Module talk:languages/data/3/x
Add topicCode missing for Anglo-Norman
[edit]Could someone add data for Anglo-Norman, which has the ISO 639-3 code xno, please? I think the required text is:
m["xno"] = { names = {"Anglo-Norman"}, type = "regular", scripts = {"Latn"}, family = "roa"}
— I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Anglo-Norman is treated as part of Old French (see WT:LANGTREAT). --WikiTiki89 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake; thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it is still possible to distinguish Anglo-Norman from Old French in etymologies if you want to, however (by using
{{etyl|xno|en}}
). It is an etymology-only language. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note that it is still possible to distinguish Anglo-Norman from Old French in etymologies if you want to, however (by using
- Good to know. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Missing ancestors for Parthian
[edit]The language Parthian (xpr) should have the attribute ancestors: {"ira-pro"},
Right now, the database claims Proto-Iranian is not an ancestor of Parthian.
128.84.126.40 07:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Added. --Vahag (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Missing ancestors for Luwian and Lycian
[edit]The languages Lycian (xlc) and Luwian (xlu) should have the attribute ancestors = {"ine-ana-pro"},
Right now, the database claims Proto-Anatolian is not an ancestor of Lycian and Luwian.
128.84.127.134 02:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Andalusian Arabic in Latin script
[edit]Could someone add "Latn"
to the scripts used by Andalusian Arabic (xaa
)? --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Missing ancestors for Pictish.
[edit]The language Pictish should have the attribute ancestors: {"cel-bry-pro"},
This is the view endorsed by Wikipedia and is the present linguistic consensus. The PHD thesis by linguist Guto Rhys (2015) "Approaching the Pictish language: historiography, early evidence and the question of Pritenic." has summarized that:
- "the lack of evidence for distinctiveness [from Brittonic] renders the term ‘Pritenic’ as redundant for the present"
- "much of Pictland partook in the ‘Neo-Brittonic revolution’, or at least very significant aspects of it"
- "most of the supposedly distinguishing features [of Pictish from Brittonic] cannot be demonstrated to be restricted to Pictland alone"
- "proposals [...] that Pictish was diverging from Brittonic [...] are either demonstrably incorrect, most uncertain or of trivial linguistic impact"
Presently, the database claims descent from Proto-Celtic, displaying Pictish as a branch similar to Gaulish, rather than specifically from Proto-Brythonic. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Sherpa transliteration module
[edit]Could someone add Devanāgarī script and translit module for Sherpa:
scripts = {"Tibt", "Deva"}, translit_module = "translit-redirect",
Kushalpok01 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Sudovian (xsv) entry_name request
[edit]Per (self-written) WT:AXSV.
m["xsv"] = {
"Sudovian",
35603,
"bat",
Latn,
entry_name = {
from = {"[ʃſẜ]"},
to = {"s"}} ,
}