User talk:Brutal Russian

Welcome

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

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

segnitia et al.

Thanks for finding more Latin entries with missing macrons — please remember that somebody will need to add them to all the inflected forms as well, or else they'll be forgotten. If you don't want to deal with them, please make a list so that someone else knows they need to be fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, perhaps I need to at least mention macrons in the summary so that someone can check what I've macronised. I imagine this kind of a job would be ideal for a bot that, say, checks inflected forms against the dictionary one, but these are beyond me at the moment (I'm barely starting to understand how to discuss anything here xD). I'll see about a list. Brutal Russian (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries aren't all that useful; you've got to collate information (I see now that all the sēgn- family need this attention). Indeed, it would be a good bot job, although a bigger ask than merely fixing the entries. @Benwing2 helped me out with the fixing part recently, so maybe he can weigh in on what the most feasible way to forge ahead on this is. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Just get me a list of all the lemmas whose forms need extra macrons added, and I'll do the rest. Benwing2 (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Keep in mind that per [1], vehō and all compounds have vēxī vĕctum; tegō and all compounds have tēxi tēctum; regō and all compounds have rēxī rēctum; and legō and all compounds have lēxī lēctum. We'll have to (a) compile of list of all those compounds; (b) check every one of the lemmas to make sure they have the appropriate vowel length; (c) compile a list of all the lemmas and run a bot to fix them all up (I can do this last step once I have the list of lemmas). Benwing2 (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also to handle: all compounds of agō, which have āctum. Just because a lemma already has the appropriate long vowel doesn't mean the non-lemma forms do; hence for example subigō has ppp subāctum listed with long vowel on the lemma page, but the forms of subactum/subactus typically don't have long ā in them. So it's best to go ahead and list every compound; my bot will just skip cases where the long vowel is already present. Benwing2 (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Just me being curious

Hi. Out of curiosity, what's your background? (You don't have to reply if you don't want to, of course.) Canonicalization (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Canonicalization Hi! I suppose "an amateur linguist/language nerd who happened upon the LLPSI series, fell in love with it (as most users do) and ended up learning Latin to relative fluency" is a good description. I'm using Wiktionary as a quick reference for Latin vocabulary, specifically vowel length, etymology and inflection patterns, so my edits are of rather selfish nature in that regard :D Still, after some polishing I think this can become a staple resource for anyone wishing to learn Latin (it already kind of is where I hang out). I bet you think I should write something like that on my user page, or indeed create it for one? :P Brutal Russian (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

User:PseudoSkull/Etymologies of usernames

Hi! You might be interested in this... — inqilābī ^{[ inqilāb zindabād ]} 14:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Module:la-pronunc/testcases

Hello! Thank you for your work on Latin pronunciation in general, and on the module. I haven't had much time to research or discuss the topics that you have brought up recently, but I'm happy there is someone actively working on it. I wanted to remind you about the test cases section, which I have found useful as a way to check that my edits cover the various cases. The "expected" column has become greatly out of date; when you have the time, could you update it to correspond to the changes that you've made? You could also add whichever additional test case words you think would be helpful. The reason I added the code doubling /ʃ/ in Ecclesiastical pronunciation was to give a geminate phone intervocalically in words like nescio [ˈnɛʃːiɔ], which I believe is considered more standard than [ˈnɛːʃiɔ] (although there is no phonemic geminate/singleton contrast in this context, and contemporary Italian accents apparently show some variability in the duration of [ʃ], [ɲ] and of preceding vowels). --Urszag (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Urszag Hai, tanks yuo for the kind words and just for writing to me, I really appreciate it. And especially for telling me about the testcases page, because I had no clue there was one, believing that these were supposed to exist in some appendix. Just curious: is it linked to from somewhere? I've been simply checking the results using the preview xD Also, I still need to actually describe the intended phenomena in Appendix:Latin pronunciation, but for some reason the thought of putting together what amounts to a pronunciation guide for Latin scares me, although I've been repeatedly asked to do it. Maybe it's the need to fact-check myself and pull the references out of about 5 different google docs <:S And I wasn't even thinking of doing it on wiktionary, really; also, I place a lot of emphasis on authentic sound recordings, and these are kind of tricky to include - although I'm being encouraged. The bigger problem is I can't use third party recordings of other languages to exemplify phonemes, and these are clearly my standard of authenticity... or can I? I'm clueless about licenses. From Forvo, or SoundComparisons - this website will surely interest you, and it uses Creative Commons (C button in the top bar). And in case of a restrictive license, could we perhaps just link to these directly?

Ok, Ecclesiastical /ʃ/. So from the looks of it you've been basing your assumption on neostandard Italian, and while it's a good starting point, since I found that article by *extreme metal music infensifies* DE'ATH, I've been looking for instances where the Liber Usualis...es' prescriptions differ from it and so indicate a sacrilegious Italianisation of the totally not Italian traditional Roman Ecclesiastical. I've briefly looked around (including the aforementioned article) and it seems like the latter doesn't have a double /ʃ/ at all. I know that modern Italian has trouble with some variously-double consonants, including /ʃ/, /ǧ/ and /ts/, but it doesn't seem like they wanted to complicate their life by transposing this onto their Latin, so everything there is single. More to the point, double consonants hurt singing, and the Liber prescribes minimalising all codas as far as possible. In this relation I've made it so that the a in /au/ is long as well. So to cap this off, a double /ʃ/ might instead belong to, uh, neostandard Italian Latin? =D If and when we want to introduce that in addition to Roman traditional. Speaking of which, do you have an idea how to include a totally new pronunciation (I want to start with the German one)? Brutal Russian (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

also Module:la-pronunc

Приветствую вас и доброе утро, сэр. I noticed that you've been changing how the Latin template automatically transcibes, which of course is very cool and I appreciate your efforts for my own use too. However I was curious at some of the changes; for example, why does the Vulgar Latin section now give /y/ for <y>, instead of /i/ as with Ecclesiastical? Don't nearly all Romanic languages and dialects keep the /i/ change? I thought it became unrounded by like 3rd century AD at latest. And why is dark dentalized l /ɫ̪/ kept as with Classical? And why does <ehe> render as /ˈi̯eː/? And was Classical <h> really an optional /ɦ/ phonetically? I imagine that'd only be in very refined, poetic uses. Sorry for the ramble and thank you for reading and what you can answer~! Salve! Sigehelmus (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sigehelmus: Доброе утро и вам! :D Currently the Vulgar Latin transcription is supposed to represent 2nd century CE Campanian Latin (Pompei etc) - the label needs to be changed, ditto for (Roman) Ecclesiastical. The Y at the time varied between I and V when spelled in native Latin alphabet (Y was still a Greek letter in the time of Quintilian), including in Campania; and there are numerous South Italian Greek borrowings where it's continued by /u/, so it couldn't have been simply substituted with /i/. Since Greek was widely spoken in Naples and known in the surroundings, I left the native Greek pronunciation; I would have expressed it with the native Oscan [ʉ] if I there was certainty about that sound (eg. in TIVRRIS 'tower'); and frankly in Classical it was likely pronounced with the sonus medius (which we still lack entirely). I want to have a possibility of automatically generating non-Hellenising variants with /u/ and /i/, at least for Classical. The dark L was alive and well in much of medieval Romance (it lives on in modern Catalan), and it's still dental in many Central-Southern Italian dialects, and it likewise sporadically vocalised into /w/ on that territory, so I left it because there's no evidence that it was specifically different in that region. There was a generic vacillation of L's allophones called "la(m)bdacism" by the grammarians, and the only thing that seems certain is that the Africans (and parts of Southern Italy influenced by African speech) pronounced them significantly differently - in these varieties /ll/ ended up as the retroflex /ḍḍ/. <ehe> is like that because the first vowel raises in hiatus (the prevocalic e~i merger) and subsequently consonantises. I'm not sure it should really consonantise as much as produce a geminate palatal consonant (Oscan spelt its palatalised consonants by doubling the letter). I've thought a lot about the Classical <h> and found no evidence for excluding its pronunciation intervocalically, even outside of "poetic" speech - see this discussion with German examples of totally unexpected pronounced <h>. Actually I have a fun new theory that it behaved suprasegmentally (like a prosody) and was often pronounced in the first available position in the word instead of where it's spelt, like /r/ does in many Sardinian varieties. Brutal Russian (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I don't believe I'm personally attacking the wolf when I cry "wolf". I don't believe I'm personally attacking user the Nicodene when I attempt to call attention to the fact that they've unleashed bitter abuse against me and tried to portray me as an "ignorant beginner" for doing nothing more than continuing to foolishly extend good faith to them in a discussion that I decided to suffer through if only to have demonstrable proof of the that person's emotional instability and unfitness to participate on the website. I cannot see how it can be doubted that this person is on a personal crusade against someone who frustrates their attempts at egotistic self-affirmation when they aggressively say or do something that is demonstrably wrong and unjustified, and for challenging their delusional authority. —I'm honestly lost as to what I can do in this situation, and the only person that has offered me any advice on this told me to disregard the abuser. But how can I disregard them when they continue shoving themselves in my face? This project is based on civil discussion based on good faith and cooperation, but the person in question has utterly eradicated any such possibility, yet the continue their edit wars and even have the daring to talk to me as if nothing happened, as if I'm to engage with them after what they've written in the above screenshot. How can the website operate when its users and rules are being abused in this way? [I've written] to two admins and pinged a number of others, and received absolute indifference. By continuously calling attention to the apalling behaviour of that user, to a level of volatility and hatred that bursts forth every other message that cannot be explained in any way other than by a personality disorder, I'm simply crying for help. I don't know what else I can do and nobody has offered me any better way. It would be humiliating to expect me to keep silent and a straight face and endure everyone's complete indifference at the dirt I've been smeared with while simply going about my business on the website and reverting the wrong page, thereby enraging the one unstable person on the website who took it as an assault on their own ego, and then having then feeling obliged to resolve the ensuing edit war via a civil discussion which I had to abandon after that user finally descended into unhinged several hour-long rants npt even against something I said, but an imaginary caricature Voodoo doll version of me. I stress that this attitude of "editing is war and my edits are my troops" is absolutely pernicious to the functioning of this community. I stress that the above screenshot is a testament to that user's goal to humiliate, ridicule and thus get rid of their opponent. In their worldview, civility and good faith are for the sheep, while might is right. I've observed that same behaviour from them over several years (not to mention other such people found all over the Internet), and thus I'm confident in what I write. I don't understand why everything I say continues being ignored and the abuser is being let off the hook despite all the screenshots and other evidence that I attach to my words. That user is currently edit-warring a pronunciation module with the ultimate goal to self-affirm their delusional authority by either overwriting, or else removing existing content without any discussion solely because I added that content, and I'm currently the only person who's trying to stop them. They're here not to improve, but to disrupt for their own ego's gain. I'm at a total loss as to what I can do in this situation, and being blocked for calling attention to the injustice makes it even more difficult to know. Surely I'm not expected to stand and smile while the wolf rages about? Brutal Russian (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support unblocking you, but I'm not comfortable single-handedly reverting the actions of a higher-ranking administrator (in terms of edit count, time as a sysop, etc.). I also don't want to "adjudicate" the controversy between you and the Nicodene, mostly because the discussions surrounding that are too long and not worth the time and effort of reading through them. I think you make a prima facie good case against the user, but without having considered all the evidence and arguments, I can't decisively "rule" in anyone's favor. I do believe a block may be too much, and the reason provided for it is a thin reed. But beyond that abstract support, and for the reason given above, I probably won't actually go through the trouble of unblocking. Imetsia (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: I don't think that any admins rank higher than any others. But I have a personal policy of not unilaterally undoing other admins' blocks except in extreme cases of abuse, and I appreciate you respecting mine. Let me know if you want to discuss it further (although it'll expire in a couple days, so it won't make too much of a difference either way). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

hidden Latin vowel length

Hi. In many cases you undid my changes implementing Bennett et al.'s notes on hidden Latin vowel length. Since you didn't normally ping me and only changed the lemma page, all of the nonlemma pages are now out of sync. A couple of comments: (1) I think in some cases you were too hasty in removing the length marks. (2) It would help if you would compile a list of all the changes you made so they can be propagated to the nonlemma forms.

As an example of where I think you may have been too hasty, you changed crusta, crustum from having a long and short mark to just a short mark. You wrote the following: "Vowel length - the cited inscription (ILLRP 0667) has no apex; Romance unambiguously points to short" but the comment in Bennett [2] says this: "crūsta, crūstum: v́ in CIL. i. 1199; the Romance points both to crūstum and also to a collateral form with ŭ. Gröber (Archiv, vi. 384); Körting (Wörterbuch)." Unless I'm mistaken, this is a different inscription, and it does have an apex. Further, the comment states that the Romance evidence points to both lengths. In cases like this it would help a lot if you would add notes in the Etymology section specifically noting why you disagree with a length mark rather than just deleting what's there; otherwise I may just undo your changes. Benwing2 (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

LLPSI Quotation Referencing

It would be better if you could cite LLPSI when you quote from it:

• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aut&diff=prev&oldid=62085912 fixed by https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=aut&diff=prev&oldid=72822235
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mihi&diff=prev&oldid=62279814 fixed by https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mihi&diff=prev&oldid=72858000

This way people can find the right page in the book, among other reasons. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi, I notice you've been using the |tag= param and/or <tag:...> inline modifier in {{syn}}, {{ant}} and/or {{desc}}. These are changing to be |lb= and <lb:...> now that dialect tags have been unified with labels; the values of these parameters are handled just like labels in the {{lb}} template. Benwing2 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking for help on Latin "ruo"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:ruo MacronPolice (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)