionary's exact convention is here, but you should probably look at our entry ondeterminer.--Hazarasp(talk)08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

aquerneandacquerne

What's up with these being lemmatised at separate spellings? Are they not two senses of the same word? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}23:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who originally made those entries; I don't mind if you decide to merge them if you think that's appropriate. --Hazarasp(talk)00:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I know it wasn't you; I'm asking because you edited it and I want your judgement on what to do with them. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}02:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

They probably should be moved IMHO, but I intentionally left that decision for others to make. -Hazarasp(talk)04:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess I'll do that. Do you thinkacquerneis the better lemma? And then there's the matter ofsquirel... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}05:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know which would be better, but what do you mean when you talk aboutsquirel?--06:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a more common synonym, which raises the question of whethera[c]quernedeserves its own def at all, or just a{{synonym of}}if it's restricted to a certain area or time period. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A small request concerningJapheth

Hello, I believe we talked before and I still admire your edits with Middle English very much. I've been putting all my effort into the Japheth entry, and I would humbly request if you could help a bit with its parent,Jafeth.I only know of it appearing in the Wycliffe Bible, so if you could cast your magic as you typically do with Middle English entries that would be wonderful, if not I understand. Thank you for reading!--Sigehelmus(talk)04:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll do it in a minute; but I have one suggestion; I don't thinkMiddle EnglishJafethcan come from Old English due to the initial/dʒ/;/dʒ/couldn't occur initially in Old English. I believe it would be either fromMiddle FrenchJaphetor directly fromLatinIaphet,Iafeth.---Hazarasp(talk)05:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I of course agree that Old English speakers would have called Japheth something like*Iafetor*Iafeþ,but said form would have been replaced with a new ME form with initial/dʒ/(rather than/j/). --Hazarasp(talk)05:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I sadly can't seem to find a hard source for such an aspect and I appreciate your theory.I did put in my edit summary though that I would be very surprised indeed if the name Japheth in some form, and most of the OT names, did not exist in Christian Anglo-Saxon England, at least recorded in lost manuscripts. Therefore I didn't think that it would be replaced entirely by the French or Norman name, although that's possible.Oops your clarified edit addressed this haha, thank you, definitely put those in if you feel they belong.

Actually, doesn't that also meanJohnis not partly descended from OE Io(h)annes, was it wholly displaced? Or is that a different case? Interesting.--Sigehelmus(talk)05:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your edits, this is even better than I wanted. I hope it wasn't a bother for you, this was just my current pet project and I desired it as complete as I could. I also learned something so that's a bonus too.--Sigehelmus(talk)05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

andswerianandandswerien

I wouldn't consider this a conflation because I haven't seen anything that suggests they're not just variants of the same word. In order for there to be a conflation, I would say that you need two ideas that aren't the same thing but get mixed together, likeCronusandChronos.These two just seem like spelling variants to me. Also, I can't find any sources for the reconstruction*andaswarōną.Are we sure that it's different than*andaswarjaną?—Globins(yo)02:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

One (andswarian) is a class 2 weak verb with a past participle in-od;the other is class 1 (andswerian) with a past participle in-ed;most Germanic languages have a class 1 form here, IIRC, and class 2 was considered the "regular" verb class in OE, so it makes sense that verbs would move into it. However, the discrepancy between root vowels (umlauted "andswerian "vs. un-umlauted" andswarian ") suggests that the discrepancy must be old, as I don't think that umlaut was productive enough in OE at this stage to suggest that any verbs changing verbal class would be" un-umlauted ", soandswariancan't simply be a derivative ofandswerian.--Hazarasp(talk)03:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

FWOTD

Hey Hazarasp. I didn't know that you were interested in setting FWOTDs! The one you set wasn't quite ready (no quote), and I'd rather save it for a false friends focus week, but in general, I'd be very grateful to get some help. Are you looking to get involved? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}19:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Possibly; I'm in two minds about whether I should get involved in it; on one hand, it's another thing that I have to do, but on the other hand, I see that the situation with FWOTDs is very tight right now (in terms of having no backlog, etc.) --Hazarasp(talk·contributions)02:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you want an intermediate level of involvement, you could start by finding interesting entries, say in Middle English, that could be featured. The biggest issue, as you rightly noted, is lack of backlog to work from. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}19:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You're a life saver. I'm really struggling in terms of keeping up with all my commitments at this point. I appreciate the help a lot. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds}20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Your reversion ofUser:Silent Sam's deletion of the "Hyponyms" section in the entry forline

The removal of the "Hyponyms" section was justified.User:Sae1962has a long history of adding pointless sections, and this was his work. Every one of the many terms in it was already listed in the "Derived Terms" section and there tends to be no reliable logic to his selections of terms for particular sections. You should undo your reversion. --·(talk)01:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"wahtuh" etc.

Two people clearly think that stuff must be removed. Please engage in the discussion on the Tea Room atwater.Equinox◑03:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Made hogshead wotd

Just letting you know I madehogsheadthe word of the day for 2019 October 13th; great nomination!Piparsveinn(talk)18:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FWOTD focus week

Hey, thanks a lot for setting the foreign words of the days. If you want some respite, thefocus week for terms from Englishis imho ready for use. It includes nominated terms from some rarely featured languages. I have also set a six-dayfocus week with German-derived termsfor late September and early October (with an interruption), but you probably noticed that. If you want to extend that to seven days, I'd recommend setting the Italian or Ido term for the 29th of September.
I'll work on expanding the backlog for constructed languages by the way. They used to be featured once or twice a month, so the backlog is still quite small.←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)12:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I will borrow this thread if you don't mind. I saw you nomed a bunch of Azerbaijani words yesterday, maybe you can notify my a few days prior to when you plan to set them, so that I can pimp them up.Ketiga123(talk)11:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:merdeka

Hi. It seems thatWiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/2019/August 31was set by an unauthorized user. Would you be willing to considerthis entryinstead?KevinUp(talk)08:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've added citations to the entry forSong tính có cực chướng hạiand setmerdekaas the FWOTD of August 31, 2020 instead.KevinUp(talk)13:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hazarasp,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes togive your feedback through this survey.It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party andgoverned by this privacy statement(in English).

Findmore information about this project.Email usif you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hazarasp,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes togive your feedback through this survey.It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party andgoverned by this privacy statement(in English).

Findmore information about this project.Email usif you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

Being an admin

Hello! Are you interested in being an administrater? --Thedarkknightli(talk)05:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not at the moment; Wiktionary isn't something that I'm really focusing on right now, and becoming a admin feels like too much of a commitment for something which isn't a focus of mine.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)09:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Hazarasp,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes togive your feedback through this survey.It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party andgoverned by this privacy statement(in English).

Findmore information about this project.Email usif you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

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

eagre

The retention of this lexeme was most likely influenced by the Old Norse form, but not from it, due to the early English form "AGAR", possibly hardened to "ACKER" (obsolete form meaning a ripple on a puddle et cetera). All I know is on its discussion page. Andrew H. Gray 19:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Andrew(talk)

Middle Englishfellowred

Hello. We're missing an entry forMiddle Englishfellowred,which is in the OED.2A02:2788:A6:935:70B4:B094:6C9C:873811:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The entry's atfelawrede,since the spellingfellowredisn't attested (For extinct words, the OED often goes with what they think the ModE spelling would look like, even if it isn't attested).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)11:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks!2A02:2788:A6:935:70B4:B094:6C9C:873812:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The reason why they do this is because the word undoubtedly existed into the early Modern English period, even if it wasn't penned down or printed. For instance,felowe-redewas used right up till around 1500, and on 01/01/1500 through the next 50-70 years perhaps, the word still existed in the minds of at least some English speakers and they would have known it despite the fact we don't technically see it attested anywhere in writing. This doesn't mean the word abruptly vanished on 01/01/1500, it absolutely survived beyond that for some time, either conversationally or in memory.Leasnam(talk)10:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

leye þe sonne yn

I've been mucking around with the usage notes oflayand the usage guides/notes of bothMerriam-Websterand theAmerican Heritage Dictionarystate that intransitive use oflay(as in the originally causative verb, not the past tense oflie) dates to the fourteenth century, so to Middle English. Would you mind to verify that and do you know if that usage was general or restricted to a few contexts? @Leasnam←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)15:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

TheOED(first edition, so in the public domain, allowing reuse of their material) says the following about this usage:

1908,“lay v.¹”, inJames A. H. Murrayet al.,editors,A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (Oxford English Dictionary),volume VI, Part 1, London:Clarendon Press,→OCLC,page128:

In the earliest examples the verb appears to be intransitive for reflexive or passive. Now (exc. in Nautical language, see b) it is only dialectal or an illiterate substitute forlie,its identity of form with the past tense of the latter no doubt accounting largely for the confusion. In the 17th and 18th centuries, it was not apparently regarded as a solecism. (Forlay in waitseeWaitsb.)

TheMEDalsorecords this use (sense 12);the examples given there allow this sense to be antedated to the 13th century (though it only becomes common in the 15th century). Interestingly enough, most examples there are present forms, no doubt because that is what corresponds to the past tense oflie.Many of the attestations also shade into or can be interpreted as referring to the etymological sense oflay( "set down, make/cause to lie" ); this, along with the rarity of past forms, seems to indicate that the "lie" sense oflaywas still embryonic in Middle English.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)17:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that has been added to the usage notes.←₰-→Lingo^Bingo_Dingo(talk)15:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

plantetc.

@Hazarasp:I can somewhat sympathise with your decision to revert my edit, because the 'll' form would be expected if its origin were in Gaulish Proto-Celtic. It was just questionable in my mind that such a generic lexeme could have to be borrowed from Latin and as to how much Roman influence there was on Celtic dialects anyway. If you look at the ridiculous etymology of CLAN, you could partially forgive a layman for supposing that Latin was the parent language of at least one branch of Celtic! It was simply due to the proposed logical etymology of Latin PLANTA from Proto-Italic and the Celt-Italic descendant branch of P.I.E. that I adjusted the etymology of 'plant' at all, supposing it to derive from a Celt-Italic root via Silurian, perhaps; but this is impossible to prove. Of the 83 words beginning with 'pl' in the Collins Gem Welsh Dictionary, only 20% of them are genuine Celtic Welsh (excluding PLENTYN, PLANT and their derivatives). Although 'P' is not in the Ogham script, this is no proof that it did not exist in the Celtic Alpha bet, recognising the Q and P Celtic forms that were believed to have been separated before arrival in Britain. 'Llech', as you state, corresponds with Scots Gaelic 'Clach'; Old Cornish 'Pren' (branch, beam) with Scots Gaelic 'Crann' (tree), et cetera. Old Irish CLAND may be regarded as akin to Latin PLANTA, ie from its root; but certainly not a derivative! Incidentally, Cornish FLOGH (child) is akin to Swedish FLIKKA (little girl) - both substrates of pre-Brittonic origin. There are quite a few such substrates in the Scandinavian dialects and a good deal more than in English. It is all these European forms before Anglo-Saxon invasions in Britain that coupled with the core of Mezzo Indo-European that formed Proto-Germanic, and the latter is given undue substantive value as an easy etymological solution. Initially, I regarded Wiktionary as the most reliable source for etymologies; but within a couple of months realised that I was disillusioned, because too many sources fail to apply etymological logic! Kind Regards. Andrew(talk)

While it's impossible to be definitive about most etymologies, certain etymologies are likely enough to be practically assured. On the other hand, certain etymologies can be, and should be rejected. For instance, the consonantism of Old Irishclandproves it to be a borrowing, as the nasal element was lost from native/nt/(compare Old Irishdétto Old Welshdant). While it could've been borrowed directly from Latin, a borrowing from Old Welsh is more likely; contacts with speakers of Brythonic were more intense than those with Latin-speakers. In turn, Old Welshplantmust be a borrowing from Latinplanta,because no plausible native with the requisite semantics and phonetic shape is known. Additionally, the parallels with the Latin are too great to be coincidental. The claim that the lexeme is too generic to be borrowed doesn't survive further scrutiny; "generic lexemes" can and do get borrowed, if less often than lexemes for more specific concepts. Furthermore, there's a profusion of Latin loans in Welsh, so one more is hardly anomalous.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)09:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Error in R:DSL

Hi, Hazarasp. Whyaback o'yieldso' aback o'in References, I know little about wiki templates and just mimics existing usage. Could you help me correct it?— Thisunsignedcomment was added byZff19930930(talk•contribs).

It's a limitation of the template; you must use|url=in situations like this (where the entry is multiple words).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)10:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

moor

@Hazarasp:Regarding the etymology ofmoor,the change in semantics is parallel to that of Old Cornish 'HAL' (moor), that has gradually changed from the meaning of 'a body of water' to that of 'marsh' to 'moor'. This can happen with a few words; but in this case, the original meaning was that of 'sea', from the Proto-Brittonic MORI, mutated semantically to MOR (marsh) and than as (heath). The correct Proto-Germanic form isProto-Germanic*mari,as the origin of MERE (pool). Kind regards. Andrew H. Gray 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Andrew

I never said the semantic change was implausible; it would make little sense for me to say that given that the etymology I reverted to hinges on the same semantic change.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)02:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

beest,bist

Beeststates it is a subjunctive, yet Middle Englishbist(alternatives formsbeest,best) states it is an indicative.J3133(talk)08:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That is intended; in Middle English,bist/beestwas a indicative, as is stated. Because the English indicative tends to supplant the subjunctive over time, it could of course sometimes be found in subjunctive contexts. From the 1500s on, there was aincreasonincreasing tendency to prefer it where a subjunctive was demanded, making it practically a subjunctive. However, the indicative sense never entirely disappeared, so I'll have to add a indicative sense tobeest.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)10:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I haveadded“beest” and “bist” as indicatives (also “bist” as a subjunctive) to the archaic conjugations.Bist,however, does not state whether it is/was an indicative or a subjunctive. Middle Englishbeenalso has “be” for the plural (also “been”, which Iaddedearlier) and 1st-person singular present tense: where should those be added to the archaic conjugations (there is a note: “It [be] is also an archaic alternative form of the indicative, especially in the plural”, which does not mention which persons)?J3133(talk)11:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Etymologically,bewould be the expected first-person singular form and the plural form. (I'm not making any personal distinction in the plural as there generally isn't one; even Old English lacks it.) Non-etymological uses ofbearen't found outside of dialectal use, so they can safely be avoided. On a similar note,bistshould probably be removed from the table; it doesn't seem to've been part of the Early Modern English standard.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I haveremovedbistand addedbeto the first-person singular and the plural (all persons).J3133(talk)08:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cedar

Why shouldn't the Old English word be included?Prahlad balaji(talk)01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The Old English word would yield*cheder,with initial/tʃ/and final/r/.Instead we seecedre,with initial/s/and final schwa; these are the phonic properties we'd expect from a borrowing from Old French. The ~200-year gap in attestation between the OE and ME words also raises suspicion.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice.Prahlad balaji(talk)01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The claim by the Online Etymology Dictionary is that the two words (the Old English word and the Old French word) "blended" in Middle English. Something like what happened with the wordsaint(demonstrated, for example, by forms likesainct,seinct,senct), in other words.

Yes, there may be no attested Middle English forms comparable to that forcedarsuch as, say, "*chedre,"but that doesn't automatically rule out the possibility of their past existence. And given that the Online Etymology Dictionary, Lexico, and Dictionary found it reasonable to claim in the etymologies that they give that the Modern English word derives at least in part from the Old English word, and even the Century Dictionary found value in at the very least in noting the Old English word, do you not think that that warrants at least mentioning the possibility that the existing Old English word may have melded during the Middle English period with the word borrowed from Old French?

I certainly appreciate the concerns that you have with that possibility, but could you not briefly lay out those concerns incedar's etymology section rather than removing references to the Old English word entirely?Tharthan(talk)01:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Now Etymonline claims thatcedreis a "blend", but the strange thing about this blend is that only one of its supposed ingredients is visible in the metaphorical mi xing bowl. One can of course conveniently claim that the other ingredient was mixed in such a way as to conveniently become indiscernible (your hypothetical Middle English*chedre), but when there's no sign it was ever there in the first place, the sensible thing to do is to applyOccam's Razorand posit that there was no blend at all; the only visible ingredient is in fact the only ingredient.

Now one can claim that the other ingredient was sitting in the mi xing bowl some time ago (Old Englishceder), but it's perfectly possible that the mi xing bowl emptied and cleaned, especially as the specific dish isn't made that often around these parts (a word for "cedar" would be infrequently needed in early medieval England, as cedars are not native to England). Alternatively, others can point to how other dishes look like they involved the mixture of ingredients (Middle Englishseynt), but what holds for one dish doesn't necessarily for another.

At this point I think the mi xing -bowl metaphor exhausts its utility. Other dictionaries' support of the derivation of Middle Englishcedre(at least in part) fromċederin no way effects my estimation of it.As I have pointed out to Leasnam,other dictionaries may surpass us in resources and funds, but they are ultimately using a methodology that we can apply just as well. If a dictionary says something that doesn't comport with the evidence, then the evidence should be prioritised; of course we may be forced to return to their bosom when we misestimate or lack the relevant evidence, but they can err just like us. Even if the panoply of the lexicographical world is arrayed against us, we may yet be right.

However, I do agree with you that theċederetymology is worth mentioning, even though it is almost certainly erroneous. This is as Wiktionary does not exist in a hermetically-sealed vacuum. When our users research the origin ofcedre,they will often seek a second opinion by employing other sources, some of which of course postulate a derivation involving Old English incompatible with ours. For the user wanting etymological certitude, this will likely pose a dilemma, as most users will lack the necessary discernment to make a decision after merely seeing the two conflicting etymologies. So it is our duty to provide them with the necessary information to break the deadlock; the most efficient and transparent way of doing this is by explicit discussion of the competing derivation (as in e.g.hondbrede).

This view does not conflict with my earlier actions. When I reverted your edit, I was not in the right headspace to judiciously consider the entry's ideal state; with my limited time resources, there were only two realistic options available to me. Either I could neglect it, meaning that it would be gave undue credence, or I could revert it at the cost of not mentioning it at all. I chose to remove the inaccuracy at the cost of incompleteness.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)04:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, Hazarasp. Would you be interested in becoming an admin? If so, you'd be a great candidate and I'd be happy to nominate you:) —Svārtava(t/u) •05:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

As much as I would like to don the metaphorical administrative pallium, I cannot give your offer the careful and measured consideration it deserves at the moment, as I'm currently struggling with personal issues; you may have noticed that my edits aren't as frequent or involved as they once were. For clarity, I'll note that even if I was better disposed, I wouldn't necessarily accept; I usually conclude that I'm unworthy of the status whenever I reflect on the matter of potential adminship. I would recommend checking back in with me in six to eight months if you're still interested; by then, I'll hopefully have some indication of whether things will transpire favourably for me. If you feel inclined to inquire further about my situation, feel free to suggest a way to contact me privately, given that this is a intensely personal matter.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)09:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that you're definitely worthy of the admin status and also I'll note that having the admin tools doesn't means that you're forced to use it. You canSpecial:EmailUserme privately, if you don't mind. —Svārtava(t/u) •10:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may well be right; much of my self-evaluation is distorted by the effects of my native pessimism and therefore shouldn't be evaluated uncritically. However, I believe there's little apparent purpose in being vested with the tools when I'm not in a position to utilise them; as I stated, you can make the offer later if this is a matter that continues to interest you. As for your suggestion, I'll contact you in the coming days or weeks if and when I feel well enough.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)01:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Scottish Middle English

This still contains one entry.·~dictátor·mundꟾ10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AskTheknightwhoabout it; I moved all the contents of the category intoCategory:Early Scotsso we didn't have two categories for the same linguistic variety, but they sloppily reverted some of my edits because they were unaware that Early Scots and Scottish Middle English refer to the same thing (see my discussion on their talkpage). Given my current situation (see my discussion with Svartava above), I don't have the energy to try to win them over, so I guess the current perversity where we have two categories for the one linguistic variety (Early Scots/Scottish ME), which is classed as a ME variety in some places (Wiktionary:List of languages/special) and as a Scots variety in others (Category:Early Scots) will have to remain unless a third party does something to try to break the deadlock.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)13:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@HazaraspI have given you an extensive explanation on my own talk page. You don't have to engage, but implying that I'm "unaware" of something that I have explicitly said I disagree with is not the appropriate response.Theknightwho(talk)13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, you are wrong aboutWiktionary:List of languages/special,which lists theparentlanguage as Middle English. There is no inconsistency.Theknightwho(talk)14:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I said you "were unaware" (at the time of your reverts), not that you "are unaware" (presently or at the time of your response to me). Though I believe my assumption that you "were unaware" was reasonable (though probably not indicative of my best judgement: given the breadth of knowledge you display in your edits, it would've been better to reserve judgement), I agree that it wasn't "the appropriate response" to make a inflammatorily-worded and mean-spirited reference to it as though it was a unqualified fact. For that I offer my sincerest apologies.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As for being "wrong" aboutWiktionary:List of languages/special,you seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by "parent" there. To quoteModule:etymology languages/data,it refers to the language which the given "etymology language [sic] is a subvariety of".Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)14:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology - I was just a little surprised, as you'd otherwise been lovely.

Thanks for the info re etymology languages, though the result of that is that Middle Scots is currently classed as a variety of Middle English in the etymology tree due to its parent being Early Scots, which is clearly false.Theknightwho(talk)14:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The treatment ofsco-smithere is a clear mistake; seeWiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/Novemberfor some discussion.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. In time Middle Scots should probably be given its own L2, but given the paucity of Scots contributions as it is, I doubt we'd see enough entries to make it worthwhile at the moment.Theknightwho(talk)14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Middle English conjugation templates

Hello Hazarasp,

I saw that you are among the people who posted the enm-conj-xxx templates. I am Dutch and I wanted to post the conjugation of the enm verbsmorenon nl.wikti (See) based on wat I found here. But I am a little confused. The table here seems to suggest that the 2nd pers pluralyeshould also be followed bysmoren.Should that not besmoreth?No idea what is should be in the past tense.

Thanks

Jcwf2603:6081:2243:4810:750D:3888:D1C:36A523:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)(sorry, lost my password)

No, it should besmoren/smore;see our entry forsmoren.Some dialects do indeed havesmoreth/smoreþfor the plural, but I've excluded that from the table because it would make it too cluttered. Thissmoreth/smoreþis the etymological form (c.f. Old Englishsmoriaþ), but in the dialects of Middle English ancestral to the modern standard language, this was levelled out based on the past plurals and subjunctive, which all had endings that collapsed to-enbecause of vowel reduction in Late Old English. For instance, the past indicative plural ofsmorenwould besmoreden(often reduced tosmored(e)(that also answers your other question; c.f. Old Englishsmorodon).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)04:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for greek etys

Thank you for your etymologies for Modern Greek. The old template {etyl} has been changed to either inh or bor by chance, without any reference (most of the time). Normally, I never add etymologies (I do greek pronunciations), but sometimes I add an etymology.ref. Greek‑from‑Greek words are either inherited, or internal learned borrowings. The dictionary{{R:DSMG}}(also, not online,{{R:Andriotis 1983}}) mark the words as follows:

• < αρχ. =αρχαίος(archaíos,“ancient”).This is inherited from grc. (or ελνστ = Hellenistic Koine)
• λόγ. < αρχ. =λόγιος(lógios,“learned”).That is a learned borrowing from grc. The term (explained at the dictionary's intro), isdiachronic learned borrowingand the Category has more than 20.000 words. (in contrast, thesynchronic borrowingis not learned; it is a borrowing from a dialect, a word that enters Standard. It is very rare.)

Unfortunately, the template{{lbor}}puts the words, also underCategory:Greek terms borrowed from Ancient Greek,which is not desired because bor would mean a direct speaker‑to‑speaker loanword. (cf.Grease.2022.06#structure of Borr.categories). So, i sometimes writeLearnedly, from {der}.
Thank you for your interesting ref atάνθρωπος(pity, i cannot read it). I have added some refs. About theta (θ) and ανθρ- and αθρ-: as i see at most dictionaries, they are both accepted as inherited parallel forms by most greek etymologists (unlike the cluster νδ anc./nd/ > modern [nd], hypercorrected learnedly as [nð], as you, very nicely, marked atΑλεξάνδρεια(cfάντρας,άνδρας). Thanks, have a nice summer ‑‑Sarri.greek^♫I12:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't got a chance to read your comment until now, as I'm unfortunately able to devote very limited time to Wiktionary due to chronic illness. It's great to have you share your thoughts, and I mostly agree, but I do have one minor quibble. You say that use of{{bor}}and placement in borrowing categories indicates a "direct speaker-to-speaker loanword", but that's not how I would naturally interpret things; to me, placement in that category can refer to any kind of loanword (hence whyCategory:Greek learned borrowings from Ancient Greekis a subcategory ofCategory:Greek terms borrowed from Ancient Greek). When e.g.Category:Greek borrowed termsrefers to terms that are "directly incorporated from another language.", I don't believe it's intended to refer to direct speaker-to-speaker transmission. Instead, I think it's meant to stop editors from putting terms in categories likeCategory:Greek terms borrowed from Ancient Greekif they were mediated through a third language rather than being directly taken from one language into the other (a example would beΑίτνα(Aítna)). This is a mistake I've actually seen editors make when working on other languages because the names of borrowing categories are worded ambiguously.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)14:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hazarasp,sorry to hear of your health problems; please take care of yourself. Etymologies for modern greek are slightly differently described in our main sources (like{{R:DSMG}}) I hope that in the future, there will be a restructuring, plus some el-specific templates. ‑‑Sarri.greek^♫I05:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally I can't think of any reason why the standard templates can't be used for Greek too; maybe some of the "Greek-specific templates" you speak of could actually be useful for other languages too.

(This reminds me of when I suggested thatUser:Martin123xyzshould set up the code forCategory:Macedonian terms containing fossilized case endingsso similar categories could be created for other languages, which let me createCategory:English terms containing fossilized case endings.)Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)05:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Gallo-Italic words for 'cheese'

Hi Hazarasp. This is in reference toyour recent edit.

Yes, the forms with /dʒ/ or similar are surely borrowed from Gallo-Romance, however, many of the ones that you have removed instead have /j/, as in Venetianformajo.That is not a likely outcome of an original affricate in these languages. It appears to reflect a form inherited in some Gallo-Italic variety via a development like /forˈmadeɡo/ > */forˈmajɡo/ > */forˈmajk/ (ultimately with a loss of /-k/). For the latter two forms, compare Genoesesalvaigoand Piemontese (Valsesian)salvaic< Latinsalvaticus(source: FEW;screenshot,page link).

It is far from trivial to determine which outcomes are 'regular' in which Gallo-Italic language and which are the result of mutual borrowing. Further comparison with the descendants ofvolaticusanderraticusreveals a rather confused picture.Nicodene(talk)20:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to you earlier; I've in absolutely dreadful health at the moment, so it's unfortunately not always easy for me to respond in a prompt fashion To address your point, I agree that any borrowing of OF/d͡ʒ/as/j/would be very puzzling to say the least, but I couldn't think of any alternative when working on the entry. I don't have any objection to your proposal; though it is by no means perfect, I cannot think of a more compelling explanation for the facts. As for your comment about the expected phonological development of-aticumbeing nontrivial to discern, I don't disagree, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I am of the opinion that careful linguistic detective work can result in a surprisingly accurate, but necessarily always tentative) picture of the development of things.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)08:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hope you get better.

As for which Gallo-Romance variety was the source, I'm inclined to think Piemontese based on the phonological shape, but a single pair of examples (Piemontese servai~sarvai < salvaticus) may not be much to base this theory on. From a historical perspective, I agree that Genoese/Ligurian would be a likelier source of borrowings in general, but I'm not sure it's the case here.Nicodene(talk)09:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-lemma etymologies

I see you've added etymologies to some verb and noun forms semi-recently (e.g.appultreen); according toWT:ETY,we shouldn't be adding etymologies (and therefore categorizing entries) to regularly formed words. I'm not familiar with Middle English, but it seems to me thatappultreendoesn't need an etymology any more than modernapple trees.Keep in mind we depopulatedCategory:English terms suffixed with -syears ago.Ultimateria(talk)20:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@UltimateriaHey, I saw post aboutWT:ETYwhere I think your are referencingWiktionary:Etymology#Lemma.I was wondering how you would viewTaibei's etymology, sinceTaipeiis the lemma, as I understand it. Perhaps my understanding of what Wiktionary means by the lemma form is not strong enough, but doesn't the etymology at Taibei break the WT:ETY rule? Why doesn't it break that rule? IsTaipeia lemma, perWiktionary:Lemmas,or is it something else? Note that I strongly support including the etymology at Taibei, but a glance at the wording of Wiktionary:Etymology#Lemma leads me to believe that the etymology there is not technically allowed under Wiktionary policy. I think I must misunderstand something. Thanks for any guidance. --Geographyinitiative(talk)21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative:The section I've been referring to isWT:ETY#Inflected forms,not Lemma. (Keep in mind that page is athink tankand needs work; that's why it was nominated for deletion recently.) There are some situations where alternative forms are treated like non-lemmas (e.g. avoiding duplicate etymologies and categories on these pages), but generally they are considered lemmas. The etymology atTaibeigives information about that specific form, and should be kept for that reason. It's very different from an etymology at e.g.fatheredshowingfather+ -ed.Ultimateria(talk)21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

while I do agree that generally speaking, nonlemma forms shouldn't receive etymologies, I believe that principle shouldn't be absolute; in some cases, such as highly irregular verb forms, the addition of etymological information may be worthwhile (adding that information to the lemma page would clog up the etymology section too much; besides, a majority would probably think to look for the specific form first). I wouldn't now classify ME plurals in-enas highly irregular, but when I created the category, I thought such a classification might be justified as I was unsure about how many there were; t was only partway though populating the category I realised the sheer profusion of them. I kept adding them regardless as my plan was to eventually remove them and place the corresponding singular forms in something likeCategory:Middle English weak nounswhen I get round to creating ME noun-inflection templates, but the deterioration in my health and cognitive ability over the last year or so has prevented me from carrying it out. If someone couldcreate andpopulate that category for me, that would be great; given my current state, doing the work myself would be highly inadvisable.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)10:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've just realised that it may be better to recategorise the relevant plural forms inCategory:Middle English nouns with weak plurals,corresponding to the wayEnglish irregular plurals are treated,rather than moving the locus of categorisation to the singular form. Middle English reflects a transition from the model older Germanic languages, where each noun has its own paradigm which determines all inflectional forms to a modern English-like model where plurals are the only forms that can differ between nouns, so it's hard to know whether to categorise things like Old English (where lemmas are categorised intoCategory:Old English a-stem nouns,Category:Old English nd-stem nouns,etc.) or Modern English (where the plurals are what gets categorised; e.g.Category:English irregular plurals ending in "-en"orCategory:English irregular plurals ending in "-ges"). A third option would be to apply both kinds of categorisation, but this would introduce a major redundancy (seeing as there's over 2,000 entries inCategory:Middle English noun plural forms).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)10:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon!

—Sgconlaw(talk)12:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Seconding this.Theknightwho(talk)12:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Etymology of Old English “heahfore”

Hello Hazarasp,

I have read Liberman’s etymology on the wordheiferand would like to ask you about the source of the last sentence: “However, this etymology fails to explain…”

According to him, the word most likely had a short diphthong. Does Middle English/ɛː/actually require a long diphtong in Old English?heyfrehad/ɛi̯/and/ɛ/(see entry).

Concerning the existence of the suffix-fore,Liberman providesfieldfare< Old Englishfeloforandelver<*ǣlforeand assigns the meaning “dweller/occupant (of)”, originally “belonging to or pertaining to,” rather than “traveler, goer; carrier.”

I would be glad if you share your thoughts with me on this.

--Latisc(talk)10:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The entry explains the origins of forms with/ɛː/as follows:

Forms with/ɛː/continue Late Old Englishhēafru,which develops from a syncopatedhēahfruwith simplification of the resulting consonant cluster/xfr/

This explanation would of course fail if the original form was*hĕahfruwith a short diphthong (otherwise you'd get Middle English/ɛ/;this is of course attested, but the forms with/ɛː/then go unexplained), and I don't see how the forms with/ɛː/could otherwise be derived (open-syllable lengthening would probably not be possible in any EME form). I also cannot agree Liberman's approach of reconstructing an suffix*-forewithout any etymology or much justification for a disparate grab-bag of items, especially when they can mostly be otherwise etymologised:

• hēahforeis of course a "high-goer", as opposed to aċealfthat travels. The construction is definitely somewhat unusual, but it's better than "pen-dweller"; calves also inhabit pens.
• elveris plainly Middle Englishel(“eel”)+‎fare(“group on a journey”);note that the oldest attestation (in theRolls of Parliamentfor 1533) refers to agroupof elvers. There is no need for the compound to go back to OE;v-forf-can be a Southernism likevane,vat.This makes much more sence than Liberman's suggested "eel-inhabitant".
• Old Englishfeloforcannot be etymologised at present, but Liberman is wrong to equate it tofieldfare;the dialectal forms he mentions could've easily came from simplification of/ldf/;notice that all forms with a intervening vowel in theEDDhave/ld/,not/l/.

Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)12:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

thanks for your quick reply. I don’t know much about the phonological developments in Old and Middle English, but could compensatory lengthening explain the/ɛː/if Middle Englishheyfredeveloped from*hĕahfruwith the loss of/x/?In that case,/ɛ/would occur if it descended from an already syncopated*hĕafru.Middle English has/ˈhɛi̯frə/(diphthongisation of/ɛː/?), where the diphthong corresponds to a long vowel sound. The different vowels might be due to dialectal variation. Does this make sense or is this phonologically implausible?

Also, how do you explain the underlying meaning “high-goer” and what does that have to do with young cows? Did it use to be a generic term for hill-climbing animals which later acquired the meaning “young cow” through semantic narrowing?

--Latisc(talk)14:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I have thought of another idea: If we assume that Liberman’s etymology is correct, maybe Old Englishhēahinfluenced the original form*hĕahforeand produced an alternative form*hēahfore.Thus, both/ɛ/and/ɛː/could be explained. --Latisc(talk)15:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not very taken with the possibility of "assuming that Liberman's etymology is correct"; as I pointed out, his supposed suffix*-foreis a bit of unetymologised duct-tape to lump several disparate terms together. Furthermore, the first element "hedge" that he suggests should result in Old Englishhæġfore> Middle Englishhayvere(with voicing of the medial consonant occasioned by the open syllable; analogical restitution of the unvoiced consonant would not be possible as the compound is opaque).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)03:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't say that's plausible, as I'm not aware of any cases of the kind of compensatory lengthening that you're describing in ME; one would expect later loss of/x/in*hĕahfruto result in a ME form with/ɛ/(or maybe/a/), just like earlier loss. In fact, the lack of forms in/a/is further evidence against a original short vowel in "heifer", as OEĕaordinarily results in/a/in most ME dialects. ME also/ˈhɛi̯frə/cannot come from diphthongisation of/ɛː/as that vowel doesn't randomly diphthongise like that; it must come from a form where/x/was retained long enough to trigger diphthongisation ( "breaking" ).

I probably wasn't clear enough about what I believe to be semantics ofhēahfore←*hēah-fāræ"high-goer"; "high" would probably mean "tall", (OEhēahis also "tall" ), so a "tall-goer" (or maybe "tall-farer"; Old Englishfarancan already mean "to proceed, to act" ) would be a adult cow as opposed to aċealf.Thushēahforewould've originally been an (informal?) term for any adult cow, only later being specialised for one that hasn't calved (note that theOEDstates that it can refer to a cow that's only calved once in some dialects). On a tangent, it's possible that there was at one time a corresponding*hēahforam(“bull”).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)03:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your clarifications, that makes sense. So would a long diphthong in Old English*hēahforeexplain/ˈhɛi̯frə/as well? Do you think positing*hēahforeis perfectly reasonable in both phonological and semantic terms or do you still see any difficulties regarding this etymology?

The main reason Liberman dismissed the form with the long diphthong is because “*‘[h]ighstepper’ as the name of a young cow would be a kenning, which alone makes this etymology ofheiferimprobable.” Is this a valid assumption? --Latisc(talk)09:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes,/ˈhɛi̯frə/could regularly develop fromhēahfore,though such a form could also be develop from*hĕahfore.However, if the OE form was*hĕahfore,I'd expect a collateral form/ˈhau̯frə/,which would probably predominate in Late ME and result in modern English*hafer(likesafe< Middle Englishsauf); compare the outcomes of OEĕahin the following words:

• /ˈɛi̯xt(ə)~ˈau̯xt(ə)/"eight" <ĕahta;ModE unexpectedly reflects the form with/ɛi̯/here.
• /ˈlɛi̯xən~ˈlau̯xən/"to laugh" <hlæ̆hhan,Anglian form ofhliehhan;OEæandeagenerally merge in late OE (whether short or long).

As for Liberman's argument about kennings, it's a response to a specific interpretation ofhēahforeas "stepping superbly", which is not the interpretation that I have adopted.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)01:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Etymology for Swahili "kilema"

You added an etymology for Swahilikilema(BorrowedfromArabicكِلَام(kilām)). Do you by any chance have a reference for this? Thanks!MartinMichlmayr(talk)12:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Added to the entry.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)12:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

hevanriki

Hi Hazarasp! I saw your edit summary comment, and it appears cut off (I assume you meant that should be tying the OE and OSX terms back to a PWG reconstruct (?)). If so, that's a tricky one. It all depends on whether the PWGics had a term meaning "heavenly kingdom" outside of its Christian sense. OFS, OSX, and GOH had analogous terms (e.g. Old Saxonhimilrīki) but I would need to research if this was a concept borrowed from Gothic, or if the term was an Anglo-Saxon translation ofregnum caelorumand spread via AS missionaries. My gut instinct is that it's the latter.Leasnam(talk)15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware that other West Germanic languages have parallel formations, hence why I considered reconstructing the term to PWGmc. However, as the speakers of PWGmc were likely still mostly pagan, ultimately quite definitively rejected the idea of reconstructing Proto-West Germanic*hebunarīkī~*himilarīkī,because of the lack of evidence for pre-Christian currency of the term (which is a fairly specific Christian phrase, unlike, say,*kirikā,so that non-Christians would have no opportunity to use it). Additionally, the formal variation (fluctuation between*hebun~*himilexactly parallel to that seen in the simplex; nominative singular*hebun/*himilfollowing Gmc. compound formation vs. genitive plural*hebunōas a more direct adaptation of Latincaelōrum) points to a new, unsettled formation.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)01:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

weste (I'll keep undoing your edit)

I'm sure you have multiple more accesses to Middle English writings than do I, yet, based on MED, only one example of an infinitive aswestecan be found, the one a1425 <<Wynd in mannis body is caused of þis wys: kynd hete is lytyll or ellys less þan nede were & unmyghty for to resolve, id est to breke & undo &westeaway & distroy þat wyk hu[mor].>> All other verbs shown aswesteare the preterite("wasted").This is whywesteshould be included as an alternative form on the entry, but it is not noteworthy enough to be shown as a normal Middle English infinitive. At the time, were the language standardised, this would have been considered bad grammar, just like how people today say "I is" or "you was"...just because it's attestable doesn't make it correct.Leasnam(talk)17:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My comment referred to ME infinitives in general, not that ofweste(n).However, I'll respond to your misinterpretation by noting that theMEDonly supplies one example of a infinitivewith/n/(in a passage ofLaȝamon'sBrut) This means 50% of infinitival attestations lack/n/,which hardly makes leaving the/n/-less forms out of the relevant{{desctree}}s as "not noteworthy" defensible. Furthermore, your claim that it would've constituted "bad grammar" is a ridiculously unwarranted logical leap; you could at least do me the decency of supplying evidence that this particular sociolinguistic variable.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It is therefore from here that we look at ALL Infinitives together collectively, for ALL VERBS, and when you do so, you will observe that the majority have -n.Leasnam(talk)03:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, especially given the increase in text production in the Late ME period (when infinitival-nwas recessive). I'll illustrate with a few examples from theMED(disagreeing mauscripts are counted seperately):

• adressen:adresse3x,adresce2x (adressen0x)
• adreden:adrede6x,adreden3x
• aken:ake1x (aken0x)
• angren:angre4x,angir1x,angren1x,angrye1x,angur1x,anngrenn1x (Orm, probably MS. <anᷠgrenᷠ>)
• awen:awe2x,agh1x (awen0x)

Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)03:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OE calwere

Hello! B&T has an entry for this, but are you able to check if it were actually attested, please?Leasnam(talk)03:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be attested except as a alternate or inflected form ofcalwer(you'd need to check the context of the relevant gloss). By the way, you do know that you'll get twenty free logins if you create aDOEaccount, right?Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)04:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not know that, but I reckon I'll use those up pretty quickly. I should just pay the subscription cost. I'm thinking about doing it... but Thanks:)Leasnam(talk)06:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The given definition forcalwere(“a bald place on the top of the head”)seems to be unrelated tocalwer(“curds”).Leasnam(talk)06:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Macedonian adverbial participles

Hello, Hazarasp! Can you please use your bot to make some changes in the entries withCategory:Macedonian adverbial participles(308)? What I need is to replace the generic definition template code{{head|mk|participle}}with{{mk-advptcp|a}}.Later I will manually edit the entries with Macedonian adverbial participles that end in-е́јќиand will replace the parameter "a" with "e". Thank you.Gorec(talk)19:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not very well at the moment (see my main userpage); while I may be eventually able to get around to this, you might have more luck asking somebody else.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)02:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just saw your user page. Get well soon; I wish you many health and happiness in the new year!

If I can't find someone, then I will edit all the entries manually, when I have the time. Thanks anyway. --Gorec(talk)12:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

DoneI upgraded the template with more parameters and I edited all the entries manually. Happy holidays! --Gorec(talk)12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Galik Mongolian characters

Hiya - thanks for your outstanding etymological work atब्राह्मण(brāhmaṇa).Just in relation to Mongolian galik characters, my inclination is not to use them for the Mongolic languages themselves (outside of those which have come into general use). Instead, I think they’re more suited for direct transcriptions of Sanskrit or Classical Tibetan. With this term, the transcription is (likely to be) something likeᠪᠷᠠᢗᠾᠮᠠᢏᠠ᠋(brāhmaṇa),whereasᠪᠢᠷᠠᠮᠠᠨ(biraman)has been phonologically adapted (e.g. to avoid the word-initial consonant cluster, and by dropping the word-final short vowel). In any event, the galik “i” character isprobably going to be deprecated as a glyph variantat some point anyway.Theknightwho(talk)13:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, though there's a good chance I won't be working with Mongolic material instead; I'm not well, and am therefore avoiding doing much on Wiktionary for the time being (see my user page). As a result, most of my efforts involve fi xing mistakes or inaccuracies involving material that I know well (not Mongolic!). For instance, my edits atब्राह्मणwere prompted by the page's statement that Hindiब्राह्मण(brāhmaṇ)was inherited from Sanskrit (a obvious falsehood); I then got a bit carried away.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)04:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries - I just wanted to give you a heads up going forward.Theknightwho(talk)18:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "eleven"

Hello, I was wondering whether you know how the modern pronunciation of "eleven" came to be. All the Middle English pronunciations that you added onellevenshow that the stress is on the first syllable, so how did the stress shift over to the second syllable?2601:640:8A80:98E0:701E:877E:B7CC:F25D07:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Due to illness I can't look into the matter further, but the reason for the stress shift doesn't appear to be known; the expected modern form would probably be something like*elveor*enve(< ME*elven/*enven<*enlven). or*elven/*envenif from the inflected form likefive,seven,twelve(the regular outcome of the uninflected forms would be*fife,*seve,*twelf). However, it seems that the stress-shift was completed by the ME period, so I'll change the page appropriately.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)07:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Middle Englishschrynken(et al.)

Hi - is there a reason why we seem to lemmatise Middle English at spellings that are as different as possible from moden English? For example, at Englishshrink,we give the etymologyshrink< Middle Englishschrynken< Old Englishsċrincan.Note that the MED lemmatises atshrinken([1]), which seems far more intuitive to me.

I've noticed this pretty consistently across Middle English lemmas, and wondered what the reasoning behind it was.Theknightwho(talk)19:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The apposite criteria are listed atWiktionary:About Middle English#Alternative_forms,though that section could benefit from expansion and clarification. Regarding the particular spelling selected forschrynken,I decided to employ <sch> as a standard grapheme for initial/ʃ/since the majority of extant entries employed that form, though some entries with <sh> remain due to my declining health and avoidance of normalised or otherwise unattested forms; with that constraint imposed, <schrynk-> seemingly marginally predominates over <schrink->.

However, your intuition about the avoidance of orthographic choices resembling Modern English is not entirely incorrect; some spellings persist from a time when that was indeed a objective of mine (for instance,eieremains despite <eye> both predominating and being more consistent with other entries; though examination of the edit history of e.g.manwill provide a counterexample).Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)10:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

double l in pronunciation ofemasculate

You wroteIPA^(key):/ɪˈmask.jʊl.lət/as the RP pronunciation of adjectiveemasculate.I seriously seriously doubt this. This would mean there is a geminate (long) /l/ in this word. Geminate consonants simply do not happen in English outside of a few cases likeunnamedandbookkeeperwhere there's a clear morpheme boundary between two morphemes each of which contains the same consonant. Perhaps you are thinking of the idea that /l/ is "ambisyllabic" and in some sense belongs to both syllables? This may be the case but this is still not how you notate this.Benwing2(talk)04:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You should consider that a slipup originating from incautious copy-pasting rather than a intentional choice. By the way, you neglected to notice the inconsistent notation of secondary stress introduced in the same edit; I evidently wasn't paying attention when editing.Hazarasp(parlement·werkis)08:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@HazaraspOK thanks, I'll fix if you haven't already. I did in fact notice some weirdness with secondary stress but didn't look into it more carefully.Benwing2(talk)08:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, you already fixed it. Thanks! Also there is an inconsistency between RP and GA in the placement of the syllable boundary vis-a-vis /sk/, which I don't think corresponds to any actual difference.Benwing2(talk)08:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)