User talk:Mnemosientje

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there's something wrong with the etymological edits you made to the word ongean and a few of its cognates. I'm not sure what the exact problem is, but the symptom is that the Proto-Germanic ancestor word is messed up. For now I'm going to slap a band-aid on it, but I'm not very experienced with Wiktionary and I'd appreciate it if you could come and revise the page at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Byrhtnoð (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Byrhtnoð Hey, it seems there was nothing wrong with it in particular; the etymon was not messed up: it was simply not provided by me in the template as I am not sure of the exact form. If you leave that field empty it causes the text [Term?] to show up and the page to be categorized in Category:Proto-West Germanic term requests, which is what happened here. This is intended behavior, so I have restored the page as it was. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I understand. It seems to me the ancestor word was *andigagin. Are you opposed to suggesting that as an ancestor word? Byrhtnoð (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Byrhtnoð I lack the knowledge to judge whether the prefix would have been *andi- or *anda- in Proto-West Germanic. We have words with both in Category:Proto-West Germanic lemmas, but I don't know for sure which applies here based on the descendants we know. As far as I'm concerned you could just go for it, but if you are not certain yourself, you could consider asking if someone over at WT:Etymology scriptorium has any thoughts on the matter. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In case you need more of my assistance with other Old Germanic related topics, feel free to get in touch, I saw that you thanked my edit and I ended up checking your profile, apparently we both are interested in Old Germanic languages. I have an acceptable knowledge regarding Gothic and Old Norse, I've been also trying to fix all the Crimean Gothic entries (they lack the book citation [1562, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, Legationis Turcicae Epistolae Quatuor], other citations as well [Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum, University of Texas, have some interesting sources] and translations), however I'm quite busy to finish this job, so I've been just checking some small and quicker to fix entries. Have a nice one. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lëtzelúcia Hey, welcome to Wiktionary and thank you for the kind message, it is always good to see more people interested in older Germanic languages. Gothic is pretty far along by this point with virtually every attested lemma and inflected form added on English Wiktionary (although there are still a lot of etymologies incomplete and such; see Category:Gothic entry maintenance, Category:Requests concerning Gothic), but Crimean Gothic could definitely use some love and Old Norse has quite a large corpus which is still inadequately represented on Wiktionary. So your interest in those languages is very welcome. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see, thank you! I'll keep an eye on the entry maintenance, and whenever I have a bit of freetime I'll colaborate. Lëtzelúcia (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any source where PGmc *harjaz > Gothic harjis transformation is mentioned?
Is Gothic ji from PGmc j and thematic a is dropped or
Is Gothic ji from PGmc ja ПростаРечь (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ПростаРечь: Good morning. Ringe says in From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic (p. 130) that the Gothic -jis in the nominative arises from *-jaz through analogical leveling with oblique forms, following a situation where the ending *-jaz would have regularly developed into *-is (i.e. *haris not harjis), like how *-az becomes -s. Thematic a is certainly dropped in any case, yes.

The above seems to explain a lot of similar words, not just harjis but also niujis, midjis, niþjis, hwarjis, þēwis and probably others, but contrast andeis (*-ijaz -> -eis). Similar leveling may also be at work in *agaz (consonant stem!) -> agis, I suppose. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 09:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you,

The "similar" output takes place in Proto-Slavic:

PIE *gʷoyh₃-o-s > Proto-Slavic *gojь

PIE *h₃royH-o-s Proto-Slavi *rojь

But the thematic o is tranformed in Proto-Slavic ь

Thus it seems that Proto-Slavic output is an unrelated thing

But

The "similar" output takes place in Lithuanian:

PIE *koryos Lithuanian karys where we don't have the Proto-Slavic vowel fronting

Note:

PIE *-os Lithuanian -as but PIE *-ós Lithuanian -us

PIE *-yos Lithuanian -ias but PIE *-yós Lithuanian -ys
ПростаРечь (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

May I, for my and my editing’s sake, enquire about your experience with and thoughts on Modern Hebrew dictionaries? ―⁠Biolongvistul (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Biolongvistul: My experience with Hebrew dictionaries is limited to Even Shoshan, pretty much the "standard" Hebrew dictionary, which I recommend warmly. But beyond that I'm afraid I cannot give a very erudite opinion on the merits of various Hebrew dictionaries. I learned Hebrew mostly by speaking, not really through a bookish route, so I have no deep knowledge of the literature on Modern Hebrew. If you have other questions regarding Modern Hebrew you are in any case most welcome to ask at any time, perhaps I could be of some help anyhow.

If you're still curious about dictionaries, the WT:Discord server may also be a good place to ask. There's a channel called Semitic or Afroasiatic (I forget) where there will no doubt be people with opinions on the matter. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good morning. Why is qinono plural?
"jah qinono suma wisandei in runa bloþis jera twalif" Mark 5:25 ПростаРечь (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a partitive genitive. "Suma qinono" here literally translates as "someone of the women", but what is intended is simply "some woman", "a certain woman" (the latter is the phrase found in the King James Bible). The Greek text simply has an unqualified γυνή (gunḗ) ("a woman"), for what it's worth.— Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

thx ПростаРечь (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Mnemosientje,

I hope you are doing well.

I would like to know as to why you have removed the image of Lord Woden on the Woden Old English entry? There is currently an image for deofol and no one bats an eye.

I added that image of Lord Woden to the page to make wiktionary to not be one-dimensional. It also is correct to say Lord, as well, because he's attested in the Anglo-Saxon genealogies as he who is the progenitor of the Anglo-Saxon kings.

The removal of this image clearly shows a double-standard and an example of religious intolerance because there are sincere followers of Lord Woden and those deities under him and follow a legitimate religion.

Thank you,

Leornende Eald Englisc Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a dictionary entry for the Old English theonym Woden. A nineteenth-century romanticized depiction of the Old Norse deity Odin adds literally nothing of lexicographical value. Truthfully we know very little about how pagan Anglo-Saxons visualized Woden, but this in any case ain't it and won't help people looking this word up in the dictionary one bit. It's clutter. (Imo so is the image + its associated Old English creative writing exercise at deofol, fwiw, but that's for another day.)

As for the persecution complex and the "Lord Woden" stuff - quit larping. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 16:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you were to make an educated guess, what do you think the outcome of Proto-Germanic *ōe in Old Norse would be? I'm kinda thinking either -ey- or -œ-, but I can't find any parallels. @Mårtensås -- Sokkjō 22:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the most likely outcome is ó, with the e simply being lost. ęy is unlikely since that is from au + i-mutation. ǿ is from ō + i-mutation, which could maybe happen if *ōe became something like *ōji. But I would really not count on it. ᛙᛆᚱᛐᛁᚿᛌᛆᛌ ᛭ Proto-Norsing ᛭ Ask me anything 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Mårtensås: Thanks. By what mechanism would the *e be lost? In WG, *ōe would in all likelihood become *ōwe, with a glide inserted for better vowel movement. -- Sokkjō 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please revert mine צבוע לבנה (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I assume this concerns the rollback at Zionazi: Special:Diff/81628152/81628544. This was done because the word is not an oxymoron. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is, it implies Jews are Nazis. צבוע לבנה (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The words Zionazi and Zionazism are not used in order to contrast two opposing qualities the way an oxymoron is, but a) because some opponents of Zionism actually believe there is actually great deal of overlap between Zionism and Nazism in both ideology and practice (differing, in this view, mainly in whom they view as superior and whom as inferior) and b) because Nazi comparisons in general are an easy way to politically dismiss people you disagree with (cf. environazi, feminazi, muslimonazi, Ukronazi, and so forth).

Personally, I think the comparison between Zionism and Nazism is historically illiterate even if Zionism in its current form is, well, less than great, but anyway there's why I reverted your edit.

As for the idea that the term Zionazi implies that "Jews are Nazis", I disagree. Not only are many Zionists not Jewish (e.g. a lot of evangelical Christians), but very many Jews simply are not Zionists and want nothing to do with today's State of Israel. Zionism, in short, is not the same as Judaism, and it does not at all represent all Jews.

IMO equating "Zionists" with "Jews" is in itself antisemitic tendency found both among Zionists and some anti-Zionists, sadly: it leads to the harmful phenomenon, for example, that Jews outside of Israel are victimized and held responsible for bad things done by the State of Israel even if they have nothing to do with Israel other than guilt by association for being Jewish (because people are too intellectually lazy to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism). The uptick in anti-Jewish violence outside Israel since the October 7 attacks can be directly attributed to this nonsensical equation of Zionism and Judaism (and is encouraged by its inverse, namely the false equation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, a card which Israelis commonly play). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tldr צבוע לבנה (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

My bad, I assumed you were asking in good faith. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey! I joined Wiktionary only yesterday because I wanted to add the entry for .symaion. which I had noticed missing a bit ago. You seem to be quite prolific in gothic entries so I would greatly appreciate if you could look over the one for .symaion. and what’s related to it. It might be very janky is my concern ^^’ either way, best wishes! Luise vlgt (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had a quick look, did some minor editing but looks good otherwise - thanks for the addition! — Mnemosientje (t · c) 06:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ouhh thank you! those references look better that way, they bothered me but I didn’t know how to make them neater. Very appreciated ^^ Luise vlgt (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would it be alright if I moved the speculative tag to between the phonemic and phonetic? I think the former is conventional and agreeable enough to not have that as it usually doesn't, only the latter two really would need it imo Luise vlgt (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are right, I changed the qualifier parameter so that it does not appear to cover the broad transcription anymore. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dit IP-adres voert een aantal problematische bewerkingen uit met Duitse vrouwelijke zelfstandige naamwoorden. Kun je er iets aan doen, aangezien je moderator bent? Ik heb al geprobeerd deze persoon te waarschuwen, maar hij reageert niet op berichten. Augustijn Bakker (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Answering in English for the sake of convenience to others.)

@Augustijn Bakker Judging by this search query this user has been at it for a while under frequently changing IPs, all prefixed by 2001:9E8:4629 it seems. Though they do not use {{female equivalent of}} their edits seem pretty good otherwise, certainly a net positive. I do not want to ban this IP (would have to be an IP range ban) over this. Furthermore, the behavior is hardly inexcusable: it seems at least some 900-ish of the similar entries on Wiktionary do not use the template for German (see this janky search query I whipped up), whereas about 1250 do. So long as just shy of half of relevant entries don't use the template, I find it unreasonable to strongly censure this IP user.

What I'll do is this: 1) try to reach them on their talk pages a couple of times the coming period and 2) start fixing the entries that do not yet use the template, starting with this IP's creations. My suspicion/hope is that if they notice that most if not all similar entries have changed, including the ones they recently created themselves, they might get the hint just from that and change their behavior even if they do not see our talk page messages. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Augustijn Bakker (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you’re modernising Hebrew transliterations. What do you say we got rid of the apostrophe for shva na? It is visual clutter easy to confuse for glottal stops, quite irrelevant to modern day Hebrew and difficult to correctly enter for people (native speakers even, I assume) without knowledge of classical grammar and niqqud. I propose we transcribe shvas, as the Hebrew Academy sensibly recommends, by e and only when pronounced (be they na or even nakh). ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The scope of what I'm doing right now is trying to make Modern Hebrew transliterations consistent by bringing them in line with what is already recorded at WT:AHE (while leaving scholarly romanizations in tact where I find them, as they're a different can of worms).

As for changes to the schema on that page, without having given it much thought yet I think I agree but it should probably be discussed elsewhere to allow others to share their thoughts, probably over at Wiktionary talk:About Hebrew or perhaps Wiktionary:Beer parlour. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 15:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of modernization, re: Special:Diff/82573496/82574178 - in Modern Hebrew no glottal stop is pronounced there. Do you mind if I revert? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, is it ever really pronounced? It’s more of an orthographically significant abstraction. How else would one distinguish between hodía and hodí'a? ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ktom Well, it is definitely pronounced in words like מאמר, the glottal stop is certainly a thing in Modern Hebrew. But I wonder if it is necessary for the transliteration in the case at hand to distinguish between those two. There are plenty of differently-spelled words (in Hebrew) that receive identical transliterations under the current system, after all. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is the pronunciation or omission of an intervocalic glottal stop codified? I was under the impression it was an all-or-nothing sort of thing. I think it better we stick to a conservative approach guided by the underlying script and refrain from making potentially fuzzy or excessively personal distinctions.

But, seeing that I have almost zero experience with spoken Modern Hebrew, this might all just be a huge lacuna that somehow managed to persist in my knowledge. ―⁠K_(ə)tom (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ktom: My problem is the exact opposite: that though I have read a fair bit of the language and have learned its grammar rules I mostly have experience with spoken Israeli Hebrew (that is how I learned it, in IL long ago), and sometimes approach the language too much from my own informal frame of reference. Truthfully ma'amar can also be pronunced informally without a glottal stop, I realized not long after posting my previous reply. You are probably right that a fully consistent approach based on the script is a stronger basis for a system of transliteration than the often variable pronunciations that are current in Modern Hebrew. But yeah, in general I find that determining a sensible and consistent treatment of Modern Hebrew transliteration is quite tough; my current point of reference (WT:About Hebrew) for Wiktionary purposes seems to not always cover all bases, nor does it always feel satisfactory. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you confiscate this audio? This sounds pretty much like TTS Augustijn Bakker (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Augustijn Bakker I've removed the audio from the page, feel free to do so yourself too if you should ever encounter more low-quality computer-generated garbage like this. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply