User talk:Fenakhay

by the way I wanted to ask how do you know Cypriot Arabic? عربي-٣١ (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@عربي-٣١: I don't know it much. I am just adding terms from Borg, Alexander (2004) A Comparative Glossary of Cypriot Maronite Arabic (Arabic–English) (Handbook of Oriental Studies; I.70), Leiden and Boston: Brill. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 01:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe this is an error. 'fi' is actually the proper preposition in its natural form, 'f' is just a contraction of it. Therefore I think it would make more sense as to leave its information under 'fi' or at the very least list it there as an alternative form. Thanks Melithius (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not a contraction. ‹i› is an epenthetic vowel unlike for example in li. So it makes sense to have f’ as the lemma form. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 14:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hm never thought of it that way, especially since it comes from Arabic فِي regarded as full ‘fi’. Also f’ has an apostrophe generally used for contracted forms of words (like hawn > haw’, lil > ‘(i)l, hence my statement. Melithius (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

In many Arabic dialects, the preposition is simply فْ (f) not فِي (fi). — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 12:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay I would like to add the fact that the dictionary form for f' seems to be fi as shown in Ġabra, il-Miklem and some other Maltese teaching websites. However I am not sure of the dictionary form stated in the physical dictionaries of Maltese as I didn't have access to them. SidAlmoħadMuwaħħid (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

They have two different meanings. Ġieli comes from ġie li but is now used as more of a phrase to say ‘sometimes’ hence its agglutination, ġie li means what it literally means: ‘it came that’, therefore this is undoubtibly wrong. Melithius (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is the form used by Aquilina. We can have the one-word spelling as an alternative form as I did. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 12:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Even if that is the case, it does not matter. Every modern dictionary and formal text would list it as one word, especially because of the distinction between it and the two word form. At best, I would list Aqualina's version as a superseded spelling, as as it is misleading. Melithius (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not misleading per se. I will make the change. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

'Obsolete' I meant. Ok Thanks. Melithius (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
Entries in 3arabizi are accepted here (for exemple the Darija word 7ba9 or m9all9a) Àncilu (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, they are not. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 21:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It might be nice to have an entry for term "3arabizi" itself, though I'm not sure what language to call it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: If anything at all, a hard redirect, like this spasibo. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Actually, it's an English slang word, I just made it. Number "3" stands for the Arabic letter ع (ʕ), which is silent in English but pronounced in Arabic. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn’t matter what vowels are between g-r-g-r; vowels can easily change phonetically with no assimilation to pevious conjugations/forms in Maltese, take e.g. perfect tense ‘garr’ yet present tense ‘jgorr’ (a->o). Maltese, even more than Arabic, isn’t that dependent on what the vowels are, just as long as there’s a set quantity and tone, hence contributing to many phonetic vowel change in both standard and especially dialectal Maltese and Arabic. Not disproving your claim, but I think my initial ‘possible’ was fair. Melithius (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's not how vowels work in Arabic. ⟨r⟩ is an emphatic consonant in the word garr hence why it is pronounced with /a/. If it were reduplicated, it would yield **gargar. Emphatic consonants don't just disappear like that. If you can find a source for your claims, add them. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 21:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t state they disappear, nor am i talking about Arabic if i made it seem that way, I’m simply saying that in Maltese vowels sometimes have big tendencies to change, irregardless of previous forms. Yes I agree it would be unlikely, but given a quadriliteral word form is already exceptional, further exceptions could take place if I’m making sense. Also, I find it possible that at one point it would have been **gargar, but would’ve changed due to colloquilisation. However again given it seems unlikely, it’s fine as it is, thanks.

Also wanted to ask where do you get your info from Aquilina, online sources or his own books and dictionaries? Melithius (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Melithius: The latter. If you are referring to the etymology of kukrumbajsa, it is in Aquilina, G. (1945). Nisel il-kliem. Lehen il-Malti, 176-178, 125-127. If you can't find it, I can send it to you by email (you need to add an email to your account first). — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 22:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Managed to find them online. Thanks anyways. Melithius (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

They absolutely do not have such conjugations. Just because they are adjectives does not mean they have to conjugate that way. If one were to say ‘she is close’ they’d say ‘hija qrib/viċin’ not ‘hija qriba/viċina’. This is undoubtedly wrong. May you please say why you think it’s not? Melithius (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find this hard to believe since all Maltese dictionaries mention them plus there are so many hits online. We have a note under qrib though. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No I assure you this is basically never said or else very very rare. Generally If it was it would be considered incorrect.

I guess it could have been said normally but changed to be this way, especially considering the fact it's mostly used with qiegħed or another verb like e.g. qiegħda qrib/viċin. Melithius (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think there should be an appendix for maltese verb including the kinds of verbs, the ways these forms are formed and other information, almost like the Arabic verbs appendix. I am not sure how to create such a page without much help and I wish for your help to create and form this Please. What do you think? Melithius (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Melithius: That would be a good addition, but I sadly don't have the time to draft one at the moment. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 21:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, if you ever do decide to start and would need help post-draft feel free to reply to this message again. Thanks. Melithius (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Melithius: Will do! — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 23:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Was there a module error for this? Now दोस् doesn't work, which has a perfectly regular declension. Exarchus (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Exarchus: Yeah, many. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 12:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not really sure which change caused the errors, and not even sure it was one of my changes because I briefly saw a few Indic script entries in the module error category (among which a Bengali one) and they disappeared (except दोस्) without me doing anything. So I'll try to reinstate my edits one by one, immediately reverting if I see errors appearing. Exarchus (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

oops, I forgot a '$' sign Exarchus (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was busy looking for entries حي and حيي. Notice a few problems? Short past form حَيَّ still generates long present يَحْيَا instead of short one which is يَحَيُّ per Lisan al-Arab: [1]. Also notice how participles aren't generated at all. Perhaps Template:ar-conj needs parameters for manually setting them up for specific rare cases like this? Or code change to generate them automatically? Fixmaster (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it also doesn't work with عَيَّ/عَيِيَ from the root ع ي ي (the عَيِيَ is handled properly if one specifies i/a paradigm, but the geminated form doesn't work, ar-conj won't generate table at all). Fixmaster (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bothering again, but there's one more problem: I tried to create entry for حَبُبَ/يَحْبُبُ (paradigm u/u) "to be loved" (very rare case, i found only 3 verbs with geminate roots of paradigm u/u mentioned in Lane's lexicon, شَرُرَ and لَبُبَ are 2 others, despite their root, they're conjugated like sound verbs with no gemination), but ar-conj couldn't generate the table even after forcing the verb type as "I-sound" (it demands specification of gemination as its weakness; with I-geminated, ar-conj does generate the conjugation table, but as a standard geminate verb with gemination, حَبَّ). Seems like one can only force sound conjugation with a weak root letter, but not with geminate roots. Fixmaster (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you reverted the deletion of these words - homoseksual, homoseksualitet, heteroseksualitet. These are uncited and do not exist in any Albanian dictionaries.

https://fjalorthi.com/

https://fjalori.shkenca.org/

http://www.seelrc.org:8080/albdict/ Neo204 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Neo204: If you dispute existence of words in a language, you can add {{rfv|sq|Your reason (optionally)}}} to the entry and add an entry in Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English. The terms can be easily cited from Google books, though, as far as I can tell. Absence in dictionaries mean nothing. Why waste everybody's time? Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No need for rudeness.

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}}, {{ant}} and/or {{desc}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay Hello I just want to ask isn't nxtewa a weak form VII verb (at least according to Ġabra and my Maltese knowledge)? I don't understand on the reversion that you did. Perhaps we can discuss further about it. -- SidAlmoħadMuwaħħid (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@SidAlmoħadMuwaħħid: You are misusing the template. You need to create another one for the VII-nt form. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay Ow I see alrighty then -- SidAlmoħadMuwaħħid (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Recently I read an interesting suggestion that says 'ilu' actually comes from *ewlu, which comes from 'ewwel' (first, beginning), in the sense of in the beginning of (a particular) time, hence long ago. I see this as making much more sense then 'to himself' as in the sentence 'ilu li għamilha', it makes more sense to say 'from the beginning he did it' then 'to himself he did it'. Although arguably I could maybe understand it as 'to him (came the time when) he did it', but i think the aforementioned suggestion is more reasonable...

What are your thoughts on this? Could it be added as a possible etymology? If not, may you please explain how such a shift in meaning can occur in this context? Thanks! Melithius (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Melithius: That seems like a folk etymology with no phonological basis. That usage is found in many Arabic dialects and the etymology makes sense to me personally. Furthermore, the etymology we provide is Aquilina's, and he doesn't mention any other theory. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 16:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes Aquilina does say it's from a Berber Language? I saw it myself in his dictionary volume 1? Linkage to Egyptian b' however was only a possibility, given same meaning. Melithius (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

He says: "onomat. form. from the impression created by the bleating of goats. cp. Berber bā, sheep, goat, baba, goat (J. Bynon, 1968)". The onomatopoeia LABIAL+a for goats is common crosslinguistically. So this comparison is irrelevant. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 23:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my mistake then, misread it. Sorry! Melithius (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay Hello, I just want to ask why the Arabic etymologies in Tagalog have been removed. While I understand that probably it's a cleaner look, or minimizing pages to edit and just making it dercat, wouldn't it be nice if I can see the entire etymology of a word in one glance, instead of going through each language step one by one? Not a lot of people sees the categories at the bottom right away. Then again there may be a other reason for it so yea I'm just asking. Thanks! Ysrael214 (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ysrael214: Looks like your argument about visibility of categories will fizzle out if this passes: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/May#Enabling categories for logged-out users. I understand that on the Philippines, mobile internet use has greater significance for the bulk of the population. It’s barely about the look however, but avoiding leaving information that can get out of sync with where it has been copied from. Fay Freak (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak Oh good, the visibility of the categories would greatly help solving this problem. May take time for people to learn but at least it's more accessible. And yea I understand the desync of information, isn't there an automated etymology tree in the works? I think I saw something like that. Ysrael214 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ysrael214: The vote on etymology trees is still running, man, though it will only augment textual etymologies, not supplant them. You can see the vote on the trees, as a more impactful one, in your watchlist. How about you just vote on things? Fay Freak (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak Sure thanks. Ysrael214 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You reverted twice my edit. Can you tell me etymologically why? Hyblaeorum (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hyblaeorum: Because you are removing a valid etymology, maybe? Maltese azzara is a verb derived from Sicilian azzariari. Traina, Antonino (1868) “Fenakhay”, in Nuovo vocabolario Siciliano-Italiano [New Sicilian-Italian vocabulary] (in Italian), Liber Liber, published 2020, page 471. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 08:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm really tired of having to debate Sicilian lexicography and etymologies with non-native speakers. The Sicilian language is a minority language, still poorly studied today. Sicilian dictionaries available online such as the over-quoted Traina are affected by a high level of spelling imprecision, in addition to the fact that the spelling has often met (if not clashed with) the Italian academic superstratum. Therefore, regardless of what Traina wrote about it (whose surname itself is the clear example of the Italianisation of the habitational surname of "Troina", starting from the Sicilian Trajina) the Maltese lemma can certainly derive from the Sicilian stratum and therefore either from azzaru or from the verb azzarijari. For that latter there is and specific reason for the infixion of that -j-. The etymon of that lemma is now still incorrect because of your unsolicited intervention. I am here to listen your counterarguments. Hyblaeorum (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

In terms of Arabic etymology, creating the same ending of spider and octopus is interesting as both of them possess multiple limbs Ravirro (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ravirro: Sounds exceedingly random. I mean there is a preference for meanings to be connected with certain patterns, but this is pernickety and so unfathomable to most readers that I’d rather remove this information lest they be confused. Fay Freak (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

“There is no 1st-person dual person pronoun” is like saying “there is no feminine 1st-person plural person pronoun”. Doesn’t mean no pronoun is used in those cases. The one which is used is -nā, that’s why it should be extended to all three—or at least a note should be added. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why exactly did you revert my edit, which I saw as enriching the categorization and context? Shoshin000 (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I ask...is there any particular reason you believe that this would fail RFV? Did you did a 30-second Google Books search before RFVing? Purplebackpack89 20:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

And Related...why the revert at bah humbug? Shouldn't literal and metaphorical uses be separate definitions? Purplebackpack89 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I 100% agree and have been thinking about bringing up that issue for some time. Ignoring verb forms, we can safely assume the stress is word-final like 95~99% of the time.

I do want to mention that such a change would need to be made twice... perhaps Tajik pronunciation should only be generated in one module, either fa-IPA or tg-IPA, not both? Though, maybe that's a separate issue for another time — SAMEER (؂・؄・؏) 10:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

also MB on ҷуғрофиё, I put Persian out of habit and I was too sleepy to notice. — SAMEER (؂・؄・؏) 10:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sameerhameedy: I agree with you. One way to achieve this is by generating the Tajik pronunciation from the Tajik Cyrillic romanisation (this should be added to Module:fa-IPA), and not directly from the Classical Persian romanisation. This way we only have one endpoint for Tajik pronunciation either called by {{fa-IPA}} (from the Classical Persian romanisation) or {{tg-IPA}} (from the Cyrillic spelling). We can get rid of Module:tg-IPA after this. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 10:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sameerhameedy: I just reread Module:tg-IPA's code and I think we could just make the Tajik pronunciation endpoint (in Module:fa-IPA) accept Tajik transliteration instead of Classical Persian romanisation. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It may be possible to do something like:

if (sc == "Cyrl") then 
::	text = mw.ustring.gsub(text, '[Оо]', 'ā')
::	text = mw.ustring.gsub(text, '[Ӯӯ]', 'ō')
::		end
::text = lang:transliterate(text)
::text = ulower(text)

which would effectively convert it to a Classical romanization (since Tajik has no vowel length, the fact that vowel length is lost using this method would not matter that much). — SAMEER (؂・؄・؏) 21:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The non-existent templates {{tl|what}} and {{tl|dubious}} are examples of items that clutter our Special:Wanted pages. I was looking for a way to remove them from that listing, where Appendix:ǃKung word lists is the only page that calls for the templates. Do you have any other ideas for removing them from Special:Wantedtemplates? Deletion? nowiki? DCDuring (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: I know. Your edit was throwing an error, hence my revert. I've converted them to plain text. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 15:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I missed that. Thanks. DCDuring (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Now your links here are all that are left. You might want to be more careful about using {{tl}} for empty templates from now on. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@User:Chuck Entz When an issue is raised it can help to use {{template}} to show whether the template exists. When the discussion is done nowiki-ing {{template}} is a great idea, so good, IMHO, that it ought to be applied globally ASAP. I have nowiki-ed many of my user pages that had redlinked templates and pages. If I want to find templates and pages that need creating I temporarily reverse the nowiki-ing and, if I remember, restore it afterwards. I've got my hands full just working on the most linked-too taxonomic pages and templates, as nobody else seems to think that most-linked-to is an important criterion for adding or improving entries. DCDuring (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@User:Chuck Entz Do you think there is any appetite for nowiki-ing non-existent templates and entire, apparently unused user pages that have enormous lists of wanted entries that are based on repeated runs against the dumps? I got the impression that TKW opposed such a practice. DCDuring (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Care to explain your reverts? hard candy should be linked as one word, collective nouns are not the same as uncountable nouns, Category:Rhymes:Maltese/ajt exists. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why are you performing bulk edits removing improvements and categorization? [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, your block of me wasn't that long and it's over now...

...but I don't think you should've done it.

1. Benwing nominated an article I created for deletion
2. Within a few hours, five people have voted to retain it
3. I suggest to Benwing that he withdraw a nomination that is likely to be closed as keep
4. You block me for supposed harassment a few minutes later

Benwing makes a questionable RfD, I'm the one who gets blocked? You also goofed with the timing, in that it ended being 31 hours instead of 24. Purplebackpack89 05:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You pinged me about various issues. I fixed the ones involving {{category redirect}} where 'words' should say 'terms'. (It's possible there are others involving {{movecat}}; if so they still need to be done.) I am getting rid of {{hi-usex}}/{{hi-x}} and {{ur-x}} now, using a new {{uxa}} template that does autodetermination of whether to inline, similar in spirit to what was done by the old templates. Basically, it computes the character width of the raw text portion of the inline output (i.e. links are delinked and HTML is stripped), with Asian characters counting as twice as wide. If the total width (which includes example, translit, gloss, parens, etc.) is > 100 chars, it made multiline, otherwise inline. This should work out similar to the previous code, which checked just the example to see if it was > 30 chars. Ideally we need a better solution that e.g. does different things on desktop and mobile, and maybe even knows the average width of a character in different scripts; but what I have will do for now.

As for the Hindustani conversion, I did that manually only on Persian Descendants sections. I'm writing a script to try to do this automatically everywhere, since there are more than 2000 raw occurrences of Hindustani in Descendants sections, too many to do by hand. Benwing2 (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Fenakhay, I hope you're well.

I've noticed that you've been removing the hyphenation template from Urdu and Punjabi lemmas, is there any reason for this? In Urdu, we have something similar to hyphenation to illustrate Urdu spelling / phonology, hence why it is usually included in Wiktionary as well. نعم البدل (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry but I don't see any issue in my edits. Why did you remove the translations for penance? It has multiple translations and I find these existing translations in the Chinese corpus reasonable in different levels of definitions since penance is a polysemous word indeed. Is there any rule that I missed when I edited the Wiktionary entry? --Weatheryn (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Weatheryn: first you used the wrong language code, which is an understandable mistake- but it left a mass of garbage in the translations under "L" for "Lua error", which you didn't clean up. Then you added a verb which might be translatable as do penance, to the translation section of the noun penance. That would be like adding Mandarin 吃 (“eat”) to the translation section for food. Yes, they're related semantically, but they're not the same thing. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure I understand your first point properly. What language code? Do you mean I edited in another language? If so, please enlighten me. Second, I am a native Chinese, born and still live in China. So I am confident that I know how the term penance works in a semantic sentence as a noun and how to organize the example sentence. For example, “张三在经历苦修/苦行之后，心性大变，仿佛变了一个人似的”.

苦行/苦修 are the most common nominal word choice in China mainland in my knowledge. By the way, in regions of Traditional Chinese, other names 告解/修和 are also used for penance. But imo that's less trendy. Actually, I think these two are for the 2nd defition of penance. Weatheryn (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I ask you why you remove so often additions from other users without explaining the reason? [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are duplicating info in many entries with incomplete glosses. We don't do that here. Follow each language editors way of doing things and stop rowing against the current. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 16:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m not sure what you mean by “incomplete glosses”. In any case, explanations should not be begged for in cases like this (see above). Regards. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 16:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blinded as you are by your obsession with reverting, you messed with the categorization of مهرگان. Here to announce I’m going to fix it before you undo my edits and then block me for “edit warring”; I invite you once more to take the time to take a closer look at the results of the edits you make. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 23:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I can see you didn’t get what I tried to tell you the last time and you still think you own the entries. Great attitude. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I tried to discuss with you multiple times. No willingness to take the criticism. This is my last warning before I take action to report your indiscriminate removals. Which I would regret, given the amount of good edits and improvements you make. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@IvanScrooge98: You are trying to impose your way of doing things in Arabic lects entries without giving a fuck about the current practices. You are stubborn to the point that I am sure that every Arabic edit you make contains something controversial, like your last edit of زاكي. So I will give you a last warning to either align yourself with our practices in regards to Arabic entry layout, or you'll be blocked for a week. As you can't seem to figure out that. If you want to change them, create a thread at WT:About Arabic. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m sorry, but you act like you own every single entry, and not only in Arabic but in a variety of languages, as this page clearly shows. You refuse to engage with users who want to have a genuine conversation with you and when they insist you rebuke them telling them they don’t align with “current practices” without caring to explain anything beforehand. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now let’s see what other admins will have to say. [ˌiˑvã̠n̪ˑˈs̪kr̺ud͡ʒʔˌn̺ovã̠n̪ˑˈt̪ɔ̟t̪ːo] _{(parla con me)} 20:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, first these are my first contributions to wiktionary so apologies if I did something wrong. Second, I found you called the person with this disease جذامي which is not correct because in Arabic we call him مجذوم which is in Hadith "فر من المجذوم فرارك من الأسد". You can also arguably call him أجذم but not as correct as مجذوم.

جذامي is a correct Arabic word but has another meaning. It's NISBA to city of جذام Munzirtaha (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Munzirtaha: The definition of the English term was confusing. My bad. We've split the definiton. About جُذَامِيّ (juḏāmiyy, literally “related to leprosy or to its symptoms”), it is a nisba adjective of جُذَام (juḏām, “leprosy”). — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 13:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Ok great I see you bring back مجذوم but I have a couple of issues still. First, أبرص وأجذم is two distinct diseases. It cannot be both. Second, جذامي is not a nisba of جذام the disease, it's a nisba to جذام the tribe, or the place. Just like we say Moroccan nisba to Morocco. It shouldn't be placed in this entry. If you have any reference that says otherwise please let me know. Munzirtaha (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just wanted some clarification about the etymology of a page which I also contributed. For clarification, I only contributed half of the etymology and the page I'm talking about is the dümbelek page. It seems as though you just deleted two-thirds of the etymology for seemingly no reason. If there's something wrong with it, please enlighten me. Thank you!

Hi again! I still don't know why you deleted the two thirds of the etymology in the dümbelek page once more. You said that '"The etymology is already in دمبلك; Please do not duplicate content just for the sake of it. Plus your addition is incomplete compared to the Ottoman Turkish entry"' which actually is no reason to delete the two thirds of the etymology. It's illogical to expect people to hop from entry to entry to see the etymology of a word, especially when the entry one expects to hop into is of a dead language, so it's not "duplicating content for the sake of it". Moreover if you felt like the etymology is incomplete compared to the dead language, you can just add the full etymology instead of just deleting the two thirds of an edit. Until then I'll undo your edit once more and please do not revert edits like this without discussing with the editor beforehand. Hope this helps and thank you in advance! Kakaeater (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kakaeater: Firstly, you don’t own the page. Secondly, this is the standard practice on Wiktionary, particularly when the etymology of a word is disputed and complex. Over time, discrepancies may arise. I’ve encountered this numerous times, and we’re attempting to address it using {{etymon}}. Regarding your point about Ottoman Turkish being a dead language, its relevance is unclear. Are you suggesting we should also include the etymology of طَبْل (ṭabl)? One of Wiktionary’s advantages is its ability to link to other languages, which sets it apart from traditional dictionaries.

Therefore, please refrain from reverting the changes, as it essentially leads to an edit war. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 13:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

First of all, you are in no way an authority in Turkish language since along the thousand languages you sited in your Babel, there's no Turkish. So please just stay away from editing Turkish any more entries. It's not only this page either that you have removed things from, it's way more pages than just this one where you removed things without providing any information. I just stood silent because they weren't as much of a huge removal as this one.

Second of all, the reason it's relevant that Ottoman Turkish is a dead language is that it's just an intermediate stage of the evolution of the Turkish language, that's why it's not just named "Ottoman". It can be just as well named medieval Turkish. It's like how in English words borrowed from French in the Middle English era still have French sited in their etymology. If you don't like this extremely widespread practice I advise you to start editing most of the English-French borrowing pages and just delete all of the etymologies thereof and say "inherited from Middle English" and expect people to hop to that page of that language which no one speaks anymore.

Third of all, '"Are you suggesting we should also include the etymology of طَبْل (ṭabl)?"'. Am I? Site the sentence where I said "Let's include all the changes a word went through!". Instead of strawmanning your way through a discussion and still having the audacity to tell people they should stop reverting your edits of no help, perhaps you should just listen to the people in your talk page begging you to stop your removals upon removals of relevant information.

Moreover I didn't even do the most of the etymology. It's another user, namely @Hswehli, whose edits were useful may I add, who added the two thirds of the etymology half of which you deleted. I only added that it was borrowed from Persian which was admittedly incomplete, but I didn't want to add something other than my source provided. So no, absolutely no one is suggesting that we should add the whole etymology tree. What I am suggesting is that we should add the absolute basic words from which the word was borrowed.

Keep in mind that if any edit war happens, you are the reason. I told you to not to revert my edits without talking with me first because I am also aware of the possibility of this becoming an edit war. Not to forget this is the Wiki rule to prevent things from becoming an edit war. You did not heed what I said, so consider yourself the reason. And unlike you, I will wait a response from you before editing the page again 'cause I actually don't want this to be an edit war, I will change the page accordingly if you don't respond or if we settle on a solution.

Therefore, please refrain from editing any more Turkish entries. I truly hope this helps. Kakaeater (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay I truly don't understand your stubbornness. It's insane to insist on not adding a simple sentence and disregarding whole paragraphs without even acknowledging them. It's not just me either there are a lot of people begging you to stop. Sincerely Kakaeater (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, also you reverted my changes to the word "aksülamel" saying: "Not an Arabic word". I used the following syntax: from Arabic عَكْس العَمَل (ʕaks al-ʕamal), from عكس +‎ ال (al-) +‎ عمل. If this is wrong, please, clarify to me what's the proper way to do it. Removing it altogether, will not show the Arabic etymology of the words. Munzirtaha (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am trying to clean up and unify the handling of various foo-IPA templates as much as possible. I am planning on making the following changes to {{ar-IPA}}:

1. Unify |1= and |tr=, likewise |2= and |tr2=, etc. It's easy to autodetect whether something is Arabic script or translit so they can share the same param.
2. Rename |qual= to |q= for consistency with other templates, and add |qq=, |a=, |aa= and |ref=, as supported by other pronunciation templates.
3. Rename |nl= to something less obscure, probably |notext= since that is what the corresponding param is called in templates such as {{univerbation}}.

Other Arabic language templates (so far I've found {{ary-IPA}}, {{ajp-IPA}} and {{pga-IPA}}, the latter created by User:Santi2222; there may be others) will work in the same way, as much as possible. There will be a Module:pron utilities to abstract out the common parameter-handling code so that the individual modules only need to provide the conversion between respelling and IPA. Benwing2 (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Fenakhay. You reverted my edits on طبسيل. Here's the reference where the Hebrew etymology of the word was mentioned: screenshot, cover of the book Ideophagous (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonġu @Fenakhay, I am always fascinated in the number of obscure/archaic words you added for Maltese. I wonder where do you find all those sources? It will be nice for me to know, as I want to contribute for the Maltese entries as well. SidAlmoħadMuwaħħid (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fenakhay Check my resources. I copy-paste whatever my sources, mainly Nişanyan, give me. If it's faulty or half-done, that's in no way my problem. You are free and more than welcome to fix that or add the vocalization, since you know Arabic and I can barely read the abjad, but instead of passive aggressively tagging me into all of the edits you do on pages created by me you can just collaborate with fellow editors and improve their edits instead of telling them to either do a job perfectly or not do it at all. If that frustrates you that much instead of ignoring messages on your talk page you can give me a solution like I can tag you or something. Kakaeater (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never ever undo my edits. Science boy 30 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Never ever say that to another editor. This is a wiki- The Dictionary That Anyone Can Edit. Deal with it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Calm down :D

Of course everybody can edit but they are trying to have edit wars. Science boy 30 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For aesthetic considerations, I can’t care much whether there are hyphens or rather spaces between radicals in Syriac script, but the pages do not match. Editors started Category:Assyrian Neo-Aramaic terms by root and Category:Assyrian Neo-Aramaic roots with spaces probably in analogy to Arabic, whereas the eleven entries in Category:Classical Syriac roots had no exemplar for their using hyphens, unless the Hebrew root pages and the few Jewish Aramaic root pages modelled after it (two since 2010), which I think are well served with maqāf in view of aesthetics. Now ܢܙܠܐ Assyrian and Classical Syriac entries contradict each other only so the root box can link to an eventual Classical Syriac page formed with separators analogous to the eleven grandfathered root pages. Obviously cognate root pages in Assyrian and Classical Syriac should not be separated by separators! It is nice to have an orange link from Classical Syriac to Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, too.

For clarity, I also think that {{gez-rootbox}} was created with hyphens only because I have used {{root}} previously in Gəʕəz in Təgre entries with hyphens, opting for the first column with ä vowel because these graphs historically preceded the added marks appended to them to express inherent vowels when in old incriptions Old South Arabian script developed to Ethiopic script, as in the inscription copied at መሀር, and for the hyphen I had aesthetic preference. Only now I form an opinion what separator an Old South Arabian rootbox would have: perhaps due to closeness to “Central Semitic” Arabic, as well as Old North Arabian, spaces are preferred, and hyphens would be quite ahistorical—though occurring in the transliterations of the inscriptions on DASI—, and they had their own separator 𐩽, we can see instantly in facsimilia too, e.g. the one linked at {{RQ:Glaser 1155}} by which I started quoted Old South Arabian entries.

It might be possible to automatically replace hyphens with spaces or spaces with hyphens in our (Syriac) root-linking mechanisms, so links are mutually compatible. Like search engines have always treated them as interchangeable in file names and URLs. Otherwise you, or voters, but because there isn’t really one to care about 11 old entries and we already have wasted too many cognitive capacities for this it may be only you, have to make a conclusion in favour of one particular separator, and I am not sure that you have now opted for hyphens as a consequence of correct reasoning. It could be the space well as Assyrian editors employ it now. On the other hand they might prefer to use hyphens if only having rethought the matter. Fay Freak (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: I plan to research how Classical Syriac roots are written in dictionaries later this weekend. Based on my findings, I’ll cleanup all Aramaic lects and check in with Assyrian Neo-Aramaic editors. In the meantime, I’ve added the hyphen so our root entries stay linked. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 20:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can verify as a Malaysian Malay native speaker that searching the term "lokesyen" on Pusat Rujukan Persuratan Melayu (an online dictionary often used by Malaysian school students) yields no results, Duhose definitely made this up. 2001:E68:5450:1831:C1ED:19F6:8F02:7ADC 22:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are words that people use that aren't in the standard dictionaries. Please read our Criteria for inclusion. Even if it turns out to be made up, it needs to be checked before being removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

According to the IPA, your username is pronounced something like this: (IPA^(key): /fiːn ʔaxaːj/, [ˌfiːn ʔæˈχæːj]).

Audio (US):

(file)

Today I recorded an audio of my attempt to pronounce your username. Is this correct? Let me know if I made a mistake.

Thank you. Flame, not lame (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I don't understand why did you undo my edit but I added some Turkic equivalents of the word "çapa" which derived from the same root çapmak as i said. Please don't undo it again. Thanks. Dortylez (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

why did you revert my edit? do you not know the connection between semitic words? Meni111 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Meni111 Do you know English? You started an English sentence with a lower-case misspelling, and you left out all the punctuation. That's like writing "שׂלוּמ" in Hebrew- sure, you can figure it out, but it looks really bad in a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Meni111 And you did it again on أَرْمَل (ʔarmal). Look into other entries containing etymological comparisons to learn basic formatting. But no worries, sooner or later someone will create the Semitic reconstruction entry and your comparison in the Arabic entry will be superfluous. Fay Freak (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by this comment but I added that in Hebrew the word אלמן it's cognate to Armal in Arabic so I don't see where I was wrong Meni111 (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

so I did right Meni111 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why did you revert my entire changes to that page? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I won't get a reply from you in the next week or so, I'm simply gonna revert your changes. Have a good day! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because it is a load of crap? Edit languages you know and don't do OR in Afro-Asiatic languages as you seem incompetent in that regards. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 07:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, someone didn't have their breakfast. Can you please point to which specific details in my edits which were, according to you, wrong, or what OR in Afro-Asiatic have I been doing, instead of just insulting me? Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Want us to play this game? Fine. Provide sources for your "etymology", and then we'll discuss its merit. You seem to have no clue about Berber and Semitic languages, and the phonology of borrowings. @Fay Freak. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 22:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

First of all, why the hell are you so angry? Well, it must be something about me because I had a simillar interaction with Nicodene, where I start by questioning some etymology and he replied to me by saying I don't know what I'm talking about, or something like that - not as angrily as you, though! And once again you addressed none of my previous points: what was it that I did that caused you to react the way you did? But you wanna play the game of etymology and the fonology of borrowings - let's go!

As I explained here in the discussion page for Morocco (which I probaly should have added to the Portuguese page of Marrocos, whis was where I made my edits) and here in the etymology scriptorium, Spanish "ue" in Marruecos corresponding to Portuguese [ɔ] is a clear sign that the word has a common source and that it already existed in the Vulgar Latin of Iberia, which predates the arrival of the Arabs by several centuries, meaning a direct loan from Berber is much more likely, especially since the usual Berber etymology given - amur n akuc "land of God" - sounds very fanciful and a clear example of a folk etymology - unless you can find me a historical source mentioning the use of this term.
As for "the phonology of borrowings", Arabic مُرَّاكُش (murrākuš), with the imāla (see, I know something!) usually being rendered in Portuguese with [ɛ] (as in Tejo, Beja, alforreca), and never with "o", as far as I know. Regarding not knowing much about Berber, you're right: I took the modern Berber form of the word from their Berber Wikipedia page for Marrakesh, which was the only place I could find them.

Regarding me "having no clue about Berber and Semitic languages", I'm certainly no expert, nor I clame to be, but I also certainly have at least a clue or two about them.

See how I managed to present my arguments without insulting you a single time? Your turn. Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sérgio evidently is tottering even in Iberian Romance phonetic details and dating, and by this I only mean ballparking a relative order, their changes. The reason nobody has answered Wiktionary:Etymology_scriptorium/2024/August#Morocco or Talk:Morocco is that it is hard to fathom. Diphthongization in Spanish, in spite of the disputes about its earliest attestation, placed somewhere 500–800 (more e.g. Michele Loporcaro 2015 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance p. 78) and hence at the time of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, was a long process or trend and ⟨o⟩ → ⟨ue⟩ could happen somewhere in the Late Middle Ages if only by analogy and consequentialism, though of course it must appear more mysterious to him as a Portuguese speaker than to me as a German 😩. Lastly he appears unfamiliar to the laminal pronunciation of /s/ and thus greater closeness to /ʃ/ in the Iberian Middle Ages, on which there are lots of papers of otiose Romanists, which should lead to the conclusion that مَرَّاكُش (marrākuš) was borrowed as a plural: Marrocos. Imāla for 711 is too bold an idea to worry about for a non-Arabist, it obviously differs in Portuguese borrowings by Arabic chronolect, regiolect and idiolect even anyhow. Whether or not Maghrebi cities then are correctly etymologized is certainly not for Sérgio R R Santos to assess, at his current state of education, if he does not become an Arabist and Berberist of a sudden (see you in at least five years then for both!). For European place names, or exonyms, it is good practice, that can even be expected from him, to track down early attestion, before saying anything about origins. As I have done at Bielefeld. Even for German place names different language knowledge is required depending on the corner of it which you attempt to answer. Fay Freak (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I expected, not much of what you said made much sense. "tottering"; wasn't aware of that word, did they teach that and other words of contempt in your classes of "Berberism" and "Arabism" so that you sound extra arrogant and dismissive of anyone you talk to? You seem so sure of your linguistic capabilities yet you made such absurd statements as "⟨o⟩ → ⟨ue⟩ could happen somewhere in the Late Middle Ages if only by analogy and consequentialism" - the change of Latin short "o" to "ue/uo" was almost surely a chain shift, given the enormity of languages in which it occurred and the vast geographical space. I know the current "knowlege" on Vulgar Latin is that it had the vowels /ɔ/ and /ɛ/ and that they later diphthonguized in many languages; however I find that theory highly unlikeky. For starters, if Vulgar Latin vowels already had that difference in quality, there would be no motivation for such a shift; it also doesn't explain the lack of contiguity (from west to east: Galician has closed/open vowels, Leonese, Asturian, Castillian have diphthongization, then Catalan has closed/open vowels, some varieties of Occitan have one or the other, then French and Italian have both depending on the syllable type). Such a vast geographical area affected with such a specific sound change makes me think that the most plausible explanation for it is that it was a chain shift, which occur very fast. But the scholars of Vulgar Latin can't be wrong, right? Like their persistent belief that "ç" and "z" were pronounced as affricates in Old Spanish/Portuguese, even though arabic borrowings clearly refute that, with Arabic /s/, /z/ being consistently rendered by "c/ç", "z", respectively.

"he appears unfamiliar to the laminal pronunciation of /s/ and thus greater closeness to /ʃ/" - you mean the apical pronunciation - yes, i'm very aware of it. I don't know how that helps your argument, though, if it was borrowed as a plural, howcome none of the Iberian languages reffer to it as plural, and howcome none of them turned it into a singular, by analogy?

"Imāla for 711 is too bold an idea to worry about for a non-Arabist" - then please explain the examples I provided?

Anyway, I was waiting for some answers to my inquiry about the etymology of Morocco before I reverted your changes, but you managed to irritate me so much with your attitude and lack of respect that I might just go ahead with it. Have a nice life! Sérgio R R Santos (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey There Fenakhay, I Just Wanna Tell You That I Did All Those Edits (Which You Just Reverted Many Of Them) With Great Care & Deliberation... Kindly Take This Into Account & Please Undo The Rollbacks Of My Edits, As I Ain't In A Position To Rollback Myself... Dibyayoti176255 (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe this is an internationalism; It's a peculiar metathesis shared only with Ottoman Turkish. متذكر (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@متذكر: You are probably right. Arabs had little other way to learn about this emerging nation, as contrasted with specific regions like Wallachia, Galicia, Bogdania etc. – and even that is blatantly borrowed from Ottoman – than through Anatolian Turks, anymore than mid-19th-century Germans about Bamia. Fay Freak (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply