User talk:Ευγένιος69

𐌼𐌰𐌽𐌰𐌲𐌰𐌱𐌰

Where is this attested? DTLHS (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

it might be reconstructed

Where did you get it from then? If you have a source please add it to the entry. DTLHS (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

sorry, seemingly confused it with "mikilaba", please delete this page

𐌱𐌰𐌳𐌿𐍃

Is this actually attested? Only attested words are added on Wiktionary (see WT:ATTEST and WT:About Gothic) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

yes, it's attested and according to Pokorny it comes from Proto-Indo-European *bʰedʰ-

Gerhard Köbler. Gotisches Wörterbuch, page 42

Köbler actually marks it with three asterisks, meaning it is unattested and merely might have existed. That's not attestation; it's not found anywhere in the Gothic corpus. Do you mind if I delete it? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

okay, delete it if you want

can it be marked as reconstructed though?

i've seen many Gothic reconstructed terms in Wiktionary. how is this different?

True, we can have it as a reconstruction: Köbler mentions the given names Baduarius and Badwila, only attested in Latin texts it seems. I've moved it and expanded the entry a bit, see *𐌱𐌰𐌳𐌿𐍃 (*badus). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks

𐌰𐌳𐌳𐌹

Sorry to bother you again, but this word is also unattested and there is no good basis for inclusion even as a reconstruction. Köbler simply mentions it as being a hypothetical Gothic form corresponding to Crimean Gothic ada, but Crimean Gothic is not sufficient basis for a Gothic reconstruction (as Crimean Gothic is not considered a direct descendant of 'Wulfilan' Gothic). So unless there is a compelling argument for inclusion that entry, too, will have to be deleted. (If you are looking for attested words that have not yet been added - Category:Gothic romanizations without a main entry is full of them.) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

i thought that Crimean Gothic "ada" was a good argument for this reconstruction, moreover this change jj to dd is regular, thought this was enough

Nah, direct descendants would be required. It is true that Crimean Gothic also underwent Verschärfung, but it is not considered a direct descendant of Wulfilan Gothic. There's a good discussion over at Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Gothic#Identification_and_classification

So it cannot serve as a basis for Gothic reconstructions. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

okay, i think there're no other arguments, seemingly it must be deleted

Removing {{top3}} from Iranian entries

Please desist from removing {{top3}} from Iranian entries. It's not only not how we format Iranian entries, but also an improper use of templates leaving a {{bottom}} template with no corresponding {{topN}}. --{{victar|talk}} 21:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

okay, got it.

Etymologies

Hey Ευγένιος69, if you're going to contribute etymologies, please include sources, especially for reconstructions. You also had linked to the wrong term on 𐎠𐎼𐎭𐎿𐎫𐎠𐎴 (a-r-d-s-t-a-n). --{{victar|talk}} 03:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

the etymology I gave I found in "ancient Persian lexicon" by Herbert Tolman — This unsigned comment was added by Ευγένιος69 (talk • contribs) at 01:04, 5 October 2020.

Super old, but sure, however again, please cite etymologies as I've done on that page. Also if it's a compound coined in the language, it should list the elements from that language, not ancestral form. Thanks. --{{victar|talk}} 05:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Reconstructing Proto-Semitic

requires gumption. You should not just create red-links, even if they are from me or Profes.I. they should be rethought, in particular due to the introduction of Proto-West Semitic as a language on Wiktionary after some, nor blindly believe starred forms from literature (it actually contains more forms which should not be created, them not being written for a likely lexicon as Wiktionary). As for *tannīn- you have created, if you had read the Arabic page you would have been informed that the terms are borrowed into Northwest Semitic from Akkadian and thence into Arabic; the Ethiopian Semitic terms may or may not be related, but for the case they are, Wolf Leslau, no less, considered them borrowed from Arabic. The sound change was then because this consonant order is very unusual in Semitic: There are some constraints which consonants can follow each other: Vernet i Pons, Eulàlia (2011 March 1) “Semitic Root Incompatibilities and Historical Linguistics”, in Journal of Semitic Studies, volume 56, number 1, →DOI, pages 1–18, Greenberg, Joseph Harold (1950) “The Patterning of Root Morphemes in Semitic”, in Word‎^[1], volume 6, number 2, →DOI, pages 162–181, and the Arabic word at least reveals itself as a borrowing due its vocal patterning even, moreover.

So I politely request that you mark your entry *tannīn- for speedy deletion. Your *naḥaš- I have saved (not even mentioning all the cases where words for lion come to mean a snake or fish). Fay Freak (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree, I truly added this reconstruction blindly, I know little about Akkadian, thus I couldn't assume that this is a borrowing. Just tell me how to mark this page for deletion. I'm sort of new here so I've no idea how to do it... — This unsigned comment was added by Ευγένιος69 (talk • contribs) at 06:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC).

You just use {{speedy}}, and its synonym {{d}} is even shorter. Fay Freak (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You're still creating Proto-Semitic reconstructions that are unreferenced and full of problems. You've got to stop. When you don't know what you're doing, you just make a mess that takes the rest of us lots of time to clean up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)