Adam78

Archive: January 2019 – October 2023.

rézen, rezen

If you want to add a second superessive form to réz and tehén, the correct template is {{hu-decl-ek}}. The old declension used {{hu-decl-ek|tehé|n|et|stem=tehen|sup=tehén}} which displayed the same table as the current {{hu-infl-nom|tehene|e|stem2=tehén}}. Also check out {{hu-decl-ok}} for the documentation of the sup parameter (this documentation should also be added to {{hu-decl-ek}}). The spe_sg line is getting too complex for me to make changes. Panda10 (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I managed to expand it. (The parameter "stem" could also be documented, although there is an example for its use below.) Adam78 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Suffix definition format

I'm in the process of updating the suffixes to bring them up to standard. I'm almost done with the conjugational suffixes but since some of them are identical to noun-forming suffixes, I'd like to know what you think about adding {{ngd}} and rephrasing the definition.

Example current format:

(noun-forming suffix) Added to a noun or a verb to form a noun.

Proposed format (with {{ngd}} and rephrasing):

(noun-forming suffix) Forms nouns from nouns and verbs.

Finnish editors use the latter. Another option is to leave it as is, or just adding {{ngd}}. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This might not be a good idea. I'm reading other definitions, such as "Added to a stem to form a verb to indicate repetitive action. No longer productive.", or "Added to a cardinal number to form a fraction." Not sure how to rephrase these if I wanted to follow the above proposal. Maybe I just should add {{ngd}}. Panda10 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:str crop

Hi - please don't blindly copy templates from Wikipedia. Theknightwho (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Could you please adjust it so it can work? Adam78 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam78 The correct template is Template:str rightmost. In future, please ask at the WT:Grease pit if you don't know, because copying templates from Wikipedia leads to a lot of duplication and creates a maintenance headache for those of us who maintain templates and modules. Theknightwho (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Theknightwho I'm afraid you overlooked something. "Crop" was meant to remove the last N characters, while rightmost results in the rightmost N characters. I need the former function, so {{crop|abcd|1}} should yield "abc", rather than "d" (the result of str rightmost). So what is the recommended procedure now? Adam78 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam78 {{#invoke:string|sub|[your string]|1|-2}} will crop the final character. Theknightwho (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I thought I'd have to resort to #expr and str len, but this solution is nicer.

You might as well consider creating an appropriate "str crop" though, since it exists on Wikipedia, so users can rightfully expect it to exist on Wiktionary as well, which is specialized in manipulating words. Adam78 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adam78 The issue with templates like that is that they don't have very intuitive names, whereas the functions in Module:string are generally more powerful which means they can be applied in a wider set of circumstances. That makes code easier to understand, compared to having {{str right}}, {{str rightmost}}, {{str left}}, {{str crop}} etc. all doing similar but slightly different things. Theknightwho (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

{{hu-conj-szom-ud-usz}}

This template is listed in User:JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors as having a bad parameter (2 with value of ud). I checked the template and there is no parameter 2 in the code, only in the documentation. There are 7 instances (alszik, elalszik, etc.), is it okay if I remove the ud parameter from those entries? Also, please double check Jeff's error list, there are other Hungarian templates with errors. I corrected those that were clear to me but the new conjugation templates are too complex for me to understand. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Panda10 Thank you! I corrected those that don't affect widely use templates (out of caution) and I implemented the parameter as it had been already documented for {{hu-conj-eszik}}. Many instances are not listed at hu-conj, though, only the first ten. Do you think we could ask the bot admin to let us see the full list for this section?

On the other hand, I'm looking for a solution to have the archaic second-person-singular -l form of non-sibilant-stem -ik verbs displayed among their other also-subj forms, such as mosdol for mosdik, of course in parentheses and/or in a smaller font (cf. Nyelvi változások a korban → Alaktani kérdések). It's theoretically encoded but it's still not displayed. I think all the other archaic forms mentioned here have been already included in these new templates. Adam78 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for making the corrections. I updated the documentation for {{hu-conj-szom-ud-usz}}. Jeff is regenerating the error list in every few days or weeks, I'm sure you can ask him to provide all instances for hu-conj. I don't know what to do about the visibility of the archaic second-person-singular. Grease pit would be the best place to ask. Panda10 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

fürdik, pottyant

When I try to save changes to the above two verbs, I get the same warning message:

Warning: Template:hu-conj-unified is calling Template:hu-conj-unified/doWork with more than one value for the "sz-asz-ol" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used.

I was able to save the corrections I made, I just wanted to let you know about the warning. Panda10 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Panda10 Thank you; I think I've fixed it. Adam78 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

taxis

This is listed in István Tótfalusi (2005), Idegenszó-tár: Idegen szavak értelmező és etimológiai szótára [A Storehouse of Foreign Words: An Explanatory and Etymological Dictionary of Foreign Words], Budapest: Tinta, →ISBN as /takszisz/ and both senses are biology related. Panda10 (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I found it too. I left a bit long hidden commentary in the code, the following: the only source seems to be Tótfalusi, but he doesn't distinguish between the senses, and I couldn't find any biology text(book)s where "takszisz" or "taxisz" is given as a recommended pronunciation; apparently, it's tacitly supposed to be pronounced the same way as it's written, with an [ʃ] sound (?); also, scientific words from Greek roots are normally transliterated in educational texts, cf. szintaxis, not *syntaxis in Hungarian. Therefore, if a Greek word is written in a contemporary Hungarian text with an "s" (not "sz"), I'd rather assume it's an [ʃ] sound. We should possibly confirm it somehow. Adam78 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Both senses are listed in Gábor Tolcsvai Nagy (2007), Idegen szavak szótára ⁠ [A Dictionary of Foreign Words], Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, →ISBN. It also lists a third one as -taxis (utótagként, as in fototaxis). Pronunciation of the biology term is /takszisz/, and of the utótag /-takszisz/. Panda10 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The same is in Bakos, Ferenc. Idegen szavak és kifejezések szótára (’A Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases’). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 2006. →ISBN . Panda10 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I find it a bit unlikely that such an important piece of information (pronouncing the "s" as "sz") would be omitted from educational materials such as this or this, especially if it's contrary to the practice of writing common scientific words phonetically (and pronouncing them as written) and especially if its prefixes are spelled in accordance with pronunciation e.g. in fototaxis and kemotaxis (as opposed to phototaxis, chemotaxis, which would suggest [sz]). Anyway, I've just sent an email on this matter to the language consulting service of Hungarian Research Centre for Linguistics. Maybe they'll have the time to reply before Christmas. I wonder if they can possibly consult a biologist or biology teacher to find out the actual usage common among the experts. Adam78 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Potemkin

Kérlek, nézd meg, amit a Potemkin-falu angol szócikkhez írtam, ha az időd engedi. Hogy ti. a Potemkin Patyomkin-ként is kiolvasható-e, vagy ez inkább hülyeség. :) Részben Osiris alapján jutottam e vélekedésre. Előre is köszönöm! – Javítgató (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Nekem ez kicsit merésznek tűnik, de hát végül is ha azt vesszük, hogy az írás terén kevésbé újít az átlagember, míg a kiejtés megmarad, végül is el tudom képzelni. De nem igazán tudom. :) Adam78 (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Igen, és ezzel, úgy tűnik, itt nem szegünk helyesírási szabályt.

Ám kicsit utánanéztem közben: AkH, OH, Wp., Magyar nagylex. (e téren vsz. elavult), E-nyelv.hu – és erre jutok:

• Григо́рий Алекса́ндрович Потёмкин nevének ún. magyaros átirata Grigorij Alekszandrovics Potyomkin;
• az Eisenstein-filmben megörökített hadihajó vonatkozásában viszont a Patyomkin páncélos / cirkáló (korábban meghonosodott) írásmód van kodifikálva,
• a faludíszletes történelmi fikcióra és metaforára pedig a szintén hagyományos Potemkin-falvak írásváltozatot rögzítették.

Kicsit bonyolult. (Megjegyzem, mindez ki volt jegyzetelve a Potemkin-falu szócikk alján, köhömm…)

E-nyelv.hu: 2017. VI. 06. megerősíti ezeket. 2023. VIII. 15. viszont Patyomkin-díszlet, Patyomkin-demokrácia megoldást javasol – mostani megítélésem szerint tévesen, de, gondolhatjuk, jelezve a nyelvhasználatbeli változást, a filmhez kötődő névalak átvonódását a faludíszletre. Inkább komplett, hangalak+írásképi behelyettesítésnek fognám fel ezt a cserét, tisztább úgy, azaz: Potemkin-falu [potemkin falu] → *Patyomkin-falu [patyomkin falu] („halványuló csillaggal”). Úgyhogy mégsem keverném rá a Potemkin-falu-ra a fonetikusabb hangalakot. (A Dunning–Kruger-dombság nyugati régiójában.) – Javítgató (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Nagyon köszönöm, hogy ilyen alaposan utánanéztél! Adam78 (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:hu-conj-ok/documentation/flag parameters

Something has pushed this past the maximum include size, so it's now in CAT:E. I suspect it will have to be split further, but you would know better than I would. Good luck! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the notification. I think I've fixed it. @Panda10 for the record. Adam78 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Verb forms in derived terms section

Does it make sense to list verb forms in the ====Derived terms==== section when they are already in the conjugation table? For example, olvasás, olvasó, olvastat, olvasott, olvasható olvashatatlan. Panda10 (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Panda10 In most cases, I'd definitely say no. However, I'd allow for exceptions, for example when the given derivation has a common meaning that cannot be derived from its form (e.g. ebédlő (“dining room”) at ebédel, although it would also deserve inclusion because it's different from the participle ebédelő). When we make such an exception, we could make use of <t:meaning> right after the link to justify the seemingly redundant inclusion. Do you agree? Adam78 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It will take a long time to clean it up, but at least we have a direction. Thanks. Panda10 (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Reference section

Adam and @Einstein2: There is a specific user (previously Shumkichi, now blocked under this name) who uses either IP addresses or different new login names and adds Hungarian and Polish entries. She regularly adds SZTAKI and Nagyszótár in the reference section even if the entry does not exist in those references. I myself don't like this practice, there is no reason to add dead links to an entry. I also question the addition of SZTAKI as a reference, since it is not an official dictionary but to my knowledge it is maintained by volunteers. What do you think? Panda10 (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Panda10 I don't agree with having dead links, even if these links can be reasonably expected to come into being at a later point in time. Links like this should be removed, in my opinion.

As for SZTAKI, I'm not particularly happy with it, but I also understand that a less reliable (bilingual) reference is better than no such reference at all. Maybe some advisory note could be added to the SZTAKI template to clarify its provenance. Also, maybe we could offset it by adding some other bilingual reference (like Hunglish.hu or any other bilingual online dictionary entry) which can confirm the meaning. Do you think it could help? Adam78 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Panda10 I agree with removing links to these Nagyszótár/SZTAKI entries. As for bilingual dictionaries, I think they should be referenced only when they provide added value for the reader (compared to the information in our entries), and I'm not aware of any high-quality, easily available reference work that would merit mass addition to entries. At present, szotar.net from Akadémiai Kiadó appears to be the best option, although the number of searchable works is limited without subscription. Einstein2 (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Adam and @Einstein2: The only extra in SZTAKI is the machine-generated audio pronunciation. Otherwise, I don't see a huge advantage. It's slow, full of ads and the first thing users see is a data acceptance screen about "do not process my personal information". I honestly don't know if adding some advisory note to the template would help. Thank you both for your helpful thoughts. I always value your opinion. Panda10 (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Pronunciation section in multi-word terms

Adam and @Einstein2: I don't normally add hyphenation, syllabification, and rhymes to Hungarian multi-word terms (only IPA). Someone questioned this approach and I wanted to confirm that this is still our policy and we are continuing to avoid using these templates in multi-word entries. Panda10 (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree. Adding irrelevant, redundant information is simply robbing the reader of their time and taking them for fools. For God's sake, we're living in 2026 when we're already flooded with noise on each and every channel (posters, ads, commercials, junk mails). There's no need for more noise. Adam78 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Foreign word endings

Adam and @Einstein2: There is a complaint about the "suffix" -őr at Request for verification. I included these foreign word endings based on Attila Mártonfi's PhD Dissertation. Does it make sense to keep them? They are also listed in the Hungarian suffixes appendix. Panda10 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Panda10 and @Einstein2: I left a reply there, expanded the entry, and removed two examples. Adam78 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. That was masterful. :) Panda10 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Új magyar etimológiai szótár

Did something happen to the online version? I can no longer reach it. Have you heard anything about discontinuing it? Panda10 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

@Panda10 I doubt they'd want to discontinue it, though I have no specific information whatsoever. By the way, Nagyszótár is not available either. I've worded an email but I haven't sent it yet. I assume they are aware of the problem. I hope these resources will come back online next week or so. If not, I'll send them a request to look into it. Adam78 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait a few days. Thank you. Panda10 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2026 (UTC)