Wealth Maker: Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: User talk:Atitarev

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]

Track the most recent changes to the wiki in this feed. // via fulltextrssfeed.com

User talk:Atitarev

May 30th 2013, 00:39

Revision as of 09:44, 29 May 2013 (edit) Atitarev (Talk \| contribs)		Latest revision as of 00:39, 30 May 2013 (edit) (undo) Atitarev (Talk \| contribs)
Line 1,138:		Line 1,138:

	:Спасибо, Стивен. Мне придётся обратиться за помощью, так как я сам не могу исправить. Я только хотел добавить транслитерацию и возможность сворачивать и разворачивать таблицу. Последние три дня я был на технических курсах и очень устал, не могу делать что-то очень сложное. В бливайшие дни обязательно исправлю, если никто не поможет. В крайнем случае верну всё обратно как было. --[[User:Atitarev\|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev\|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev\|вклад]])</sup> 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)		:Спасибо, Стивен. Мне придётся обратиться за помощью, так как я сам не могу исправить. Я только хотел добавить транслитерацию и возможность сворачивать и разворачивать таблицу. Последние три дня я был на технических курсах и очень устал, не могу делать что-то очень сложное. В бливайшие дни обязательно исправлю, если никто не поможет. В крайнем случае верну всё обратно как было. --[[User:Atitarev\|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev\|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev\|вклад]])</sup> 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Я поменял шаблон на старый в {{temp\|ru-verb-1-impf}}, но двойной пропуск все равно есть, пока не знаю как исправить. --[[User:Atitarev\|Anatoli]] <sup>([[User talk:Atitarev\|обсудить]]</sup>/<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Atitarev\|вклад]])</sup> 00:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:39, 30 May 2013

Archive[edit]

Japanese and Korean (Hanja) for 男装 and 女装[edit]

Just added these two Mandarin entries and I noticed there is no Japanese entry for 男装 while there is for 女装. Could you add it for 男装 if it does exist? By the way, a new user has been adding cross-dressing senses for the Korean (Hanja) readings of 男裝 and 女裝, do you think these are legitimate? ---> Tooironic (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Both Japanese and Korean seem to have this cross-dressing senses but the Japanese 女装 also has the "women's clothing" sense. See Japanese verbs: 男装する, 女装する (remove する to see noun senses). Confirmed the Korean senses from the Korean wiki. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's hot. — [Ric Laurent] — 02:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you, buddy :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for that Anatoli. I don't believe there is an exact term for cross-dressing in Mandarin. The translations given at cross-dress are a bit strange, but they are fine as references. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As a fluent speaker of another language (Russian), let me suggest that there are many cases when a translation cannot be 100% equivalent or perfect, if you take into account various usages, cultural aspects, usage, frequency, etc. Still, most terms are translatable. When we say in Russian "переодеваться в женщину" (i.e. "to dress as a woman"), it may be not be 100% equivalent to the verb "to cross-dress" in all cases, as it doesn't always convey the same attitude. Like with momma's boy, a close reference will do for the lack of a 100% equivalent. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I fear the Mandarin translation you added doesn't convey the negative connotation of the original term but unfortunately I can't think of any better translations as yet. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's close enough, though (as close as you can get). The other translations are also somewhat broad in their negative connotations. Feel free to add translations to sissy, a more negative term. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This verb is shown as imperfect. What is the perfect equivalent, if there is one? (And if there isn't, how can you tell that this one is imperfect?) —CodeCa t 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two perfective forms (not perfect) for this verb: сесть (sestʹ) and посидеть (posidétʹ). The first means a complete action of "sitting down" (from a standing position), the second mean "to sit for a while", similarly: побе́гать (run for a while), походи́ть (walk for a while), поигра́ть (play for a while). There is no clear indication in this verb that it is imperfective, so it has to be known. There are only a few pointers (prefixes or absence thereof, suffixes like -овывать) that can tell you whether a verb is perfective or imperfective, only the conjugation (perfective have no present tense) and meaning can help determine it precisely. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

сесть (sestʹ) is also the perfective aspect of садиться (sadítʹsja) (sit down). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

اِتَدَكِمَسُ[edit]

{{ar-nisba}} — [Ric Laurent] — 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Shit, I found a flaw. If you put the stress in, the translits will be wrong. Eh, I can fix that later if I care enough. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but good luck :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more for you (and whoever else wants to add Arabic) than for me since I don't edit a tenth as much as I used to. I figured you might like it. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I used the template, it's good but I wasn't sure what stresses cause the translits to be wrong. It's great if you can fix it. I hardly work on Arabic, though, I add translations sometimes (the usual). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add "mtr=" since that's the one that's different. So for 'arabiyy, it'll be tr='arabíyy and mtr='árabiyy. I'll do that right now. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, changed my mind and took that back out. It would have worked had I not insisted on including the gray nunation. ʿá-ra-biyy vs ʿa-ra-bíy-yun. — [Ric Laurent] — 22:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FWOTD focus week[edit]

Hi! We're just starting a focus week for the Foreign Word of the Day on terms derived from German, and I was wondering if you could help to translate some of the quotes on featured pages. Specifically, アルバイト and абитуриент#Bulgarian need translations of short texts, and I would also appreciate it if you could check my translation of the French at vasistas (my French was never any good, now it's worse than my other Romance languages). If you can't do any of these, it's OK, but I figured that your wide-ranging language skills might come in handy for this selection of languages. Thank you! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry but I'm actually struggling to translate the Japanese book title and the Bulgarian dialogue 100% right. I have some doubts whether I understand them well. It's better to ask native speakers on both: User:TAKASUGI Shinji and User:Bogorm. The French translation seems OK but you can ask User:Xhienne to be sure. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll try them, and thanks anyway —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(But in case they don't respond in time, your translation might be the best we can get even if it isn't 100%.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

7.5 hours[edit]

You should have a look at this User:Dick Laurent/Sandbox and try to find my fuck ups. I took it kinda slow and checked stuff as I went, but I'm sure to have overlooked something. I'm also shaky on some of the dual and plural accusative and genitive definite and construct forms. (I'll do the vowelling for the definite forms when I wake up in the morning, those damnable sun letters ruin everything.) — [Ric Laurent] — 03:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Great job, looks good. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? It can't be perfect. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Promise to check more thoroughly and using reference books but you'll have to wait. I can only do it from home when I'm free. It looked OK at first glance from what I know from memory. I would change ألـ to الـ in definite forms, hamza is not used in articles, as the alif is elidable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

malikātaka, malikātahu, ... should be malikātika, malikātihu, ... I think. BTW al- should always be written without hamza. --Z 14:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that diptotes have u, a and i when they're followed by possessive suffixes. I wanted to be certain that these others, like -āt (which apparently aren't technically diptotes?) don't also change their endings when there's a possessive suffix.

My most trusted resource is the Routledge essential grammar, which uses a hamza for al-, and makes sure the reader understands that it's a hamzatu l-wasli, which is why I didn't write " ʾal-", like words that start with إ. I understand that to be a matter of style. — [Ric Laurent] — 15:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a special character for that? Namely: ٱ. --Wiki Tiki 89 15:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In the book, they only use that in context. Just like the examples in the entry. Particularly the وٱسم ٱلبنت أنهار one. ألوصل versus همزة ٱلوصل — [Ric Laurent] — 16:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind working your magic so both of these entries (as well as their simplified counterparts) are linked to the Persian derivations category? Thanks. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! How about 饢? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, missed one, fixed now. I have now fixed 10 entries in Category:Mandarin terms derived from Persian trad. and simp. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian entries[edit]

It's great that you're mass-producing Russian entries, but why are you not putting in declension and conjugation tables? At least put {{rfinfl|ru}} so that you remember to fix them all... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will get back to them in the near future if someone else doesn't help. I just find it easier that way. I've requested Ruakh to add {{rfinfl|ru}} into the template. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"why are you not putting in declension and conjugation tables?"

I lold. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Anatoli, I support your creation of Russian entries without inflection. Semantics first. A script can fairly easily identify entries without an inflection table, so {{rfinfl|ru}} is fairly pointless anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, which script can identify entries without an inflection table? I'd like to be able to have such a list/category. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not have the script. A Python script that uses the dump and finds Russian verb entries without an "inflection" section should be fairly easy to write. Have you changed your mind since User_talk:Dan_Polansky/2012#statistics_on_translations, and are you interested in running a Python script on a dump? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, although I'm interested in getting statistics on translations, I never got around to write scripting on database dumps. I've never used Python. As I said, I only program at work, at Wiktionary I only work languages, which is also quite time-consuming. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Animate nouns in Slavic[edit]

In Russian, what determines whether a noun is animate or not? Are there certain kinds of nouns that are always animate, without exception? Some kinds that are occasionally animate? —CodeCa t 01:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In most cases you can't determine this by the form of the noun, it's about the meaning - ALL humans, animals, creatures (including mystical or dead(!), like corpses, zombies, manikins, robots, etc.) are animates. The same word can be both animate and inanimate when they mean a living thing and an inanimate object, e.g козёл (kozjól) is a he-goat (animate) but also a gymnastics tool (not sure what you call it in English, will check later buck) - inanimate, when it means a popular card came, it's also animate(!), so there could be some difficulty for foreigners to determine in some cases. Groups of people - police, army, class, group are inanimates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand it correctly, if it is an individual with a will of its own, it is always animate without exception? What about plants or other non-animal life forms? And I suppose substances or abstract concepts are generally inanimate, but what about living substances? Or are they considered groups and therefore inanimate? Actually... are there any uncountable animates at all? Or is that semantically not possible (I can't imagine an uncountable individual!)? —CodeCa t 01:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(typed this BEFORE edit conflict) I'm sure the Slovene tekač is animate. Representation of humans, including chess figures are animates in Russian, so it could be the case in Slovene. You can test this the following way. I'll use a Russian analogy, you can use Slovene:

"Я вижу слона", "я бью слона" (ja vížu sloná, ja bʹju sloná)- I see an elephant/I hit (take) a bishop (chess). In accusative the word in both senses is different from nominative because they are animate, otherwise they would be "я вижу слон", "я бью слон" (sounds weird). Search for quoted strings using animate/inanimate, you should be able to check what they are! Feel free to ask if I can help. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(typed this AFTER edit conflict).

Yes, all individuals are animates (except for groups and organisations).

Plants are inanimate (good question!)

Substances are inanimate but please give me some examples to be sure. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Slovene is not as big on the internet but anyway "vidím tekača" gives five hits in Google, "vidím tekač" - none. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if plants are inanimate I suppose so is salad. And meat. It is strange that a manikin is animate though... I wonder what thought is behind that. Is it because it is perceived as a "person"? So what about...

Bees or even bacteria? Since a bacterium is a living individual, is it animate?
Professions and names for ethnicities? I think they would be animate since they refer to people?
All "agent" nouns (ending in -ar and -telj) would be animate? Actually that is a good question... are there suffixes that are always animate, or are there exceptions there depending on what it refers to?

—CodeCa t 02:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more details:

Sorry, I lied, mannequins can be both inanimate and animate, usually the former but both forms are allowed. Idols are animate. Cooked crabs, fried fish and roasted lams are animate.

Corpse - труп is inanimate, мертвец is animate. It makes me wonder myself.

Salad is inanimate.

Microbes, bacteria, viruses, insects, all invertebrates are animate.

Professions are animate (the doer words), i.e. chemist (person), not chemistry.

Agent nouns are theoretically all animate but those endings can be added to words denoting mechanism, materials, like Russian двигатель (motor), воздухоочиститель (air purifier) - look-like agent words, or as I said they can be both animate and inanimate.

Products, things called using human or animal words, for examples дворник (janitor; windshield wiper) become inanimate, same case as with козёл (he-goat; buck (gymnastics) above.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I see... thank you! I think intuition can help a lot with animacy, unlike with gender. And I guess that unless you have a good reason to consider something animate, the default is inanimate? It is still strange that a virus would be animate but not a tree..? —CodeCa t 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may butt in just to expand a bit on chess pieces (this also applies to mannequins). Chess pieces are not some sort of strange exception. The idea here is that the names of chess pieces don't refer to the pieces themselves but to the animate beings that pieces represent. The words фишка and фигура, which refer to the pieces themselves, are inanimate. And ладья ("rook") is also inanimate because the concept it represents is an inanimate object. For example, "Я выставил мои ладьи." and "Я схватил его фигуры.", as opposed to "Он съест твоих коней". The same applies to card games, video games, manikins, and any other situation where an inanimate object is used as a metaphor for an animate being.

As Atitarev said, words that refer to a profession or ethnicity are inanimate (chemistry), but (much more commonly) words that refer to people belonging to a profession or ethnicity (chemist) are animate. Agent nouns need not be animate (mechanical parts are often inanimate agent nouns for example). Also, the word вирус and грипп are inanimate, only words that refer to individual germs or virus cells are animate (even when used collectively in the plural). For example, микроб is animate but стафилококк (staphylococcus) is inanimate. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Some topics are complicated even for native speakers. You asked me and I started wondering myself, although I do pay attention to how I speak in Russian. I found whole articles in Russian talking about this. Hmm, embryos эмбрион, зародыш can be both. Oysters (food) устрица have been used as both animate/inanimate by Russian writers (they are animate for most people these days). Inanimate things in fairy tales are animate (when they come to life) or when they are used as nicknames, names, etc. The thing about virus must be cultural. Slavs must have thought that viruses have mind of their own in the past :)

@Wikitiki89, thanks for clarifying the chess figures, yes, only figures that represent humans or animals are animate.

Addition to the above - corpse - труп is inanimate, мертвец and покойник are animate. It makes me wonder myself. (added покойник) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the second mistake, yes, вирус is usually inanimate but микроб can be both, амёба is animate, although some sources say it's not. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, do feminine nouns have an animacy distinction? I tried comparing каша with Маша and can't think of any differences. --Wiki Tiki 89 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Only in plural accusative, as I mentioned oysters, I say for "I eat oysters" - "я ем устриц" (animate) but some authors say "я ем устрицы" (inanimate). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that is different for different languages. In Slovene, there is only a difference in masculine singular, not in dual or plural, nor in feminine or neuter. —CodeCa t 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right, it makes it easier for some languages but it's still worth checking what determines animacy, even if it's only for Slovene masculines. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, thanks! I didn't think of the plural for some reason. --Wiki Tiki 89 03:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

kuža[edit]

I am having some trouble with this word. Slovenski pravopis (the normative spelling and grammar dictionary) doesn't show this as an animate noun, but because of its meaning I don't know how it couldn't be. It also belongs to the small group of masculine nouns ending in -a, which tend to be almost all animate nouns because their gender is implied by the natural gender of what they refer to. For the noun itself it doesn't matter whether it is animate or not, because the nominative and genitive both end in -a, but it would surely matter for adjectives that modify it. For now I have assumed that it is animate, but do you think you could help? —CodeCa t 20:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In Russian, masculine nouns ending in "-а" use the feminine declension, which does not differentiate between animate and inanimate in the singular. If this is the case in Slovene, then since Slovene never differentiates between animate inanimate in the plural, there would be differentiation at all in a masculine noun ending in "-a". --Wiki Tiki 89 21:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In Slovene it is a bit mixed in that regard. Masculine nouns in -a often decline as either feminine nouns (with their distinct accusative form in -o) or as masculine nouns with an anomalous nominative. In both cases, the noun inflection itself doesn't display animacy overtly. But the idea of whether something is animate or not presumably still matters for adjectives that modify something. In the case of kuža, when saying "I see a small doggy", would you say "vidim majhen kuža" or "vidim majhnega kuža"? —CodeCa t 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did some searching and found many results for "imam/imaš majhnega kuža" but none for "majhen"... so it seems that the genitive is used in the accusative and therefore it is animate. —CodeCa t 21:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, I didn't think of adjectives. And yeah, the word for "doggy" in Russian (собачка) is most definitely animate. Based on your search, I guess the dictionary must be wrong. --Wiki Tiki 89 21:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It may not be wrong as much as incomplete. It has a bit of a roundabout way of indicating animacy... instead of saying "animate" it says something about the general grammatical category something belongs to, like "person", "animal", "concept" but most often there is nothing at all. As a user you are expected to understand that person or animal implies animate, that concept implies uncountable, and so on. In the case of kuža, it didn't say anything at all, but it's possible that they just neglected to mention that it was animate because the word itself doesn't inflect for animacy. —CodeCa t 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It must be animate. Kuža, and kužek (the latter seems to be more common), it mean "puppy", not just "doggy". I'm not sure about the declension. I was able to check accusative and genitive singular - kuža, dative - kužu. Which cases do you have doubts about? Or all of them? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm slovene and it's me who created the article kuža but i changed the account. And i can tell you that it declines on both ways (it's possible to add both endings; -a or -e in the genitive (although -a is more common)). You can find out more at http://besana.amebis.si/pregibanje/ by taping kuža in search engine. It will automatically find and show you how it declines. You can use it also to see how other words inflect (not only verbs). If you can any other question just ask me :) Rumpel77 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I've added the alternative declension to the entry. Would you be able to tell me if all masculine words ending in -a can be declined both ways? Or do some of them always decline one way or another? —CodeCa t 22:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I have advised User:CodeCat. Please add more Slovene contents! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Fell free to talk to me in russian hotya u menya net russkoj klaviatury... One more quwstion, although it maybe doesnt go here; on russian wikislovar I have noticed some differences between IPA and МФА pronounciations, for example for word всякий http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8F%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9 there are 2 different pronounciations described in each language. So my question is if IPA is the same thing than МФА or there are any differences between them. Can i just copy IPA pronounciation from english website and copy it to russian one? Rumpel77 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the same thing (МФА and IPA). I usually don't add IPA, it's User:Wanjuscha. I have corrected the IPA in the English Wiktionary, (the Russian Wiktionary is correct). Of course /v/ is reduced to /f/ but it can be both /fʲ/ and /f/ in front of another palatalised consonant. We need more Russian contents as well (in fact, any language is welcome), if you're Russian but Slovene needs more attention than Russian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Rumpel77, you haven't answered CodeCat's question about the declension. I'm curious too. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Amm sorry, what do you mean? Do you mean the question about conjugation of rasti? Ok, i'll try to add some new entries in slovene. I would like to add them to russian wikislovar too... Do you have any tamplate for it? I have one for slovene nouns here. Could you please edit it? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bjWfJCDihkaCCtDku1FQZU90boz0LadogLnsZ3EytRk/edit Rumpel77 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if the noun is animate, it uses animate agreement, regardless of the superficial forms the word itself takes, so "vidim majhnega kuža". — [Ric Laurent] — 16:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

@Rumpel77. The question was "Would you be able to tell me if all masculine words ending in -a can be declined both ways? Or do some of them always decline one way or another?". Sorry, I don't work on the Russian wikislovar. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad lol. We only have five of those guys. Category:Slovene masculine a-stem nouns. Almost all of them are names. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, man. I thought we should get a native speaker while he is here (although I don't know if he is Slovene or Russian). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. First let me tell you the answer. Femine nouns ending of -a decline, of course on second way. If we talk about masculine nouns ending on -a, generaly all nouns can decline in both ways. I'll tell you if i find any exeption. Btw, you have to pay attention in words as luka and Luka; first one is femine, but second is masculine (declines both ways).

Laurent, here are some other masculine nouns of second masculine I could add or you try to add them in future: Luka (Luke), sluga (servant), ata (dad ..= oče), baraba (rascal, scoundrel).. But anyway, there are not many nouns that belong here. I'm half Slovene, half Russian; I still talk Slovene little better because I live in Slovenia. Rumpel77 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Увеличение и улучшение объёма русских статей[edit]

Я составил список слов которых я буду добавлять на моем "to-do list". Можно вас попрасить чтоб вы провелили что они правельно написаны?

Еще вопрос, слово спелировать/спеллировать использывается в России, или это англицизм?

Спасибо, --Wiki Tiki 89 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Готово. Давай на "ты"?

Слово спелировать/спеллировать - слэнговое, не очень часто используется. Обычно люди говорят: писать/говорить по буквам.

Английский глагол "spell" часто переводится другими словами:

How do you spell? - Как пишется?

Spelling - орфография, правописание, об английском языке также - спеллинг (читается: спэллинг)

He can't spell - он не умеет правильно писать, он делает ошибки в письме

Ты не против, чтоб я исправил некоторые ошибки? Мои исправления. попросить, правильно, используется; попросить, чтоб (запятая); слов, которые (запятая) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо большое! Мне уже стыдно становится сколько у меня ошибок. Мне некого спрашивать потому что радители уже забывают какие слова существуют(ся?), и какие нет. Мы здесь давно уже "спелируем", "берем" автобусы, и едем в горы "хайкать". --Wiki Tiki 89 01:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ничего страшного, всегда пожалуйста. Мы в Австралии уже пятнадцать лет. Ты думал, что я живу в России? Боюсь, наша дочь (20 лет) забудет русский, когда будет жить отдельно. Мы речь-то ее исправляем, но вот чтение и письмо! Только недавно стала самостоятельно читать по-русски, но не книги, а блоги и статьи. Почти совсем не пишет. Самим приходится задумываться иногда, как выразить правильно ту или иную мысль. С сыном (8 лет) тоже говорим только по-русски, кроме занятий английским или когда у нас англоговорящие гости. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

радители -> родители. Пожалуйста не стыдись ошибок! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Нет я знал что ты в Австралии живешь но не знал как долго. Мне самому 20 лет а родители здесь 25 лет живут (уже как раз больше пол жизни). У нас в доме никогда не было правил на каком языке можно говорить, но я уже сам понял что мне надо стараться, где можно, как много больше по-русски говорить, а то забуду. --Wiki Tiki 89 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ты в Австралии или США?

как много больше-> как можно больше . --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

США. --Wiki Tiki 89 02:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi, The Hobbit movie quote, and The Equality Mantra in Russian[edit]

Hello, you can take your time translating the following into Russian if you want (I also wonder if there are Russian, Arabic, Khmer, Polish, German, Finnish, Dutch, Greek, Korean, Japanese, or French language translations of ASSK's Freedom from Fear and other works of hers):

Aung San Suu Kyi:

"It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

"Within a system which denies the existence of basic human rights, fear tends to be the order of the day."

"Please use your liberty to promote ours."

"To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity."

From the FaceBook group The Equality Mantra:

"Love is a terrible thing to hate."

From Gandalf the Grey in the 2012 film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:

"True courage is about not knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one."

Just as I've stated before, take your time and don't hurry. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, may I ask why you need this? Here we go:

Aung San Suu Kyi:

«Не власть портит, а страх. Страх потерять власть портит тех, кто ею обладает, страх наказания властью портит тех, кто ей подчиняется.»

«В той системе, которая отрицает существование основных прав человека, страх обычно становится закономерностью.»

«Пожалуйста используйте свою свободу, чтобы содействовать нашей.»

«Быть забытым. Французы говорят, что расставаться — значит немного умереть. Быть забытым значит немного умереть. Это значит потерять некоторые из связей, которые привязывают нас с остальным человечеством.»

From the FaceBook group The Equality Mantra:

«Ненавидеть любовь — ужасно."»

From Gandalf the Grey in the 2012 film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:

«Настоящая отвага не в том, чтобы знать, когда лишить жизни, а когда пощадить.» --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just out of recreation and to share something with The Equality Mantra and other FB pages. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Двувидовые глаголы[edit]

I don't know the appropriate translation of двувидовые глаголы in the Russian Wiktionary catatory, Категория:Двувидовые глаголы. I wonder if you can help me tranlate this phrase into English? Thank you in advance. I'm trying to make more categories for Russian verbs in the Korean Wiktionary. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

biaspectual verbs. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --KoreanQuoter (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen and KoreanQuoter. @KoreanQuoter, you may get information on all Russian verb conjugations from the Russian Wiktionary. Most verb templates based on Andrey Zaliznyak's massive work have been implemented there. User Al Silonov‎ is probably the person to talk to but there are just too many templates to import them easily. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope a genius Russian Wikitionary contributor has time to make the important templates for Russian verbs. I'm trying my best to make more articles on Russian verbs for the Korean Wiktionary. (as well as putting IPAs on Korean words in the Russian Wiktionary) Oh, and there's a serious dispute that the only moderator in the Korean Wiktionary is becoming very rude to the very few contributors. But still, adding Russian verbs for the Korean Wiktionary is more important. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen your work on the Russian and Korean Wiktionaries and talked to you on the Russian Wiktionaries. I'm not a template guru and other contributors seem to have lost interest in Russian. Making better templates for verbs is important but it's a rather big undertaking. Adding each verb form manually is a pain in the butt but at the English Wiktionary I don't see another option at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe somebody like CodeCat would like to help you import and adjust the Russian conjugational templates for Wiktionary? If not, I can try (but not now). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been putting each verb form manually in the Korean Wiktionary. It doesn't look nice and it is indeed a very tiresome task. I just can't copy and past a template because of some regulation. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please? 감사합니다！:) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw the request. I can't understand it either.

The first sentence becomes something "Jangseung is lost tomorrow at Sanha". The 2nd I don't understand at all, except for the first word - deity. Try Stephen or Shinji. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks anyway... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've asked on a language forum. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Usage of давать[edit]

I am confused about the meaning of Вот (во) даёт. It doesn't look like a common way of using давать. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's uncommon and very colloquial. It expresses a big (both pleasant and unpleasant) surprise about someone's actions or words. When addressing directly, "ну ты даёшь" is used. It's hard to translate.

Here's a dialogue (Youtube)] from a Soviet comedy "Джентльмены удачи" (Gentlemen of good fortune), where Косо́й (Squint-eye), a long-time criminal but a rather dumb fellow is talking to a taxi driver (undercover cop), describing a place where there was a monument. The pun is about the word "сидеть" (to sit), in criminal slang it means "to do time (in prison)"

Сиди́т?

Кто?

Ну, мужи́к э́тот твой.

Ха-ха-ха! О дере́вня, а?! Ну ты даёшь! Кто ж его́ поса́дит?! Он же па́мятник!

(Is he) sitting?

Who?

Well, that guy of yours?

Ha-ha-ha! What a redneck, huh?! ???? Who will make him do time/who will jail him?! He's a monument, you know!

ABBYY Lingvo's translation of давать gives one example (at the bottom) - "ну он даёт!" (colloquial) — "wow!, isn't that cute of him!" but as I said, this phrase can be used to express an unpleasant surprise. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --KoreanQuoter (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for helping out with the Proto-Slavic entries. I am not really familiar enough with the East Slavic languages (I seem to drift towards South and West more for some reason) so it's very helpful that you can fill in the gaps for me! —CodeCa t 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. You can't be interested in all languages and know them all equally. And resources for some languages leave much more to be desired. Keep up the good work in Slovene and Proto-Slavic! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Would like to bring your attention to this comment on WT:FB. :) Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin entries problem[edit]

Hi Anatoli. What's going on with Mandarin entries at the moment, e.g. 快要? Not only is there now a massive space where the "simpl. and trad. box" is, but there is also now a sentence inserted in the middle of the entry reading "This template needs documentation and categorisation. Please create the documentation page." Do you know what's going on? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carl. Check with User:Jamesjiao. He is doing something with Template:zh-hanzi, which causes it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When I read some Russian content in some Russian websites, I found a lot of когда же. I don't know, but is this phrase common enough to be included in Wiktionary? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No, these are two words. See же (often abbreviated to just ж), sense 4. The particle can be used with other question words. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(from the previous conversation) Forgive me for the late reply. It was great. I was too busy these day and at the same time, I was too sad that the templates in the Korean Wiktionary are poorly designed in general. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hashing out ideas for romanized entries in general[edit]

Hello Anatoli --

I've been chewing on the issue of romanized entries for a bit, following our exchange in the Beer Parlor. It occurred to me that the issues affect not just pinyin and romaji entries, but really all romanized / transliterated entries. I'm thinking about making a proposal about these, but first I want to touch base with you and make sure I understand what your concerns are.

As best I understand it:

One of your main standpoints on transliterated entries is that they should be just stub entries, and that most information about the term should go under the lemma form. For example, the shénme entry should, at most, give a brief gloss and point the reader to the 什麼 or 什么 entries for full details.
Another of your key concerns, related to the above, is that editors do not add extra detail to the stub entries.
A related concern I noticed in the BP discussion is a mention (I think it was by Ruakh) that users might not know 1) what the lemma entry is, and/or 2) that they should go to the lemma entry to get the details about the term.

Have I correctly understood the above?

If so, my idea is for there to be a header template for such soft-redirect stub entries that would be very obvious and displayed across the top of the entry, perhaps looking similar to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/header or w:Template:Notability. This header would clearly explain to users and editors that this entry is a transliterated entry and is purely for soft-redirection purposes, and that 1) users should click through to the lemmata entries for full details, and that 2) editors should not add extra detail to this entry.

In addition, I think we should rework our {{ja-def}}, {{pinyin reading of}}, and related templates to make it more obvious that users should click on the lemma entry links to get the full entries. Maybe something like the following, assuming a listing under the [[tsuku]] entry:

  * {{ja-def|付く|to [[attach]], to [[stick]] to}}

to produce:

to attach, to stick to: see 付く for the full entry

Does that all make sense? Would that help produce transliterated / romanized entries more in line with your ideas? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

We had no disagreement with the short definitions (although I'd prefer them unwikified in romaji entries) and agreed on having just one category related to the relevant language romanisation but we disagreed on headers. The only header pinyin entries have is Romanization, no matter how many words and parts of speech a romanisation entry represents. See bàng. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link.

I thought your desire for just one heading and for no wikification came from your desire to 1) keep stub entries simple, and 2) encourage users to view the lemma entry. Is that correct? And / or do you have other reasons for preferring this format? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes those two + maintenance - ease of use for both editors and bots. Done once and forgotten. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Russian language[edit]

I think, you should also use the Latin alphabet for the Russian list (Appendix:Russian Swadesh list).IPA is not enough! Regards, Böri (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Will address this but it's cumbersome, have other priorities at the moment. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

If you are currently eating, I say bon appétit! But how should I know how to say it to somebody speaking the Bosnian language only, if you revert it from the translation page - as I noticed, twice? --Sae1962 (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. All Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian entries and translations are unified under Serbo-Croatian per Wiktionary policies. Multiplying the same information under different headings only causes duplication and as you can see, is also error-prone. We already have prijatno and пријатно and a Serbo-Croatian translation of bon appétit. If you want to change this policy, don't talk to me but to the community, otherwise, you'll have to repeat this question on other talk pages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? You're believing the dodginess of iciba.com over Chinese-Chinese dictionaries such as [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. which do not include this entry? 再 can collocate with almost any verb in Chinese, I fail to see how this is a word. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my opinion, confirmed with a dictionary, which I don't consider dodgy. The prefix is quite productive, no doubt, like the English re-. 再生产 reproduction, 再保险 reinsurance, 再包装 repackage, 再编制 reorganisation, 再重复 reduplicate, 再出口 reexport, 再分配 zàifēnpèi redistribution are a few dictionary examples. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But iciba.com creates these kind of entries because they are back-translations from English words, not because they are considered words per se by Chinese linguists. Even Wenlin doesn't list this as a word, even though the ABC dictionary is one of the most inclusive of its type. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see your arguments as a good reason not to include the word. There are many Chinese words here that could be considered back-translations, like 澳大利亚人 (澳大利亚 + 人), therefore deleted. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Russian words in Latin alphabet[edit]

Russian words in Latin alphabet

1 I я ya
2 you (singular)ты tı
3 he он on
4 we мы mı
5 you (plural)вы vı
6 they они oni
7 this это eto
8 that то to
9 here здесь, тут zdes, tut
10 there там tam
11 who кто kto
12 what что çto
13 where где gde
14 when когда kogda
15 how как kak
16 not не ne
17 all всё (everything), все (everybody)
18 many многие mnogie
19 some несколько neskolko
20 few немногие
21 other другой, иной drugoy, inoy
22 one один odin
23 two два dva
24 three три tri
25 four четыре çetıre
26 five пять pat
27 big большой bolşoy
28 long длинный dlinnıy
29 wide широкий şirokiy
30 thick толстый tolstıy
31 heavy тяжёлый tajölıy
32 small маленький malenkiy
33 short короткий korotkiy
34 narrow узкий uzkiy
35 thin тонкий tonkiy
36 woman женщина jenşçina
37 man (male)мужчина
38 man (human)человек
39 child ребёнок, дитя rebönok, dita
40 wife жена, супруга jena, supruga
41 husband муж, супруг muj, suprug
42 mother мать mat
43 father отец otets
44 animal зверь, животное zver, jivotnoye
45 fish рыба rıba
46 bird птица ptitsa
47 dog собака, пёс sobaka, pös
48 louse вошь
49 snake змея zmeya
50 worm червь çerv
51 tree дерево derevo
52 forest лес les
53 stick палка palka
54 fruit плод plod/plot
55 seed семя sema
56 leaf лист list
57 root корень koren
58 bark (of a tree)кора kora
59 flower цветок tsvetok
60 grass трава trava
61 rope верёвка verövka
62 skin кожа koja
63 meat мясо maso
64 blood кровь krov
65 bone кость kost
66 fat (noun) жир jır
67 egg яйцо yaytso
68 horn рог rog/rok
69 tail хвост hvost
70 feather перо pero
71 hair волосы volos
72 head голова, глава golova, glava
73 ear ухо uho
74 eye глаз, (arch.) око glaz, oko
75 nose нос nos
76 mouth рот rot
77 tooth зуб zub/zup
78 tongue язык yazık
79 fingernail ноготь nogot
80 foot стопа stopa
81 leg нога noga
82 knee колено koleno
83 hand рука ruka
84 wing крыло krılo
85 belly живот jivot
86 guts кишки kişka
87 neck шея şeya
88 back спина spina
89 breast грудь grud/grut
90 heart сердце serdtse
91 liver печень peçen
92 to drink пить pit
93 to eat есть, кушать yest, kuşat
94 to bite кусать kusat
95 to suck сосать sosat
96 to spit плевать plevat
97 to vomit рвать, блевать rvat, blevat
98 to blow дуть dut
99 to breathe дышать
100 to laugh смеяться smeyatsa
101 to see видеть videt
102 to hear слышать slışat
103 to know знать znat
104 to think думать dumat
105 to smell нюхать nühat
106 to fear бояться boyatsa
107 to sleep спать spat
108 to live жить jit
109 to die умирать umeret
110 to kill убивать ubivat
111 to fight бороться borotsa
112 to hunt охотиться ohotitsa
113 to hit ударить udarit
114 to cut резать rezat
115 to split разделить razdelit
116 to stab кольнуть
117 to scratch царапать
118 to dig копать, рыть kopat, rıt
119 to swim плавать plavat
120 to fly летать letat
121 to walk ходить hodit
122 to come приходить prihodit
123 to lie (as in a bed) лежать (state) lejat
124 to sit сидеть (state)
125 to stand стоять (state)
126 to turn (intransitive) вращать, вертеть
127 to fall падать padat
128 to give давать davat
129 to hold держать derjat
130 to squeeze сжимать sjimat
131 to rub тереть teret
132 to wash мыть mıt
133 to wipe вытирать vıtirat
134 to pull тянуть tanut
135 to push толкать tolkat
136 to throw бросать, кидать brosat, kidat
137 to tie связывать svazıvat
138 to sew шить
139 to count считать sçitat
140 to say говорить, сказать govorit, skazat
141 to sing петь, распевать
142 to play играть igrat
143 to float плыть plıt
144 to flow течь teç
145 to freeze замёрзнуть zamerzat
146 to swell пухнуть puhnut
147 sun солнце solntse
148 moon луна luna
149 star звезда zvezda
150 water вода voda
151 rain дождь dojd
152 river река reka
153 lake озеро ozero
154 sea море more
155 salt соль sol
156 stone камень kamen
157 sand песок pesok
158 dust пыль pıl
159 earth земля zemla
160 cloud туча, облако tuça, oblako
161 fog туман tuman
162 sky небо nebo
163 wind ветер veter
164 snow снег sneg/snek
165 ice лёд löd
166 smoke дым dım
167 fire огонь ogon
168 ash зола, пепел zola, pepel
169 to burn жечь
170 road дорога doroga
171 mountain гора gora
172 red красный krasnıy
173 green зелёный zelönıy
174 yellow жёлтый jöltıy
175 white белый belıy
176 black чёрный çörnıy
177 night ночь noç
178 day день
179 year год god/got
180 warm тёплый
181 cold холодный holodnıy
182 full полный polnıy
183 new новый novıy
184 old старый starıy
185 good хороший horoşıy
186 bad плохой plohoy
187 rotten гнилой
188 dirty грязный graznıy
189 straight прямой pramoy
190 round круглый
191 sharp (as a knife) острый ostrıy
192 dull (as a knife) тупой
193 smooth гладкий, ровный
194 wet мокрый mokrıy
195 dry сухой suhoy
196 correct правильный pravilnıy
197 near близкий blizkiy
198 far далёкий, дальний dalökiy, dalniy
199 right правый pravıy
200 left левый levıy
201 at при, у, возле
202 in в v
203 with с s
204 and и i
205 if если yesli
206 because потому что potomu, çto
207 name имя ima

note: I DON'T KNOW RUSSIAN! (but Latin alphabet is better than the IPA! The Russian words should also be written in Latin alphabet.) I showed ch sound with "ç" ; sh sound with "ş" ; I also used "ö"... and I used "ı"(= this is "e" sound of the word "open" in English!). I nearly wrote all of the words, but I couldn't write some of them. You can make a better list. Regards, Böri (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:RU TR — [Ric Laurent] — 16:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Böri, have you considered not editing in languages you don't speak? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your addition of нары to today's Foreign Word of the Day partly because we already have a FWOTD today, but mostly because нары was never listed at Wiktionary:Foreign Word of the Day/Nominations and isn't eligible in its current state anyway as it has neither a pronunciation section nor any citations. —An gr 10:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask you to stop reverting my reverts of content removals that lack evidence of consensus. You have failed to produce evidence of consensus. I have succeeded in producing two opposing votes for the lack of "#". --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "so, the "#" issue is also addressed by the template itself": It is not. "#" has to be present in the wiki code in the page, just like with other romanization entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy on Japanese romaji was created without your involvement and it has now changed without your involvement. The fact that "#" is produced from the template, Liliana is probably aware of this now. KassadBot won't pick them up as badly formatted. It doesn't have to be exactly as other romanisation entries.

The thousands of pinyin entries converted by me and Mglovesfun converted didn't have definitions, although I was neutral. The Japanese editors who created those entries in the first place decided to have it that way and that's what we are doing. That's material. They have created, they have edited. If you have objections, then you should create a vote, not editors who just do what they think is right. I'm going to bed, will check any responses some time tomorrow if I can. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Changes in status quo require a vote; my opposition to changes in status quo do not require me to gain consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to be responsible for maintaining ans synchronising many thousand romaji, kana and kanji pages? No? Thought so. Stop vandalising romanisation pages. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Dan, you're just plain wrong. We had a vote about this kind of thing, remember? I don't want to argue with you about whether or not that vote applies here; you can take your wikilawyering someplace else. The fact is that there's consensus, and you're ignoring it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Metaknowledge, the vote to which you point says that "Any substantial or contested changes require a VOTE." Thus, per the vote, any substantial change requires a vote. The vote actually only pertains to formal policies, but, nonetheless, you should better actually read the vote before you start arguing with it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with it, I'm agreeing with it. But it looks like you're displaying an inability to read and comprehend anyone else's comments, so I'm not going to comment here again. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The vote says that any substantial change requires a vote. Clear? --Dan Polansky (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Splitting up JLPT appendices[edit]

Hi Atitarev, I just took another look at Appendix:JLPT/N1 and noticed that the server gave up before it reached the end of the page and produced lines like this:

{{Node-count limit exceeded|ja|漏る}}, {{Node-count limit exceeded|ja|もる}} -to leak, to run out

It looks like the page has to be divided into a few smaller ones. I would go ahead and do it myself but I though I should ask you about it first. --Haplology (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The node-count limit stuff starts after the page successfully lists 2,884 entries. I dunno if other folks might get different results, but that's what I'm finding.

I might suggest creating subpages for each initial reading kana, like a subpage for all the terms starting with あ, then い, etc. Or at least for each 行, like a subpage for あ, then か, etc. Then maybe transclude all the subpages into the main page for one complete listing, kinda like we already do for the Grease Pit or Beer Parlor. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Guys, please do what you need to do. I had problems using the appendix myself. Splitting by initial kana reading may not be a bad idea. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I came across this abbreviation on some Youtube videos. Do you know what it might mean? —CodeCa t 22:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I only know one ЛЭП (pronounced "lep")- "линия электро передачи" (línija elktroperedáči) - "electric power transmission". Only I don't know how this could be related to Youtube videos. If you give me the link, I could double-check. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

That was what the videos were about, so it fits. Thank you! Do you think you could make an entry for it? —CodeCa t 02:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor Q, but shouldn't the romanization be elektroperedáči? Or does that first е in электро передачи really disappear? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting! I made a mistake here and copied it to the entry. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ta! I find that asking when I'm ignorant about something usually helps; sometimes asking even winds up accidentally helping others. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Romaji vote[edit]

In Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2013-03/Japanese Romaji romanization - format and content, you voted "support" without having started the vote by removing the yellow-orangish banner. If you really intend to start the vote, can you please remove the banner? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me in advance. I don't understand the translation of this phrase. It is not used as often. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't apologise. You're welcome to ask, "было достигнуто взаимопонимание" means "a mutual understanding (consensus) was reached". The structure of the sentence is normal, not unusual, please ask if you have grammar questions. I've added the terms, see if you they make sense to you. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 10:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Overapologizing is my "bad" habit. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re:List of Serbo-Croatian diacritics[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if you noticed, I responded on my talk page. There's all what I was able to collect ATM. --biblbroks_{дискашн} 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Past passive participles in -t and -n[edit]

I've noticed that in most Slavic languages, the participle in -n is normal, but a few verbs have -t instead. Would you happen to know if there are any rules or patterns that explain when -t is used? In Russian specifically, but if you can say more about other languages, them too. —CodeCa t 22:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean past participles passive, like сделанный (sdélannyj) ("made") vs открытый (otkrýtyj) ("opened")? The ending seems to depend on the preceding vowels, -н- follows а, я, е, ё, о and -т- follows и, ы, у but this has to be verified. Well, спетый (spétyj) ("sung") doesn't follow this pattern. The first type is more common, so -н- is also more common than -т-. Do you want to also check with Stephen G Brown and Vahagn Petrosyan? I'll see if I can find anything else but if I'm not mistaken, there are 16 distinct verb conjugation patterns (which include past participles passive) with many subtypes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that is what I meant, although I wasn't expecting there to be a double -nn-, but I guess that is a specific Russian thing. I am trying to determine what the Proto-Slavic pattern is, if there even is one, and whether it is based on the last consonant of the present stem. But it seems that different languages may differ too. kriti in Serbo-Croatian (which I assume is cognate with крыть) has an n-participle kriven instead. On the other hand, its close relative Slovene keeps the (presumably older) t-participle krit. —CodeCa t 23:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian inserted an "-e-" in kriven. Maybe that's why?

Yes, double -нн- in participles is Russian only with some rules when they are doubled, short forms lose the second "н" or change to "-нен" in masculine. Even Ukrainian/Belarusian don't have doubling. ---Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's more interesting than that. I looked for the word in an OCS grammar book, and apparently the form krŭvenŭ existed then already... so the stem is actually krŭv- in Slavic, which contracts to kry- when a consonant follows. SC preserves the original form (except that it has replaced etymological *krven with kriven), while the Slovene and Russian forms are newer. But that is not really important for my question, because I wonder if you can discern any patterns in the t- or n-participles. You said that in Russian it depends on the vowel before it (t with a high vowel, n with others), but you also named an exception. Can you find any other exceptions? —CodeCa t 23:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot. Perhaps "е" is different. In оде́тый, гре́тый, etc., "е" is stressed, in жа́ренный, ва́ренный it's unstressed (but there's an adjective варёный). I haven't found anything definite yet. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the case of оде́тый, the stem is different though, at least if the conjugation table of одеть is correct. In that verb, the final vowel is really part of the root and not an extra suffix that forms the verb (it's from *děti, PIE *dʰeh₁-). I'm not sure about греть, apparently the e is not part of the root originally (it's *gr-ěj-, the root is *žer-/*gor-/*gr- by ablaut). Perhaps it was interpreted as a vowel-final root vowel later on, and it therefore received a t-participle? —CodeCa t 23:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the OCS grammar book and it gave the following cases where t-participles are used: The suffix -t- is restricted to certain sonorant-stems, and it effects truncation. It is regular with stems in ь + nasal. It is used also with -vьj-ǫtъ 'wind' ~ -vitъ, pro-lьj-ǫtъ 'pour out' ~ prolitъ; pěti pojǫtъ 'sing' ~ pětъ; požьr-ǫtъ 'swallow' ~ požьrьtъ (but požrenъ 'sacrificed'); -vrьz-ǫtъ -vrěsti 'tie' ~ otvrьstъ 'open'; and uvęstъ 'crowned' from uvęzǫtъ. It's not really clear what "certain sonorant stems" mean, but I'd assume that includes l, r (which have "polnoglasije" in Russian) and m, n (which turn into nasal vowels > ja, u in Russian). —CodeCa t 23:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: the "certain sonorant stems". Does it mean nasal stems? This can be seen in the modern Polish - they are stems with ogonek - ą or ę. In Russian, the former nasal vowels are usually realised as "я" (or after "а" ж, ш, ч, щ) or "у". Examples: Polish giąć -> zgięty, Russian гнуть -> гнутый (to bend -> bent). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I kind of said that already... (the "> ja, u in Russian" part). Anyway, Wikipedia's article about OCS grammar says t-participles apply to: Verbs with stem ending in -ę, -u, -i and -ě (obtained by liquid metathesis). Liquid metathesis is the equivalent of Russian polnoglasije (Russian мереть ~ OCS мрѣти (mrěti)). From that I infer that t-participles are applied to Proto-Slavic:

Verbs which ended in -iti (Present -ьj- or -ij-?), -uti (Present -uj-). There is no mention of -yti verbs (Present -ъj-) though...
Verbs which ended in -rti and -lti (> Russian -eret', -orot', -olot')
Verbs which ended in -ęti and -ǫti (> Russian -jat', -ut')

That still doesn't really explain everything though. It doesn't explain why *grěti also has a t-participle in both Russian and Slovene. It certainly didn't have metathesis, because if the original form had been *gerti then the e would have palatalised the g before it and the final form would have been *žerti (> Russian *žeret, Slovene *žreti) and that's not what we find... —CodeCa t 00:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be better equipped than me on this topic (:blush:). Well done! I've got a downloaded book on Russian grammar by famous Zaliznyak at home (it's not searchable - they are images). Very decent and classifies all Russian parts of speech. Will check there but I won't hold my breath. Since this is a common Slavic question, other Slavicists might help - Ivan Štambuk, Dan Polansky, Maro, Biblbroks, etc. As I mentioned, S. Brown and V. Petrosyan. (Amazing to see so much similarity between Russian and Slovene - they are the furthest apart.) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I used Russian and Slovene as examples because I am more familiar with Slovene. I think it may be useful to have different grammars of each language which describe this situation in more detail. I realise that it's primarily a Proto-Slavic problem, but surely the question can't have escaped the people who have made grammars for Russian and other modern language, without any knowledge of Proto-Slavic. I hope that maybe, if we can get a clear enough picture of the rules and exceptions for several Slavic languages, we can figure out what the original rule might have been. So far, it seems like the rule involves, at least, vowel stems and stems originally ending in sonorants, but the exact details aren't clear yet. It's a shame that it's not as clear as it is in Germanic, where all strong verbs have n-participles and weak verbs have t-participles. And Latin doesn't even have n-participles at all as far as I know. —CodeCa t 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen G. Brown found this: причастие.

On participles with -t-:

  ...       в) От некоторых глаголов страдательные причастия прошедшего времени образуются при помощи суффикса -т-:      мы-ть – мытый; ви-ть – витый; мя-ть – мятый; трону-ть – тронутый; тере-ть – тёртый; запере-ть – запертый;      моло-ть – молотый; коло-ть –  колотый.         П р и м е ч а н и я.  1. К глаголам группы "в" относятся глаголы 1-го спряжения, если основа неопределённой    формы оканчивается на и, ы, у, о, a также я (а), чередующееся с н или м: ви-ть – витый, мы-ть – мытый,    трону-ть – тронутый, коло-ть – колотый, мять (мн-у) – мятый, сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый.       2. У глаголов, основа неопределённой формы которых оканчивается на -ере-, конечное е основы пропускается: тере-ть – тёртый.   ...

Let me know if you need the full translation or exactly, which part. The paragraph gives sample verbs

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a translation would be helpful. I can read Cyrillic (slowly) but I don't necessarily know what the words mean. —CodeCa t 14:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Loose translation:

The past participles passive are formed from Russian infinitives according to these rules:

1. If the base of the infinitive ends in -а, -я, or -е, the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -нн-:

виде-ть – виденный
посея-ть – посеянный
чита-ть – читанный

2. If the base of the infinitive ends with a consonant or и (the и being dropped in the participle), then the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -енн-/-ённ-:

запеч-ь – запечённый
освети-ть – освещённый
прослави-ть – прославленный
раскраси-ть – раскрашенный
убеди-ть – убеждённый
унес-ти – унесённый

(Note that in verbs of the 2nd conjugation, consonant mutation takes place: д,з→ж, д→жд, х,с→ш, к,т→ч, ск,ст→щ, в→вл, and so on)

3. If the base of a 1st-conjugation infinitive ends with

-и, -ы, -у, -о
-я (-а) which is being interchanged with н or м

...then the past participle passive is formed with the suffix -т-:

ви-ть – витый
запере-ть – запертый
коло-ть – колотый
моло-ть – молотый
мы-ть – мытый
мять (мн-у) – мятый
сжа-ть (сожн-у, сожм-у) – сжатый
тере-ть – тёртый
трону-ть – тронутый

Note that in the verbs which have an infinitive base ending in -ере-, the final е of the base is dropped:

тере-ть – тёртый

The short forms have the same letter as the one in the long forms:

доказанный – доказан
положенный – положен
принятый – принят
открытый – открыт
разъяснённый – разъяснён
сделанный – сделан
сшитый – сшит —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, Stephen! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian verb conjugation[edit]

Here I have collected verb templates used in the Russian Wiktionary - User:Atitarev/Russian_verb_templates. I only converted some - most useful, blue-linked. Some patterns only have a few verbs. There are not just many variations but the verbs are split into perfective/imperfective, + reflexive. Russian verbs are rather discouraging, especially for a person like me, without good skills and experience in templates. Besides, I enjoy semantics and translations. The variety of verbs can be compared to Arabic, rather than Germanic but Arabic has less truly irregular verbs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I like to think that many irregularities aren't really irregular, but have a reason behind them. I'm rather shocked by that huge list of templates... why would you need so many? —CodeCa t 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

w:Andrey Zaliznyak classified verbs into 16 distinct groups, if I remember this number correctly, with subgroups. The simplest ones use two stems, the harder ones - three types of stem. Reflexive (-ся) double the number of patterns. Some perfective/imperfective conjugate similarly but have a different number of forms and labels (perfective doen't have present tense, only future). Verbs differ in stress patterns, ending consonants, which affect whether e.g. "у" or "ю" is used. Some patterns cater for irregular forms. I also suspect some patterns were created in error (as a duplicate to another) pattern - or to cater for a small irregularity (not all templates are don by the same person). The types names (numbers, symbols) in the Russian Wiktionary match roughly what Zaliznyak (Зализня́к) used in his classifications. The file I mentioned before - is his works on classification, it's in Russian in DjVu format (about 16 MB) I downloaded using torrent. Al_Silonov@Russian Wiktionary used the same book to create templates. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When trying to classify Proto-Slavic verbs, I started off with an Old Church Slavonic grammar and I ended up with this. It's quite compact and easy to understand, but it gives a good idea of the general system. That division doesn't consider accent classes at all, which is something I am not terribly familiar with yet. But accent classes are clearly not the most important distinction, more like a secondary addition just like reflexive verbs are. Now, within those classes there will be exceptions or irregularities, and maybe a few verbs that don't even belong to any of those groups. But I think it's more useful to get the general divisions first, before looking at specific exceptions. I found out that the Proto-Slavic division works almost perfectly for Slovene as well, so I write about it at w:Slovene verbs. Maybe it would also work for Russian? —CodeCa t 02:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Will look at it in more details but in Russian, stress is important, so ru:бросить (бросить) uses Шаблон:гл_ru_4a-стСВ and w:попросить (попросить) uses Шаблон:гл_ru_4c-тСВ. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Great job on Slovene and OCS, perhaps you get interested in Russian eventually? If you ever consider this, will be happily testing/using the templates. I haven't given up on template conversion myself, just put it off. We have manual verb templates, where all forms are added manually. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I may be able to help with the Russian templates if you could start off by matching the templates to the Proto-Slavic verb classes as much as possible. That way I will have more of an idea how the current templates fit together with what I know. —CodeCa t 02:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at the tables and I have some questions. Firstly, is there any difference between perfective and imperfective in the way that the verb forms are actually formed (i.e. are there different rules, or does one have a certain form that the other doesn't?). I ask that because if the difference is only in the meaning and not in the conjugation itself, then they can both use the same template. Secondly, does that also apply to reflexive verbs? Are reflexive verbs just normal verbs with a particle stuck onto the end of each form? (More specifically: could the reflexive forms always be created just by adding more letters to a word, never by subtracting or replacing letters?) —CodeCa t 03:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No difference in the basic form for verbs conjugated by the same pattern - questions 1 and 2 (verbal nouns should be excluded and they are, in my converted templates). E.g. ru:делать, ru:сделать, ru:делаться, ru:сделаться. Reflexive just add -ся/-сь to the verb. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case I think that we could remove the distinction between reflexive and nonreflexive verbs, and just make it a parameter of the templates, which should cut the number of templates almost in half. We could probably do the same for perfective and imperfective as well (since they are conjugated the same, as you say), which would eliminate half of the templates again. I think that would be a good start. —CodeCa t 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I may not be able to make a full reference to Slovene or OCS conjugation patterns, though. Slovene looks simpler at first glance. So, I'll make a new template (Template:ru-verb-1a) out of Template:ru-verb-1a-impf, Template:ru-verb-1a-pf, Template:ru-verb-1a-ся-impf and Template:ru-verb-1a-ся-pf. That means parameters and lots of "if" statements. I will think about how to change it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend making a single template Template:ru-conj-table that just creates the table, but that relies on another template to supply the forms that actually go into the table. That way, the table doesn't have to be copied into every single conjugation template, which makes maintenance easier. —CodeCa t 12:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I will follow your recommendations, thank you. See the above topic, I posted there as well. It's confirming what you said before. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created {{ru-conj-table}} now, based on {{ru-verb-1a-impf}}. Apart from the labels of "present" and "imperfective", what would need to be changed so that it applies to perfective verbs as well? (And aside from that, is there any difference in meaning between the imperfective future with the auxiliary verb, and the perfective future that uses the present-tense conjugation?) I can try to make the table structured more like {{sl-conj-table}} if you like that, see govoriti or kupovati for an example. —CodeCa t 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added some stuff for perfective. Will make some comments on the templates talk page. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Passive participles of reflexive verbs[edit]

Do Russian reflexive verbs have a passive participle? And if so, does it have the reflexive particle at the end as well? —CodeCa t 14:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed добавлять has a present passive participle but not a past passive participle. Why is that? —CodeCa t 18:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflexive verbs don't have a passive participle, even if they are reflexive by form only and don't have a normal (non-reflexive) equivalent. Two parameters - reflexive and transitive can't be included together. Don't know if this should and could be done in templates.

Bugger! It doesn't exist for this verb. "доба́вленный" is "past passive participle" of добавить (perfective). That's why I made this an optional parameter in Template:ru-verb-1a-impf. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 22:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it does, because that means that reflexive is just a third type: intransitive, transitive, reflexive. The first and third have no passive participles, the second does.

Do you know why this verb has no past passive participle? Like, if you tried to form it in the normal way, what would you get? —CodeCa t 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. The Russian wiktionary doesn't add past passive participle for imperfective verbs.

The past passive participles are actually quite irregular, the often change the word stress, take different shapes and can be absent. I made a mistake in the conversion to the new style, just looking at делать. Re: trying to form it the normal way. "Добавля́нный" doesn't exist and "доба́влянный" doesn't exist either. It would sound like "доба́вленный" (because of the vowel reduction). Prefer to make it optional but an important parameter. The verbs that do have past passive participle would benefit to show it, especially because it can be formed in a strange way. Sorry for too many changes. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I guess we can keep it as a parameter then. But would it make sense to have a default value anyway? Is there a default that is actually correct at least half the time? Or is this form just so random and irregular that you can't really predict it for any verb? Also, what about the present passive participle? The older templates have a parameter for that, too. —CodeCa t 23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed there are 8 results for добавлянный on Google search. So while it's rare, people do apparently use it occasionally. —CodeCa t 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a bunch of verbs in verbs using Шаблон:гл ru 1a and no, there could be no default parameter and verbs that do have the form are a minority. Some people who used "добавлянный" seem to be non-native speakers, the other hits I just can't explain. It's a wrong form.

Present passive participle always exist for transitive verbs and is predictable. I made it optional because of intransitive verbs.

Present and past participle active participles decline using the same pattern. At least this part is easy and predictable. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so just so I understand it:

All verbs have the past active participle and past adverbial participle, but reflexive verbs do not have the short form of the past adverbial participle.
All imperfective verbs have the present active participle and present adverbial participle, perfective verbs do not have them.
All transitive imperfective verbs have the present passive participle. Perfective, intransitive or reflexive verbs do not have it.
Only a few of the transitive verbs (imperfective or perfective) have the past passive participle, but the majority of transitive verbs do not. There is no regular way to form it, so it should be specified explicitly.

Is this correct? —CodeCa t 23:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. I had to reread, check and double-check. Must be hard for you to work on a template for a language you don't know. :)

Can I add more requests? This could be simple. I'd like all verbs categorised (even if the verb header templates adds impf/pf categories but some verbs may have opposite uses and can be both perfective and imperfective, like "казнить", "русифицировать", etc.). Some categories don't exist yet - will create later. Categories I want to be included in templates: Category:Russian perfective verbs, Category:Russian imperfective verbs, Category:Russian transitive verbs, Category:Russian intransitive verbs, Category:Russian reflexive verbs

I already tried to do it in my versions of Template:ru-conj-1a and Template:ru-conj-2a:

<noinclude>{{#switch:{{{1}}}|vt=[[Category:Russian transitive verbs]]|vi=[[Category:Russian intransitive verbs]]}}</noinclude>

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that shouldn't be a problem. I wanted to categorise verbs by their conjugation as well, but for that we'd have to first sort out which conjugations we actually need templates/module functions for. —CodeCa t 00:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We could already start categorising using "1a", "2a" as conjugation types (there are only 1a and 2a, no b, c, though). Types 1 and 2 already cover a very big number of verbs. There are 16 supertypes and several subtypes. It's easier to have, at least some reference to Andrey Zaliznyak and the Russian Wiktionary. User:Atitarev/Russian_verb_templates shows 16 distinct types. You'll see they differ by additional symbols, letters and numbers, e.g. "безл." (безличный - impersonal), "-ся" (for reflexive). A new template could be used as a new category. Whether we need so many (even if divided by four) I don't know yet. Similar types may differ on the consonant changes and stresses in more complex, multi-stem conjugations. Compare similar but different verbs "поʹртить" (to spoil) (type 4a) and "будиʹть" (to wake) (type 4c). They both belong to the basic type 4. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true. But I'm not really familiar with Zaliznyak's system at all, it's very different from the system I'm familiar with in OCS and Slovene, which divides up the verbs based on the present and infinitive stems. So in Slovene you have Category:Slovene verb inflection-table templates which are named for the vowels/consonants of those two stems, like -ati (infinitive) / -am (first person singular) or -iti / -im. This is also the system I have adopted for Proto-Slavic verbs, which I showed you earlier. So on one side, Zaliznyak's system is very complete and it is (I presume) well known, but it also seems so unlike the classification systems of the other Slavic languages that I've seen (the Polish system resembles that of Slovene as well). How does Zaliznyak's sytem handle the differences between -at' / -aju verbs, -ovat' / -uju and -it' / -ju verbs (kind of guessing at the endings there)? —CodeCa t 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The most common -ать/-ять (-аю/-яю), -овать/-евать (-ую) are just the templates we have just created - 1a and 2a (ru:потеть belongs there, even if it ends in -еть) but that doesn't cover the verbs, which may also end -ать/-ять but conjugate differently. I don't know how complete Slovene and OCS templates are. They seem simpler and fewer but I don't know if they cover all verbs. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have template for individual verbs in Slovene, like dati, hoteti, imeti, jesti, etc. Russian equivalents ru:дать, ru:хотеть, ru:иметь, ru:есть have all been classified and have more generic templates in the Russian wiki. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

They cover most verbs, from what I've been able to see, but I don't know all the fine details of Slovene conjugation so I can't say for sure. There will always be some verbs that don't fit the regular conjugation groups, like biti or hoteti, but they are also usually more or less unique so to call this a "conjugational pattern" or a specific "type" of verb seems strange. They're just irregular. I mean, how many verbs like хотеть does Russian have? I'd be surprised if there's more than one!

I am kind of surprised that the templates we just created are for those verb types, because that really didn't seem obvious to me at all. That is kind of what I meant that the Zaliznyak system doesn't really make sense to me. Personally, I would prefer it if the templates had names that somehow reflected the endings of the verbs, like the Slovene and Proto-Slavic templates do. That would hopefully make it more obvious to normal users... something like {{ru-conj-ать-аю}} is just a lot clearer than {{ru-conj-1a}}, probably not just to me. I don't know how to make the different accent patterns fit into that. Proto-Slavic accents are reasonably easy, there are 3 patterns, A, B and C (I think those are the same in Zaliznyak's system) but Russian seems to have a lot more. One approach would be to stick a letter onto the end of the name, like {{ru-conj-ать-аю-a}}, but we could also try to combine all the patterns into a single template (they all have the same letters and endings after all, only the accent placement is different, so duplicating all of that would be wasteful). I'm not sure which approach is better yet, I'd need more knowledge and experience with Russian verbs first. —CodeCa t 01:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be hard for me to check if I cover all verbs if we deviate from Zaliznyak naming convention. Merging different patterns will be possible, I guess, especially if we have override possibilities. I will provide docs for each verb template and a look up page. The way we add noun noun templates, for example, at the moment is by finding a similar noun. Remembering all template names by heart will be difficult, anyway, whether we use "1a" or "ать-аю". Sorry, perhaps this should be different from Slovene?

There are many common verbs, which don't fit common patterns, verbs like ru:пить only have a few examples - 11b/c (btw. this list is incomplete).

Once a few complete templates are done, I will be able to add new ones with little help from you, so don't be daunted by the number of templates. I think the final number may be 20 to 50 templates and we could still use the manual templates - old and new. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we may not even need that many templates if we are able to choose our verb types wisely, so that they cover many verbs in a relatively straightforward way. For example, verbs like пить belong to a larger class of vowel-root stems, which would also include крыть and such. Yes, those two verbs do have quite different forms, but look more closely. They do have one very important thing in common: they both have two stems, one for the present and one for the past/infinitive. So if you start with those two stems (which could be parameters), they are really conjugated the same. The change from ь to е́ isn't really irregular either, it's a result of the historical change which turned the first into the second when it was stressed, and in this case an extra specific rule can be added, "if the present stem ends in ь, turn it to е́ in the imperative". I am actually starting to suspect that if I were to continue this kind of "merging" of similar patterns, I would eventually end up with a system similar to Slovene anyway. So Zaliznyak's system is really the same, but with all the patterns split into subpatterns and subsubpatterns so far that it's really hard to get a general idea of the system. What I hope to do is to merge some of those subpatterns based on properties they have in common, so that we can make do with far less templates. I mean, we already did this with impf/pf and with reflexive verbs, so why not see how far we can go without making the code too complex? If we have less templates, that means they are easier to maintain and understand, by us and by people who want to create new Russian entries. —CodeCa t 01:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, so some templates may be skipped when they are addressed. I've already thought about this. It's hard to see the full picture, even for me, a native speaker, especially if you have to look at all forms, not just present. I've seen Russian templates using manual overrides for some forms but I don't remember now or occasional errors where a wrong form is shown because a wrong template is used or no override, оби́деть shows past participle passive as "оби́денный", it should be "оби́женный" - I commented there but nobody has fixed. Manual overrides could make the number of templates less.

ru:пить and ru:крыть are similar but they use different stress patterns. I think it's better to start building some templates and look at commonalities and differences. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I think we should probably start with the verb types that we know there will be many of, because there were many of them in Proto-Slavic too. I will try to make a list of the templates we would need for the biggest types, then we could look at the smaller types later. —CodeCa t 02:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The types 1a and 2a by far are the biggest and cover all ever increasing borrowings. All other types are smaller. What do you think of Template:ru-verb-5b-ш-impf, like бурчать, etc. in terms of Slovene. Does this type exist? What type would ru:гнуть, ru:тянуть ru:плюснуть fit? Note that "ru:гнуть"'s adverbial "гня" is marked as awkward in red. I agree. I wouldn't use without a risk of being abused as illiterate. Rather than saying "awkward", would skip altogether. Shoot, number 4 is rich with templates! --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be the type of slišati, -ati / -im. This was really originally (in Proto-Slavic) a subtype of the infinitive -ěti / 3rd person -itĭ group, where the preceding consonant underwent the first palatalisation; after that, the change happened where ě became a after a palatal consonant. So long ago there was slysjěti, 3rd person slysjitĭ > slyšěti, slyšitĭ > slyšati, slyšitĭ. All of these verbs have a palatal consonant like š, č, ľ and so on (not the same as the Russian palatalised consonants) at the end of the stem. Those other three verbs are Slavic -nǫti / -netĭ (Slovene -niti / -nem) type verbs. —CodeCa t 02:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I want to put the IPA for также.Is [ˈtɑgʐɨ] correct? It's kind of confusing. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It already has IPA, which is right. Well, normally, in the middle of the word the unstressed "е" gets reduced to /ʲɪ/ or /ɪ/, (or /ɨ/ after unpalatalised hushing sounds (ʂ, ʐ) andafter t͡s) but in the final position, it becomes /ə/, see also поле. "к" is pronounced /g/ because the next consonant is voiced. Which part is confusing? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, according to the Russian version of поле, it's [ˈpo̞lʲɛ] without the schwa. Now I understand at least 75% of this sound rule. Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It's arguable but perhaps [ˈpo̞lʲɛ] is more correct than [ˈpo̞lʲə] or both pronunciations are OK. IPA is not my forte, though. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for the Tajik fix. Can you tell me why the word "Ин" in the third sentence in your test example is showing up as "Yin"? It should never do that when the word begins with a vowel. It should only do that when "и" is preceded by any other vowel. --Dijan (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it the same rule for "е" (e/ye)? I'm not good with Lua, I copied some logic from another module and changed the vowels. ZxxZxxZ seems to be doing some fixes there. Let's see what the result will. I'll to fix if I can if he doesn't manage to do it. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Где-то существует ошибка, которая создаёт «ход́ив» и «xod́iv» (с ударением на д́ / d́). —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо, исправил. :) --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to create this page with a description of Zaliznyak's system for verbs. The information that is currently on User talk:Atitarev/Russian verb templates and Appendix:Russian stress patterns - verbs could be placed there. Appendix:Russian stress patterns - nouns could probably be merged into Appendix:Russian nouns as well. —CodeCa t 14:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know, I know. I will start documenting at templates and modules. Types 1 and 2 are two easy. From 3 onwards verbs need explanations but it's kind of hard to do both at the same time - have to test my understanding first and check why there are so many templates in ru:wikt. If you now have some time, please tell me, which type you want to have a go at next - I will try to describe/test it for you. I'm using Module:ru-verb-testmodule, working on type 4. Also using "conjugations["4a-сс"]" as it seems there are some unpredictable imperatives - ь vs и in unstressed endings (a). --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating a page for Zaliznyak's system for verbs would be very awesome and makes Russian less foreign for non-Russian speakers. But as for the new verb templates, it would be rather difficult to make links to the verb forms (ex. what I did to читать a while ago). --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, linking to verb forms may be hard, especially if there are more than one form but it's possible. Will check with CodeCat. I don't it's too important and verb forms may still be generated by bots, even if they are not linked. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've created the page and moved the content over to it, but it needs to be cleaned up and a lot of information is still unclear or missing. —CodeCa t 22:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I found out that задвигать is a very useful Russian verb. It's rather um..... difficult to use because it has two separate meanings. I know you are very busy but you can take your time for this. Thank you in advance. Uh, yes. I'm doing my best to create more Russian entries in the Korean Wiktionary. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Meaning can be found here: . Yes, I'm busy. The conjugation is of the same type as делать (1a) for both senses. Will make an entry later. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. The entry is done, please take a look. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It looks marvelous. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Documenting the templates[edit]

As they are so similar, it might be more efficient to have one page that documents them all. I have done this with the Dutch templates, where each documentation page is a redirect to the "real" one. —CodeCa t 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look to see how you have done it but I'd like some important things like common parameters (impf, pf, impf-intr, etc.) and usage to be seen on all conjugation templates. It's also helpful for the templates to show, what type of verbs they are for. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Could you give me an example? Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation has the documentation. Which template links to it? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you go to Template:nl-conj-st/documentation you see it's just a redirect. In this case I chose one of the pages as the place to put the documentation and redirected all the others. But you could also put the documentation at Module:ru-verb/documentation... I think that would be better actually. And then Template:ru-conj-1a/documentation can redirect there. After all, it's really the module that makes the templates work, the templates themselves don't really do anything. —CodeCa t 02:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But the simple documentation would be intended for editors who are going to use conjugation type/stress pattern specific templates, so that they choose the right one. Of course, the module could combine the info for all conjugation types and all templates but it could be confusing. To add a new conjugation table to a verb entry, you don't need use the module directly. As for the Dutch templates, I am bit confused (I'm not a template guru) but will have a look a bit more. How is Template:nl-conj-wk including all info from Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation? I've never used Template:documentation before. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

{{documentation}} will transclude the subpage called /documentation. So when it is placed on {{nl-conj-st}}, it transcludes Template:nl-conj-st/documentation. But that page is a redirect to Template:nl-conj-wk/documentation, so it ends up transcluding that page instead. —CodeCa t 02:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll play with this. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template:ru-conj-1a and Template:ru-conj-2a --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian verbs missing template[edit]

I've generated a list of all Russian verbs (all in Category:Russian verbs) that do not contain {{ru-verb}} on the page. It looks like there are some mistakes there as well. I thought it would be useful so you could find them and fix them easily.

list of Russian verbs needing attention

—CodeCa t 14:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into them as well. I was converting some verbs using old Template:ru-conj. For some there are no functions yet, I will leave them. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Russian translation of this word says it has three genders. Is that really correct? I'd expect, based on the ending of the noun, that the noun is feminine, or possibly masculine. But neuter? —CodeCa t 18:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I've taken the n out. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

New Russian entry[edit]

An anon made примерить, can you improve it? User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 09:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian verbs[edit]

Is it necessary to add IPA symbols for all the forms of Russian words?? The simplicity and neatness are greatly affected. —This unsigned comment was added by Symnodas (talk • contribs).

Why? If you have complaints about the structure of Wiktionary entries, you can ask questions them at WT:BP --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 11:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Привет, Анатолий. Я замечаю на этой странице, что «еб́ав, еба́вши» делает ссылку на ебав, ебавши. Кроме того, первый акцент на «еб́ав, еба́вши» находится над буквой «б́». —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо, Стивен, исправил. :) Формы правильные, но неправильно стоял знак ударения. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Но «ебав, ебавши» делает ссылку на ебав, ебавши все вместе. Должны быть отдельными: ебав и ебавши. Разве это не так? —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Точно. Спасибо! Я раньше не заметил. Эта проблема была для всех глаголов с двумя формами деепричастия. Исправил. Правда они теперь показываются в другом виде.

Все конвертированные (использующие модуль) глаголы здесь: Category:Russian verbs by class. Часть из них использует Module:ru-verb, другие пока Module:ru-verb-testmodule.

Все новые шаблоны здесь: Category:Russian verb inflection-table templates.

Rudely butting in to share a fun fact: In Lithuanian l, m, n and r can take the stress with the tilde accent. Ding! — [Ric Laurent] — 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Czech, Slovak and Macedonian (Bulgarian cognates use ъ) also have many non-vowel words with l, m, n and r but they don't mark the stress in any way. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it, I lied; the tilde actually shows pitch accent. But only the stressed syllable has pitch. So in those syllables, if the vowel is short but the accent is still tilde (which is usually used for long vowels), the accent goes on the liquid consonant. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. BTW, your Persian must be going up. :) Good night, time for bed here. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I've pretty much hit that point where I can't make much progress without using it daily, which I don't. Schlaf gut lol. — [Ric Laurent] — 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Mandarin request[edit]

An anon miscreant added empty formatting crap as an entry for 钢琴曲. I'm wondering now though, does that term merit a real entry? Google translate say it means piano but I see we have an translation for it as this minus the final Hanzi. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 01:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The term 钢琴曲 (gāngqínqǔ) means "a piece of music designed for piano". It may merit a real entry but not so important, it's easily understood from its parts. See 钢琴曲@Nciku dictionary. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Well thanks for the response. User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 02:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Anon troubles[edit]

Could you give a moment to go to Talk:ya3 and give a little input? Maybe they have already been placated or just disappeared offsite momentarily but a certain anon seems to be a little frustrated about the new format of pinyin entries... User: PalkiaX50 ^{talk to meh} 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)‎

`{{t-SOP}}` and automatic transcription[edit]

I noticed that this template will create links to the transcription if the component parts are linked:

Russian: ‎состояние неопределённости (sostojanije neopredeljónnosti)

I imagine this isn't intended behavior. Letting you know since you're the last one who edited it. DTLHS (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the result looks good to me, as intended because I edited it to link to the transliteration module, if <tr> is missing. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the problem now, no, transliteration shouldn't be linked, I misunderstood your question. I'll try to fix it but I don't know how. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops yeah I meant transliteration, sorry. DTLHS (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to show you my demo of the Japanese frequency list. It's pretty simple and this version has lemmas instead of inflected forms. I tried using a list with inflected forms myself, and it didn't feel more useful than a list of lemmas. It seemed like there was no more useful information and the list of lemmas looked better to my eyes. Just a few forms were different anyway.

By my quick count, WT is just 56 entries short of having all of the 1000 most common words in Japanese. Very close!

I like the list as it is now but it would be possible to make adjustments because I still have all of the data and it would be no problem to run the scripts again. Of course the database goes beyond 1000 words but I only made one list for now. --Haplology (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Great job. I agree the list should be tweaked to show the lemma forms. Perhaps also using a more common spelling. (Eventually, hiragana and alternatives need to be created as well). BTW, blue-linked single-character entries may be deceptive, as they may only contain translingual or very limited Japanese info. It's less of a problem with Japanese but more with Mandarin entries. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 12:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Would the plural of tovash be tovashi? 94.211.59.112 19:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've answered there. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Какой пиздец[edit]

What would be the apporopriate translation of Какой пиздец? I've seen this phrase occasionally on the internet. Thank you in advance. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

("What a) fucking hell!" or something like that. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This user has been adding a few Belarusian entries and has added conjugation tables as well. But we don't really have any Belarusian templates so they've been adding just raw wikicode tables. Given that Belarusian is probably very similar to Russian, do you think you could help them out and maybe work on making a basic module/set of templates for Belarusian? —CodeCa t 02:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know where to start. Belarusian conjugation is not simpler than Russian if not harder. I can't define how many conjugation types there are. Belarusian verbs are not well described, compared to Russian, at least. The conjugation the user has created is only for the present tense. Perhaps a generic template could be created where all forms are just passed, like {{ru-conj-table}}? I'll check with the user. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be more useful as a start, at least. —CodeCa t 02:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've converted the template - {{be-conj-table}} and also made a simpler version - without participles {{be-conj-table-simple}}. I don't know Belarusian participles well (I'll understand them when I see them). Take a look at рабіць and хадзіць. The user hasn't answered to my message and I don't know if they actually speak Russian or Belarusian. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 03:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Помощь с белорусской грамматикой[edit]

делающий — які робіць

делавший — які рабіў

делаемый — які робіцца

деланный — які рабіўся

делая — робячы

делав (делавши) — рабіўшы --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Дзякуй, Ўладзіславе. У беларускай няма дзеепрыметнікаў? Для мяне гэта сюрпрыз! Далучайцеся да нас, нам патрэбныя рэдактары розных моў. Беларускія артыкулы ў жудасным стане або іх вельмі мала. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"В белорусском языке нет страдательных причастий настоящего времени (нельзя сказать так «используемая литература»); также отсутствуют возвратные формы (с суффиксом -ся); для белорусского языка нехарактерно образование причастий с помощью суффиксов -уч- (-юч-), -ущ- (-ющ-), -ем- (-ім-), -ач- (-яч-); наличие таких причастий говорит о заимствованном характере слова; не употребляются краткие страдательные причастия прошедшего времени в именительном падеже (Музей создан)"[5]. Я недавно пытался делать правки в белорусском разделе Викисловаря, но интерфейс оказался недружелюбным к новичкам. --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Думаю, сложности связаны с тем, что в белорусском викисловаре нет шаблонов. Я могу помочь сделать простые шаблоны для существительных и прилагательных здесь. Для глаголов я уже сделал. Подобные шаблоны потом можно перенести в белорусский викисловарь и куда угодно. В этих шаблонах нужно будет выставлять все формы склонения и спряжения.--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Russian verb templates[edit]

Привет, Анатолий. Когда я смотрел на глаголы предвосхищать и предвосхитить ({{ru-verb-1-impf}} и {{ru-verb-1-pf}}), я увидел проблему. Во-первых, центрирование текста продолжается после того, как шаблон завершается (то есть, в следующих разделах также по центру). А во-вторых, двойной пропуск предшествует некоторые из транслитераций, но только один интервал предшествует другие транслитерации. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Спасибо, Стивен. Мне придётся обратиться за помощью, так как я сам не могу исправить. Я только хотел добавить транслитерацию и возможность сворачивать и разворачивать таблицу. Последние три дня я был на технических курсах и очень устал, не могу делать что-то очень сложное. В бливайшие дни обязательно исправлю, если никто не поможет. В крайнем случае верну всё обратно как было. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Я поменял шаблон на старый в {{ru-verb-1-impf}}, но двойной пропуск все равно есть, пока не знаю как исправить. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wealth Maker

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: User talk:Atitarev

Latest revision as of 00:39, 30 May 2013

Contents

Archive[edit]

Japanese and Korean (Hanja) for 男装 and 女装[edit]

اِتَدَكِمَسُ[edit]

FWOTD focus week[edit]

7.5 hours[edit]

Russian entries[edit]

Animate nouns in Slavic[edit]

kuža[edit]

Увеличение и улучшение объёма русских статей[edit]

Aung San Suu Kyi, The Hobbit movie quote, and The Equality Mantra in Russian[edit]

Двувидовые глаголы[edit]

Usage of давать[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Mandarin entries problem[edit]

Hashing out ideas for romanized entries in general[edit]

Russian language[edit]

Russian words in Latin alphabet[edit]

Splitting up JLPT appendices[edit]

Romaji vote[edit]

Re:List of Serbo-Croatian diacritics[edit]

Past passive participles in -t and -n[edit]

Russian verb conjugation[edit]

Passive participles of reflexive verbs[edit]

Documenting the templates[edit]

Russian verbs missing template[edit]

New Russian entry[edit]

Russian verbs[edit]

Mandarin request[edit]

Anon troubles[edit]

`{{t-SOP}}` and automatic transcription[edit]

Какой пиздец[edit]

Помощь с белорусской грамматикой[edit]

Russian verb templates[edit]

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Wiktionary - Recent changes [en]: User talk:Atitarev

Latest revision as of 00:39, 30 May 2013

Contents

Archive[edit]

Japanese and Korean (Hanja) for 男装 and 女装[edit]

اِتَدَكِمَسُ[edit]

FWOTD focus week[edit]

7.5 hours[edit]

Russian entries[edit]

Animate nouns in Slavic[edit]

kuža[edit]

Увеличение и улучшение объёма русских статей[edit]

Aung San Suu Kyi, The Hobbit movie quote, and The Equality Mantra in Russian[edit]

Двувидовые глаголы[edit]

Usage of давать[edit]

Thank you![edit]

Mandarin entries problem[edit]

Hashing out ideas for romanized entries in general[edit]

Russian language[edit]

Russian words in Latin alphabet[edit]

Splitting up JLPT appendices[edit]

Romaji vote[edit]

Re:List of Serbo-Croatian diacritics[edit]

Past passive participles in -t and -n[edit]

Russian verb conjugation[edit]

Passive participles of reflexive verbs[edit]

Documenting the templates[edit]

Russian verbs missing template[edit]

New Russian entry[edit]

Russian verbs[edit]

Mandarin request[edit]

Anon troubles[edit]

{{t-SOP}} and automatic transcription[edit]

Какой пиздец[edit]

Помощь с белорусской грамматикой[edit]

Russian verb templates[edit]

`{{t-SOP}}` and automatic transcription[edit]