User talk:Gnosandes/Archive

Fringe theories

Gnosandes, if you're going to promote fringe theories and opinions, at least back them up with referenced sources, otherwise they'll simply be undone on sight. --{{victar|talk}} 05:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, This theory is more than 50 years old, Leiden is not the last word in science ;) Gnosandes (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theories are still fringe theories, regardless of how long they've been around, and still need sourcing, nonetheless. --{{victar|talk}} 06:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, Fringe theories is it because you haven't read them? Gnosandes (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fringe theories are theories not widely supported, but all theories, fringe or not, demand sourcing. --{{victar|talk}} 06:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, Broad support does not mean that the theories supported are correct. Gnosandes (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, just properly source your shit. I want to see what paper or book says what, and why. --{{victar|talk}} 09:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, With inadequate not speak, sorry. Gnosandes (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The Dybo/Nikolaev theory of PIE tonality is not widely accepted and doesn't even work in this case to explain the BSl vs. Slavic. It seems, in the tiny footnote he gives, that he's more arguing this from a Nostratic angle, which is strictly not supported on this project. --{{victar|talk}} 11:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, The valence theory of Dybo and Nikolayev works in the Russian language, in the old Russian language, in the Proto-Slavic language, in the Proto-Balto-Slavic language and even more so in the Proto-Indo-European language.

This data Indo-European descendants, but not Nostratic. Gnosandes (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I recommend you re-read the footer on page 54 that you put forth. --{{victar|talk}} 11:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, I think, you don't can read. There's no mention of Nostratic linguistics. Gnosandes (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Haha, OK, clearly you're just an asshat. I tried. Take care. --{{victar|talk}} 11:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, Typical and inadequate Leiden. And his friends on Wiktionary. Gnosandes (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, Are insults allowed here? Gnosandes (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No. That includes you, though. —Rua (mew) 13:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop

Stop editing entries to reflect the Dybo/Nikolaev theory of PIE tonality, or you will be banned. You are also failing to comply to en.Wikt formatting standards; see {{link}}, {{inh}}, and WT:AINE. --{{victar|talk}} 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Victar, I follow the rules. Not cry. Ave Valency theory! Gnosandes (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If you do not stop pushing your POV, I will block you. —Rua (mew) 16:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, And I will complain to on you, for unreasonable blockings. Gnosandes (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You know very well what the problem is, I've patiently explained it to you. If you then continue to disregard the established consensus on notation in WT:ASLA, WT:AINE-BSL and WT:AINE, then suit yourself. —Rua (mew) 17:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, I've told you a hundred times that your notation don't work. You ignore the basics. Gnosandes (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that changes nothing about the problem with your edits. —Rua (mew) 17:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rua, Because you don't even want to talk to me. Gnosandes (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You been given plenty of warning and a block, yet you continue to push valency theory where it is not welcome. --{{victar|talk}} 02:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, Slander. I didn't do it. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

pírštas

@Rua, Most likely, in Proto-Balto-Slavic neuter gender: Proto-Slavic AP b > Proto-Balto-Slavic neuter gender; Proto-Slavic AP d > Proto-Balto-Slavic masculine gender. Gnosandes (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Вопрос

Вы из России? Canonicalization (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization, Да, это плохо? Gnosandes (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Совсем нет. Я изучаю русский язык (хочу стать переводчиком с русского на французский), и я как раз на стажировке в Москве. Мне всегда интересно познакомиться с русским человеком! Canonicalization (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization, Интересно. Кто-то ещё учит русский язык. Ну, приятно познакомиться. Я так сильно похож на тролля? :) Gnosandes (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

(тут больше изучающих русский язык! это не легкий язык...) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Занимаясь акцентологией уже большое количество времени, скажу, что русский язык сумасшедший. Та же валентная теория, которую тут не любят @Rua и @Victar, прекрасно описывает русское ударение, но с чрезвычайной сложностью. Чем прекрасен русский язык? Gnosandes (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing {{top}}

Gnosandes, you need to stop removing {{top}} from descendants sections. --{{victar|talk}} 01:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, Why? ---- Gnosandes (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Because we use {{top3}} on Slavic entries. --{{victar|talk}} 02:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, This is not written in WT:ASLA. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2020-01/Deprecating topN --{{victar|talk}} 02:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, This is not spelled out, so I will follow the Rua. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If you continue, I will see that you are blocked again. --{{victar|talk}} 02:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, I'm going to complain about you for starting a war of edits. At the same time, I'm not going to deviate from WT:ASLA. And also stop threatening me. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Since the vote failed, nothing has changed, and the decision to add or remove {{top3}} is at the discretion of each individual editor. Gnosandes may do a lot of blockable things, but this isn't one of them. —Rua (mew) 19:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring to remove {{top}} from Slavic entries when its usage is an established practice is a blockable offence. --{{victar|talk}} 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with рана

I noticed in your infobox that you know Belarusian. Could you add a declension table on рана (rana), the noun meaning "wound"? The Belarusian declension template is fully manual, unfortunately. See, for example, гара (hara). You would literally have to specify each case in a row.BirdValiant (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant, I don't know how to use Lua, unfortunately. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: It would just be a matter of copy-pasting this

{{be-decl-noun|Nom.sg|Nom.pl|Gen.sg|Gen.pl|Dat.sg|Dat.pl|Acc.sg|Acc.pl|Inst.sg|Inst.pl|Loc.sg|Loc.pl}}

and then substituting the forms, with the accents. There's data for рана at slounik [1] but I don't know enough about Belarusian grammar to figure out what's going on. If it's too much trouble, I'd understand too. BirdValiant (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@BirdValiant, Aha, done. ---- Gnosandes (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Entry links

1. We don't create entries for intermediary forms, and 2. we don't create links to entries that shouldn't exist. Stop. --{{victar|talk}} 06:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, :P Gnosandes (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your block

You were warned against edit warring, continued to do so, and I have therefore blocked you for three days. For others' reference, the issue in question is Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/sьrebro (see our discussion). Gnosandes targeted that edit shortly after I reverted his removal of an image at гей; I find the replacement image inferior, but I won't revert it, and this block is not for his actions there (see our discussion). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Given how Gnosandes has behaved in most discussions here (also note the rest of this talk page...), I'd say he's mostly just concern trolling at this point. Looking at this mess, I wouldn't have objected to a longer block. Some of my interactions with him have been pleasant, but then again I don't edit Slavic languages or PIE much. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, You still haven't responded to my message that I left below. And stop slandering me. I think you should first prove that I'm trolling, but in the meantime, your words are empty. -- Gnosandes (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified blocking

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gnosandes (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking

@Metaknowledge, You gave me an empty warning, because you started the edit war. This can be easily checked in the history. You are violating the consensus and not participating in it as it should be. Before my blocking, you never gave a link to the source in the Proto-Slavic page, which means your edit does not carry anything. Further, in your message, there is a complete slander in my direction, as well as gross errors in conclusions. Your blocking is not based on anything. -- Gnosandes (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1. I don't think you know what "empty warning" means. 2. The status quo is not the same as the consensus. 3. I referenced my source and you refused to look, which indicates bad faith. 4. I don't think you know what "slander" means. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, To the 1 and 4 point, I am not even going to answer, for I am not answering ignorance. 2. I think you should explain what you wrote. For in WP:CONS this is not written. 3. You did not refer to it, it is still not in the Proto-Slavic page. -- Gnosandes (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you don't ever admit ignorance, you won't learn much. Anyway... 2. Consensus is what editors agree on; status quo is what is currently present. This isn't Wikipedia, by the way. 3. Reread what I wrote. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, The first sentence applies equally to you. 2. and 3. I believe it was a search for consensus. However, you never provided a link to the source, so your edit is based on your personal research. At the same time, the Wiktionary editor wrote to me that the rules of Wikipedia also apply in Wiktionary. I may have been misled. I have reread your answer, and now reread my answer. This remains in effect. -- Gnosandes (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Will we continue? -- Gnosandes (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

No. You do not seem to be making any progress, either due to our language barrier or your wilful misunderstanding of Wiktionary's rules and practices. Please do not ping me again until your block is over. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge, Yes. You did not specify the reason for blocking my account, or you specified the reason for blocking my account not correctly and not clearly. At 19:10, March 14, 2020, my first cancellation of your edits was made, indicating the reason. At 01:10, March 15, 2020, my first cancellation of your edit was made, but this is on a new day! At 12:37, March 15, 2020, similar. Accordingly, I do not see any violations of the rules on my part. If you see a violation of the rules on my part, then the violation of the rules automatically goes to your side. Your undoing of my edits: 19:47, March 14, 2020‎; 06:51, March 15, 2020‎ and 17:43, March 15, 2020‎. In my opinion(!), you also broke the rules. However, your last edit was made before my account was blocked, which means that you did not cancel the violation, but canceled a good edit. You also, in my opinion(!), participated in this and should be blocked. You still haven't written anything on the discussion page in the Proto-Slavic article after my message to you. You didn't give the link that supported your edit in the Proto-Slavic article I requested. Because it's like your own research. I am not sure that you correctly issued the period for blocking my account. Instead of 24 hours, you gave out 3 days. If I am wrong, refer to the rule that not confirms my wrongness. -- Gnosandes (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

After asking that you not ping me again until your block is over, you proceeded to do so twice, as well as ping Victar below, seemingly only to waste his time. As a result, I have restricted you from talk page access until your block is over, but I have not extended the block. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Hypocritical and disgusting thanks

@Victar, Next time, send your hypocritical and disgusting thanks. -- Gnosandes (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified blocking

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gnosandes (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking

@Rua, I don't see anything disruptive in the edits. At the same time... Nothing like this, you should pay attention to peripheral sources that show the same material, but are far removed from each other geographically. Did you take a course in comparative studies at the University? Explain. -- Gnosandes (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are once again POV pushing, especially by moving a page that was already previously moved back and locked. It shows that you are not willing to discuss and will push your POV again as soon as locks are lifted. —Rua (mew) 10:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua, Nothing like that, it's more like your provocation, by changing the place of paradigms templates. And this is not justified in any way, and even more so etymologically. Moreover, I do not cancel your edits and make new changes, why the new edits are considered disruptive? -- Gnosandes (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rua, I would also like to ask why the blocking period is so long? After all, for this violation, I did not pass even 24 hours of blocking and a week of blocking? If it is related to WT:DISRUPTIVE -- Gnosandes (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Valence theory in Caucasian

Gnosandes, please desist from trying to apply fringe valence theory to Caucasian languages. --{{victar|talk}} 21:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Why? Why did you remove the accent in the Abkhaz language? If you don't understand how the paradigm accent systems found in the Caucasian languages work. This is your problem. Gnosandes (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If you continue to apply valence theory to entries, you will be subject to another block. --{{victar|talk}} 08:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar You still haven't answered the question about the Abkhaz language. I will not apply my knowledge in the field of Caucasian accentology, okay. But then I will refer to the writings of Dybo. I advise you not to introduce your fake Indo-European accentuation into the Caucasian languages. These are different language families, from different language macrofamilies. And the valence theory works very differently in them. Gnosandes (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Because the Abkhaz Cyrillic alphabet doesn't use accent marks. Please stop wasting all our time with your valence theory garbage. --{{victar|talk}} 09:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar You are wrong, the Abkhaz Cyrillic alphabet uses an accent mark. See: СлАбЯ (1986-1987), В. А. Касландзия (2005), А. Н. Генко (1955). And valence theory has nothing to do with anything other than describing the system. Gnosandes (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Those are academic, and not actually used in writing the language. {{victar|talk}} 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar But that doesn't mean anything! For example, in the Russian language, we rarely use stress in texts, and in the dictionary it is almost always used. The accent is also used in the Dictionary of the Abkhaz Language. Or do you want to do something like this, as I did in the Polabian language? Gnosandes (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Right, so look at Category:Russian lemmas -- none of the entry names of stress, but you can see it added to the headers. If we want to add stress to Abkhaz links, that's fine, but they first need to be filtered to it isn't reflected in the link. Done. --{{victar|talk}} 01:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar If it depends on the work of Wiktionary, then let's do as you suggested. What if do this {{desc|ab|агәы|агәы́}}? Gnosandes (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Starostin

You're straddling a dangerous line by adding Starostin content. Nostratic is strictly forbidden on en.Wikt, and any theories the promote that will be deleted on sight. --{{victar|talk}} 02:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Where do you see Nostratic? *fimḳwV "fist" and *pénkʷe "five" is isogloss. :D Gnosandes (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, {{R:Starostin:2007}} is a book Nostratic and Starostin manipulates reconstructions of languages to fit that theory. If you don't know how to separate the two, you shouldn't be working on such entries. --{{victar|talk}} 14:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar Nothing like that. This book is about the work of a linguist, a collection of works. Nostratic is a narrow section, in the book not so much. Gnosandes (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's absolutely like that. Nostratic was Starostin's life work and permeates all his research, overt or not. --{{victar|talk}} 14:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, This is incorrect. Starostin was engaged in many languages, he is a specialist in macro-comparative studies. Nostratic this is just another macrofamily. Gnosandes (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, believe what you want, but if you continue like this, more of your edits will be reverted and you will be blocked again. --{{victar|talk}} 15:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victar, You still haven't responded to my comments. You made a statement and avoided questions. However, I think it's best to continue with the administrator. @Chuck Entz Can I ask for your help to sort out this situation? From this discussion, it is not clear what the user Victar wants. As we know, Indo-European, Semitic, and East Caucasian are different families, the relationship of which is not explicitly proven. I don't quite understand the difference between Viktor's postulation of the Semitic form in Indo-European reconstruction and my postulation of the East Caucasian form in Indo-European reconstruction. In the beginning it was like this: {{noncog|sem-pro|*matk-|t=sweet}} - perhaps, this is Victor's edit with a link to Mallory and Adams; and {{noncog|cau-nec-pro|*mĭʒʒū|t=sweet}} -- my edit with a link to Starostin. I don't see any major differences. What was the point of deleting my edit? Can I re-add my edit, but with a change(?): Perhaps, borrowing from Proto-Northeast Caucasian *mĭʒ̱ū (“sweet”). With a new link to the source. Similar is the comparison of "five" and "fist". I don't know if it's a loan or not. There is no information in the sources, but the forms are compared. This may be similar to a common cultural language phenomenon. Gnosandes (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Голодомор

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gnosandes (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking

@Metaknowledge Why did you block me? It was quite appropriate to add to the etymology, especially since I gave a reference to the research of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. Moreover, I saw a similar article here, and there were similar details in the etymology. Gnosandes (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You know full well that what you added was not etymological information. Do not ping me again until your block expires. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge But you unfairly gave me this block! You also didn't respond to another offer. You avoided offers that were inconvenient for you. I will try to find this article, but it will take a long time. Gnosandes (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

There are no offers. If you make disruptive edits, you get blocked: that's it. I told you not to ping me again, so I am now removing your talk page access for the remainder of your block so you will stop wasting my time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

The term "quasi-PIE" is not well-favored by linguists and therefore is not used on the project. Also don't bother listing predecible sound laws in etymologies, and especially not in descendant trees. It's unuseful and cluttersome. --{{victar|talk}} 08:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: I knew that you would write to me. This method works, but this method is not very reliable. Excuse me please. Thank! Let's get to the point.

I borrowed the term quasi-PIE from Jay H. Jasanoff's book [Jasanoff 2017: p. 166]. This term, as you can see, is used by the Indo-European linguist. Why is this term disliked by linguists? I think the indication of laws is quite informative for the readers. They can look it up on Wikipedia and compare. Why do you find this unuseful and cluttersome? :с Gnosandes (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Because there are thousands of laws we could be notating if we wanted to. There's no good reason to choose to list a random one. --{{victar|talk}} 22:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: I want to write these laws! According to your sentence, you allow to do this. But in the project, reconstruction is tied to one point of one epoch. There is no step-by-step reconstruction of the forms. Therefore, the accentological law may well be indicated... By the way, you didn't answer the first question. Do you have a habit of avoiding uncomfortable questions? You could write that you do not know how to answer this question. It would be cultural and I would understand you. Fear not, we are all human. :) Gnosandes (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've already answered you on both points. If you continue to edit-war, you risk another a block. --{{victar|talk}} 01:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: You did not answer me. And stop scaring me with blocking. You are unlikely to scare me with such a trifle. xD Gnosandes (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Полабский язык

Здравствуйтеǃ Я заметил на Вашей странице, что реконструируете полабское склонение на примере /korvo/. Хотели бы больше об этом поговорить? Складывается, что я занимаюсь реконструкцией полабской акцентуации, словаря, а даже вообще целого языка и мне кажется нам могло бы быть полезно и интересно пообщаться. DrKumpelek (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@DrKumpelek: Привет! Да, но данное склонение плохое, а может быть и вовсе неверное (см. тут и тут). Давайте пообщаемся... %) Gnosandes (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Да, я тоже думаю, что оно плохое и охотно поделюсь своими замечаниямиǃ Давайте спишемся по емейлюː mrvinquerсобачкаgmailточкаcom, а потом придумаем как удобнее будет))) DrKumpelek (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@DrKumpelek: Я вам написал. Gnosandes (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Caucasian reconstructions

Why are you moving the Proto-Caucasian reconstructions from *ǝ to *ë? *ǝ is the standard transcription used, included in the sources referenced, and no where is there a discussion suggesting this change. --{{victar|talk}} 01:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Hello! I am moving the Northwest Caucasian reconstructions to my own discretion. Yes, the *ǝ symbol is indeed the standard transcription, that has in the source. You're right. Although I'm not sure, that this can apply to Wiktionary. I like the *ë symbol better. Since this symbol, in my opinion, organically fits into the early phase of the Northwest Caucasian, together with *a, *i, *e, *u, *o, *ü, *ö, *ë (*ə) > late phase *a, *ë, etc. There is also no consensus on such symbols as *š́ʷ ~ *šʷʲ and *bӏ ~ *bˁ, etc. People, people and people are needed for different discussions. There are none. Who will I discuss this reconstructed language with if no one understands it? Therefore, no one will write to me. Gnosandes (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

You bring up such suggestions in WT:BP. --{{victar|talk}} 03:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Good. Thanks. Gnosandes (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, we don't support Proto-North Caucasian on the project, so there is no such thing as pre-Proto-Northwest Caucasian. --{{victar|talk}} 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: There is no pre-Proto-Northwest Caucasian reconstruction. There is early Proto-Northwest Caucasian. This phase is reconstructed without the participation of the hypothetical superfamily. I am confused by the reconstructions, but the family connection is visible even outside the nouns. Gnosandes (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

pre-Proto-Northwest Caucasian = early Proto-Northwest Caucasian. Even if some people maybe theorize pre-PIE, we don't recognize such reconstructions on the project. The point of reconstructing a language is to reconstruct it to the most ancestral form that all its descendants can be derived from. --{{victar|talk}} 15:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: Hmm, I'm differentiating between pre- and early. It's probably not the same thing for me. But in fact, this is all quite subjective, all this corresponds to the agreements of certain scientists. Also, if you argue that the early phase of the proto-language cannot be welcomed, then why is *-oH-om in the genitive plural in PIE, etc.? Nor does Indo-European reconstruction always explain the reconstruction of descendants. As it is, I <completely> agree with you. Gnosandes (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Anatolian? There are a lot of things that are difficult to reconcile between Nuclear PIE and Anatolian. --{{victar|talk}} 19:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victar: I didn't see this in Anatolian. And in the Proto-Northwest Caucasian, half of the root apparently falls off, apparently this is a matter of tones. Gnosandes (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

PBS *mȇ̠dȃ̠vō̠̟̃n

Yeah... please don't reconstruct PBS like that. --{{victar|talk}} 23:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: Didn't I cancel my edit and do it the way it's done in Wiktionary? This is just a reconstruction from our future etymological dictionary. But I was wrong and saved my edit this way. Jasanoff's theory will have the same accent; true, the conclusion from the P-Indo-European looks too wild. Gnosandes (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I had to revert your edit. Glad we're on the same page though. --{{victar|talk}} 23:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Victar: Not no, but yes. For there you can see 2 of my erroneous edits. Perhaps this is the first time I see you so kind. X) Gnosandes (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Transliteration of Caucasian languages

Why are you changing my transliteration schemes? In any case, you should update the text at Wiktionary:Abkhaz transliteration because the scheme is not based on the one used on TITUS anymore. --Vahag (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Hello! Firstly, with regard to the Wiktionary collective, this transliteration is “ours”, but with regard to you, it is “mine, but not only mine”. Secondly, in my opinion, I tried to modernize it a little, based on academic works. Thirdly, the module does not work well, I only managed to solve part of the problem, but it still remains especially in the Abaza. Yes, I'll change it as soon as I have time. Gnosandes (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are not using some established and documented transliteration scheme? You are creating one ad hoc based on your opinion? --Vahag (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: True, because there is no established transliteration scheme for the Abkhaz and Abaza languages. Due to the fact that there are many documented transliteration schemes and they differ from work to work. I want to make a simple transliteration scheme, understandable transliteration scheme based on ideas from all works. I am creating a schema that takes its origin from many other schemas. The concept of “ad hoc” is out of place here. Gnosandes (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know enough about these languages to criticize your transliteration scheme, but I have to say I do not trust your judgement in general. For now you can play with the transliteration schemes unless someone more knowledgeable objects. Just don't forget to update pages like WT:ABQ TR. --Vahag (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: For example, you everywhere translate the Abkhaz and Abaza a as a ā, but there is no ā in either Abaza or Abkhaz. There is only the diphthong aa, which originated from *ʕ, which can be implemented as áa̯ or a̯á. In some dialects, however, aa has become a long vowel even under stress. Some transliteration of consonants is not the same as in the source, although I assume that the fonts reflect this. You can open the works of Dybo, Chirikba, Starostin, Spruit, Andersson, Yanagisawa, Marr and the like and you will see that transliteration is the difference. Among them there is no clear-cut system that would be accepted in the Wiktionary. Perhaps this should take the form of some sort of discussion on approving transliteration that everyone will follow? I only changed some details in your system, simplified it a little. I looked at these pages, what's wrong with them? The Cyrillic alphabet remained the same, but I would advocate the removal of letters borrowed from the Russian alphabet in the Abkhaz and Abaza languages. And also some letters with borrowed phonemes from other Caucasian languages. I also don't think it's worth transliterating in the spirit of Arabic, it looks very ridiculous. Gnosandes (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You have spoiled Module:abq-translit so that trigraphs are not being transliterated correctly now. See Abaza тлагӏва (tˡaʻʷa). Please restore the functionality. --Vahag (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Political commentary

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gnosandes (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking

Do not inject your political commentary into Wiktionary, as you did in национал-социализм (nacional-socializm) and ежовщина (ježovščina). You've been in trouble over this before - there won't be another warning. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 15:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: OK. Gnosandes (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: Do not forget to also issue this warning to other contributors whose edits I have corrected. This trouble is only a consequence of the dishonesty of the User:Metaknowledge, which also incorrectly indicated the reason for the block. And when I challenged the blocking, he did not explain anything to me, therefore, not one person should block, but with the consent of the group. Gnosandes (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you have chosen to continue disruptive editing in violation of WT:NPOV (whitewashing is still whitewashing even if you claim it's according to NPOV) and also apparently refuse to understand the reason for the block in question, the only remaining option is to block you, which I have done for a month. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: Can you prove okay that my edits are destructive? That is, when it is profitable for you, then this is a neutral point of view, and when it is not profitable, is it a whitewashing? You warned me not to add political comments, I agreed and admitted that I was wrong and wrote "OK", and then began to delete all political comments and not only comments. Gnosandes (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I can explain the block more plainly than this: I explicitly stated that "there won't be another warning" when it comes to tendentious political editing. Yet as quickly as five minutes after acknowledging my warning, you chose to start doing so anyway. Your today's edits at Holodomor are enough of a reason because they are very much a repeat of your earlier edits that already got you blocked. The ping in the edit summary and linking to WT:NPOV further shows you had no interest in actually following the spirit of the law and instead starting removing any and all content showing the Soviet Union or communism in bad light from a number of entries, seemingly just to insinuate that you weren't "inserting" political comments but "removing" them. Turns out that did not work after all.

There is nothing to "prove". This is a dictionary, not a courtroom. An administrator that the community has entrusted with the privileges to block editors to prevent them from causing damage to the dictionary has decided, also in light of other administrators having already done the same earlier, block you for disruptive editing. By promoting historical revisionism, you are actively harming Wiktionary. If you are unable to see why this is the case, you should stay away from entries like this altogether and instead focus on the topics that you also have contributed for. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: I thank you for the clarification. You warned me precisely for the political commentary, but they were written long ago by me. I started making edits not to the political commentary. Or rather, not delete, but change the content of what is associated with the USSR and communism to neutral. By neutral, I mean not mentioning communism and the like in a bad light, but also in a praising light! Therefore, I can conclude that for you a neutral point of view - is it mentioning communism as something bad? WT:NPOV just confirms that this should not be given a shade of good and bad. For otherwise: why can others portray communism in a bad light, but I cannot portray communism in a praising light? It didn't work just because you personally don't like it. This means that a neutral point of view only works when it is profitable for you. It's like the American propaganda of Hollywood (films) during the Second World War until 1945, the USSR was good, after 1945 the USSR was bad, so it seems that here too. The truth will be somewhere in between. Besides, when you canceled my "destructive" edits, you canceled my good edits. I believe that blocking is unreasonable because it is based on your subjective and sole opinion. In my opinion, I have contributed enough to the wiktionary so as not to be considered a vandal in case of possible errors. Historical revisionism is spread by obscurantists, and I am fighting with them. I think that you are not very familiar with me in order to present this to me, or you simply do not know history well and cannot think critically in this science. The edit in Holodomor is extremely neutral, I even added other countries because drought, or rather nature, has no state borders. You can even cite the Polish newspapers of those times as an example. I even cited counterarguments and specified the date of the first famine, but in response I received a block, because someone did not study history outside of propaganda. Thank you very much. Gnosandes (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This argument is just "no I'm not biased, you're biased!" all over again. I'll say it once more; if you cannot see that you are biased, you should not be editing these topics in the first place. NPOV doesn't mean we can't show something in a bad light when the neutral point of view is to show it in bad light. Such an idea is nonsense - NPOV is about calling a spade a spade (otherwise every article about a genocide would just have "well actually only some people call it a genocide but that's just propaganda"). Your edits were simply not doing that. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 09:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: I did not have such an argument "no I'm not biased, you're biased!", I assume that you invented it and attributed it to me. I showed that your warning is unfounded. For example, in the Russian page about National Socialism, my comment reflects the same essence as in the English page. On the page about Yezhovshchina, I also pointed out that before no one called it Stalinist repression, Great Terror, the people called it differently, before the propaganda of Perestroika and the collapse of the USSR. These are typical Cold War tales. NPOV: This policy means that we accept all significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct. Our aim is to be informative, not to convince readers of something. It’s OK to state opinions in entries, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. On the page about the Holodomor, this is indicated as an fact, but in fact (should this set out 2 opinions?) there is a huge pile of Soviet documents on helping to the starving and sick in 1932-1933, the International Committee of the Red Cross appears in these documents (these documents are published on the IstMat website, as well as personal cards of the injured). My edits did this and I indicated it above, I also indicated that some of my conclusions correspond to both Wikipedia (collectivization) and the conclusions of another user on the page about National Socialism. Therefore, I assess this as a personal dislike for me, because you refuse to analyze and compare my actions and the actions of others. Gnosandes (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you do. First you're asking for "proof that [your] edits are destructive", even though I already gave you a link to WT:NPOV why this is the case - which means you're asking me to prove that your edits are indeed biased, as they are. Then you also said that I'm not applying NPOV myself in a neutral way, i.e. that I am biased. From these two, your argument is easily apparent.

• National Socialism does not say that the movement stems from "a capitalist formation", which reads like it's meant to portray Nazism as just another form of capitalism, and when placed in the wider context of your edits, it's obvious that it is how it is meant to be interpreted. (and didn't you already admit this edit was wrong? it's not now?)
• I have absolutely nothing to comment about your edits on ежовщина. If you feel the use of "propagandists" is appropriate like this, you should not be editing these topics. I'm going to stop saying this from now on because you should've already gotten this message - I've said it three times now. Your claim is also demonstrably false - all it took was one minute of searching: w:Great Purge#Western reactions. (Or maybe perestroika had already happened in 1968??)

...and I reiterate that your block is still not just because of these two examples, but because of a wider pattern, which you still refuse to acknowledge and now you're just straight up saying that I'm personally discriminating against you. I have no clue what you are aiming to do with such accusations, because nobody is going to unblock you if your only reaction to getting blocked is that it must be because of a personal agenda against you. I suggest you invest your time in something more productive, such as some introspection. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 11:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: No, you are now directly contradicting NPOV, because I even gave you a quote that this should be expressed in the form of different opinions. I indicated one opinion, someone indicated a different opinion, but I did not know about the second opinion, so I could not provide it. It's obvious. There is no bias here, but in fact either a completely neutral opinion is indicated without indicating good and bad (which I did), or all opinions are given (this would take up a lot of space and it would be strange for Wiktionary). Or there should be a single link to Wikipedia with an article about the Holodomor.

• Someone has already written on the English page "economic cooperation between the state and capital". I read it and added it to the Russian page for brevity: "is a product of the capitalist formation". This is one and the same, pure Imperialism. Once again, on the English page there is only one opinion about National Socialism (I repeated it on the Russian page), but another person has the opinion that National Socialism is good. Isn't that a second opinion? NPOV?
• So in the English word about dekulakization "you" use "A Soviet propaganda poster", why do you not allow me to use the word propaganda, propagandist? It is not false, you just confirmed that the Great Terror was invented by Robert Conquest, who was criticized more than once! I also used the word "people", the Soviet people called this phenomenon Yezhovshchina, and not the Stalinist repressions, the Great Terror and similar constructs of the Cold War.

Are we not now discussing these examples with you? In other examples, I made cosmetic edits, such as moving the box with the picture above, etc. Therefore, I did not refuse to discuss it. You've started canceling even my cosmetic edits. This is what makes up my assessment of discrimination, because I made my edits based on the edits of others. You are blocking one me by excluding others, although I made the same political comments as other users. It is your personal right not to unblock me, but I again indicated that the blocking is unreasonable. Gnosandes (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WT:NPOV doesn't say "every single opinion should be given equal weight". It says "we accept all significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct". If I decide to have the opinion that the Moon is in fact cheese, that is not a significant viewpoint in the sense that we will have a note on the Moon that says "..., which some people think is actually made of cheese". Outlandish, including clearly revisionist, ideas should not be given the due weight they do not deserve. You once more seem to be fixated on specific edits, so let's respond to those as well:

• The first point argues that the two are "one and the same". They're not. It's that simple.
• Never did I say that there was some kind of blanket ban on the words "propaganda" and "propagandist", but those words must be used with extreme caution. (Why are you fixated on this? It's not like you even tried to remove the word from the caption. Now it matters?) Saying that specific words are only used by propagandists, especially since they are considered neutral terms (why else would Wikipedia have them as the title?) is a clear sign that you simply do not like the term. Dislike, especially regarding a politically sensitive topic such as this, is a personal opinion, not something that belongs on the main body of a dictionary which seeks to be neutral in its coverage. Such notes do not belong in an etymology section either way.

As for the cosmetic edits, I am not opposed to anyone else redoing them, but it appears that they were only secondary to the content changes you were trying to force. This discussion is a waste of time. Based on your arguments so far, you're not going to be able to bring anything convincing to the table for me to unblock you. While I can't say for certain that the community agrees with the block, I've yet to see them storm my gates over it. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: How do you weigh opinions and then arrive at an equal weight of opinions? Are these some kind of heuristic methods? An example and opinion about the Moon is absurd because cheese is a product of purposeful human activity… This is a problem with logic. Revisionism is quite present in science, many things are being revised, this is normal. The main thing is that they are with evidence and do not violate the logic.

• I, unfortunately, did not understand the meaning of what you wrote. Is it denial or not? Can I ask you to rephrase, please?
• Well, you really didn’t say that, it’s my mistake, excuse me please. Why should this word be used with caution, I did not give an assessment of this? You can, for example, propaganda science (the one who does this is a propagandist)… These terms are used in historical science rather as an imposed tradition. Others simply use the word "(political) repression" and add "against speculation, perversion and hoax" as a reaction to the myths of the Cold War and Perestroika. Indeed, I will say for myself, I do not like it, because it is a product of the Cold War and has nothing to do with science, if you remove the "traditions". However, in the Russian language, this substitution began towards the end of the twentieth century (I was just editing the Russian page). Such names are more suitable for hype and no more. Therefore, they are not neutral at all. But you use them. Since I did not know where to put it and specify this replacement, I put it in the etymology, in any case, you, as more experienced in this matter, could transfer it to another place. On the page about the Holodomor, dekulakization, I removed both the bad and the good.

What are the difficulties in preserving the "secondary elements"? On the contrary, I gave a bunch of comparisons and showed why I did it this way. They may well be unconvincing just because you don't like it either, you even wrote above that a neutral point of view, it turns out, can be bad. And then you just have a tool of repression that you applied to me. The community, I suppose, does not want to simply get involved in this, although when I tried to delete a image that did not describe the phenomenon on one page, there was a person who supported me. In the end, you also have no arguments for the validity of the block. You have the tool to throw me overboard and that's it. This happens precisely with the pages where the word describes the phenomenon of history. At that time, I was blocked even with a link to a scientific work, mind you. This, apparently, should correspond to your principles, which you set out above, but even so it did not pass. We came here to edit pages, not storm your gates. That is why this discussion is a waste of time. Gnosandes (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue about the fundamental nature of what is right and what is wrong. The judgment is made by the administrators who have been entrusted with the right. If an administrator makes a bad decision, they are subject to oversight by the community. To rephrase: they're not equivalent. "economic cooperation between the state and capital" is a neutral description. What you wrote was not (as I already stated). Doesn't matter if you think a term is just "for hype" - it's the most commonly used term in English (while most people who are superficially aware of the events have probably not heard of "Yezhovshchina", or if they have, couldn't immediately make the connection). If you still insist that I "also have no arguments for the validity of the block", then I'm sorry but I simply cannot help you further without starting to repeat myself over and over again, as I already have done to the extent that it simply can no longer be considered necessary. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Surjection: Um, you started to give this nonsense to me as an example… I see that the oversight is not working well, because most of the participants will not even know this. If it was vandalism, I would not dispute, but such a topic with a "neutral description" is controversial, as we have already found out. They are equivalent because this is a description of ordinary imperialism, imperialism in this case acts as a reduction in these features that are needed for the description. The other signs that are given there are secondary. I was not talking about English, but about Russian… That's exactly what it is, because you have a tool of repression. I have already written this above, because you are simply manipulating opinions and rules. Since we have reached the very bottom and revealed that the oversight does not work, but you have a tool for repression, then we can finish. Gnosandes (talk) 08:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Passage

@Fay Freak, Rua: Hello. I can answer you here. The accent paradigm c with the semantics ход (движение), and the accent paradigm b with the semantics место движения: проход, etc.

• > and because he gets blocked for nonsense
• > I am also not without doubt about the accuracy of accent distinction by multiple senses

Can you please write something about me this time without a delusional logical error? That way you shouldn't have a problem with extending error to all my edits, apparently. Another discrimination based on my historical and political moments (which you do not like, judging by the "nonsense") and widespread in all field. Despite the fact that you do not like semantics, but at the same time you are also talking about the accent distinction. This is really ingeniously… Gnosandes (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No, the nonsense is where you post them. I have not judged your historical or political stances. You don’t even know if I have perhaps the same ones. But your edits are also fringe/strange even if apolitical. So I do not extend or discriminate based on political judgment but it is a genuine observation. Although it can be presumed to be no coincidence that fringe views on language go hand in hand with unwonted political and other historical views. Fay Freak (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: The point is that these moments have already been posted by other users. But you stubbornly fail to see this. Of course, you did not judge, you read about them, and then built a certain chain. I know that your moments are opposite to mine (it became obvious to me a year ago). My edits cannot be fringe/strange because I showed the opposition of semantic-accentuation pairs in dialects or you simply refuse to notice the facts. Despite the fact that you don't even explain why my edits are fringe/strange. That is why you are distributing it, for it is evident from your proposal above. Assumptions based entirely on phantoms. Gnosandes (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

slüvensťĕ

What did you mean? "This is strange because there are other soft consonants." Terrus (talk) 2 Aug 2021 Terrus38 (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Terrus38: mʲ, pʲ, bʲ, vʲ, lʲ, rʲ, xʲ, nʲ Gnosandes (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gnosandes: Actually /lʲ/, /xʲ/ and /nʲ/ could've been /ʎ/, /ç/ and /ɲ/ - and other consonants - what could they have been? (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Terrus38: I, unfortunately, cannot know this. Therefore, here it is better to interpret the diacritic as ʲ. Here you can take the Sorbian and East Slavic languages. I still allocate the Polabian language to another branch. It is likely that in Polabian, with a strong Germanic influence, ‹r› and ‹ŕ› were pronounced as [ʀ] and [ʀʲ]. This is if we assume on the basis of the Sorbian. But you need to know that the Polabs lived near the city of Hamburg. And this territory does not even fall under the settlement of the Sorbs of the 18th century. It is lower than Berlin. It is difficult to say anything, but it is strange to extrapolate Polish, Czech, etc. data, just as it is strange to extrapolate East Slavic data and Sorbian data. But, if we rely on the Polabian data themselves, it turns out that the East Slavic and Sorbian support is better than the Czech, Polish, etc. Your criticism? Gnosandes (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Terrus38: Maybe I have a mistake here, I do not know how the Germans pronounced ‹r› in the 18th century. I am not a Germanist. Gnosandes (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European

Hey, I saw your edit on the Proto-Indo-European entry *kwó. You edited the pre-Indo-European *kwóns to *kwón-s. I'm not mad, I'm interested. I just would like to know where did your source came from and if the pre-Indo-European means Pre-Proto-Indo-European or non-Indo-European? (Deutschland1871 (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Hello. So… and what kind of radical change do you find here from *kwóns to *kwón-s? There is no source, it is only a reconstruction on similarity. Before me, it was called Pre-Proto-Indo-European. I gave another name based on the similarity with pre-Balto-Slavic, see Reconstruction:Proto-Balto-Slavic/źeimā́ˀ. You can call it a горшок. But nothing will change from this. Gnosandes (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Victar remove your edit which I couldn't find a reason for so I put your edit back because it was helpful and informative. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

Also, understandable. You did something called International reconstruction which I'm learning to di as I'm currently reconstruction Proto-Basque and Pre-Proto-basque. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Oh, yes. It's funny to see all sorts of User:Victar's actions that are directed against me. Obviously, his edit was in 2018, but then he did not consider it proto-world junk. But in three years, he changed his mind. Although I only added an Northeast Caucasian similar form, which could be borrowed if possible. Archaeologically, their homes are very close. But this, apparently, cannot be said about Sino-Tibetan. This is of course conditional. But I don't understand how the internal reconstruction can relate to proto-world junk. Gnosandes (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed. You know, Victar thinks Wiktionary is all his to rule. He wants to style it by his way, not the people's way. He is such a dord. Before whenever I edited, He always followed me and erases my edit. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

I added IPA^(key): /kʷóː/ because of the pronounciayion and I just thought it was cool. The Proto-Indo-European entry for Brother had an IPA so I added it. Deutschland1871 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Deutschland1871: Well, he likes it better this way. Is not it so? I do not know what dord is, but it was translated into Russian as an insult. So I'll keep quiet. IPA: On the one hand, it's cool, on the other, it's nonsense. In the entry for *bʰréh₂tēr there is a link to Ringe 2006. Although for accentological reasons, I will never accept this. Yes, even without such reasons. Gnosandes (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Gnosandes, the word dord is not a Russian transliteration, it is actually an word that was created by mistake. For more info, go the the Wikipedia page "Dord" and Vsauce's video titled "Dord." And why accentoglogical speaking my IPA appriximation which was a guess at best is wrong? I'm just interested. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Okay. I meant the translation into my second native language. Because apparently you belong to some other accentological school. Your system is simply different from the system that is presented in the article for *bʰréh₂tēr. /kʷóː/ vs /ˈbʰrex.teːr/. I think it's all wrong. Can I ask you to put/write ":", I don't think that you should take advantage of my perfectionism. Gnosandes (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not taking advantage of your perfectionism. What makes you think that:?(Deutschland1871 (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Do you see how you wrote it? Gnosandes (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now I know what's wrong. *bʰréh₂tēr has an accent on the é but in the IPA it doesn't have. Now I see what's wrong.(Deutschland1871 (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

Oh ok, got it. I see it. Let me guess it is beside @(namespace): right? (Deutschland1871 (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Well, yes, it's so logical. Yes, the colon at the beginning of your message shifts your message slightly to the right, so your message will just be convenient to read. Gnosandes (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Got it. So based on your reply, the correct IPA would be kʷoː if I'm correct. (Deutschland1871 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: No, apparently you didn't understand, see: Wikipedia:Indentation. For Indo-European entries, "pronunciation" is not used. But this was added as an exception, because few people restore the pronunciation for Proto-Indo-European in books. You just don't have a source. And why did you decide that *ḱ is /k/, but the combination of *ḱw as /kʷ/? Why not /kʲ/ (Beekes, Kümmel, Clackson, Schirru) or /c/, or /kʲ:/ (Kortlandt)? Gnosandes (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I forgot. I knew *ḱ was a palatlised *k. I was just so focus on the pronounciation that I forgot to check the Indo-European entry. If ypu didn't brought this up then I would have never thought about it. So with that in mind, the Indo-Eutopean pronounciation would be *kʲwoː right or am I still wrong? (Deutschland1871 (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: I don't understand at all, how can you forget about it? It might be so, but what does it give you? I can ask, do you have a linguistic education or are you a student (like me) or are you just an amateur? Gnosandes (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm self teaching myself with videos, forums and reading Wikipedia pages to Teach myself as I am very passionate about linguistics. So in short, I'm an amateur with a reasonably basic understanding of linguistics (e.g. IPA, vowel degradation, language evolution etc.)(Deutschland1871 (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: Oh... But why don't you read books? Videos, forums and Wikipedia provide very little knowledge. Gnosandes (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Because in my local library, they well don't have alot. I tried finding one after my school teacher recommended me "Comparative Indo-European lingustics: an introduction by R. S. P. Beekes which is a well received one I heard.I tried finding it but there weren't alot and most of the ones were about Indo-European migrations, Indo-European archeology which I already knew to an extant but I couldn't find. Don't get me started on online shopping, I don't have my own credit card yet, only a McDonald's gift card, nothing else.(Deutschland1871 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC))
Ok so kʲwoː I think is more probable because the *kʲ stands for the palatalised ḱ. The w is a semivowel which I've noticed they can shift into consonants and vowels in a span of 1000 years hence why they shifted to *u in Proto-Germanic like *hundaz and the *oː denotes the long *o with a high accent.(Deutschland1871 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC))

@Deutschland1871: The library is the second thing. There are a lot of books freely available on the Internet. Have you read Beekes's book yet? There are interesting books by Szemerényi, Mallory & Adams, Sihler, Meillet, Collinge, Kapović, Herzenberg, Benveniste, Martinet, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov, Kloekhorst, Meier-Brügger, Schmalstieg and etc. I'm not getting you to make shopping, because these fundamental works are free. Further... All these letter signs are conditional in the reconstruction, there is no need to compare them with such zeal with the IPA, please. Gnosandes (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Help with linguistic terminology

Hello,

Could you look at my post in the Beer Parlour and propose a term for the secondary imperfective verbs in Macedonian, so that they can be properly categorized? I am contacting you because you appear quite knowledgeable about linguistics and as a native speaker of Russian, I think you understand the function of the type of verb that I am referring to as well as all the other types of verbs from which it needs to be distinguished. I tried to find equivalent examples in Russian, but I am not sufficiently attuned to the semantic and grammatical nuances of aspectual derivatives to identify any with certainty. Perhaps починять could be considered as a secondary imperfective without any added meaning, being derived from починить, itself from чинить, with all three meaning "repair"? Sorry to bother you. Martin123xyz (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz: Hi. There is no difference in the Russian language (the word починять I last heard from my great-grandmother). I can only offer a translation into Russian as скока (несовершенный) прыгать, скокне (совершенный) прыгнуть, скокнува (несовершенный, многократный) попрыгивать. Unfortunately, I do not speak English, much less the terminology in it. I used the same thing for Proto-Nakh verbs, although this will not be entirely true, but it is close to the truth. I'm sorry if you've lost hope. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Martin123xyz: гори (несовершенный) гореть, изгори (совершенный) сгореть, изгорува (несовершенный, многократный) сгорать. If I'm not mistaken and remember. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. So you agree that verbs like скокнува/попрыгивать and изгорува/сгорать have многократный Aktionsart. I will keep the label "iterative" for the Macedonian ones. Martin123xyz (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Central Slavic

May I ask what is your justification behind classifying Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc. as "Central" Slavic lang., as you did in one of your recent page creations? Greetings, Christian--IYI681 (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@IYI681: Hi! I had no need to re-classify Polish, Czech, Slovak, etc. It was done a long time ago (a justification is in textbooks). I just changed the name, but essentially everything remains the same. I hope I answered your question. But, although I know that you should have asked a different question, since this question is no good. Like this question: Why do you allocate the Polabian language to another group? But since you didn't ask it, there's no point in answering. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point. Thank you for your response!--IYI681 (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@IYI681 do not listen to him. He's making this up nonsense. @Gnosandes please stop using the term "Central Slavic". The Slavic languages are divided into three subgroups: East, South, and West. --ZomBear (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ZomBear: According to a number of signs (including accentological ones), classical West Slavic languages should be considered Central Slavic. Phonetically and accentological Polabian has nothing to do with either Lehitic, Sorbian, or other classical West Slavic languages. I have never seen you explore the Polabian language. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleter-role vote

Hello! I kindly invite you to cast a ballot in the deleter-role vote. Feel free to vote as you wish, whether in support or opposition. Imetsia (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

changes to Template:desc

Hi. Just FYI, {{desc}} has changed a bit; please use |t= in place of |4= (the gloss/definition), and |alt= in place of |3= (the display/alternative form). This is because the template will soon support multiple terms. Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Hi! Thank you for informing <3 Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

нѡздрорѡгъ

We normalise our entries, see WT:AORV. Please stop acting against consensus. If you don't like the consensus, start a discussion about it. And yes, ѡ most definitely is just a spelling variant of о, as witnessed by the fact Sreznevsky and Zaliznyak give the headword with о. Thadh (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Thadh: Your normalization, as practice has shown, does not correspond to reality. The first author has a good past, the second has created a good phantom. However, in the works of the second author there are good materials that break, destroy his good phantom. According to the works of the second author, by the Merilo Pravednoye, these are two different "o". According to his own dictionary, it turns out that there is no. A paradox! Please take more material, data and you will get a more complete picture. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Thadh: And yes, use the 2019 dictionary, not 2014 — https://inslav.ru/publication/zaliznyak-drevnerusskoe-udarenie-obshchie-svedeniya-i-slovar-m-2019 Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh I agree with you and not with Gnosandes. If we don't normalize the forms it will be a messy disaster. Benwing2 (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Benwing2: Hi. But for whom a messy disaster, and for whom historical facts. But in fact, I accepted this concept, although I want to supplement it with similar material about two "o" that should fit into phonemic transcription. Are you really going to forbid me to point out the disadvantages of this concept? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Thadh Gnosandes, I'm not sure you understand the concept of consensus. If there is a consensus established, you need to create a discussion to change it. Claiming I'm trying to forbid you from expressing your opinion is not true and is not a helpful accusation. Benwing2 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre political garbage as usage examples

User:Benwing2 pointed me out to weird political comments at Ньютон and Навальный you made (now reverted). These probably don't merit a block but this type of comments is not welcome here. Perhaps you should consider a community with similar-minded Z-friends? In any case, such comments will be deleted on sight for now. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: Hi! Political figure, political commentary (It was written a long time ago). Maybe we won't add political words to the dictionary either? Childishness and nothing more. Why do I need a community with similar-minded Z-friends? I'm just looking at the world madness, where some call others neo-Nazis, and others neo-fascists. Rate these pages Ruscism and рашизм. So fascism or nationalism? These are different things. There is a lot of such nonsense and obscurantism here. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. We add all sorts of words, including offensive and vulgar but somehow it looked like you were trying to promote some ideas with those edits. Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev: I also participate in adding similar words. What ideas? The first edit is humorously inadequate, the second edit is a typical fact about Navalnyism (I'll just call it by the surname of the leader): Russian opposition organizations are now at the level of the underground and agitation through leaflets. Nothing more. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev IMO it is best to avoid usage examples of a political nature. As they say, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Esp. Gnosandes since you have been blocked in the past for adding political commentary, I really think you should avoid even the appearance of doing this. It is really not hard to add usage examples that people of all political stripes will view as NPOV. The example concerning Newton was especially strange since Newton was in no way a political figure. Benwing2 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Benwing2 Look at this (Leninism, Stalinism), what do you say? "Muslimness" would be deemed, by the standards of Leninism and Stalinism, to be a kind of class consciousness. What kind of nonsense is this? But I'm not saying: "Delete, this is politics." Russian Wiktionary, for example, contains extremely toxic, political texts of publicists from the Russian National Corpus. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you can refrain from adding usage examples to political entries whatsoever, and only add quotes. That way, we are always objective.

Secondly, it's quite easy to make a non-political usage example for "Leninism": According to Leninism, communism isn't spontaneous.: Fully factual, no subjective undertones.

But again, not every entry needs usage examples. Thadh (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Gnosandes, thank you for pointing out those usage examples, they are indeed inappropriate and I have removed them. They were added by User:Apisite, who was in fact blocked (at least twice) for this behavior. So I would not take this as behavior to emulate. Benwing2 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Thadh, there is no need for usage examples in these cases at all; the definition is enough. Benwing2 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

PBSl *źámbas

Hi, Gnosandes! I was notified that you reverted my edit on Proto-Balto-Slavic *źámbas. To me personally, it's kind of pointless for one to add the East-West Baltic classifier in such a case where there is/are descendant(s) only from one of the branches. Is this some Wiktionary thing that's mandatory to do in the context of Proto-Balto-Slavic? Ентусиастъ (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: Hello, my dear! I think this is important for people who are poorly or not at all oriented in this. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thank you for the reply. Cheers. Ентусиастъ (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ентусиастъ: Since "Baltic" is not a universally accepted taxon by itself, we try to make it more neutral by adding the qualifiers - East Baltic is established, after all. Thadh (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello - you can't just tag pages like Reconstruction:Proto-Northeast Caucasian/x̱änɦï for speedy deletion without even giving a reason. It just won't get deleted. Theknightwho (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm here to say the same thing. From now on, I'm reverting your edits that add a deletion template without a reason. Ultimateria (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you undo my reversion? It's important to give a reason for deletion; we can't just blindly delete everything that gets nominated. All you have to put is {{d|misspelling of [[x]]}}. Ultimateria (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Hi. You deleted b’ordü, but canceled the edit in m’åglă. It looked illogical and I canceled your edit. Gnosandes ✿ (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I still insist that when you nominate a page for speedy deletion, you include a rationale with e.g. "misspelling of X". That way, even after the page is deleted, someone who comes across it will see the name of the correct page in the reason for deletion. Also, please check for incoming links. You nominated ბჺორწ which is still linked to in the translations at wolf. Ultimateria (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Same issue with налх. Ultimateria (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

???

Can you stop removing MY OWN WORDS? Shumkichi (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: If you stop writing nasty things. Gnosandes ✿ (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

An innocent little joke = nasty things, ok. Shumkichi (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: Ok. Gnosandes ✿ (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Aha, ok. Just stop doing that, that's not your talk page, it's mine. Shumkichi (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shumkichi: All yours belongs to me now. Gnosandes ✿ (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Proto-Nakh verbs

Now empty. See CAT:E for all the entries it used to contain. Look at {{cau-nkh-verb}} and your recent edits to Module:cau-nkh-headword for the reason. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Thank you, I hope I fixed this crazy machine. Gnosandes 💜 (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent Caucasian terms

Please add sources to your recent entries in Caucasian languages. I'm referring to ones you made that are unsourced. Vininn126 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Links on Discord do not count, and it would be nice for them to be not only on the proto pages. Vininn126 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A lack of response or cooperation here does not bode well. Please consider this a formal warning. Vininn126 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don’t understand why @Gnosandes isn’t just adding the sources they’ve shown us on Discord. Theknightwho (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Gnosandes, the references to non-etymologicel dictionaries are unnecessary and distracting at proto-pages like *bumbur. You should list those only at the pages of the descendants, i.e. at бумбари (bumbari) and бумбарг (bumbarg). The references at the proto-page should be about reconstruction and etymology. Vahag (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Напишу на русском, чтобы было понятнее. Был у нас такой юзер Rajkiandris (talk • contribs), который добавлял кавказские слова не указывая источников. Потом оказалось, что он некомпетентен, и статьи созданные им — ненадежны. Поскольку мало кто интересуется кавказскими языками, проверять и ловить ошибки — сложно․ Поэтому тебя просят добавлять источники к каждой созданной статье вот так, а не на странице реконструкции или в чатах. Vahag (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

@ПростаРечь: Please stop thanking me for the edits. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Unjustified blocking

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Gnosandes (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Unjustified blocking

@Vininn126: Why are you blocking me? What is the edit warring? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The act of undoing an edit multiple times on маʼт instead of taking it to an admin? Vininn126 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: But I canceled the edit 1 time, and it is possible at most 2 times, as far as I know. And it was unclear why he changed my edit. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Is it normal that this administrator blocks for no reason? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Повод для последнего блока не важен. С тобой устали нянчиться. Ты не понимаешь, когда более опытные юзеры тебе что-то объясняют. Скока раз я убирал твои ссылки в никуда? Почему ты нас не слушаешься? Vahag (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Perhaps a reason is not needed, but I'd like to clarify that if you look in the history of the given lemma Gnosandes manually undid the previous edit several times, a form of warring, hence, it's not even without reason). Vininn126 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: I cancelled only once, it was at 2023-03-31T18:52:53‎ Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: How is it not important? I don't see anything wrong with these links, I want them to be. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The link doesn't lead anywhere. Can't you see there is no article for Yadviga Popova on Wikipedia? Vahag (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: What difference does it make if there is an article there or not? No one forbade doing this, but referring to the fact that experienced users do not do it is somehow strange. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You see, I can't convince you in the truth of something that should be obvious to any reasonable person. It is this your attitude that leads to blocks. I will not save you. Vahag (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Vahagn Petrosyan: It didn't interfere in any way, but it was a reason for you to find fault with me and delete it. Obviously, the blocking was not because of this. Well, I didn't expect anything else. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

краина

@Thadh: You put the wrong stress again. Need a кра́ина. Page 1312, but not 1319. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

All descendants point to краи́на and Zaliznyak only discusses укра́ина, why do you think it's the same accent paradigm? Thadh (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: Descendants can show a lot, only they act according to the categorial principle, but they do not act according to the paradigmatic principle. The form укра́ина proves nothing here, because the prefix and the root form a prefix-root complex [укра́j]-ин-а. That is, in such complexes, the stress would always be at the root. But in the word in which you put the wrong stress there is no such complex, since there is no prefix. Therefore, it cannot be used. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I don't take укра́ина as proof of *кра́ина. Rather I take the descendants as proof of краи́на. Thadh (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: Descendant data cannot be used either. Adjectives such as кра́инии and кра́иныи are attested. In addition, the Proto-Slavic form has an accent paradigm a. The modern край does not transfer the stress to the clitic. Etc. Derived words inherit the accent paradigm of producing words under the paradigmatic principle. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: We (you) do not understand how the system works in motion and synchronically while forming two different systems, but keeping some things of the old system in the new one > we (you) write: know what? I don't need this right now and {{rfp|orv}}. POG LUL Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

New template

@ZomBear: Hi! Can I ask you, if you have free time, to add:

• Feeney, Matthew E. (2004). Can Proto-Languages have dialects? A critique of recent Russian approaches to the historical reconstruction of Proto-Slavic, UMI Microform?

Thanks. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. You're blocked, that doesn't mean you should find ways to make edits through others by pinging them, it means you should wait a month and start editing then. Thadh (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: But I don't find any ways to make edits through other users. You probably have something in mind for yourself, as always. I suggested a new template. In addition, the rules do not prohibit people's requests, and my blocking, as always, is unreasonable (remembering your words about what qualities an administrator should have). Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: In addition, stop following me around the project in accordance with UCoC 3.1, I am very uncomfortable and I feel unwell because of you. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Gnosandes Please stop. If you do this again, I'll just revoke your userpage editing rights for the remainder of your block. Theknightwho (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: I'm not particularly interested in your dictatorial ways and intimidation (: Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Proto-Nakh

What sources do you use for these entries? Synotia (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: Hi. What goals or interests do you pursue by asking such a question? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Why do you answer a question with a question? I ask because I cannot find these reconstructed forms elsewhere on the internet. Synotia (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: It was necessary for security. Basically, we have reconstructions of Russian linguists Sergei Starostin and Sergei Nikolaev

• Search for data in: Nakh etymology.

There are several reconstructions in the work of a Soviet linguist Vladislav Illich-Svitych:

• (1965) "Caucasica", in Etymology. Moscow: Nauka

We have some American linguist Johanna Nichols reconstructions and mostly Proto-Vainakh ones:

• The Origin of the Chechen and Ingush: A Study in Alpine Linguistic and Ethnic Geography (2004)
• Ingush Grammar (2011), page 47, 55, 57, 59, 167, 203, etc.

An article by a Dutch linguist Peter Schrijver has recently appeared:

• A history of the vowel systems of the Nakh languages (East Caucasian), with special reference to umlaut in Chechen and Ingush (2021)

Some considerations are found in the works of the American linguist Alice Harris.

There is one reconstruction in the work of a Danish linguist:

• Bjørn, Rasmus (2017) Foreign elements in the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary. A comparative loanword study‎^[2], Master's thesis, University of Copenhagen, pages 56–57

Quite speculative reconstructions are scattered across various articles by Russian linguists Oleg Mudrak:

• (2018). "Caucasisms in the Ossetian language (analysis of the semantic fields "body", "people"), in the Native language. Linguistic Journal, volume I, number 6, pp. 109–153. Moscow: Autonomous non-profit organization "Institute of Bible Translation"

Also my own reconstructions, which I accompany with a template {{original research}} Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Security? Uhh sure, glad I passed.

If it's sourced it would be nice to add it.

In this case, I stumbled upon for instance this page, and found neither the original research template nor a source. Synotia (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, enwiki lacks a Proto-Nakh language article, if you feel comfortable enough with the topic you could start something. (Me, this is beyond my domain of competence) Synotia (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: I can't use my reconstruction on Wikipedia. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't see how that prevents you from covering the rest? Anyway, if you don't want to, it's your choice. Synotia (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: There is outdated information there, and new information makes little use of dialect data and sources from the 18th and 19th centuries. This is observed in the work of the Dutch linguist Peter Shriver (2021), for example. The reconstruction seems to be correct, but if you dig into the sources, it turns out that it is not quite correct.

In other words, stupid linguists slowed down the development of Caucasian studies in these areas, stupid linguists were engaged in macrocomparativistics (compared Chinese and Proto-North Caucasian, Nakh and Proto-Indo-European, Nakh and Nostratic...).

However, we have some works by Alexander Vovin against this, which can be used as fundamental in Caucasian studies. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Am I correct in understanding that you are not currently following any model that has been established by other linguists but rather devised your own model with the comparative method? Thadh (talk) 16:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Thadh: Hi. I don't want to communicate with you, you bring me moral pain. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

So you're still not adding sources after being asked multiple times, and now you refuse to communicate and do everything through a "security measure"? You get that this is a project open to the public? Vininn126 (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Vininn126: All the sources I added after the end of your blocking me, see the date. I also pointed to the template. Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps elsewhere, but not on the example I linked, as well as others. I'm pretty sure that Wiktionary rules are more demanding regarding Proto-entries Synotia (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Synotia: Please excuse me, but I won't be able to answer you yet, as these people have been constantly spoiling my mood lately. I would be interested in why you are interested in the Nakh languages? Gnosandes ❀ (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)