User talk:BartGerardsSodermans

Welcome

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

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help: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 create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

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 out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria 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 project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or 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 a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Apisite (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Westernmost Ripuarian

Hi, there! Thank you for your work on Ripuarian. Just this: I think you changed "westernmost Ripuarian" into "Limburgan Ripuarian", which is not ideal. "Westernmost Ripuarian" would generally include the Netherlands but also Aachen and its surroundings, Belgium: just anything "very western". I'd prefer it if you changed it back. Of course, if you can come up something better: great. But then again: what's wrong with "westernmost" if that's what it is... 178.1.250.125 16:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. "Westernmost Ripuarian" wasn't supposed to be classified under "Limburgan-Ripuarian", I made a mistake with the aliases in the Module:labels/data/lang/gmw-cfr. I have now made "westernmost Ripuarian" it's own label and whenever a it is used the word should now automatically also be added to the "Ripuarian Franconian" category instead of the "Limburgan Ripuarian" category. The "Limburgan Ripuarian" label was indeed only intended for dialects in the Netherlands, mainly for spelling differences and alternative forms. Again thank you for pointing this out, I wouldn't have realised otherwise. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Orthography

Hi, I see you're creating a lot of Limburgish entries and I am very happy we finally have a Limburgish editor. I do have one concern though: Are the diacritics you use (dash under an e, dot under an s) actually obligatory (e.g. like German ü, ö) or are they more auxiliary diacritics (e.g. like Dutch vóórdoen or Russian stress accents)? I suspect it's the latter, in which case it's a custom on Wiktionary to not include them in the entry name but rather put them in the header. Thadh (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: So these characters are from the Rheinische Dokumenta spelling and these diacritics are used to differentiate between different phonemes. For example ⟨s⟩ and ⟨ṣ⟩ (with a dot below) correspond to /s/ and /z/ respectively, while ⟨e⟩ and ⟨e̩⟩ correspond to /e/ (or /ɪ/) and /ə/ respectively. I was therefore under the impression that they were more like German ü and ö and thus obligatory. But if this isn't the case and you believe it is better to instead include them in the header instead of the entry name, I'm willing to change this in the already created entries (and future entries). I hope this explained my reasoning well enough though if you need more clarification on anything in specific I am more than happy to elaborate. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I see, it does seem they are indeed obligatory for the Rheinische Dokumenta. I'm guessing you decided to use this notation rather than any local one because it's more uniform, but one problem I'm foreseeing is that it's pretty difficult to look things up in the dictionary when you need five rare diacritics. Would using a different relatively standardised spelling of Limburgish (e.g. the Spelling 2003) also work? That way you could use the Rheinische Dokumenta for pronunciation sections, while keeping the entries searchable. Thadh (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I decided on this orthography because it is the one I was first familiar with and most in line with how I'd spell Limburgish in my personal life. And I only decided to start adding terms in this orthography after I realised from working on the Chickasaw project on Wiktionary, seeing as Chickasaw also makes use of a rare diacritic (combining macron below) and at times even combines it with acute accents. Working here I realised that the Wiktionary search bar allows you to look up a term without diacritics and it will link to the page with diacritics. So, using some recent terms I added as an example: if I want to look up 've̩rprake̩ṣeere̩' (which has four of these rare diacritics), I can search for it without any diacritics and Wiktionary will still return this entry. Alternatively, a word like 'döbe̩', shows up in the search suggestions when you enter it in the search bar and when you actually search for it, Wiktionary returns all variations of 'dobe' with diacritics. At which point you can use the also-section to find the correct one. This is why I though it would be fine to add these terms in RD-form, because I didn't foresee any problems with searchability as Wiktionary seems to be very accommodating. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, if you're saying Rheinische Dokumenta is used in daily life, I don't have any objections to its usage on Wiktionary. You should update Wiktionary:About Limburgish though, and include a part on the orthography you're using. Thadh (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add it to my to-do list to add it an explanation of the orthographies to the about page. I also think that there might be a different problem with searchability, namely that currently someone only acquainted with the Spelling 2003 will have trouble looking things up on this Wiktionary. So for each word I'll add both the RD and Spelling 2003 forms (and just link one with {{alt sp of}} to the other), that way it doesn't matter what spelling one is acquainted with on the ease-of-use of Wiktionary. This would probably be the most accessible way to do it. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a great solution! Thadh (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yellow Transparent

Shouldn't this be lowercase? Wiktionary is case sensitive and for English terms pretty much only proper nouns are capitalised. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure myself because in general the apple cultivar entries don't seem to follow consistent capitalisation rules. If you feel it should be changed I'll change it. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Muskogean

Hi, since you work on Chickasaw etymologies, you may like to know that I've created the code nai-mus-pro for Proto-Muskogean. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is great to know. I'll go over the Muskogean languages and see where I can add Proto-Muskogean terms in the etymology. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Eskimo-Aleut

Hello, where did you get the data? Is it from Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates? Kwékwlos (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, everything I've added or changed to reconstruction pages of that macro-family comes from Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates and if I were to ever get data from somewhere else I'd properly reference that as well. Unless you're not referring to those reconstruction pages, and are referring to something else? BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

<tag:...> inline modifier and tag= param

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) 21:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Proto-Muscogean

Hey there. I really like what you're doing with Chickasaw and Proto-Muskogean. I've been working on Choctaw.

I don't know if you've seen this appendix Appendix:Proto-Muskogean_reconstructions. I wanted to link to your entries for each lemma but hesitated because I noticed the spellings are different. I also notice both you and the editor of that appendix cite the same sources. Should the appendix be updated to match your entries? Should both spellings be listed? Kmack (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Kmack, I've seen some of your work on Choctaw and its really nice to see more people work on the Muskogean languages.

I did plan on adding links to the appendix page as well, but if you want to go ahead and do that you of course can. I believe the original creator of this page may not have had access to all the characters used in the article (such as ł). I would therefore say its better to exclusively use the spelling of the entries that exist instead of the spelling used on the appendix page right now. BartGerardsSodermans (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I updated the Appendix with links to the existing entries and updated the forms to match the entries. Kmack (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)