User talk:Kilibarda

Welcome!

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contribution so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
• Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
• Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
• The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
• We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --EncycloPetey 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Derived terms

Please use this as a Level 4 header (e.g. ====Derived terms====), not at level 2 or 3. --EncycloPetey 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I was not aware of this until now. --Kilibarda 23:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hey xD

First of all, thanks for joining us and creating those marvelous entries ;)

In case you haven't noticed, there is the Index:Montenegrin page that I created a while ago, and which contains all the words from that PDF published on the government's site. Redlinked terms are missing. You might find it a source of 'inspiration' :)

Ako imaš ikakvih pitanja, slobodno mi se obrati na stranici za razgovor. Pozdrav! --Ivan Štambuk 05:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for replying so late. Thank you for the warm welcome. I am glad to see that there are interested users such as yourself that are willing to expand the content of our great language on this prestigious project.

I have noticed your endeavor even before you mentioned it, and I must admit, it does save me a great deal of time. Much to your delight, I have been using it as my inspiration.

Nema problema, kralju. Samo naprijed! ;) --Kilibarda 02:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

iotation

You used this word in the etymology of đever- do you think you could create an English entry for it? Thanks. Nadando 01:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Kilibarda 02:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

{{prefix}} and {{suffix}}

Hi please use these templates when adding "simple" etymologies like pot- + predsednica. They categorise the entries into categories like Category:Serbo-Croatian words prefixed with pot-. For SC both the Latin and Cyrillic script entries should have separate prefix/suffix categories. Here are usage examples of the prefix template and the suffix template. Also, if you have a word whose etymology is <prefix> + <suffix>, then use {{confix}} as seen here. Keep up the work! :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I have proceeded in updating the entries without the templates, only to notice you editing them at the same time. --Kilibarda 14:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ˆ vs ¯

Please use ¯ (macron) for unstressed long vowels, not ˆ (circumflex), e.g. pȁmetār, not pȁmetâr. This way it won't get confused with the long vowel with falling accent (ȃ, ȇ, ȋ, ȏ, ȗ). Thanks. – Krun 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was only following the entry for pametar from "Rječnik hrvatskoga jezika, Volume 2" by F. Iveković and Ivan Broz (link). --Kilibarda 23:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. They're just a bit out of date on the typographical front. The macron is used in most recent sources, e.g. Hrvatski jezični portal and Rečnik srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika (in Cyrillic). – Krun 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Krun on this. Circumflex is very likely to be confused with inverted breve which is used to denote long falling tone. Circumflex is today oftentimes used in non-linguistic sources to indicate vowel length in genitive plural ending (-a, -i, in order to make sure that the reader understands the word is used as a plural as opposed to singular, both of which are spelled the same, but pronounced differently), and sometimes also in cases of ambiguous short words. --Ivan Štambuk 19:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

{{term}} and {{l}}

A small note: {{term}} is the preferred template for mentioning words in running text (as in written prose, in etymologies, usage notes and similar). {{l}} is the preferred template for various lists (e.g. ====Related terms==== section, usually separated with bullets *). Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 19:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rječnik

Kilibarda, hoćeš mi molim te napisati točan naziv rječnika, autora, izdavača, godinu i stranicu s koje si unio riječi poput kaštradina, kužina ili pjat kao srpskohrvatske? Lijep pozdrav --Roberta F. 19:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Velik broj tih "čakavizama" se govori i u Crnoj Gori. Osim toga, nas ne zanimaju rječnici kao reference, već samo i isključivo stvarna upotreba (vidi WT:CFI). --Ivan Štambuk 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ne moram ti naći rječnik, Roberta, zato što su riječi npr. kužina i pjat preuzete iz susjedne Hrvatske i postali regionalizmi u Boki Kotorskoj. Nemorate biti naučnik da znate da većina stanovništa te iste Boke izglasili su da im je maternji jezik srpski. ( hrvatski → srpski = srpskohrvatski ;) ) --Kilibarda 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ma ne možemo na časnu pionirsku. Znam za te neke oblike (nisu samo čakavizmi, rabi ih i hrvatska štokavica!) koji postoje i u crnogorskom jeziku, no volio bih kad bi Kilibarda dao barem neki izvor. Kilibardo, daj barem neku literaturu. Ali nešto provjerljivo. Kubura 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ako se govore u Crnoj Gori, onda se samo nadoda odjeljak za crnogorski jezik. Bošnjački i srpski jezik ne poznaju te izraze. Ako ćemo po kriteriju "stvarne uporabe", onda mi pogotovo nije jasno koji to osoba koja se izjasnila da joj je materinji bošnjački, srpski ili t.zv. srpskohrvatskog rabi izraze kao "kužina", "pjat" ili "kaštradina"? Kubura 22:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Čekaj malo. Ko to kaže da srpski jezik uopšte ne priznaje te izraze? Većina ljudi ko koriste te naše "fore" su izglasili srpski kao maternji. Ali moram priznati, srpski jezik u Srbiji ne priznaje ove riječi jer oboje države imaju različiti regionalizmi, što je u sasvim slučaju normalno. --Kilibarda 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahahah, a ti ćeš nam reći što "poznaju bošnjački i srpski jezik"? Evo ja koristim kužina i pjat, i velim da mi je materinji sh. Što ćemo sad? --Ivan Štambuk

Štambuče, ti padaš iz faze u fazu. Jedno si vrijeme bio u fazi međunarodnica i upadljivo si i nasilno uguravao međunarodnice u hrvatski jezik. Nešto kao pokojni Branko Mikulić sa "diferencijalnim razlikama". Onda si upao u fazu kao neke hrvatšćine, pa san mislio šta se to zbilo s tobom. A sad si upao u fazu takozvanog srpskohrvatskog (jedno si vrijeme bio u fazi pisanja ě). Koja je iduća faza, Ivane? Pitam se iz kojeg čudnog razloga upadaš u te faze. Ili samo to činiš iz razloga za razvlačit zajednicu odnosno povlačit ju za nos.

Ova tvoja uporaba "kužine" i "pjata" (to si ti samo rekao da koristiš!) je samo tvoj osobni stav. Izrazi koje koristi jedan pojedinac nisu odraz projekta t.zv. srpsko-hrvatskog jezika. Čitao sam za školovanja brojnu literaturu i lektiru koja je bila na t.zv. srpsko-hrvatskom. Ondje nije postojala nikakva kužina, ni pjat, ni tisuća, ni milijun. Ivane, zašto proguravaš svoj osobni pristrani stav? Ako se ne možeš opredijeliti što si, nemoj zbog toga kemijati sa jezikom.

Bošnjački i srpski jezik ne koriste riječi (kužina i pjat). Jednostavno - ne postoje u tim jezicima. Ivane, živio sam desetljeće prije tebe za one države i bio sam izložen njihovom jeziku i preko RTV-a i tiskovina, pa znam što govorim. Kubura 03:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Kubura je blokiran na neodređeno, tako da ćemo nažalost Kilibarda ostati pošteđeni njegovih budućih proljeva. --Ivan Štambuk 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Ne razumijem zašto se vi ne slažete jedno za drugim, a kažete da govorite istim jezikom. Haj' neću da upadnem u 'crnim vodama'. Ivane, ne glumi Crnogorca, to je moj posa' ;) --Kilibarda 07:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Mogu ti reći Kubure da kužina je prihvaćen u "Rječnik hrvatskoga ili srpskoga jezika" koji je izdan između 1898. i 1903. godine u Zagrebu na inicijativu Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti. U peti dio, na 845 stranici piše:

KÙŽÎNA, f tal. cucina, mlet. cusina, ku-

hińa — U Vukovu je rječniku zlo zabilježen ak-

cenat. — U naše vrijeme, a između rječnika u

Vukovu (kùžina, 'die küche' 'culina', cf. kuina

s dodatkom da se govori u Crnoj Gori i po

primorju) Teško onoj kužini đe gospa ne ulazi! (U

Kotoru). Nar. posl. vuk. 316. Nađu sve pečeńe i

varivo iskotrjano kroz kužinu. Nar. prip. vuk.

259. — U Dubrovniku samo pomorci govore ku-

žina ostali komin (vidi 1, komin, e). P. Bud

mani.

Da li Vam treba više dokazi? --Kilibarda 07:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

etimologije

Dobro to tebi ide vidim, drago mi je što smo dobili još jednog etimologoljupca :D Nadam se da si već otkrio one velike liste unutar Category:Proto-Slavic language - tamo ima još dosta posla oko proširivanja i unifikacije srpskohrvatštine.. --Ivan Štambuk 18:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Proto entries

Like Ivan says, no need to have two different forms of the same entry, other than as redirects. For one, these are unattested forms, secondly, as non-main space entries the rules at WT:REDIR don't apply in the same way. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian

Hello there, you keep on referring to Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian in your edits. That page is not a policy. The only page relevant to a justification of an edit, if that edit needs a justification, is the vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian, which ended up in no consensus, as opposed to passed. Let me emphasize that I am not commenting on the appropriateness of your edits per se, only on their referring to the non-policy Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian. A summary "as per Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian" seems misleading to me. --Dan Polansky 08:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That vote is irrelevant. The proposed policy page should be followed because it represents current community consensus. --Ivan Štambuk 09:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That page is not a policy, and cannot be used to justify edits. I am not opposing the edits; my only point is that Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian has no policy status, meaning it is not a policy page. The following sentence is thus false: "The proposed policy page should be followed because it represents current community consensus", as the term "the proposed policy page" fails to refer. --Dan Polansky 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That vote is the only non-mainspace page that is relevant. --Dan Polansky 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Note to all, I never said it was a policy, and yes, maybe my edit summaries could be worded a little better. My purpose behind said edit summaries is to signify a change from a BCSM language to Serbo-Croatian, with justification as to why it was changed — not that it is mandatory or an official policy but rather much simpler, linguistically speaking, as well as for organizational purposes. It is rather irrelevant and unnecessary to have four entries for a single word that literally have the same definition in all four languages, resulting in the creation of an overlap. --Kilibarda 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like to challenge Štambuk's belief in current community consensus. There are only a handful of Serbo-Croatian contributors. Other contributors e.g. Kubura and Roberta F. are pro-Croatian and challenge the unity of a single Serbo-Croatian entry, which I respect. Our so-called Serbo-Croatian movement can be seen as a nationalistic front for a new "Yugoslavia," as can the pro-Croatian front, but in my honest opinion, linguistically speaking, we all speak the same language, regardless of what you want to believe. Literary BCSM are all based on the Štokavian dialect, making it largely mutually intelligible with each other. Differentiating dialects and Croatian's 'Slavic purism' tradition have led to a rift in a unified language for nationalistic purposes — to make their language more Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, etc. I have seen it, and at one point, I too have been involved in it, but have come to a sad realization that we are just promoting hate among each other like that instead of promoting peace and cooperation amongst each other. --Kilibarda 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In relative terms - yes, but in absolute terms there are more SC contributors here than in most of the other languages. Wktionary SC coverage is currently at top 5 of all languages: many entries, most of them with inflection and pronunciation. There is no "Serbo-Croatian movement" here - there are free individuals operating on the basis of their own free will, unsynchronized and under no hidden agenda. Did someone invite you here? I doubt. Well, in case of almost all C and S editors - they were invited (canvassed, if you will), to push their agenda. In fact, most of them know each other very well from other projects, and fama volat.. I don't care in what political terms they perceive unified SC treatment, and that question is completely irrelevant. We are not here to push either perspective, but simply to describe language as it's actually used. If that description fits into some political narrative - I couldn't care less. For English-speakers learning the language, as well as for editors contributing - everything else is simply a waste of time. --Ivan Štambuk 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And Štambuk, seriously, unblock Kubura. He has his own opinion, much like I have mine and you have yours. You cannot blame him for preaching what he believes to be truth, and what you believe is a lie. Everything in this world is biased no matter how much we try to make it unbiased. --Kilibarda 06:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kubura crossed the line with personal attacks and vandalism. He was warned enough times already, and I seriously doubt that he's capable of change into more productive editing streams. His signal-to-noise ratio is very low, and not much is lost. --Ivan Štambuk 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Polansky, none of the About:pages that I know of is voted formal policy, yet all of them describe current community consensus as regards the editing practice of their respective languages. That vote failed and it's irrelevant - nobody is obliged to follow it (under the penalty of rollback/block). Contrary to the common misconception held and oftentimes uttered by various folks: nobody is obliged to follow the opposite of a restrictive failed vote. It is wrong and misleading to claim that one must not follow a guideline page just because it wasn't formally approved. The WT:ASH page does represent current community consensus of all our Serbo-Croatian editors. You are simply annoyed because Kilibarda has been openly doing so, so you decided to put that ugly message. In fact, what Kilibarda has been doing is exactly what I've been doing for more than a year. The reason why you choose to put that message now is because you're scared that more smart and productive editors such as Kilibarda will show up. You won't succeed. --Ivan Štambuk 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The About pages do not describe community consensus; there is no evidence that they do. However, unlike most of the About pages, the About Serbo-Croatian is positively known to lack consensual support, via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2009-06/Unified_Serbo-Croatian. And, unlike other About pages, About Serbo-Croatian is positively known to have stirred a heated controversy. It would be only fair to mark Wiktionary:About Serbo-Croatian as controversial, and do so clearly and ostensibly, a step that you vehemently oppose. --Dan Polansky 09:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not lack consensual support. Majority voting is not a process by which a consensus is established; it's a process by which premeditated policies are enforced in the least painful way. Just because something is passed by majority voting, it doesn't mean that it represents a widespread community consensus, simply because it could pass by a narrow margin. If a particular vote doesn't pass, it has no progressive or retrogressive effects, and is irrelevant. Failure of a vote to pass, especially a rigged vote that would pass by our newly-established voting regulations, has no bearing on former or modified draft policies. If you have problems with specific editors' editing practice, you should address them on an individual basis, on the relevant talk pages. This has nothing to do with "fairness". The "controversy" over SC treatment is completely overhyped, and controversy for controversy's sake is irrelevant. --Ivan Štambuk 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

veljeti

AFAIK, infinitive form was not attested in SC and is simply a reconstruction on the basis of the OCS/PSl. form velěti (some dictionaries list it with an asterisk). You know of any actual attestations, or..? Our inclusion policy prohibits unattested lemmata in the main namespace. --Ivan Štambuk 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The official Montenegrin orthography that was released by the Government of Montenegro lists veljeti as the proper infinitive for velim. Although, honestly, I have never heard anyone say veljeti in colloquial speech, just its conjugated forms velim, veliš, etc. They almost always replace veljeti in the infinitive form with reći. --Kilibarda 15:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

One Croatian orthography book (BFM) also lists veljeti, but with an asterisk, marking its hypothetical status. I think that we should follow the usual lexicographical practice, by lemmatizing it it to velim, unless attestation evidence for veljeti can be given. --Ivan Štambuk 15:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Language headers

Hi there. Language headers are always L2 headers (meaning two equals signs to the left and right of the word you want in the header). I've just corrected a mistake in one of your entries changing a header from a L3 to L2 header. Please remember to make the language headers L2 headers in the future. Thanks, Razorflame 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the language header settings, I probably did not realize that I had put in the extra equal signs. My mistake. Thank you for fixing it. Will not happen again. --Kilibarda 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problems :) Just wanted to make sure you knew about it :) I fully understand that you won't do it again because it seems that those were the only two times that you've done that ;) Razorflame 02:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

zec

[1] - we should use (O)CS as an etymon only for direct borrowings from (O)CS (učenik, suprug, drzak, skupština, milosrđe..) and not words inherited from Proto-Slavic but which have otherwise identically been recorded in the OCS corpus. This is necessary to maintain that peculiar difference. If you want to mention the OCS word, use for example "Compare Old Church Slavonic xxx". --Ivan Štambuk 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)