User talk:Bogorm/archive2

ANNOUNCEMENT: NEW SIGNATURE

To the attention of mine interlocutors: being driven by my propenſity towards archaic language I adopted a new ſignature: The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Everyone is welcome to comment. I intend to adopt it in all my further participations and hope that it does not diſturb anyone. If you think it is long or ſomething ſimilar, do not heſitate to notify me. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Antecedent confabulations

August-November 2008

WT:RFV#crusade

Wow. Now there’s some impressively purple prose… :-D † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Competition

If you decide to "not spoil it", then be aware that the rules do allow you to modify your own entry, so long as someone has not played an extension after you. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

With lenience an extension is inconceivable... But I would also enjoy the 10 points... Thanks for apprising me, I shall bear it in mind. I would like to thank you for the entertainment as well, one learns many new words thus and I appreciate it. Bogorm 21:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

An extension from nce- is not completely inconceivable. Remember that spaces, diacriticals, and such are considered transparent, or some kind of acronym is possible. There also are odd letter combinations at the beginnnings of words in some African languages. I'm glad you're enjoying the competition, as it's one of the reasons we have them. --EncycloPetey 21:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that means that the appropriate entry may be created on the go(e. g. someone creating an entry for, let's say, an African word beginning with nce). That is nice, I have something in mind, but not for "lenience" (I am not entitled thereto). Bogorm 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Cognates

Hi. For edits such as [1] [2], [3] etc., two things (I believe I've already informed you on at least one of these):

• Large-scale diachronic mixing is inadvisable, so adding modern Russian word to Sanskrit entry as a cognate, regardless of how similar they look like, is always less preferable then e.g. adding the corresponding OCS word (i.e. ꙋста (usta) in this case). The opposite is also valid.
• Cognates of the classical IE languages (Latin, Sanskrit, Ancient Greek) should generally link to each other, + Old/Modern English if it exists, plus some others if one in that holy triple is missing cognate etymon (or if the word is interesting/special in some other way). This is not a written policy anywhere, just a common practice, mostly enforced by Atelaes and myself so far. We could list a dozen cognates for every major IE branch/subbranch, but this way keeps it clean and simple.
• Due to their special status as being the "youngest" IE branch, and Late Proto-Slavic words being almost trivially reconstructable by comparative method (in lots of cases, they're identical to OCS attestations), Slavic etymons should not have longish and detailed etymologies with loss of cognates listed (either Slavic and other IE), and such stuff should be centralised in a page in the Appendix namespace where they'd all link by means of {{proto}} template. Take a look at the some of the existing entries at e.g. Category:Proto-Slavic nouns to see what I mean. This way we evade the duplication of maintainable content, and this is esp. convenient as Slavic words are often shared between Slavic languages.

Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk 01:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The exact expression in Tsyganenko's Etymological Dictionary is "ему родственны: лат. (...)", i. e. "akin to it are: Latin (...)" I really had trouble in whether to render it as akin or cognate, because even the word kin is cognate to cognate ( cognate < cognatus < gignere > genus > kin > akin). In any case когнаты does not seem to be widespread in Russian (I have not encountered it in the dictionary as of now) and since родственны seems to stay for both cognate and akin, I understand your remark as a recommendation to make usage of akin, if there is no temporal overlapping between the different languages. How shall we treat Latin in this case? C. F. Gauß wrote a great deal of his works in the Latin language in the 19th century. Do we accept it as diachronic to Russian? German? Old Norse? Bogorm 11:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the kin vs. cognate - I haven't actually told you anything about that particular issue (I'm not sure where do you get this at all), but so far the practice has been to formulate the etymology sentence as "Cognates include..." or "Cognate with..". dictionary.com says that in the linguistics sense both cognate and akin are synonymous, so there is no problem to that, except maybe for the Wiktionary-wide standardisation.

These Latin works by Gauss et al. are irrelevant because they do not represent organic, spoken idiom but learned literary language that linguistically belongs to the era 2 millenia older then they're written. Same is valid for Classical Greek and Sanskrit works. New words coined in the classical period are special issue, because they're not inherited but borrowed in all languages (including those that are direct descendants of them (e.g. Spanish parábola borrowed from Late Latin parabola, as opposed to palabra which is an inheritedee), and all such borrowings do not have cognates at all (they're usually internationalisms borrowed in lots of languages). Whenever there is direct ancestor, or reasonably close alternative (like OCS for Slavic languages), there is no need to mix modern and ancient languages. The only exceptions would be Albanian, Lithuanian and perhaps some others, because of their very late attestation. So Old Norse, Avestan, Sanskrit, Latin, Ancient Greek, OCS, OHG, Gothic etc. go in one list, Modern German, Persian, English, Russian etc. in the other list. Modern languages should favour modern cognates, ancient languages ancient cognates (unless they're unattested due to the usual scarcity of their attestations, and only much later attested cognate etymon is available) in their etymologies. As simple and logical as that ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 03:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

re:sack

I'm not revisiting the issue at the moment. I'm concentrating on (Quebec) French and French-derived words if possible, with the odd etymology addition. Circeus 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

лук

[4] are you sure that Polabian preserved the diphthong? :) AFAIK, the monophthongization of Proto-Slavic *aw > *ō > Common Slavic *u is pan-Slavic, and no Slavic language left any diphthong preserved. Diphthongs can often be developed secondarily, and the Polabian word might as well be later borrowing from some neighbouring Germanic dialect.

BTW, here you find many more Proto-Germanic/Gothic/OHG borrowings in Slavic if you want to add them to etymologies (you seem to be very fond of those). Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 05:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not me who is sure, but Цыганенко Г. П. and the Этимологический словарь русского языка, стр. 219 (quote: ср. полабское lāuk, сохранившее дифтонг = cf. Polabian lāuk which preserved the dihthong). I quoted it in several places, in others(like here) I decided to spare adding the reference section. However, I am not sure how the entry for the Polabian word should look should it be created - with or without the diacritic(ā)? I am appreciative of you showing me the excerpt about the close relation between the Slavic and Germanic lanuages, I shall peruse it. Bogorm 07:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Serbian

Hello again. Why do you think that the Latin script in Serbian is as justified as Cyrillic? In the Constitution of Serbia the only admissible script is Cyrillic and as far as I know the Latin is used only in Internet argot. Have you ever encountered any book in Serbian (not printed in Croatia or Bosnia and Herzegovina) in Latin script? This chap is making profusely use of the Latin spellings and I wanted to discourage him thereof, but the layout in Wiktionary:About Serbian prevented me therefrom. Would you repugn any change sanctioning solely the Cyrillic script, which I would like to introduce? Bogorm 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Serbian is not only the language of Serbia, but also of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Kosovo. The language is written in both scripts in all countries. --Dijan 05:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This thing with Космет ... I really consider it POV to mention it after you already explicitly mentioned Serbia. Bogorm 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

In re this: AFAIK, this is Wikipedia policy only, and not Wiktionary’s; therefore, it doesn’t necessarily apply here. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is then to be done in order to prevent edit wars (zot, zotëni)? He does not address the issue where he raised it - on User talk:Atelaes. Must I erase the report? Bogorm 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, it’s just that the 3RR is not legitimate grounds here (again, AFAIK). If you think the editor in quæstion is inputting erroneous information after being warned against doing so, then you can report him for POV-pushing. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He is inputting redundant information and User:Atelaes already warned him (which has proved to be of no avail heretofore). Bogorm 16:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That most probably warrants admin.-intervention and perhaps a short-term block. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But I do not know where to report it. On the talk page of any administrator? Bogorm 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WT:VIP (whereat you reported him originally), and perhaps an administrator’s talk page in addition to that as a back-up. There was no problem with the reporting (you followed “procedure” without error), it’s just that 3RR is not a viable reason for reporting someone. BTW, *præponderance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved and the user warned anew. Thanks for the remark. Bogorm 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You’re welcome; any time. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

πότερος

I'd like to direct you to User talk:Vahagn Petrosyan#Included cognates, which I think will aptly explain my actions on this entry. Please feel free to drop a note here or on my talk page if that does not see a sufficient explanation. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you discuss the importance of Armenian cognates for Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Iranian(Persian and so forth) words. Reciprocally I thought that it is vital to have Latin, Sanskrit, Iranian and Armenian cognates in Ancient Greek entries. What I did not understand is, if you are showing præference for this group of languages, why are Lithuanian and Gothic there and why cannot Old Norse cohabit with Gothis and Lithuanian, given their æqual distance from the aforementioned group of languages (Especially when there is the Gothic-Old Norse hypothesis, i. e. Old Norse and Gothic should be treated æqually). Bogorm 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In general I see no use for having two cognates from the same language family. So, I would generally not want two Celtics, nor two Iranians, etc. In this case we already have Gothic, and it's my impression that this is going to be older and more archaic than the Old Norse. If the Gothic was not attested, then the Old Norse would be quite welcome on the entry. So, in short, the fact that the Lithuanian (Baltic) cognate is more acceptable on that entry is solely because of the existence of the Gothic one. Now, if you know what the Old English/English cognate is, I would prefer to replace the Gothic with that. Additionally, if there is no Old English cognate, I do have a preference for blue links, and if someone were to create the Old Norse entry, that might just sway me. Hope that helps. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I find your remark sensible except the readiness to replace the Gothic cognate with Old English one. Among these three languages (got, on and ang) the Old English is the most recent and in mine opinion the last resort, provided that there are no Gothic and Old Norse cognates, if we are to opt for the oldest languages. Bogorm 21:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except for the fact that this is the English Wiktionary, and I thus feel justified in giving English special privileges, as I think English speakers are apt to find English cognates more interesting and useful. If this were the Danish Wiktionary, for example, such a policy would be totally absurd, and I would expect Old Norse/Danish to be given preference. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I object the præference for Old English, not English. The præponderance which the modern English language has in Wiktionary is incontestable, but Old English is completely different and I see no reason for elevating him above Old Norse or Gothic. With regard to this I recently discovered that there is an Old English edition of Wiktionary and this is the (only) place where Old English is to be treated as primus inter pares, do you not think? Bogorm 21:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Old English is the obvious ancient counterpart for an English cognate, as it is its etymon. The Old English Wiktionary is little more than porn for linguaphiles, and is of no use to anyone. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

rye

I was wondering if you could clarify this etymology a bit. Obviously the Old Prussian word could be a cognate, but it would be of a different type, as it's Baltic. Widsith often makes such distinctions with something like, "Cognates include Germanic, Germanic, Germanic, and from Indo-European non-Germanic, non-Germanic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I shall also add non-Germanic before Russian and Old Prussian. The source is here. Bogorm 23:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If in the English language the term Indo-Germanic had gained the upped hand (as in German Indogermanische Sprachen), non-Germanic Indo-Germanic would sound whimsical or at least redundant. Bogorm 23:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it would. Thanks for the clarification. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Carlyle's instalments

Just a courtesy note to explain that I have moved your excellent citation from Carlyle to its correct spelling. (Being Scottish, he wrote in British English, of course, and I think the copy of his work from which you cited may have been an American translation.) At first, I thought that the OED had missed the variant spelling, but I think I have found sufficient on-line versions from the UK to convince me that he used the British word, not the American one. If you happen to have access to a first edition, you might be able to prove me wrong! Best wishes for the new year. Dbfirs 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it was reasonable to transfer this quotation to the Brit spelling. As a further note, although there are no set standards for this sort of thing (as is so often the case in Wiktionary), the usual practice of a number of experienced editors is to to allow a couple quotations per sense in the mainspace entry before creating a "spill-over" citations page for additional quotations. Respectfully -- WikiPedant 21:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am grateful for your intervention and relieved, when I see the correct spelling prevailing. It is true that I relied on an online edition, but according to google there are 9 hits with the proper spelling and 7 with the American spelling. Unfortunately, the source I had come across must have been among the last ones. I shall be careful henceforth. Bogorm 21:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Dvoretsky

I have been trying to decide what to do about Laitn "proper" adjectives (i.e. those adjectives in Latin that derive from a proper noun). In English-edited texts and in most English-Latin dictionaries, such words are capitalized according to modern English conventions. However, they are not capitalized when they occur in scientific names. I am trying to determine what is done by Latin scholars whose native language is something other than English. Please, could you let me know whether Dvoretsky's dictionary and the Russian-edited Latin texts you're familiar with prefer to capitalize such words? --EncycloPetey 08:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I managed to check extemporaneously, it seems that Dvoretsky is in favour of capitalisation as well - e. g. Tullianus or Flavianus. He even lists the extrapolated sense capitalised, when it does not refer to the person, e. g. Archilochius for caustic. If you suspect that any particular scientific name may be spelt entirely in minuscules, I could check it. However, the Latinitas after the fall of the Roman Empire does not seem to be treated there, as I could not find Cartesius or Cartesianus. Bogorm 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand that I wasn't just asking about adjectives from personal names, but about adjectives from any Latin proper noun, including geographical, linguistic, and cultural adjectives? --EncycloPetey 21:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The same applies to Africanus, Gallicus asf - all capitalised. Bogorm 09:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

искра

I'm sorry, but I really must protest. The Macedonian section was added by Ivan, who is certainly no slouch with Slavic languages. If you think that the word is also Bulgarian, please feel free to add it. If you believe it is not Macedonian, then rfd it, or simply discuss this with Ivan. I have reverted your edit. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that my and his stance to the language status bestowed upon the Macedonian dialect some 50 years ago in Tito's time are in discord. Official linguistics in the Hellenic Republic and in Bulgaria contest its language status and so do I. But well, if this is not the præponderant position here, I shall not try henceforth to modify it. This thorny issue is similar to Serbo-Croatian vs. Bosnian, Croatian and the last fashion in this fragmentation sequence - Montenegrin. Bogorm 11:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Well, my very limited knowledge of Slavic languages precludes me from becoming involved in such a discussion. However, as it has an ISO code, it gets an "innocent until proven guilty" status on Wiktionary (i.e. it is allowed unless community consensus declares otherwise). If you strongly believe it should be declared "guilty", by all means start a Beer parlour discussion on it. In any case, I appreciate your more recent edit. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The last time when I and Ivan discussed on South Slavic languages in the Beer Parlour, User:Thryduulf aptly noticed that we ended up "having our rants at each other" (here). Since I am not a contentious personality, I am not eager to stir up another altercation with Ivan since none of us is going to cede and both of us are adamant in our positions. Bogorm 11:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems a prudent plan. The Slavic languages are certainly complex. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:слово duzij ?

There's a word "дюжий" (d'úžij) -- strong, sturdy. I don't know the word "глуда".

Thanks, I was mislead, because I am accustomed to the old Romanisation, used in Encyclopædia Britannica, you know: djuzhij. If you prefer, d'úžij, well. Bogorm 16:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Русский - мой родной язык, просто хотелось немного выпендриться. --Wanjuscha 16:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Хорошо, я чуть было не подумал, что мой русский - неуклюжий. Я болгарин. Bogorm 17:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

А насчет слова "глуда", вот что я нашел в словаре Даля: "глудкий ·*архан., ·*олон. глуздкий ·*твер. гладкий, скользкий Глудкий путь. Глудь гладь, скользкий путь или место; обледеница, гололедица, корка. Глуда , ·*вор. грудка ·*малорос. глыба, ком, кусочек; | ·*архан. выглаженная волнами поверхность камешка. Глуздить ·*архан., ·*олон. скользить. Лошадь не кована, глуздит, сглуздилась. Скользкий, ·*новг. склезкий, ·*архан. глуздкий, ·*пск. глезкий, общего корня." --Wanjuscha 19:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Спасибо за ссылку, я именно в связи с этим о малорос. спросил. Я намереваюсь написать в статье clout dialect Russian или Ukrainian Russian, вы согласны? Наверное надо спросить украинца, но здесь нет... Во всяком случае, мне кажется, что если тогда это слово, как Даль указывает, было употребительно на Украине (тогда Малороссии), то сегодня либо оно все еще только там употребительно, либо устаревшее, но во всяком случае было бы неправильно не добавить что-либо перед Russian. Значит, я напишу dialect Russian(eсть уже много родственных слов на dialect German), договорились? Bogorm 19:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Danish

Hej Bogorm. Maybe You can help me with this. In mor ("mother"), I gave the etymology as Old Norse móðir, but that may not be correct. My etymology dictionary has "oldda. mōðiR, glda. mothær". Oldda. is explained as runedansk ("runic danish") 8–1100, and glda. 11–1500. Is "oldda." to be considered a dialect of Old Norse? or a separate language? How should it be translated? Proto-Danish, Runic-Danish or Old Danish?

I hope You have the time, to give me some thoughts about this. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hej. Yes, I have the time and I am also interested, but today ODS seems to be inaccessible, as I could not open it - here is the link for mor, but it does not work. ō is the same as ó, both designate a long vowel, ó is simply easier to type and is still used in Icelandic (where it has become a diphthong). As for olddansk, I remember having come across it in ODS, but it referred there to 1100-1300, and gammeldansk to 1300-1500, if I remember well (I cannot verify it, the connection is marred, it is in the Main Page, in Forkortelser). I remember that usually Old Norse is considered a uniform language until the beginning of the 13th century and that is why perhaps oldda. may refer to the spelling in Danmark at the previous time, which is either the same as in Norway or Iceland or might have had minuscule deviations. I have never seen a R in glda. or oldda. in ODS, I am curious what it may stand for. Bogorm 15:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, ʀ is an retroflex R, that replaced the fricative z in Proto-Germanic during the Proto-Norse period. It seems to have been retained in Runic Danish even though it evolved to r in Old Norse. I'm really new to old languages, so I can't guarantee that my understanding has any credibility. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 16:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Now ODS is accessible. So, they use æda for the earliest Danish writings from 1275-1350 and glda. for 1350-1500. I think therefore, that the writings before 1250-75 are to be considered Old Norse. Bogorm 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was also my first impression. Then glda. is Old Danish, and æda. maybe early Old Danish. Wiktionary:List_of_languages lists Old Danish, but I was unsure what it really referred to. Danish wikipedia says that urnordisk (Proto-Norse) developed into norrøn (Old Norse), oldsvensk and olddansk, whereas the english speaks of west and east dialect of Old Norse. It is probably a distinction that makes sense only from a local point of view. – Leo Laursen – (talk · contribs) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alb

If you come upon any more of these (capital word redirects which should not be redirects), please leave {{delete}} on them instead of just blanking. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Cognates

Hi! [5] are you sure that Bulgarian cognate here is 100% correct? Centum reflex in Satem language looks very strange ^_^ Also, my Croatian etym. dictionary says that kuče is a borrowing from Hungarian kutya. Please check cognates you're not sure of first before adding them (e.g. on www.ieed.nl, there is Derksen's new "Slavic inherited lexicon", and Vasmer/Trubačev's etymological dictionary of Russian with cognates from all Slavic languages listed, with PIE origins that are in 98% cases held correct today). --Ivan Štambuk 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply compared the Bulgarian k with the Ossetian one (Protobulgarians are closely connected to Alanians/Ossetians, you know) and I thought that if it is preserved in both of them, then probably it comes from a common Iranian source. Thanks, I shall remove it, but ponder thereupon: you would have already persuaded me and I would have been about to remove it, if you had mentioned any other language but Hungarian: remember that there was an influx of Jassic Ossetians and if the word is Ossetian, is not it possible that the Hungarian word is a borrowing from Jassic Ossetians? Do you insist that it comes from Hungarian or does the Hungarian word have an Iranian origin? Bogorm 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, in other words, if in fellow langauges such as Finnish, Karelian, Estonian the word for dog differs too much, then the Hungarian word is probably not an Ugro-Finnish word, but an Indo-European borrowing. Any materials abot that? Bogorm 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting link on Jassic, didn't know about it. My source mentions only Hungarian, and I have no idea whether that word is in inherited Finno-Ugric/Uralic, or a borrowing from some other language. Lack of evidence proves nothing (it might be e.g. archaism preserved only in Hungarian). Judging from WP article, Jassic seems to be only sporadically recoreded and not philologically processed, so I doubt that there are Hungarian etym. dictionaries that include it. At any case, even if the Hungarian word was borrowed from Iranian source, the Slavic word is not a direct reflex of PIE root and should not be listed there.. I don't know of Proto-Bulgars much (I thought they were some kind of Turkic tribe)..but I do know that prehistorical Iranian borrowings in (pre-)-Proto-Slavic are from Alanic, the ancestor of Ossetian (before the Ossetians migrated to where they are now..), and there are some strange typological similarities between Ossetian and Common Slavic. --Ivan Štambuk 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I shall remove the Bulgarian word altogether. But the Turkic theory about Protobulgars did not hold ground. It is simple: the first Turkic tribes appear in Europe in the 11th century (Kumans, Pechenegues), whereas Protobulgars appeared in the 7th. But that is another matter. Bogorm 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. As for the Ossetic, new 3-tome Этимологический словарь иранских языков should probably have all the relevant etymons inside..I didn't look at it, but it should be of interest to you. --Ivan Štambuk 21:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall wade through it, but since my knowledge of the Arabic script is next to nothing (it does not care about vowels), I would search for Ossetian, Avestan, Old Persian, Tajik or Kurdish (if not in the Arabic script) cognates. Bogorm 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately enough it does not demand knowledge of the Arabic script, which is consolatory. But it is not 3-tome, it is currently being issued and the 3 tomes cover the letter a-h, arranged according to the Latin script. It is perchance 8- or 9-tome. Bogorm 16:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The tablecloth

Thank you for the welcome. I've appreciated it. tea ≈Dl 16:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

stress

Jа сам придодао акценат во излог. Jа сад учим српскохрватски jезик и jа желим видети акценат, ако je можно. Ви ћете одобрити, кога jа придодам акценат? Bogorm 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you may add the accentuation if you'd like. I, on the other hand, do not necessarily have access nor the patience with the computers that I use to access Wiktionary to add them. Pay attention to Ivan and his edits of Croatian entries. He is quite good with the addition of accents. By the way, I am quite impressed at your SH (even if it is very Bulgarian :P)!

A little bit of help: "во" in SH is "на", "можно" in SH is "могуће" and "кога" in SH is "када". --Dijan 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall bear that in mind. I took можно from Russian (it was the first thing which crossed my mind and I was too indolent to check it...), it is not a Bulgarian word. Bogorm 20:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• BTW Bogorm izlog has short rising accent (it's pitch-accent, or "tone" if you will, not stress) on the first syllable, not long rising as the current notation would indicate. You'd have to use combining diacritics (combining macrons, acute, grave, inverted breve, double grave) because Cyrillic vowel characters don't come in Unicode versions with preloaded diacritic markings, which can be quite PITA...Accents are important, but for language learners insisting on them would be quite an overkill since they're irregular (de facto random), and can alternate unpredictably throughout inflection, and most importantly, most spoken idioms of major urban centers (e.g. Zagreb, Belgrade) have their own quite different variety (e.g. Zagreb idiom has non-distinctive lengths and tones, i.e. pure "stress", and the position of ictus if commonly lacks Neoštokavian retraction and is thus positioned a syllable or two further, often at the ultimate syllable which literary dialect does not allow in principle). In > 95% cases accentuation is the same in hr/sr, but there are some differences (reflecting Western and Eastern Štokavian idioms) in case you want to copy them from Croatian entries I created so you should pay attention to those here and there.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, here you can find Skok's Etimologijski rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika (Zagreb, 1971) for all those "SC" etymons you take keen etymological interest into ;) --Ivan Štambuk 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

vermiculate

I don't understand the reason for your comments about this term on the Latin request page. The word vermiculate exists in Latin; it is an adverb. There is also a participle vermiculatus from vermiculor. This participle is listed in several major Latin dictionaries, and vermiculate would be the vocative masculine singular. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification, I am aware of the participle. However, it is essential to underscore the form, whence this participle comes, lest someone thinks that it is a verb. I do not know whether it is acceptable to create unattested entries(which are not present in any Classical Latin text) and if not, this should not be included either (unless you shew me any Latin text where it is used in the vocative form). Bogorm 07:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We generally do not search for each and every possible inflected form of a word before creating them. We verify the lemma. If you are aware of the participle, then why did you cross the word off the request list? --EncycloPetey 14:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you stimulate in one case the creation of unattested entries and disprove them in other. Work out a stringent policy on whether to create unattested entries and I shall adhere thereto. As of now, supposed that the Latin entry (vocative) is created, one can place {{rfv}} and according to the rule of three citations the presence of the Latin section will turn out to be indefensible. Bogorm 14:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But you knew of the participle, and knew the form might exist. So, crossing it off the list without ever checking to see if it exists is counter to any policy here. We don't prevent the creation of entries because they might not exist. Imagine if we did that for Bulgarian verbs--requiring that every conjugated form be attested before we put it into a chart. It's not practical to that at this time. When we know that a word lacks a significant part of its inflection, then we act accordingly, but we can't do so when we don't know. Also, please note that Classical languages do not require three attestations but only one. --EncycloPetey 23:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Thank you for adding the quotations on Croatian words. I usually add them only for words that are not commonly found within the dictionaries, or are not in the "standard dialect" (hence non-native speakers may have a hard time looking them up in mostly non-existing FL dictionaries). However, please do link to English-language Wikipedia for author's articles, and not to the Communist sh wikipedia which is a dead and unmaintained project with 99.9% contents copy/pasted from Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias, existing solely due to the ignorance of the so-called "language subcommittee" on the Meta (which should not look too surprising seeing how many other ingenious decision came from that body). --Ivan Štambuk 13:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite feeling utterly inhibited to countenance your stance to the Serbo-Croatian language and its Wikipedia, I am pleased to receive your recognition. One question can arise, however: when I quote some author who has article only in Croatian and Serbo-Croatian language, what am I supposed to do? Opt for Croatian? But when it is only in Serbian and Serbo-Croatian? Bogorm 14:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one small recollection: the Serbo-Croatian ideal was introduced by Милан Марјановић, who was pure Croatian. It is the Macedonism and the notion of Macedonian langauge and nation that originated from the Comintern. Bogorm 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Marjanović tried to fabricate the conception of what he called the "Serbo-Croatian nation" (Srbohrvati), much like like the commies tried to invent the nation of "Yugoslavs" (176 self-declared "Yugoslavs" in Croatia in 2001 census, lol, I think more people would sign "Jedi order" were it given in the questionnaire). The first to use (and coin) the term SC was Pero Budmani, also a Croat though; he is (along with other Vukovians) burning in hell for the crimes against common sense committed against his people's cultural legacy.

If the author does not have an article in English-language WP, it would be the best to omit the wikification at all, as this is English-language WP only. Most of the authors on Croatian Wikisource have en-WP articles, and if the particular one you like doesn't, just drop me a note and I'll look to translate it hr-WP. --Ivan Štambuk 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, but please, do not castigate the venerable men of the South Slavic nations who advocated the fraternity between them like these two. Bogorm 19:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look more closely into this "SerboCroat" theory, you'll notice that it leaves aside lots of Croats (Čakavians and Kajavians), and also Serbs (Torlakians), beside implicitly completely eliminating two other nations (Bosniaks and Montenegrins) within its very title. So it's hardly advocating "fraternity among nations", but it looks more like some Greater Serbian scheme with Karadžić-Šešelj formula "Štokavians=Serbs". I don't have anything against unification efforts among South Slavs, but differences must be respected and celebrated, not violently repressed, eliminated and swept under the rug. History teaches us, that this latter approach was, unfortunately, much more common, esp. with regard to Croats, so you can understand my scepticism. --Ivan Štambuk 13:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And I add them habitually for those words in SC I come across which differ considerably in spelling and origin from their æquivalents in Bulgarian or Russian. Exempli gratia, for you cesta may be a trivial word, but for me it was expansion of my knowledge. I usually add citations for archaic/obsolete English words, since I am infatuated with them :) Bogorm 20:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotations

Uhm, where exactly does it say that the ====Quotations==== must come immediately after the definitions, before the inflection tables? Quotations section is not mentioned in ELE which makes it non-standard at best. --Ivan Štambuk 08:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In Wiktionary:Quotations it is written under the part of speech. I personally do not think that the conjugation/inflection is part of the definition. Definition is a semantical explication, whilst declension/conjugation concerns flection, grammar. Quotations do not concern grammar. Thence, my consideration was: 1) phonetical information, 2) all semantical sections around the definition, 3) the remaining parts around the conjugation/grammar. Why do you persevere in conjugation immediately succeeding the definition? Bogorm 08:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I remarked that you indulged in reversion rather than clarifying the issue by the current conversation, albeit just incipient. I find this aggrieving. So, you claim that conjugation is more important. Why do you not concede that the entry should consist of clear-cut phonological, defining (including all quotations) and grammatical parts which do not transfix and intercept each other? Bogorm 08:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

After the definitions and the pronunciation, inflection is the most important thing for language learners and must not be put lower in the hierarchy. That page (which is not official policy that has been voted on, as opposed to ELE) says, as you quote under the part of speech, not immediately under the part of speech, which was your argument in the edit summary [6] !

My personal opinion on the Wiktionary format is that it's very, very bad to be spelling-oriented instead of sense-oriented. All semantic information (definitions, quotes, *nyms, sometimes even sense-specific inflection dependant on e.g. animante/inanimate subgender like in some Slavic languages including SC) should be grouped under the same level, and not dispersed like it's now, leading to massive duplication of sense glosses in *nyms, translation tables, quotations/citations namespace..all horrible to navigate. When looking up words, users are interested in one and one sense only (and perhaps few others very closely related in a narrow/wider sense). --Ivan Štambuk 09:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We voted for a particular order of level-4 headers (Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-06/ELE level 4 header sequence). Quotations should come after any inflection section. --EncycloPetey 18:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PIE cognates

[7] - this page is supposed to contain only the ancient languages, and cognates in modern ones only to cover the absence of attested cognate in the old language (due to scarcity of record, which is quite common), or to cover some special cases. Hence, no Danish when we have its ancestor Old Norse, no other Slavic languages beside OCS which itself is reasonably close to Common Slavic itself, except maybe for Russian (due to its prominent status) --Ivan Štambuk 20:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, but Ossetian will be spared, I hope. Bogorm 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, Ossetian is well-merited. I've read that Ossetian is very archaic in lexis and has preserved some PIE cognates of roots that have been lost in all the other Indo-Iranian languages, but wouldn't no any details about it. --Ivan Štambuk 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there Polish, if you prefer to preserve only the most proliferated Slavic language? Bogorm 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Cf. Bulgarian

Why? Why should these etymologies invite comparison with Bulgarian? --EncycloPetey 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Because according to a leading Croatian linguist the majority of turcisms are "Balcan turcisms", this helps in shewing that the Turcism spread not only in Serbian, but sometimes in Bulgarian and Greek as well. When necessary, I quote also the Greek turcism. I cannot use cognates, because they are loanwords, but confer is a better notion instead. Bogorm 18:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian and Greek are also languages in the Balkans. Wiktionary should not estabish etymologies merely as a reaction to an erroneous belief on the part of one individual. This sounds like the information would be more useful as an Appendix:Turkish loanwords in South Slavic languages. --EncycloPetey 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the belief is not erroneous, the words have the same origin in Turkish/Arabic, otherwise Petar Skok would not speak of Balcan turcism. What do you urge me to do? To write "Balcan turcisms" in the etymology section, even though I am not sure whether this expression (Balcan turcism) is established in English? The proposed appedix would be incomplete, since Greek and Romanian are not South Slavic and Appendix:Balcan turcisms sounds strange. Thence I am adding the fellow loanwords in the etymologies of the languages. Bogorm 18:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But your solution is inappropriate. It is a decidedly one-sided approach to combatting one person's view of language. As such, it is not appropriate for Wiktionary. Seeking a better name for such an appendix (perhaps by appealing in the Beer Parlour) would be a much better solution. --EncycloPetey 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whose view of language am I combatting? I am simply adhering to the grouping of the Turcism which is typical only for the Balcan pæninsula and which (grouping) is mentioned in each of the Serbo-Croatian entries in the Dictionnaire Étymologique de la langue croate ou serbe de P. Skok. If a prominent Croatian linguist groups the words in his entries, then objecting to that (grouping) could be perceived as combatting his views. Bogorm 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We are arguing semantics. The etymology section is not the place to object to Skok's groupings. --EncycloPetey 18:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But I do not object to the groupings, I quote them. I have full confidence in Skok. It is because he uses the grouping that I use it as well, not in spite thereof. Bogorm 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood your initial response then. In that case, this information would be better handled by adding Descendants to the Turkish entries. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with semantics? Must I quote the meaning for every Bulgarian word, even though it coincides with the Serbo-Croatian one. When it differs, I always add it. Bogorm 18:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The English expression "arguing semantics" means that "we agree in principle, but are arguing over how it is said". I wrote that in the mistaken assumption that I had understood you before, which I hadn't. You have now clarified that for me. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a hoard of thorny quæestions which would arise in that case: 1) whether to add it as descendant to the Turkish entry or to the Ottoman Turkish entry (different languages). One must know whether the borrowing occurred before 1928, when the reforms of Ataturk gave official status to the first 2) many of these words are not originally Turkish, but Arabic or Persian and thence 3) many of the Arabic words do not have their entries, but even if they have, it is not clear whether the transition is Arabic > Persian > Turkish > Balcan language or Arabic > Turkish > BL or Persian ( > Arabic) > Turkish > BL. 4) Difference in meaning which can only be given a clear-cut overlook in the Etymology section (vide infra) Bogorm 19:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases you've described, the word entered immediately from Turkish, so that is where the Descendants would go. Given the breakup of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, I think it is safe to assume an Ottoman Turkish origina unless there is evidence to the contrary. --EncycloPetey 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Why from the nearest language instead of the original language? The Latin words which entered English through Old French (or Anglo Norman) are usually listed as descendants in the Latin entry, not in the entry of the vernacular. I personally would opt for the language (and not the immediate one), whence the borrowing chain began and that is debatable in some cases. Bogorm 19:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

English is the one language granted some exception, because (1) it is a hybrid language, and (2) this is the English Wiktionary. If we go to the language from which the chain began, then most of the descendants would be listed at some Proto-Indo European or Proto-Semitic root. To say that a Bulgarian word was borrowed from Arabic implies contact of those two languages, which is not the case here. Descendants are normally for immediate descendants and borrowings, with exception made for language periods (Latin -> French, not Latin ->Old French) and for English in certain cases. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The proto entries are artifical reconstructions. If the word is borrowing from a different language family, then it is definitely borrowed from a certain language of the family rather than from the Proto word. Well, if not English, then some Danish words (kort (card), pumpe) which were borrowed from French, came through Middle Low German. As the amount of MLG is scarce and sometimes it is not clear whether from MLG or MHG, again listing them under the original language (French) seems sensible. In that case the solution is at hand, but in ours it is the source language which is debatable. I do not consider Bulgarian-Arabic contact more distant than French-Danish (well, the Danish aristocracy may have studied Fr., but the geographical distancy is comparable). And nonetheless, hardly anyone would præfer MLG to French. Bogorm 19:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If a Danish word came through MLG, then that is where it should be listed as a Descendant. It can't be listed at the French entry, because Modern French did not yet exist. Saying that a word derives from Modern French implies it is a more recent borrowing than it actually is, so that isn't a solution for the case you describe. We have the same problem with many words having etymologies that claim they are from (Modern) Greek, when in fact they came from Ancient Greek. And for Ottoman Turkish, we do not have the problem of scarce resources for the language. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Same issue (French-Middle French) as Ottoman Turkish-Turkish. I would say the best solution to that issue is listing the borrowings from fellow Balcan langauges, as I used to. That would facilitate the process instead of forcing me to seek the original. In some cases the Turkish word is not even written and I am interested in expanding the Balcan languages (SC, Bg, mentioning Greek sometimes) and not Turkish because of lack of knowledge. Bogorm 19:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But we now have a couple of regular turkish contributors, who could probably assist by means of Wiktionary:Requested entries:Turkish or Wiktionary:Requested entries:Ottoman Turkish. --EncycloPetey 19:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But I am not willing to list the words under the Turkish one, if they come from Arabic or Persian (and from which of them is difficult to ascertain). This can only be productive for Ottoman Turkish words with Turkic origin and among the Balcan turcism they are few, since Ottoman Turkish was riddled with Arabic/Persian vocabulary. Bogorm 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you are (in effect) saying that Ottoman Turkish had no part is the transmission of the word. That is unacceptable and misleading. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. What I am saying is that it is (in the majority of cases) a transit language for the word from Persian/Arabic and not the source. Bogorm 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And as such, the listing should be at the Ottoman Turkish entry, not some deeper source whence the chain began. It is always possible to find a deeper root. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But the Ottoman Turkish entries are almost as scarce as the MLG and I assure you that it is not a piece of cake to create such entries even for the native Turkish speaker. Especially after Ataturk's refoms purged a great deal of Arabic/Persian vocabulary. Furthermore, note the 4th thorny issue about differences in meaning. Bogorm 20:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have already addressed these issues. An insufficiency of information is not cause for doing something wrong. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let us await Ivan Štambuk's opinion about the issues, ok? He is also involved in the etymology of Serbo-Croatian and has never raised such objections, or at least not before me. Bogorm 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

11 days ago he supported the listing of dialectal/obsolete words, even though he did not mention where. Bogorm 20:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that edit that suggests that opinon, but I do not have a problem with having entries for dialectial or obsolete words. I am happy to see such entries added. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment, a great majority of the foreign words used in Ottoman era continue to take place in the Turkish vocabulary, for instance I know almost all of the words listed under Ottoman Turkish in Wiktionary. The problem is the Arabic script that I don't know like most of the native Turkish speakers unless they specifically learned. --Chapultepec 20:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is another thorny issue: many Turcisms differ in meaning (e. g. кусур#Etymology, cf. the meaning in Bg and SC) and a simple listing in the section Descendants does not give a good overlook over the semantical fluctuations in different languages, whereas mentioning it in the Etymology section does. This is a bog difference in comparison to Fr. carte, Danish kort, German Karte and other Latin-French-Germanic borrowings, they all mean approximately the same. Bogorm 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Tsars Tervel and Simeon I had direct contact with the Arabs, the first in the battle of Constantinople (in the siege the Bulgarians and Greeks together vanquished a 120 000 army of Arabs. Only 5-6 ships returned safe in the Khalifate. Europe was saved) when the Arab expansion to Europe was halted by Tervel, the second planning a joint alliance with the Arabs against Byzantium. But none of the borrowings occurred in that epoch. Bogorm 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'd definitely support compiling an appendix for thes "Balkanic Turkisms" (I don't know what's the exact English term for these). These are the terms spread in the 4-5 centuries of Ottoman presence in the Balkans in several divergent languages (South Slavic, Greek, Romanian and Albanian), via trade routes, administration and cultural "influence" maintained by the Ottomans. This topic itself is a specialised discipline and there are special dictionaries that list these kinds of terms exclusively (and do mass compare to other Balkanic languages). However, as Bogorm notes, lots of these (in sheer quantity, prob. > 95%) are today completely obsolete, not used by anyone and only etymologists or some enthusiasts know them. During the 19th century when most Balkanic languages started to develop their literary idioms, Turkish loanwords were wiped en masse from it (the most extreme example being Greek Katharevousa), and due to the correcting influence of the prestigious literary idiom on common speech most of them are gone for good, accept maybe in some rural parts where they still might be spoken, but highly unlikely of being committed to writing. Also, as Bogorm points out immense number of these draw on Perso-Arabic sources (Ottoman Turkish was mostly a kind of "administrative idiom", that was not how people actually spoke in Turkey at the time), and there are also lots of prominent examples when word entered Ottoman Turkish from Byzantine Greek, and via it has spread to other Balkanic languages. So in essence, I think one big comparison table would be great, containing side-by-side Balkanic languages, Ottoman Turkish, and possible Perso-Arabic source with glosses (the borrowing sequence itself might as well be ignored, and reserved for etymology section in the entries themselves). --Ivan Štambuk 20:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But do you object against me adding the Bulgarian entries in the etymology of other South Slavic languages and vice versa? Especially when there is big difference in meaning as in кусур#Etymology or маказе#Etymology, would you præfer to clarify this in the etymology section or to encumber the future appendix with one more column for meaning? Bogorm 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean "encumber the etymology of other Slavic words as opposed to calrifying in an appendix". It's a matter of perspective which is an encumbrance, I believe the information properly belongs in an entry for the word itself or an appendix, not in another word in another language that happens to come from the same Turkish root. --EncycloPetey 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Defining the encumbrance is a matter of viewpoint. Let us await Ivan's. Bogorm 20:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be the best to keep them all to appendix, and link to them via individual entries. There is a way to link to a specific row in the table by some Wiki markup magic (the trick I already utilize in one appendix), and the meaning glosses could be entered by the corresponding parameter to {{term}} or {{l}}. But before these get created and the technicalities get sorted out, I guess it would be OK to keep them in the entries' etymology sections. Also one thing: it would be the best to insert at least one citation for all those dialectal, archaic and obsolete terms upon creation as they're normally not found in the dictionaries, to give some clues to the readers that those actually "exist" (in order to escape the "there is no such word in my dictionary, hence it doesn't exist" syndrome). --Ivan Štambuk 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Until creation I shall add a cup of Bulgarian words. None Few of the dialectal or obsolete Bg words has got its entry as yet and if someone creates it, I will be willing to look up for citations. They exist, because they are listed by Skok (who, however, does not tag them) and the dictionary of obsolete and dialectal words in Bulgarian I am using. Bogorm 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So what did you do here, where the Bulgarian entry does exist? --EncycloPetey 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought But before these get created and the technicalities get sorted out referred to the meaning sections, not to the Bulgarian words. Do not they? Bogorm 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've created an example entry on Appendix:List of Balkanisms. Please comment on its talkpage for the layout and naming issues. --Ivan Štambuk 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Die Slaven in Griechenland

I don't know if you came across this book, but I can imagine that it would be extremely interesting reading to you (notwithstanding the URL of the website that hosts it). Whenever you feel particularly masochistic, you can always piss off Greek nationalists on en.WP by providing Slavic etymologies of Greek toponymy. Not that many of them are left tho, taking certain acts of the Greek government in the last century into account, but it's fun nevertheless. --Ivan Štambuk 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The site is a well-known collection of sources proving, disclosing and promoting the Bulgarian origin and appurtenance of the inhabitants of Vardar Macedonia and I respect it. However, expressions like Mit eine Karte imply poor scanning quality. I hope that in the text itself the number of such blunders will be more scarce. Bogorm 14:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I haven't read any of the other texts on that site beside that one, but this Vasmer's book is a gold mine of etymologically relevant information. Lots of these toponyms are de facto attestations of Early Proto-Slavic (pre-Common Slavic) words (spoken in the 7th century), on you can apply regular Common Slavic sound laws to obtain Late Proto-Slavic (usually equal to OCS) words. E.g. Γαρδίκι = gardiki > Common Slavic *gordьcь > South Slavic (by liquid metathesis) *gradьcь, yielding gradec or gradac (very common toponym) depending on the vocalisation of jer to /e/, /a/ or /ə/. Interestingly, the name of Graz derives from Pannonian Slavic gradec (where /ь/ gets vocalised to /e/, just like in Slovene, Croatian Kajkavian, and the Slavic dialect spoken in the Pannonia before the arrival of Magyars).

Also, I've now just read on w:Bulgars that Supposedly, the name Bulgar is derived from the Turkic verb bulģa "to mix, shake, stir" and its derivative bulgak "revolt, disorder", transliterated most commonly as Bulgars the "people of mixed blood". I suspect that Bulgarian etymologists have quite different theories on the origin of the term Bulgarian ? — This unsigned comment was added by Ivan Štambuk (talk • contribs) at 23:34, 19 February 2009.

This is what the ideologists of the Panturkism botched up. The historical science in Bulgaria has produced several cogent theories about the origin of the ethnonym Bulgarians. One of them is that it derives from a Protobulgarian word, cognate with Ossetian (deprecated template usage) былгæрон. Alanians were the people with the closest relation to Protobulgarians and besides that the first Bulgarian Empire from 632-ca.670s stretched from Caucasus to Dnepr, which underscores the relation of the Bulgarians with mountain. Why do tou think that the highest pick of the Balkan pæninsula is in Bulgaria and that Sofia is the highest in altitude Europæan capital with its 650 m altitude æqual only to the capital of the Republic of South Ossetia - Tskhinval, with 860 m (Alanians were the progenitors of Ossetians)? Another theory supported by several historians is that Protobulgarians were identical to the people of Bactria and Bulgar is a derivation from the capital of Bactria, Balh. In both cases, there is a multitude of linguistic and historical evidence corroborating the Iranian theory about our origin. Please do not try again to tease me with that Turkic fabrication, as I have not indulged in cogitations about whence Croats is derived, but if you continue then I shall also dig up the most inane theory about that... Bogorm 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to tease you, I was just searching WP whether it has something on the etymology of Bulgar(ian) and found only that, and thought of it as very suspicious as I couldn't find anything similar to bulģa in any Turkic language. BTW, on Croatian ethnonym I wrote an article on Wikipedia (the equivalent article is still missing for Bulgaria as you can see, on that navigation template at the article bottom), but it's still far from finished. Croatian ethnonym very likely is of Iranian origin (it's almost certainly not Slavic), which gave rise to various Croats-from-Iran theories which don't have much general linguistic and archaeological corroboration. Anyhow, thanks for answering, I was simply wondering how Bulgarians tend to etymologize that.. --Ivan Štambuk 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Now that you also expressed your suspicion, I am already soothed by that. Of course many Turkic theories about Protobulgarians proved to be riddled with ineptitudes which were only recently laid bare. I heard about some connection between Zagreb and a toponym in Iran, but... the difference between Protobulgarians and Croats is that Croats did not have runic inscriptions as vestiges of their hypothetical Iranian language (not that I know, you?), whereas Protobulgarians had and they were decyphered in the 1990s based on analogies with Alanian runic inscriptions and the vocabulary of Ossetian. Bogorm 13:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, nothing that I know of. The original Croats were IMHO a tiny layer of ruling military aristocracy, prob. of Iranian origin, that were eventually absorbed into Slavic ethnolinguistic mass, and the only thing that survived is the ethnonym itself (and possibly a few Iranian borrowings to Common Slavic, tho the extent of Iranianism in Common Slavic is highly-debated in literature, ranging from "almost none" to "immense", depending on the author), under which several Slavic tribes eventually united. It is very interesting that lots of Slavic nations have exogenous ethnonym (Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Rus'), as opposed to other obviously regionally-descriptive ones (Poles, Ukrainians, Polabians..) that were eventually "ethnicized". --Ivan Štambuk 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, I've discovered Common Turkic *bulga- "stir up" at the Starostin's databases, which would then be the alleged source of Bulgar, with the original meaning "rebel". Semasiological development "stir up" > "rebel" > ethnicon doesn't sound to convincing to me, given that Bulgars were prob. supra-tribal association (who'd they rebel against?). I've also discovered yesterday that English bugger is derived from Bulgar, which laughed my ass out :) It's funny how Slavic ethonyms end up in foreign languages. Hrvat ended up in cravat, and Latin/Byzantine Greek Sclavus (< Proto-Slavic *slawēnaj, with non-etymological -c- to resolve consonant cluster unpermitted by phonotaxis) as slave. Sad evolvement, don't you think, almost as demonised as Aryan :( --Ivan Štambuk 18:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  I hope you did not just discover that bugger/French bougre comes from Bulgaria and conclude anything... The issue is more circumstantial - the Bulgarian heresy of Bogomils spread to Western Europe and became known as Albigenses or Cathars (from some Greek word meaning clean) and they were the people that Western Europe regarded as Bulgarici - they were accused of various misdeeds and from one of these misdeeds the meaning of bougre/bugger developped. It is not so risible, just the Catholic church accused these two groups of acts which it believed they committed. And they were not Bulgarians, just influenced by Bulgarian bogomils. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  According to Starostin, tho, the same Altaic root that ult. gave Common Turkic *bulga- gave rise to Japanese 振る (furu, "to shake, wave"), Russian булить "to churn butter" ^_^ (via Mongolian), and is via Nostratic framework connected to English blind, OCS блѧсти, Lithuanian blę̃sti "to sleep, stir flour into soup, talk nonsense, become cloudy", Latvian blenst "talk nonsense, have poor eyesight, be short-sighted". Unfortunatelly, modern Bulgarian does not appear to preserve the reflex of Common Slavic *blęsti. I was really hoping to connect a modern Bulgarian Slavic word and the ancient Bulgar ethnonym via Nostratic route! :( --Ivan Štambuk 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Well, there is the word (deprecated template usage) булка (bulka) which means bride, but the connection bride-nonsense is rather obscure or non-convincing. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I've sent you an e-mail yesterday, did you get it? :) --Ivan Štambuk 07:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Block

Yet again, you find yourself blocked by me. In case you're wondering, the specific trigger for the block is θρῆνος. How many times must it be said that there is no need for multiple Germanic cognates? Yet you persist. Is the addition of Gothic ruinous to the entry? No, certainly not. It simply makes the entry's etymology a bit less focused and trim. If anyone else on this project had made that edit, I probably would not have reverted it, and certainly would not have blocked them, but rather would have opened a discussion up with them. I have opened up that discussion with you too many times, and have simply lost my patience with you. You have a day off from Wiktionary, and perhaps some of that time might be spent pondering why you are always alone in arguing your point, why everyone else seems to be so frustrated when writing their response to you, and why you are currently blocked. Rest assured that I do not wish to drive you permanently from this project. You are smart, hard-working, and can be quite beneficial to our project. However, you have your odd little prejudices and goals which I am not prepared to tolerate. Rest assured that I have driven away rather more useful contributors than you who were unable to work with consensus. My inbox is, of course, open. You are quite free to contest or simply decry your block. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)