User talk:Любослов Езыкин

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you are interested in Russia-related topics, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the new article announcements and the project discussion page. You might even want to add these pages to your watchlist.

Again, welcome!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2011; 18:59 (UTC)

Proto
I tried many times to edit a very helpful template for linguistic articles, but template code is a little difficult for me, I can’t get it.

I just need, it looks like lang and etymology templates.

For example should make Proto-Slavic *dva ' two '. Explanation:
 * the language name should be prefixed with Proto- and link to its wiki article if it exists,
 * the word should be in italic, in unicode, have an asterisk before it, and link to its wiktionary article if it exists;
 * the meaning should have the single quotes as it's accepted in linguistics for glosses.

I will sincerely appreciate everybody who would help me to edit this template and to make the similar one in the Russian Wikipedia.


 * Not my field - can I suggest reading Help:Template? posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates? Maybe someone else will suggest other ideas - I'll leave the help me up.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got it doing what you want. There may be a more graceful way of coding it, but  will now appear as you wanted it:, variable one will control both the description, and the language appendix at wiktionary that gets linked, and variable two chooses the page in the appendix. I think that is what you wanted, but it does not check to see if the wiktionary article exists, so for instance  will link to a blank wiktionary page. I don't know if there is a way to check if a wiktionary page exists.  Monty  845  21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention, it seems simpler than I thought. I've just added some common Proto-languages, will it work with them? Now I suppose a link to the Wiktionary is not so necessary as different reconstructed proto-forms exist, and the Wiktionary is scanty, better to delete it from the template at all. As far as I know it is impossible to check the existence of a dictionary entry as #ifexist does not work with interwikis.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, it works!--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, something went wrong...--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-Latin Name
Your user name is OK. but could I ask you to read WP:SIG, Thanks  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, I set up my signature in Latin very long ago, in Cyrillic it can appear only in technical pages such as history and so on. I firstly signed up in the Russian Wikipedia and it automatically registered me here with Cyrillic. How better transliterate my name is shown on my user page.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Russia task forces
Hello! You often make important contributions to the topics related to Russian language. That's why I believe you might be interested in joining WikiProject Russia and some of the project's task forces. In particular, I suggest you to sign up for the Language and literature of Russia, Demographics and ethnography of  Russia and History of Russia. The full list of task forces may be found on the main page of WikiProject Russia, top right corner, or in the Template:WikiProject Russia/Navbox.

Also, here is an invitation for you to give an interview for the Signpost newspaper:
 * The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Russia for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering.

Grey Hood  Talk  18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic
Concerning the series of reverts and semi-reverts between us at Proto-Slavic:
 * I don't have Channon (1971) on hand anymore, but until we can establish that I was an idiot when I included the information from it (like if you have a copy of it yourself), I don't think we can bank on the idea that *eu couldn't change to *u, especially since we're talking about a language where *oi became *ě. If you have a source that says otherwise, or that *ju was an intermediate stage, I'm open-minded.
 * I thought putting the *oi's changes to *ě and *i on the same line might draw people to the footnote a little more strongly, it's otherwise a little confusing/technically inaccurate. This is a minor thing and not worth fighting about if you feel strongly about the way you've arranged it.
 * It seems weird to say that *ě derived "either from *oi or *ai." Even if it's unclear whether the phonetic character of the merger of Proto-Balto-Slavic *o and *a was more a-like or o-like, there is surely a regular way of transcribing it (which I believe is *oi).  Saying it is the source of either of those makes it seem as though it's a tossup as to whether the o-a merger occurred before or after the monophthongization of diphthongs, which I'm pretty sure is false.  Thoughts? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that I have not answered immediately, anyway:
 * 1) I have used wrong verb so it has lead you to misunderstanding. I mean "couldn't" is not about linguistic ability (yes, in Latin *eu has changed to u) but about the real fact. *eu has not changed to a simple u as it has changed to ju~i̯u. So if you write *eu → u you are just simply wrong.
 * 2) I do not clearly understand your point, but maybe it's better to move the explanation about oi* → i from the footnotes to the text.
 * 3) Before I did my "either … or" edit I've tried to clear this subject to myself, but the sole thing I could find that different authors are using different notations, and there is no agreement between linguists as well as a clear explanation of this differences (though I have some guesses). For example (only for English authors): Cubberly (Russian: a linguistic introduction, 2002, p. 22) uses *oi (as well as *ai), Schenker (The Slavonic Languages, 1993, p. 71) uses the "āi+ăi" mix *ā̆i, Lunt (Old Church Slavonic Grammar, 2001, p. 199) uses *ai. But more often in other books it's said that "ě derived either from *oi or *ai", as, I suppose, authors do not want to sort out this hypothetical issue. Because they don't know the phonetic value, they just know cognates from other IE languages (and these cognates contain "either oi or ai"). So I think we must reflect this disagreement to the reader (it would be better if we explain it also) and can not just chose one variant because you think it's "surely a regular way" but there is not such.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that backs that up?
 * We can have a note right below the list of vowels. I'll demonstrate and you tell me if you think it works well.
 * If you are trying to represent scholarly disagreement as to the character of this particular Proto-Balto-Slavic vowel, I don't think that is the best way to do it. It makes it confusing, as I've explained.  Elsewhere in the article, this vowel is represented as *oi, and I think we should be consistent.  The best place to put that sort of parsing is in the last paragraph of the "Split from Indo-European" section, which briefly covers the merger.
 * — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Of course, there are such sources. In every scientific description of Proto-Slavic/Old Slavonic/Slavic languages you can find this change, it's a well-known fact. Here are some examples - Sussex, Cubberly, 2006: 34 and Schenker, 1993: 71 (from the source list in the article). I'm surprised that you don't know it (if you're editing the article "Proto-Slavic", you surely must know it).
 * 2) OK. I don't insist on the form. It's just important not to delete this significant peculiarity at all.
 * 3) The problem is not only in the disagreement between linguists. Actually it is unknown what quality had this pre-yat' diphthong in Late Proto-Slavic. We, of course, can accept that ăi, āi, ŏi, ōi all changed to oi, and use this notation throughout the article in spite of its conventionality. But we should expand or rewrite the "from IE to EPS" and "from EPS to LPS" parts (not only about the merger). Now it is very obscure and insufficient. After the reading of the article it is difficult to comprehend (for a reader) how and from what all these vowels came and what it all means. Maybe later I'll try to add some information.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After taking a second look, I realized that Channon (1971) isn't the source of the *ou > *u entry, it's Padgett (2003), which I do have access to. Here is the relevant quote, with notation altered to fit with the transcription system at Proto-Slavic
 * "'Of particular interest here is the new high central unrounded vowel *y, derived from *ū. This vowel resulted from a chain shift affecting Late Common Slavic whereby the diphthongs *ou and *eu shifted to *u, while former *ū shifted to *y... [Given a shift of *ou to *u,] Common Slavic faced two logical possibilities. First, former *u could remain unchanged, so that the shift would lead to a neutralization of the contrast between *u and former *ou... Alternatively, contrast could be preserved by shifting former *u to a new place, as in (36b). In Common Slavic, it was the latter that occurred...' (p. 71)"
 * So, according to Padgett, both of these diphthongs changed to *u, which explains the existence of *y.
 * Still, it's possible that Padgett is saying something different from the authors you mention. I don't have access to either source.  Do you think you could quote from them as I have done for you? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  18:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely he (or the editor of his work) has make a mistake and just missed j. In all the cases where IE has *eu in Slavic there is ju/ю not u/у. Not only "my" authors saying it but all slavists. This is a bare linguistic fact. For example, already mentioned Cubberly, Russian: a linguistic introduction, 2002, p. 22.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the source you've provided says it became *(j)u, which must be different from *ju. This change is under the header that explains the process is one of monophthongization, but *eu > *ju is not monophthongization.  Maybe the (j) represents a variety of "soft" realizations of a preceding consonant, only some of which are *j.  Does Cubberly or anyone else elaborate on this? — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  19:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Separately from your important remark I've also thought over a little about this thing. J is not a vowel so, from the other point, eu merged with ou/au, but the former being after the soft consonants. It indeed became a monophthong (that is u) but also palatalized any preceding consonant. I suppose that Padgett could miss j intentionally. And in the article j should not be missed but just put into the brackets - (j)u. OK? P.S. See also Lunt (2001), p. 201.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As for oi. After ŏ ō merged with ā ă, only two āi/ăi became possible from four IE diphthongs. Then ā shortened as a part of a diphthong [citation needed here, but now I've forgot in what work it was said]. And finally in Late Proto-Slavic ă rounded to o. So oi-notation has got some sense for me.--Luboslov Yezykin (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think *(j)u is a good choice, though we should provide a note about what (j) means and cite a source that explicitly lays this meaning out. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 21:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Response
Hey. I responded to your comments here--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Jewish_Population_in_Russia_Proper_in_1914. Please respond whenever you can. Also, I have a question--do you know of any sources which state the Jewish population for each SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic) in 1945, 1949, 1950, or some other time in the late 1940s? There was no Soviet census for 20 years between 1939 and 1959, so I'm wondering what the Soviet Jewish population looked like right after World War II. Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One of your statements in your response was unclear. Can you please clarify it? (I told you which statement on that Reference Desk page). Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded to you again. Futurist110 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting 'name' back to 'term' on Kievan Rus' page
Привет, Любослов. I've reverted your change to 'name' from 'term'. I have no particular interest in which is used but, in its context, 'term' is the correct term (pardon the pun). The expression in English is, "The term was coined...", not "The name was coined...". Hope you don't mind. Cheers! EDIT: Scratch that. Someone else already beat me to it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god!
Somebody has corrected my Russian! Thanks. I only took Russian 101, and we never even got to plural or instrumental. Vo mojei familii my ne howorime po-Moskowski, ale "po-naszomu". μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No bother. I just tried to help you to know Russian a little bit better. When you know your own mistakes, you do not make them again next time.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Average computer configuration by years
Answered (finally!). See Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2013 September 3. --220  of  Borg 08:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Soslan
Hi Luboslov, thanks for making that article so much better. Azylber (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Hello, I'm Ukrained2012. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Russkiy Mir Foundation without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Ukrained2012 (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did she put the pepper?
I have a story you might enjoy. My grandmother, who was Rusyn (born in what is now Закарпатская область) used to cook at the Church hall on Saturdays with women from the homeland. They all spoke Rusyn, but there are differnt dialects, and some words differ in placement of stress. The word for pepper is пóпер in her dialect, but her best friend, Anna, accented that word on the final vowel, not the o. One day Anna was cooking soup, and wanted the pepper, which another lady who had already gone home had been using. She couldn't find where the other woman had put it. So, in her accent, instead of asking everyone, "Где пóпер дела?" she asked them, "Где попéр дела?" That was 30 years ago, and I still laugh every time I hear it. μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no offence, but frankly, I don't get it. Can you explain? In Russian there are also many words with two stresses (classic tvórog vs.tvoróg etc.) and this fact does not look funny.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. What does "Где пoпердела" mean in Russian? That is how she pronounced "Где пóпер дела". μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In Russian it's поперде́ла /pəpʲɪrˈdʲelə/ vs. попе́р дела /pɐˈpʲer‿ˈdʲelə/. Close but not enough. But now I understand. :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, interesting, so you do use poper as a word? I thought that was only Rusyn. The point was not that the two expressions are said identically in Rusyn.  They aren't.  The point was that in Anna' dialect where'd she put the pepper was the sam as the rude question in everyone else's dialect. Well, glad you did get the joke. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, only pérets. But I suppose it can be in dialects (I should check). It does not sound rude or funny in Russian as the different stress obscures the humorous similarity. I do not know what is the stress in Rusyn poperdety. Do you? Only on penult or antipenult? :)--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In Old Russian there was пъперъ, поперъ, пьпьръ, пеперъ, which finally became перъ, from which перец (suffix -ец). Пряный "spicy" also came from older пепряный "peppered" (in today Russian the latter is перчёный from перчить "to pepper").--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on the dialect, and since the vowels are not reduced (no akane or ikane); the meaning is usually clear regardless of stress. The original situation was free stress from common slavonic, but there is a strong tendency toward penultimate stress, which forms an isogloss with Polish and Eastern Slovak.  Some examples are in Rusyn, the Russian она and его are wóna and jého, and the -овать infinitives end in -owáti with penultimate stress, unreduced vowels, and в is pronounced /w/ instead of /v/ before a and o (it can also be /v/ and /f/ in other circumstances which I haven't analyzed--probably free variation to some extent.  The greetings at Easter are: "Hrístos voskrés" "Sláwite jého!", so you can see the stress is not always penultimate (although this is like an influence of the liturgy, obviously,  and initial stress in commands is a feature of PIE). μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's ...vo istinu voskres. Slawite jeho is in response to Hristos rozhdajetsja. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Thanks to GoogleBooks! ;) --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Medy?
Ooh, I really don't like that. I'd much prefer Медя and Медина if you want to be friendly. |μηδείς]] (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) :)
 * Not sure if the name of the well-known Arabian city, which in Russian has clear feminine connotations, sounds well. Although I suppose you are joking as usual.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't occur to me that Медина was Medina. I wasn't being very serious but I wasn't joking either.  There's something about "Medy" that strikes me as unattractive, but Медя sounds fine, and I'd laugh out loud if someone said Как всегда, Медина аргумент полное ***. μηδείς (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Medeis, nice to meet you here again. My first impulse was to say that "Medy" doesn't sound bad to me, since it sounds like "Mädi" (alternative dialectal form of German "Mädl", girl), but when I Binged for it, the first page contained mostly links like "Online Puppy Name Picker" or Evagirly's Registrierte Namen für Deutsche Schäferhunde, so I guess it depends on how much you love dogs. &mdash; Sebastian 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I love dogs, but I've seen enough shows about people "upping their meds" to find it has a bad connotation. Plus it sounds like an upperclass British nickname, like "Binky". PS, by Медина I meant the possessive of Медя, not a nominative.  μηδείς (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit I may have Britishisms in my English (though I rather characterize it as "mishmash English"). Do not forget Медина is the feminine nominative form of Медин (e.g. like Федя и Федин друг vs. Федя и Федина подруга).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Signature

 * But I actually came here to ask Любослов about his signature: Do the diacritics in ü, ó, ę, ý tell us anything, or are they just ornaments? &mdash; Sebastian 16:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both. The acutes gives you the right stresses, ‹ü› gives a clue how to pronounce (I dislike ‹yu› or ‹iu› digraphs, a Geraman-like umlaut has much better look). ‹ę› for etymological (Common Slavic *językъ) and ornamental reasons. All them also look simply cool and stylish. Though I wasnae thinking about it too much, I choose them occasionally on a mere one-moment whim. It turned out to be good.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, the diacritics and Cyrillic keep unwanted guests from pinging you too easily. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange things among English irregular verbs (2nd part)
I wish to thank you dear Любослов Езыкин, in fact I can only read French and some English. J'ai lu que vous lisiez aussi le français. Je souhaite vous remercier pour votre remarque qui m'a ammené à poster :  dans le quel je vous cite, et vous pourrez y voir la fameuse page "censurée". Amitiés wikipédiques.--Jojodesbatignoles (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not encourage editors to upload or link to copyrighted material as you did here. This is not allowed under our copyright violations policy. SpinningSpark 14:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, expected, but I didn't expect such fast. Copyright zealots are always on guard. Even though there exists such a rule (which, I believe, aims to articles), but anyway what is terribly unbearably wrong and what harm (especially for the author) could be done with this bad scan of a list of English irregular verbs (pretty obvious well-known thing)? Otherwise, I wonder, how else could the topic starter ask his question and we could answer it if not by committing this petty little sin against the Holy Copyright and looking in the book itself? I understand y'all fear legal complaints against Wikimedia, but sometimes it looks like another copyright anxiety.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Demande de confirmation
Bonjour, votre profil indiquant que vous parlez français, je me permets de vous aborder dans cette langue, afin de vous poser une question qui concerne l'une de vos précédentes modifications sur la page Orthodox cross. En effet, vous êtes le premier utilisateur à avoir parlé de la variante russe de la croix orthodoxe : m'étant récemment intéressé aux origines des éléments constituant cette croix, je voulais savoir d'où vous teniez ces informations pour pouvoir affirmer que les deux objets accompagnant la croix sont la Sainte Lance et la Sainte Éponge. Merci d'avance pour votre réponse. --Embu wiki (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (Excusé-moi, je n'ai pas pratiqué ma français longtemps, c'est un peu difficile à écrire en français pour moi mais je le comprends). La source primaire est la livre par Kouznetsov mais c'est en russe. Il explique très bien tout les détails de "la Croix du Calvaire". Je ne sais pas s'il existent sources en français ou anglais. Tout que j'ai pu trouver j'ai cité à l'article anglais. --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Gnome-edit-redo.svg Любослов Езыкин : No worries, your french is very understandable! But if you want I can speak english to be more easy to understand. You talk about the Calvary Cross by Kouznetsov but unfortunately, after having searched on the web, I didn't found the book... have you a link or a photo of this book? Thank you for your answer. --Embu wiki (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just at the bottom of the article you mentioned. (More problematic is to write, I have to consult with grammar books and dictionary all the time, this is why I gave up editing French Wikipedia - too much effort for me).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers.
Well, that was 20p well spent on two text messages. I am sure you are busy, so your 'thank you' is delayed. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 17:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a while what you was trying to say. Finally I got it. Did you really phone text the guy and spend your money? Well, I didn't expected such a move from you and I thought you've just connected with him through e-mail or FB. I'm confused. I did not answer you just because I did not know what to say else, the topic seemed to be finished (you found out what the accent after all). And I have no habit to press "like" buttons anywhere. I didn't know it's important for you, sorry for that.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This user has a native-like understanding of the Early Cyrillic alphabet.
How old are you to be native to Early Cyrillic :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 03:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Empty cell in Romanzation of Persian
Hi. You left the multi-column cell for gaf empty in your comparison table at Romanization of Persian. I considered putting a "g" there since I thought it was obvious enough, but I figured it would be better for you to since I would have been operating on intuition alone. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Such tables have always got quite a complex syntax, no wonder I missed something.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your edit
Hello. I think you should've made a talk page discussion regarding this blanketing. "May belong" is not really a proper argument to remove that much info, I believe. You basically now rendered the article without any proper usage, even if there were numerous unsourced things. Especially if you're not sure about something (I got that impression from your edit summary), its better not to remove such amounts of info. I might be wrong and perhaps your edit was totally justified and planned, but anyway it never hurts having some extra communication regarding such stuff. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm always happy to answer. I was 100% sure what I was doing, as the article concerns the Persian alphabet, the leading section must as well say about Persian, and not about dozens of alphabets that derived from Arabic. To give you an analogy: in the article about the German alphabet we do not mention Swedish, Finnish, Estonian or what else, just because those languages happen to have the letters äöü.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Small caps
Hi - replied to your question on small caps on the reference desk page. It depends what system you're on a bit. Let me know there if there's more you want to ask about. Blythwood (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Aleksei Vysheslavtsev, title page (1867).jpg
Hello. Do you know what is written on this image File:Aleksei Vysheslavtsev, title page (1867).jpg besides the title of book. I am interested in what is in the captions of the four oval portraits.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider...
...contributing in Wikidata to provide authoritative romanizations as aliases for items originating in Cyrillic-alphabet languages and others of your expertise? I was just about to copy/paste to d:Q1634297 those you added today on the WP:RD/Language query - and as I'm rather new at Wikidata (Edit #1,000 today!) besides having only a patchy knowledge of linguistics and languages, I felt daunted. More significantly, I was impressed by your sourcing the information in your reply.Perhaps the relevant content of that WP:RD/L discussion would best be added to d:Talk:Q1634297? So I'm being bold by approaching you here, and would appreciate your response. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking I'm in a prolonged state of semi-retiring from WP, even if I edit something I rather do it when I'm eager and pleased to do, not when I have to do. I do not set goals. Also I never liked being engaged in meta activity. Sorry about that. Still you are welcome to ask me about any other issues in the area of my expertise (quite limited, frankly), here or in RD/L, I'm always eager to help anybody, of course, if time and my knowledge allow.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Language ref desk
The revert war had ended, and the debate behind it had (I think) been resolved. You'd have done just as well to leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, YOU might have done with leaving it alone, but you thought you couldn't go by without adding something meaningless and raising the issue again with your offtopic comment. So I have had to clear after you once more time. OVER, I do not want to speak about it ever again. You people are unbearable.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that by bringing up the revert war, the ones reverting would stop fooling around within that paragraph and instead bring it up on the ref desk talk page. Either way, the revert war stopped at that point. I don't know why you're yelling at me. Yell at the ones who were involved in the revert war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for my tone. I thought you as well were lecturing me like that person involved. Anyway I did not do harm with clearing the things that did not belong there, I only wanted to do my best. Peace. Let's forget it.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've just made me learn a new slang word, a new suffix and watch a cartoon. Cheerseeny.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, again
I have ordered the Sussex and Cubbersley and downloaded the Atlas files. Again, thanks for your help. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A good complementary addition to that is The Slavonic Languages by Comrie & Corbett, which is structured in another way: "one chapter - one language".--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Isn't the Routledge book the one that mentions Rusyn only once in the index as a dialect of Ukrainian?  I did have a one-chapter one-language book but sold it as focusing too much on contemporary standard languages.


 * Idu do kraju
 * De kurci sraju



μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one. Alright then, don't be bothered. It's a book for those who are interested in general Slavistics and linguistics, while you seem to be concerned only about Rusyn; then probably you might read some sources which cover the Ukrainian dialects (I know you do not like the idea of Rusyn being a dialect, but this is how it's treated by a majority of sources). P.S. I haven't understood, though, what you wanted to say with your last words (yes, I remember that topic at the RD, but what is this silly phrase intended to mean here?).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I am interested in broad linguistics (much broader than just Slavonic) as a whole. I do have a specific, personal, interest in Rusyn (obviously), a philological and practical interest in Russian, and no pro- or anti- opinion of any language.  I was very disappointed with the Routledge book, as I would have been much more interested in Balto-Slavic, Church Slavonic and Ruthenian, which it basically ignored.


 * When I took a semester of pomoskovsky Russian under Gerald Pirog, he shocked me by saying that my idiolectical speech sounded like Old Church Slavonic. The language simply can't be ignored, since, although in many cases it is "intermediate" between Slovak, SE Polish, and Ukrainian it has a large number of apomorphies that mark it out as a separate language, not a mere spot on a dialect continuum.


 * My real interest is in broad and deep linguistic relations, along the line of Greenberg's Eurasiatic languages and Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian. I agree with Gamkrelidze and Ivanov that Germano-Baltoslavic is a valid clade of Indoeuropean.


 * As for the "silly" quote, it's just something I have been told is "bad" Russian, but which is obviously valid on its own level, and directly observed by me "in the field" in the same way that гєй means "yes" and та means "and" in my experience.


 * Nothing I have said should be interpreted as hostile or even in disagreement with your statements. I appreciate your comments greatly, as there are few broad Russophones of any value on the Ref Desks.


 * I did have one question. I use windows 7 and have no program that will open the .dvju files for the linguistic atlas I downloaded.  Is there a program you would recommend I use for that purpose?

Djakuju/djakujem μηδείς (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the book you had disliked and sold out has very good (if not excellent) chapters on Proto-Slavic and Old Church Slavonic by two renown experts on these languages. And while other chapters may be not so much detailed they give a good idea about the modern languages; I sometimes check them out when I want to remind myself some details quickly, even though I have more comprehensive sources at hand. I understand your frustration about that many ignore your beloved ancestral language, but here we have what we have - and it is not very much. Thanks for your kind words.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For viewers I personally use these .--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Romanisation
Hello, I notice you are interested in linguistics and Romanisation like myself. What do you think of Romanising names already written in the Latin script to make them easier to pronounce in English? An example would be Zimmer to Tzimmer/Tsimmer. Rovingrobert (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Never thought about this much. I suppose it is not Romanization as such, but rather adaptation. Turks, Latvians and Lithuanians do this on a regular basis. Many surnames of the immigrants to English-speaking countries have changed their spelling to be more familiar to English speakers. This is a wide topic. What is the context? This may help me to answer more specifically.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I suppose I'm just interested in the topic in general, considering my surname is Polish :) Actually, sometimes it's helpful to translate a name into Russian, then take it back out again. Rovingrobert (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Point (typography)
Hi! I support your recent edits for the most part, but I would prefer we stayed with micrometers instead of millimeters. You have removed several entries from the overview table, the recent redefinitions/approximations of the Didot point included. Why did you do that? — Christoph Päper 12:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would strongly insist on using mm. It is a more conventional and habitual unit than µm (e.g. the inch is expressed in 25.4 mm, not 25,400 µm). We are not measuring something extremely technical and minuscule here. If the matter were about several µm, then OK, use µm. But the numbers here go in hundreds in any case, so why use µm? The only "problem" is one leading zero which I do not see redundant here.
 * Second, I'd tried to do something with the table, but then I simply gave up. It was hard if not impossible to find relevant proper sources, and some were unsourced for more than two years. In any case they are mostly irrelevant and simply overload the table with the unnecessaries.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The micrometer numbers are easier to read and compare because the first three digits are separated from the rest by the decimal point.
 * The TeX and CSS definitions had primary sources. Some other entries were a bit dubious indeed. — Christoph Päper 20:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely doubtful that numbers smaller than µm, that is nanometers or even picometers, are in any way meaningful or relevant in this situation (for comparison, the lead atom is ≈ 0.2 nm ≈ 0.0002 µm). So when we are writing things like 351.45980 µm we are practically using the atomic precision while speaking about typefaces. Which is quite ridiculous, by my opinion. The only reason I've left some numbers after three digits is to show that in theory some points are different (e.g. Didot's and Berthold's). In practice, the difference between the Didot's and Berthold's, or the American, Japanese and TeX points is largely theoretical. Just a reminder, most common-purpose printers print at 300-600 DPI, while phototypesetting equipment works at 2400 DPI. That is even elaborate professional equipment cannot reproduce points smaller than 0.01 mm (or rather it does not make much sense).
 * My other point I've already mentioned, but I'll elaborate. For me it is actually µm that are harder to read and mentally parse. I do not see any obstacles in using mm, even with the decimal fractions of hundreds and thousands. They are actually easier to count, parse and compare being whole numbers after the point. But what may be more important µm are not used in typography. As I said, the inch is most usually expressed in mm, decimal points are expressed in mm (either 0.25, 0.375 or 0.4 mm) and never in µm, non-decimal points are expressed as well in mm (see, for example, the Japanese standard JIS Z 8305 that explicitly uses mm, or DIN, or whatever). So it is actually easier to convert between inches expressed in mm and points expressed in the same mm.
 * And rather a technical argument. Apart 351.45980 µm being ridiculously precise, the notation used in the table before ($\overline{351.45980}$) is mathematically incorrect. A correct one could have been 351.45980$\overline{35145980}$ (or 351.4598$\overline{03514598}$). But a more elegant and simple solution is to stick to mm.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for TeX and CSS: they are both mentioned and sources are given.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant Mozilla's  and Antenna House's   definitions, which were sourced.
 * I just checked Perinorm again. DIN 16507-1:1998 (for lead typesetting) uses a modulus of exactly 0.375 mm for public communication but the historic measure of 0,376065 mm for actual type casting. DIN 16507-2:1999 (for digital and photo typesetting) uses a modulus of exactly 0.25 mm for font sizes and line heights (and a secondary one of 0.05 mm). This hasn't changed in the past 40 years. Sadly, none of the pre-1980s standards are available as PDF. THe only standard in the database that (still) has Didot and Cicero as keywords is Finnish SFS 2544.
 * According to GNU Units documentation, it has the original Didot point as 1/72 of 1/12 French foot, which is 144/443.296 m, and it also has a Berthold point at 1/2660 m, German point at 0.376065 mm and metric point "proposed in 1977 by Eurograf" at 3/8 mm. Another source confirms that this "Organisation of printing federations in the EEC" adopted 375 mm as the new definition for the Didot point from 1978. Alas, it's hard to find anything about Eurograf online that would count as a reliable source, but at least it provides some more insight into the vague reference made in the pdftex source. (Knuth's TeX Book page 57 does not mention  and   and neither does tex.web in §458.) — Christoph Päper 00:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't include little known definitions. I have no idea who are Antenna House, I never heard about them. If they want to use their own in-house point size, incompatible with others, in their software only, it is OK by me, but I see no reason why we should include it. Mozilla's dt looks like they simply took the well-known 0.376 mm definition, but did not know for sure what they were doing and made up their own equation. Surely, 16 PS points and 15 Didot points are very very close, but that does not mean they are exactly equal; creating from this a new definition of the Didot point would be incorrect. I'm not sure where they got this equation at all. The year 1997 looks misleading: Mozilla's browser was released in 2002, and even if there were the dt unit in the original source code, where was it used, ever? So in 2009 they simply dropped it out. So why mention this accidental peculiarity existed 7 years at best?
 * I do not see why we should use second-, third-, etc. hand sources. The GNU document, you cited, makes some erroneous claims. Fournier did not based his unit on cicero: one simply can read what he wrote himself to know that. Firmin Didot could not do anything in 1881, he died in 1836; neither Ambroise-Firmin Didot (died 1876). This unit existed at least at the beginning of the 19th century and Firmin Didot could indeed have something to do with it (though, sources are uncertain). Overall, the document does not seem very trustworthy. I have no idea about Eurograf, etc. Maybe this is the source of the 0.375 mm definition, and hence TeX's nd. Maybe not. We have no clear clue. I would not make any conclusion on this shaky basis. I'd rather not include anything, unless we have a good source.
 * I'm not sure I understood your second paragraph. You mean 0.375 mm is from DIN? Probably this is the source. But it dates to 1998, not 1977 or 1978. I've already mentioned 0.376065 mm in the running text, not in the table, though. I have no idea where they got it. Do you? I'm not sure how the ...065 part is important; I doubt the technology of those days could work at such a precision anyway.
 * But I agree to add 0.25 and 0.375 citing DIN, this is not controversial. As for pre-1980 standards, I have Soviet GOST 3489.1-71 using the 0.376 mm point.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * DIN added the handy 0.375 mm alongside 0.376065 mm in the late 70s or early 80s. I sadly cannot access those standards online, but both values are still there in the current standard for typecasting although it probably isn't used much any more. The rounder value is specifically intended for interfacing with customers etc., while the value with more digits shall be used in actual measurements. German law did not allow custom units since the 1970s, so these are listed as measures instead.
 * I've now found out that 'nd' and 'nc' have only been added in 2005 to pdftex and are still not available in all TeX dialects.
 * I'll have to think about whether I agree that Mozilla's and Antenna House's redefinitions are not noteworthy. — Christoph Päper 15:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Help request for mapping section titles
Hi. We (the Research Team at Wikimedia Foundation) are building an algorithm that will align Wikipedia article sections across languages. For improving this algorithm we need the help of multilingual Wikipedia editors to provide true statements to the algorithm. You are contacted because based on your Babel template and/or content translation tool usage you know at least two of the following languages: ar (Arabic), fr (French), ja (Japanese), en (English), es (Spanish), ru (Russian).

(Note: by clicking the links in the following paragraph, you will be taken to Google spreadsheet.) If you'd like to help us with translating a subset of the section titles on or before 2018-05-01, please read and follow the instructions. If you see instructions in another language, please scroll down to find your preferred language. If you have questions about this message, you can contact us via Diego. Thank you! :) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Gamkrelidze-Ivanov Hypothesis
More idiomatic in English than The Hypothesis of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov would be The Gamkrelidze-Ivanov Hypothesis (cf. in mathematics The Riemann Conjecture, etc.). Also, be aware of two points you'll have to have good arguments for: (1) There might not have been an easy common name in widespread use for that hypothesis before 2006 that everyone referred to. In which case people may argue that The Gamrkelidze-Ivanov Hypothesis is also made up terminology. They may have a point, but the answer to this is that it is a lot more neutral than The Armenian Hypothesis. Insofar as WP needs a title for every article, it is acceptable that it, in some sense, makes up a label, if there is not one in common use, if only to name the article, but if it does, it should be the most neutral one possible. In such cases there would have to be a paragraph in the article explaining the history of the terminology and the choice made by WP editors. (2) Some people may object that others than G & I have since developed the theory and it can no longer be fairly attributed to G & I alone. I don't have an easy answer for that for the moment (I'll think about it and look for analogous cases) but I encourage you to think about this issue. Cheers. Basemetal 15:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've created the request rather to follow all the formalities and for voting. I do not think I have much to add. I've spent quite a lot of time on this, so I'll probably retire from the subject if nothing needed my direct attention happens.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. Don't forget to vote, though. Basemetal  15:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

World map update required
HI Любослов, I was just looking at the page on American and British English spelling differences and saw your colour coded map there: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Defence_Defense_Labour_Labor_British_American_spelling_by_country.svg.

I'd like to suggest an edit, please - you have Australia coloured red and cited as having English as an official language. While you are correct about the dominance of 'defence/labour/organise', the truth is that Australia has no official language. This map needs updating to reflect that English is a de facto national language only. More information/clarification is available on the Languages of Australia page.

I would do it, but I don't have the first clue as to how, so hoping you can do this..? Lucd13 ☭ (talk)  11:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Notelist problem
Dear Luboslov Yezykin. I found an old Help Desk question of yours from the 9 June 2017 called "Cite errors again (refs within efn)" where you asked about refs inside efns defined in a list within Notelist. John of Reading tried to help you. I think I have run into exactly the same problem as you did. I tried to define several explanatory footnotes in a list under "Notelist|refs=" in several articles that I edited. Cite errors are thrown for each ref in the last of the explanatory notes in the list when the list contains more than one efn. However, everything seems to work fine. The included refs are linked correctly and can be read by the readers. These bothersome Cite errors seem to be superfluous. See e.g. Antoine Hamilton or Frances Talbot, Countess of Tyrconnell or George Hamilton (French soldier). Did you get any further with this? What do you think I should do? With many thanks! Johannes Schade (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)