User talk:Waahlis

προειδοποίηση!

• If you leave a message here, I will reply here.
• If I left you a message, I will reply on your talk page.
• Sign your post with four tildes (~~~~)
• Keep your title short. Alternatively funny.
• You leave messages in any language you see fit; that is, languages I have a chance at understanding.

Archives 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5

Burumbi

Does my conlang start to make much sense now? I feel like I am missing something vital. Mboso (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2013 (CET)

1. How is stress realised?
2. Subordinate clauses
3. Modality

A few things to work on =)  Emperor Zelos 06:57, 12 January 2013 (CET)

I think it is starting to look excellent! Although I agree with Zelos on the first two points as rather vital, that is, that you ought to mention stress (if any), as well as the syntax of sentences, the modality could be a later concern. Adpositions and conjunctions (if any) is a matter to consider.

One matter that could be tended is examples - reading an article with sample sentences is always more interesting, and it conveys important information. Usage is another subject - you have a few cases and a lot of verb inflections - when are they used, can they convey different meanings depending on context? The definitions often differ between languages.

This all depends on the panned extent of your language - I for one would have implemented a bit of allophony, though a language does more than fine without it.

Sincerely, Waahlis 11:43, 12 January 2013 (CET)

What the Wall said, as for stress it can be realised in multitude of ways, volume, vowel change, pitch, etc. :D I like pitch-accent systems  Emperor Zelos 15:17, 12 January 2013 (CET) Okay, I recognized stress, allophony, verb, and inflections. Give me a few days to read about the others on Wikipedia and I'll get back. However, I can talk about allophony right now: since it's not intended to actually be spoken by anyone, I don't see much need to work on it,and, as was pointed out, some languages have managed to make do without it. Mboso (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2013 (CET)

RfA initiated 15/01/2013

A request for arbitration concerning you has been initiated at Linguifex:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Chrysophylax 23:17, 15 January 2013 (CET)

¿Lo has hecho tú también mientras aprendebas lenguas?

¡Hola! ¿Todo bien? Hoy estaba aquí en mi casa con dos amigas mías de la universidad y, mientras hablábamos entre nosotros, hemos inventado una expresión (sueca y después la hemos traducido en varias lenguas que estudiamos) que no tiene - o así creemos - ningún significado, pero se lo hemos dado nosotros:

Du är (en stor/färsk) nöt o Din jävla nöt!

Y con esas expresiones hemos traducido la oración sueca Du är forryckt/galen. Sabemos que se dice así, pero, de todas formas, nos ha gustado inventar y usar esa expresión. Además mi amiga y yo, cuando hicimos el primer curso de sueco (hace 4 años), escuchamos por primera vez la palabra köra y nos gustó tanto que desde entonces la usamos en cambio de kär, hemos creado sustantivos también: köra con plural köror para las mujeres y köre con plural körar para los hombres. Con estas palabras entendimos skatt :P Cuando uno difunde este uso de la palabra köra como nosotros la entendimos y de su derivados, nosotros decimos que él o ella es un o una köraförande, aunque förande significa "presidente" y no "usuario"... Ahahahah, sé bien que ahora pareceré tonto, pero, hablando con otra gente que estudia otras lenguas, he descubierto que muchas personas juegan así con las palabras que aprenden e incluso crean nuevas palabras que en la lengua original no tienen (o tienen otro) sentido :) ¿Lo has hecho tú también mientras aprendebas lenguas? Si lo has hecho, ¿lo haces ahora también cuando aprendes otras? :) Llyn 22:12, 18 January 2013 (CET)

¡Dioses, paciencia, tesoro, paciencia! ¡No he tenido tiempo para responder! Llamar personas nötter de verdad existe en Suecia, y es un insulto. Quizá hay insultos más ofensivos, solamente digo que no lo digas a desconocidos... ;) Es interesante saber que la palabra nöt como insulto tiene otro género gramaticamente a ciertas personas. Entonces se puede decir ditt jävla nöt. Es que no sé si es una característica de sueco estándar, o si es regional. De todos maneras, usar el género neutro normalmente es un poquito más ofensivo. Decir "det" en la tercera persona cuando se está hablando de gente, es bastante malo...

¡Jajaja! Lamento decir que jamás he hecho lo que me dices! XD No te preocupes, no me parece tonto, solamente... original... :P Pero recuerdo que creé la palabra "fútbolla" en español - casi homofónico con la palabra "fotboja" - "grillete (?)"! :P

Si quieres saber las propias palabras relacionadas con kär, son käresta para mujeres, y käraste para hombres o mujeres! :) Waahlis 16:17, 22 January 2013 (CET)

No borré la pregunta porque no tengo paciencia, sino que pensaba que no habías contestado porque te parecía una tontería descomunal :( Entonces decidí borrar lo único que pudiera subrayar mi supuesta tontería :( Llyn 20:27, 04 February 2013 (CET)

Sospeché que si... ;) No te preocupes, yo también hago tonterías...! ¡Y si aprender y adaptar idiomas sería tonterías, no querría vivir! Waahlis 19:08, 5 February 2013 (CET)

Du är söt! Tack så mycket för dina ord! Llyn 23:54, 11 February 2013 (CET)

Vandalism

Check my talk page.
19:30, 20 January 2013 (CET) Er Dessen Name Nicht Genannt Werden Darf

Tables

WAAHLIS! you screwed up the tables again!  Emperor Zelos 20:24, 20 January 2013 (CET)

Ooopsies! I thought I hadnṭ added anything of value there! Sorry! :P Waahlis 20:27, 20 January 2013 (CET)

Light the torches and fetch the pitchforks!

It's alright man, this place is chaotic lately.  Emperor Zelos 20:52, 20 January 2013 (CET)

But I just cleaned them... :(

Yeah, so it seems... Very well, speaking of which; would you mind taking a look at the last message I left at Chrys? Waahlis 21:02, 20 January 2013 (CET)

Template:term

I propose to keep "term" as it enhances legibility of contionary markup. It may be sort of redundant but it makes reading through texts a lot easier on the eyes. Chrysophylax 22:27, 20 January 2013 (CET)

I disagree. Cw, for "contionary word", is simply more compressed. I would even suggest a Template:C. And being easy on the eyes is surely not a problem when processing wiki markup. Waahlis 22:38, 20 January 2013 (CET)

The main reason for using wiki markup is for enhanced legibility and ease of use, thus instead of using

<a href="linguifex.com/?title=Contionary:word>word</a>

we usually write

[[Contionary:word|word]]

Continuing from that, the prefix "cw" isn't instantly recognisable compared to "term" which is but 2 characters longer but adds an instantly transparent meaning.

Cf.

===Etymology ===
{{term|cóm-}} + {{term|seneir}}

with

===Etymology ===
{{cw|cóm-}} + {{cw|seneir}}

Of course I see the benefit of having a short short version for when linking in mainspace articles/talk pages as in {{cw|dón}} where editing of the wikicode might not be a very relevant factor.

As a compromise of sorts I propose keeping

{{template|term}}

in the Contionary article main space and

{{template|cw}}

used outside.

Chrysophylax 23:05, 20 January 2013 (CET)

Surely, this could have been compressed into a few words. I stand by my second suggestion - using Template:C. Whilst you are correct in that "term" is very transparent, I do not acknowledge the logic behind using an abbreviation in the main namespace, and a full one in the contionary namespace proper. Besides, the word "term" is typologically unfavourable, having no less than three adjacent letters on a QWERTY keyboard. This almost encourages typographical errors and thus faulty links.

I am still not in accord, and I await your response on DA. Waahlis 23:25, 20 January 2013 (CET)

Hum? The logic I tried to explain was that reading/editing contionary entries is simplified (thus making it easier for new editors etc.) as transparency increases; on the other hand, when wanting to say link a word from a language article a short one-character template is more favourable, even more so as it is similar to existing interwiki linking. Thus in the contionary, according to my proposal, we would find “term” inline which makes contextual sense for the source code of a dictionary entry while “c”/“cw” (for "Contionary/Contionary word")in an article in the main namespace, where it makes contextual sense. Am I making any sense? It's why I argue for there being duple templates.

I personally have not encountered any issues when writing the word term or any similar word such as where/were (three adjacent letters) and am thus sceptical of it being an encouraging factor of typographical errors.

Also, I have responded on DA. Chrysophylax 00:24, 21 January 2013 (CET)

The Etymology thing will be resolved by me! :P  Emperor Zelos 07:21, 21 January 2013 (CET)

Contionary

is the standard contionary outlay done?  Emperor Zelos 17:41, 22 January 2013 (CET)

Yes, see ethnema. Create a Template:New/contionary to be generated at buttons, as well, if you will! :) Waahlis 18:07, 22 January 2013 (CET)

I'd recommend enclosing the more bonus tags such as "derived terms" "antonyms" "synonyms" in HTML comments so we don't get a lot of new entries with "antonyms" "synonyms" "hypernyms" all empty… ;P Chrysophylax 22:55, 22 January 2013 (CET)

Vandalism, Take Two

So, am I guilty yet?
13:34, 2 February 2013 (CET) Er Dessen Name Nicht Genannt Werden Darf

The administrators' discussions have concluded, and administrator Chrysophylax will leave a message at your discussion page. Waahlis 14:25, 2 February 2013 (CET)

DA

Kolla den  Emperor Zelos 16:13, 2 February 2013 (CET)

Igen  Emperor Zelos 18:18, 2 February 2013 (CET)

Äntligen

Nu blir det fan lite lugn igen och vi kan gå tillbaka att få skit att funka igen. Vi måste jobba ut nu hur fan vi agerar som admins här.  Emperor Zelos 14:12, 3 February 2013 (CET)

Whaalis, I suggest all of us admins design some sort of guide/rules how we go about shit when it comes to things like volde  Emperor Zelos 15:20, 5 February 2013 (CET)

I'll consider a policy or the like when Vandalism's done. :) We could go by praxis, but I don't think you'd like that... :P Waahlis 18:55, 5 February 2013 (CET)

after the humongous fuckup on this, I want something written that I can shove in others faces because I find how this was resolved unacceptable.  Emperor Zelos 19:15, 5 February 2013 (CET)

Names

Think there is something behind the latest wave of registrations?  Emperor Zelos 20:10, 12 February 2013 (CET)

No, I actually don't. It'd be unnecessarily difficult to create such cannon fodder accounts. Also, they're not personal enough. :/ Waahlis 20:43, 12 February 2013 (CET)

I don't know, you might have a point. Btw great work on the new front page  Emperor Zelos 21:40, 12 February 2013 (CET)