User talk:Atelaes

Archived discussions for 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2011

Hi Jesse. It's great to see that you're adding entries for the Ancient Greek names for the letters of its own alphabet. Your additions are valued. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for stopping by my talk page. I took a 10-week course on Classical Etymology at UCLA a quarter-century ago, which doesn't make me an expert, but at least has exposed me to the concepts. Right now, I've run into a bit of a brick wall: Liddell & Scott's article on ὄα, a fruit tree, mentions that its fruit is called the ὄον. In trying to create the article for "ὄον", I was unable to find any information on the genitive form. Paradigms of the 2nd declension neuter aren't much help, because one would expect vowel contraction might play a role. I was able to find ῥόον, which Perseus' word study tool says has ῥόου as the genitive, but I'm not sure enough that it would be the same, and omitting the genitive causes grc-noun to incorrectly mark it as indeclinable. I have a feeling there may not enough information for a perfect solution, so I would appreciate advice on the best imperfect solution if that turns out to be true. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I share your expectation that vowel contraction would occur, however I think that we can reasonably assume that, at least in some cases, it doesn't, as evidenced by the nominative, which should contract to οὖν or something. So, I think we could expect the genitive to be ὄου. I think it'd be within good sense to put that in the headline, and simply use {{grc-decl-2nd-pax|ὄ}} for the inflection. Another option, seeing as the word is rare, and we don't have evidence of a lot of the inflections, is to put a question mark as the second parameter for {{grc-noun}}. Do either of those feel satisfactory to you? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had considered the question mark option, but didn't know if it was acceptable practice. I've now created the entry. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can I please ask why you have removed my Admin request from the POV Page? I am simply asking for an independent opinion on an article which I feel is unfairly biased. I have tried to insert a politically neutral statement but other editors keep overruling it with partisan statements. I would simply like an independent view on the situation. Thank You Christian58 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

For starters, the page you edited is inactive, and clearly marked as such. It's not supposed to be edited. Secondly, SemperBlotto was not POV pushing, he was common Wiktionary standards pushing. You started by removing a valid example sentence on Tories, which he reinstated (something any administrator here would do, because we like having example sentences). You then replaced the example sentence with an invalid example sentence (example sentences are not supposed to define the word, also they are supposed to use proper English). SemperBlotto has since gone out of his way to satisfy the needs of the project while acquiescing to your valid complaint that the example sentence was not really ideal, by replacing it with a more neutral quotation from actual text. As I see it, there is nothing left to be resolved. You should probably leave SB a note of thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

First of all, thanks for letting me know about the adjective form issue. I've been doing that for noun forms, and wondered if I should do the same for adjectives. Now I know. Never feel self-conscious about pointing such things out. I would much prefer a polite "word to the wise" to finding out I've been doing things wrong thousands of times. Now for my question: what do I do about Ancient Greek entries with macrons, such as πολῑτικός? Judging by a note on WT:GRC TR, the macron is only rarely indicated, and I don't have a source for inflected forms that shows them, as far as I can tell. That means that the inflected forms won't match the lemma, and could give the false impression that only the lemma has the long vowel. I'm tempted to move the lemma to the form without the macron, but one can never be sure there's not a good reason for something to be there, unless one asks. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012

I'm curently on my phone, which doesn't show polytonic characters, so I'm seeing a blank space between the lambda and the tau, which I'm ag to be an iota with a macron. If I make any odd-sounding comments, it might because I'm not seeing the character properly. What we're doing with vowel length markers is similar, though slightly different, to Latin. Essentially, they're not part of the entry title, not in the transliteration, and not really anywhere outside of the entry itself. There are three places within the entry page itself where they can be noted. {{grc-iparows}} takes a double a, i, or u, and tbis is reflected in the resulting IPA. Most (all?) of the headline templates take a 'head' parameter, which can have vowel le gth markingsand will display them in the headline. Finallyy, the markers can be inputted into the inflection table templates. Each parameter has a display counterpart. The display parameter is simply the sequence number followed by a lowercase v. So if the first parameter has a marker, input it like normal, and then do '1v=marked form'. The resulting table will link to unmarked forms, but display marked forms. That's probably rather confusing, so ill try and ddo an example when I have access to a real computer. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just tried to move the page and discovered that there's already a page for πολιτικός, containing the Greek (el) entry.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it's all sorted. πολῑτικός has been merged with πολιτικός (which is a little messy, but it works. Going through the revisions one by one in order is surreal :-)). I have also noted the long iota in the three places I mentioned previously: the pronunciation section, the head line, and the inflection table (check the links on the inflection table). Hopefully it'll be a little easier to understand by seeing than by reading my wordy (and utterly and embarrassingly misspelled) explanation. Let me know if you have any questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have been and believe we ought to be adding macra to the transliterations as well, as I did to πολιτικός. Is there a specific reason why we shouldn't? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The first reason you shouldn't, and why you should undo your most recent edit to πολιτικός, is because that is simply the standard, one which has been reached by ongoing discussion between Ancient Greek editors and other interested parties. For a deeper reason, you have to stop and think about what the purpose of a transliteration is. A transliteration is meant to allow people unacquainted with Greek characters and without the time to look at the IPA pronunciation on the entry page, to get a rough grasp on the pronunciation of a word. By its very character, it is rough and sloppy. In general, anything beyond Latin characters is going to be meaningless to the average English speaker (which is the target audience of our transliterations, mind you). Quite frankly, I would be totally ok with getting rid of the macrons on the e's and o's, and transliterating ε and η, ο and ω identically because I don't think most of our audience is getting anything meaningful from those characters, or at least nothing accurate. I'm also ok with keeping them, as at least some English speakers might accurately grasp that they're similar, but different sounds, as they've been taught long and short vowels (which are typically indicated by macrons) like the different between 'hat' (short a) and 'hate' (long a). However, vowel length is such a minuscule irrelevant phonological difference that I flatly refuse to further complicate our transliterations for them, especially when we would then have macrons meaning two completely different things, depending on what vowel they were over. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK; by your request, I removed the macron. I still think it should be there, because: 1) transliterations of Ancient Greek already use macra for eta and omega, so why not long alpha, iota, and upsilon? 2) such treatment leads to interlinguistic consistency with Latin, and 3) it is an interesting datum whether vowel length is preserved for a given word from Ancient Greek into Latin and further into English (the long iota became (deprecated template usage) ī in Latin, but was reduced to (deprecated template usage) ĭ in English). Still, I shan't press the issue. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's oneinterpretation I've seen of transliteration, and Stephen seems to be using it when working with Arabic transliterations. However, I've always understood transliteration to exist quite apart from any considerations of pronunciation. Transliteration is meant to transcribe the character sequence in a consistent and reproducible way for readers unfamiliar with foreign script, or for computer entry in QWERTY or ASCII based datasets. This often coincides with pronunciation, but not always. The Library of Congress system for w:Romanization of Russian is an example of my viewpoint. Each Cyrillic character has a Romanized counterpart, irrespective of the pronunciation held by that character in context. The advantage is that the Romanization process is reversible to recover the Cyrillic. -EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

We've been using a pronunciation-based approach for Hebrew transliteration as well, since it's hard to imagine the reader who would benefit from our listing a heavily-diacriticked spelling-based transliteration right next to the Hebrew. I mean, look at ]. Would you find pryymryz to be more useful? —Ruakh_TALK 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

@EP: Yes, there are two common uses of transliteration. One is to give a rough pronunciation to those unfamiliar with the script, and one is to precisely represent the script when the actual script is unavailable, for example in ASCI-only environments. However, Wiktionary does not qualify for the latter. On Wiktionary, every single time a transliteration is presented, it is on the same line as the real script. There might be a few cases of extremely esoteric languages, where Unicode does not cover their script, and in those cases I would support a more complicated, unintelligible, and precise transliteration method. Ancient Greek is most certainly not one of those cases, so your argument seems moot. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

1. Is the first parameter for {{grc-verb}} always equal to an entry name? {1} = {PAGENAME}? Or is it something different? 2. Grc-verb is an old conjugation template and was created years ago when we didn't have conjugation tables. Now, when we have full conjugation tables, these forms in the headword line are unneccesary, aren't they? So we don't need them there? Should we keep them only if there is no conjugation table, right? Maro 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The first parameter is usually equal to the PAGENAME, but not always. ὁράω (horáō) and εἶπον (eîpon) are two counterexamples. You may want to read Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Ancient_Greek_headline, where I explain the situation in detail. But, in short, yes, {{grc-verb}} is indeed an old template, and was constructed before we had full verbal inflection tables. Once I get the display format for the inflection tables settled, then yes, we could start removing that information from the headline. However, I have not yet settled it, so I don't think we want to start removing that information just yet. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to be so abrupt as to simply revert your edits, but please, could we just wait on this? For starters, the new version shouldn't have spots for all the principle parts. That's the whole point. Second, as you've got it set up, it states the present twice, which just looks silly. I appreciate your efforts in this, but we're simply not ready for that step yet. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so tell me how the present form should display? For example for ὁράω. If the first parameter is different than PAGENAME, it will be visible as on ὁράω, if not, it won't be visible. Is this a good solution? Maro 12:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I realize this may sound somewhat disheartening, but I don't think we're ready for a new version of {{grc-verb}} just now. There are simply too many things in flux. Once the inflection table format is figured out, a bot will need to be written to extract the headline information and create inflection tables from it, and change the headline parameters. Once all that is sorted, we'll be ready to institute a new version of {{grc-verb}}. Anything before that would be jumping the gun, I think. I am truly sorry if I previously gave any incorrect impressions on this, and thus wasted the time you spent crafting an admirable new template. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand you. The new version of the template changes NOTHING instead of adding two new parameters (tr= and sort=), and removing words "unknown" from the entries if some parameters are not given.

Please look for πλεονάζω.

All old parameters (1-7) are kept in the new version, so all entries look the same. It can be also used for new entries, like for example instead of {{head|grc|verb|tr=kleō|sort=κλεω}} one can use {{grc-verb|tr=kleō|sort=κλεω}}.

Please check the template and tell me what else is wrong. Just edit some page, copy and paste the inflection line to a new line and replace {{grc-verb}} with {{User:Maro/grc-verb}} and use Preview.

ἔραμαι:

• Lua error in Module:grc-headword at line 196: Too many numbered parameters containing Greek text or hyphens. There can be at most 1.
• Atelaes present: ἔραμαι, ἐράω future: ἐρασθήσομαι aorist: ἠρασάμην perfect m/p: ἤρασμαι aorist passive: ἠράσθην Maro 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, that really is a distinct improvement, and will serve us well through the transition to the new format. I'm still not sold on the need for the 'lacking transliteration' category, but I can't see how it will hurt anything, in any case. I apologize for my obstinance earlier. You caught me just as I was going to bed, and my brain wasn't in the thinking mood. Please go ahead and insert the new code. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks :) Maro 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was surprised to find this entry marked for attention. Obviously it seemed okay at the time I created it, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. I haven't asked Metaknowledge why it needs attention, because that might be perceived as defensive/confrontational.

I took it from the Perseus version of LSJ , using the first form, but ignoring the breve. The word study tool there does make it look like λαγῶς would be the main entry . Should I create the latter entry and mark this as a variant? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Absent-mindedness strikes again: I was so concerned about getting the Greek wrong that I didn't even notice that I had left out the definitions! Never mind Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please note: I would not take that as being confrontational. Honestly. I don't bite. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind cleaning this one up? Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've given it some love. Let me know if there's anything else you think it needs. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

i responded on my talk page, this place confuses meLucifer (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again this is a wiki and what you said to be is ridiculous. This is not a project some people that have been here longer own and I really dislike and reject your tone. I don't add any questionable terms and I cite nearly everything.Lucifer (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

De facto, we currently include some Ancient Greek terms which are only ever mentioned, like θεπτάνων; de jure, as far as I can tell, only uses are allowed... there's discussion at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-04/Languages with limited documentation#Extinct_languages_and_mention about whether or not to formally allow mentions. There's also discussion at #inappropriate_as_a_sole_source about whether or not to require the creators of any new entry in an extinct language like Ancient Greek to supply at least one citation of use at the time they create the entry. Care to express an opinion on either issue? - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I need to do a lot of background reading to participate in that discussion. Rest assured I will do so when I'm a bit less hung over, but it might take some time. In any case, my very sincere thanks for cluing me in to the discussion. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I sincerely appreciate the follow-up to the discussion. You make excellent points. Unfortunately, however, I've decided to drop extinct languages for the current vote. There is a lot of potential controversy already, and I am concerned that including extinct languages would result in a no pass. If the current vote passes, I would like to consider adding language that allows mentions for extinct languages. I hope we can broaden the criteria in a way that makes Wiktionary better! In the meantime, I hope you will vote on the current proposal when the voting begins :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That seems sensible. I have every intention to vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if Wiktionary has a preferred usage for these terms. We seem to have an unpopulated Category:Byzantine Greek language. I was just editing κοντούρα and moved the existing entry to grc. Before creating a context template (similar to {{katharevousa}}) for Byzantine (if the word IS Byzantine) I thought I ought to seek opinion. — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 06:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

A regular google search places Medieval as more common, but a scholarly search favors Byzantine. The Wikipedia article is titled Medieval. I guess I have a slight preference for Medieval, though I'd be hard pressed to justify it. Perhaps Flyax has an opinion? In any case, I certainly agree that we need to standardize. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

My main question is about time limits. After N.Andriotis, the medieval period ends in 1453, but Kriaras' "Dictionary of Medieval Vulgar Greek Literature (1100-1669)" goes up to 1669 and Bambiniotis in the preface of his dictionary considers this period lasting untill 1821! So the terms Medieval and Byzantine do not necessarily coincide. I think that "medieval" is preferable when we want to speak about the evolution of the ancient Koine to modern Demotic, whereas "Byzantine" fits the period from 330 to 1453 but covers both the learned and vulgar literature. --flyax (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Huh. I guess I thought the two were perfectly synonymous. I have to admit I don't really have a good sense about which would work better. It seems to me that an ideal division point would be a point where the language either largely disappears, or undergoes some relatively rapid change. Alexander's conquests fit this rather well, as he produces, in an instant so to speak, an entire empire of Greek-speakers, where there wasn't one before, which unsurprisingly produces some radical changes in the language. Does the fall of Constantinople fit any of these criteria? Are there any other events/time periods which do? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can only listen to those better qualified to pass comment - thanks! Much written Greek was then written archaistically and most wasn't written down at all. — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jesse. Is κύμη (kúmē) (a by-form of κῦμα‎ (kûma‎)) a feminine first-declension noun? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing κύμη (kúmē) in any of my sources. May I ask where you're getting it from? In any case, if it exists, I strongly suspect it's a feminine first declension noun. I can't recall seeing anything ending in an eta which isn't. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The etymology of Κύμη (Kúmē) and inference from the secondary declension of its descendant, the Latin cȳma. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Κύμα (Kúma) is a Doric variant of Κύμη (Kúmē), too. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I don't have any good sources on this, but let me state my suspicions (mind you, these are just that, and not based on any hard evidence). I suspect that Κύμη (Kúmē)/Κύμα (Kúma) is a substrate word, and not in any way related to κῦμα‎ (kûma‎). I also suspect that κύμη (kúmē) is not a real word. At the moment, Vahagn has access to better sources than I, and so I'm going to see if he has anything which could shed some light on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

κύμη isn't in any of my sources either. I don't think it exists. As for a relation between Κύμη (Kúmē) and κῦμα‎ (kûma‎), Beekes, quoting Kretschmer, finds it possible with a question mark. Here, I made a screenshot. --Vahag (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. So, that etymology is incorrect, yes? I went poking around b.g.c. looking for what would be κύμη (kúmē)'s dual and plural inflexions; I found this instance of κυμαί (kumaí) (as ϰυμαί, nominative or vocative plural) and this one of κυμῶν (kumôn) (as Κυμῶν, genitive plural). I have no idea what those words mean in those texts — mine was just a brute search for forms; I bring them hereto for your learned analysis. Do either of those support the existence of κύμη (kúmē)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The second one is clearly the proper noun. The first one is rather more tricky. As near as I can tell, it might well be κύμη (kúmē), however, even if it is, I would dismiss it as a textual error. I don't know where the author got the manuscript, or who he got to transcribe it, but it is borked. There were a number of orthography irregularities, and the text departed from all the manuscripts I have access to in some dramatic ways. Unfortunately, the author did not provide any chapter or verse notations, so I can't track where he is in Jeremiah, otherwise I would compare what other manuscripts have at that point. I'm certainly not going to read the whole damned thing. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, of course not; however, having looked into it, I think the part quoted is Jeremiah 5:22, which in English is “Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?” What do you reckon? As for Κυμῶν (Kumôn), how can a proper noun be in the genitive plural? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I managed to find it by doing some text searches on the Greek wikisource. Turns out it's Jeremiah 26.7 in the Septuagint, which equates to 46.7 in the Masoretic text and Christian Bible (I don't really recall why the ordering is so different between the two).

• 300 BCE – 200 BCE, Septuagint, Jeremiah 26.7:

  τίς οὗτος ὡς ποταμὸς ἀναβήσεται καὶ ὡς ποταμοὶ κυμαίνουσιν ὕδωρ

  tís hoûtos hōs potamòs anabḗsetai kaì hōs potamoì kumaínousin húdōr

  Who is this that is like a river as it rises, as rivers seething with water

The word in question is κυμαίνουσιν (kumaínousin), present active indicative third plural (I think) of κυμαίνω (kumaínō, “swell, billow, boil”). The manuscript you linked to earlier had the second part of the word on the next line (I told you it was borked). As to your second question, in Greek, city names are usually in plural, for some odd reason. See Ἀθῆναι (Athênai) for example. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for looking into it. Hmm. I guess that pretty conclusively shows that the first-declension inflexion was novel to Latin, and had no Greek precedent. I'll note that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey Atelaes. I was considering editing all the grc declension templates that don't include the definite article for all cases and numbers (except vocative, I guess). However, I figured that you might have a reason for the seeming chaos or might have some plans for the templates. If not, I guess I'll go through and add them while hoping that you catch my mistakes.

• Example entry with the definite article: ἀνήρ
• Example entry without definite article: κῦμα

Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Gilgamesh was the one who set those up. I really don't like them myself, and was planning on eventually getting rid of all of them. I think they add more noise than useful information. Additionally, the definite article is not a necessary component of any word, and so I think it slightly misleading. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Getting rid of the templates or getting rid of the definite articles? Personally, I like both. I can understand how they seem annoying to someone who knows grc, but my knowledge is so basic that I usually have trouble figuring out what case a noun is in without the article. I guess I'll leave them alone, then, and let you do what you want with them. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jesse. Thanks for creating κυμινοπριστοκαρδαμογλύφος (kuminopristokardamoglúphos) (and ἔμβρυον (émbruon), for that matter). I have a question about it: Why have you created it as an adjective? It seems to be defined as a noun. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oops, sorry. The LSJ does the same thing, and I mirrored it without thinking. It's been fixed; thanks for catching it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

‛Sall good! :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please comment at Template talk:el-decl-noun#Changing the format if you have any views — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 05:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I got that spelling by copying it off this Wikipedia article which misuses that accented Latin i instead of iota: Wikipedia:The_Four_Loves#Philia_.E2.80.93_friendship. TBH visually I'm looking at them and having trouble telling them apart, but can see they're different by using 'find' and them not showing one another. It seems to be properly spelled the correct way on Greek words for love though. Since they look so similar, do you think it might be good to redirect the improper spelling to the proper one, since it might be common since that mistake's been on Wikipedia so long? Might show up elsewhere. Etym (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

That seems reasonable enough. We don't normally do redirects here on Wiktionary, but seeing as this is a mix of character sets, it will almost certainly never be a proper word, so I've made it a redirect. I've also changed the spelling on The Four Loves 'pedia page. And yes, the difference is incredibly difficult to spot visually. I was terribly confused when I saw that you had created the page, as I was sure we would already have an entry for such a basic word. However, I noticed that searching for the word with my Greek keyboard pulled up a previously created entry, and I noticed a very slight kerning difference between the two. Someone clued me into this page awhile back, and so I used that to figure out what was going on. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you please explain this edit? I have tried participating here only infrequently. I thought this was a valid edit, and your edit summary gives no clue why you disagreed. Could you leave your explanation on User talk:Geo Swan?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Apparently we already discussed your reversion in 2008. You stuck to your guns, and told me to take the issue to the Tea Room, which I did today. Geo Swan (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

When I look at this word's etymology section, I can see it needing improvement by explaining what the a- and the bacterial portions mean, rather than referring to the stated pages. Is that proper? or should I leave it as links. (I have seen it both ways on Wiktionary.) Speednat (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see you just changed it as I was getting ready to.

Look at this

a- (“without”) +‎ bacteria (“bacteria (rod, stick)”) +‎ -al (“pertaining to”)

opinion?

Thx Speednat (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The use of compound is probably better than {{prefix}}, as -al is a component worth noting. However, your gloss for bacteria is wrong. It doesn't mean "rod, stick"; its etymon did. I think that leaving bacteria without a gloss would be best, but if one had to be put, it would be something like "microbial organism". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I like it better without the gloss. I will change it. Thanks Speednat (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Thanks for creating Διονυσοκόλακες. As you can see in the quote at Citations:Dionysiokolax, there is the confusion as to whether Dionysus or Dionysius is meant; I don't know whether that's Nietzsche's mistake or Hollingdale's. This book explains the pun, which was apparently Epicurus's (found in fragment 93, according to this source) and which hinges on one iota's spelling difference. Do you have access to the 93rd fragment of Epicurus? And do Diogenes Laërtius and Athenaeus use Διονυσοκόλακες (and not Διονυσιοκόλακες) to mean "flatterers of Dionysius"? By the way, thanks too for pointing me in the direction of WT:" on Ruakh's talk page. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly, it looks like Athenaeus, at least, uses both spellings to mean "flatterer of Dionysius". In verse 249f he omits the iota, and in verse 405f he includes it. I am uncertain why such an alternation of spelling would occur. Sadly, I don't have access to any of Epicurus' fragments. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps one of them was simply an error; would you say that's plausible? In the light of verse 405f, do you agree with this edit of mine? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's conceivable that it's an error. I wouldn't know where to find any of the original manuscripts, so I really couldn't say for certain. Your edit seems reasonable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Would you say that the evidence supports a note about the iota? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads-up, in case you aren't watching the page: I posted a query on Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek re: which POS header to use for possessive adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, could you fix up the Greek part of the etymology here? Thanks. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 03:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greek really had no business in that ety, but I've fixed it up, as well as its etymon, which ultimately leads to a properly formatted grc cognate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Cool, fair enough. Just said I'd get someone to fixx it since I know obviously Greek has its own script. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

You clearly have technical knowledge and make lots of grc entries, so why are there so few grc inflected forms? This seems like it could make Wiktionary's grc entries far more useful to editors like me who sometimes can't immediately figure out the nominative singular forms of certain words. I'd like to work with you to create a bot that would populate the myriad inflected forms for everything declined or conjugated regularly. Does this sound like a project you'd be interested in? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Simply put, the reason I've never put much of any effort into creating inflected forms is that I assumed that, sooner or later, someone (possibly me) would create a bot to do them. So, yes, I'd be interested in working on such a bot. I've never done any wiki bots before, but I do have a basic competency in python, so I could do some of the coding, but probably not all (at least not quickly and easily all; I am capable of learning). Inflection is probably my strong suit, so I think that I have the requisite technical knowledge of Ancient Greek to handle that aspect as well. In fact, I have a python script (never quite finished) that parses inflected forms, which may (or may not) be of use in such a bot. There is one basic requirement that I've always had in my mind for such a bot that I feel I should divulge right off the bat. As a highly inflected dead language, a lot of the forms listed in the inflection tables will not be attested. I've always felt that any grc inflection bot should do corpus searches and only create entries for forms that it can actually find. We have a reasonably sized corpus on the Greek Wiktionary, and so I suspect we could find a great many forms to work with. Latin, of course, did not choose this route, but it is not as highly inflected as Ancient Greek, and I believe that a great many of its forms will have to be deleted one day, something I'd prefer to avoid. There is some infrastructure that should be created for inflected forms, as they currently have none. While {{head}} and {{inflection of}} are ok in a pinch, I think that a grc specific set of templates could be made rather more superior. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you could adapt some of the MewBot code I made to make an inflection bot for Ancient Greek? If you like, I could add it to MewBot as well. —CodeCat 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would prefer to go with the former option, which would be incredibly helpful. I'm not entirely sure what Metaknowledge's background with bots is, but the primary thing that has kept me from doing this already is my complete lack of experience with wiki bots. Having the code to a functional one would be awesome. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

First off, I have little experience with pywikipediabots, but I am greedy for knowledge of them and have been learning, mainly because I have a private wiki that is quickly becoming hell to manage only by using templates! To respond to your other points, I'm glad that you know some Python, because I'm not intending to learn it (I want to gain higher proficiency in JS first). I completely agree with you that it needs a corpus search (although I disagree about such a need for Latin, but it's too late there anyway). However, aren't there more complete sources than el.wikt? I think that you're probably right about a new template, but what exactly are you picturing for it? Here's the bad news: I leave for Asia in two weeks, and I'll be there for a month with my internet access likely being spotty. So, I'd like to try to get rolling as fast as possible! Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

First off, when I said Greek Wiktionary, I meant Greek Wikisource. I've recently become rather intimately familiar with their collection as a result of my work with {{grc-cite}}. They have most of the important Ancient Greek works, and most of what is missing could be relatively quickly and easily shored up. Truth be told, I'm not really sure what the template infrastructure should do that would be different from the existing language-indifferent setup; I'll have to think on it for a bit. I think what I'll start off by doing is looking at MewBot's code, and start working out how this bot would likely be coded, and I'll start pondering a name, as "the bot" is quickly becoming a tiresome referential. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Greek Wikisource? I'll have to trust your judgment on that, because the only good-sized corpus I've ever explored is the one that Perseus has. As for templates, I would be perfectly happy with how Latin inflected forms look, and how they are coded - we just need to modify that to take arguments that it's never had to take before, like aorist, for example. As for the name, I couldn't think of anything witty like FitBot - perhaps ΤίθημιΒοτ? I don't exactly know what share of the labor I can take, because I don't know what this entails, but I really want to take as equal a share as I can. I've got the software and I'm beginning to ask questions in the GP. If there's a job you can assign me, I'd be glad to take it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

For names, we could just use a Greek letter, as in Alphabot or Rhobot, or we could go the literal, so-ugly-it's-almost-cute route with GrinflBot Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Betabot or AlphaBota might do, in the kind-of-quirky category. Or... what's the grc equivalent of amo amas amat? Maybe we could play off of that. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, I've been working on a text file with all possible permutations of standard polytonic Greek letters and the Beta code that Perseus uses for their LSJ system. I was hoping we could create an LSJ ref template that could work directly off of the pagename and/or an optional Greek text parameter without editors having to come up with the beta code themselves for the {{R:LSJ}} template.

There are some cases where they have numbers appended in order to separate homographic entries, and sometimes the entries are coded with things like macrons and breves that wouldn't be in the original Greek text, but we would have a second optional parameter for beta code to override the automatic version.

Some of their beta code coincides with reserved characters in template code, but I've worked out the encoding (circumflex is =, which encodes to %3D, and iota-subscript uses the pipe, |, which encodes to %7C, etc), and will have a single accented Greek letter on each line, a delimiter, then the beta code string for that character (example: "ᾆ|)a%7C%3D") Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately such a template couldn't take PAGENAME. The reason is that Mediawiki has no string functions, and consequently has no way to separate characters, which it would need to do in order to accomplish the noted task. You could use characters as parameters, the way {{grc-ipa-rows}} does, and then it would be fairly easy to convert unicode Greek characters into beta code. Of course, at that point, you're not saving the editor a lot of work. An alternative approach that you might consider is to write a JS snippet which would do the conversion for you. That way, the template code could remain as is, and every time you edit a grc entry, it would simply create the beta code you need to insert. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The (pretty much identical) etymologies in English, Dutch an French at (deprecated template usage) damassé need some help. :) There is Ancient Greek and Arabic written in Latin script so that needs to be fixed. I figure maybe you don't have Arabic knowledge but perhaps you can inform someone who does. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

 Done - most of the info was inappropriate for that page or just plain incorrect, so I removed the grc and ar. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Well Documented Languages vote is just about over and it looks like it will pass, so User:Metaknowledge has drafted a proposal concerning allowing words in extinct languages based on one mention. We are in slight disagreement over the wording, and he has asked me to solicit your opinion. Can you take a look at User:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2 and tell me what you think? Metaknowledge's version is at ]. --BB12 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

By the way, please note that I want to hear your perspective in terms of the fact that some Ancient Greek writers produced a fair pile of mentions (Herodotus and others of his ilk). Should these be kept? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know quite where I should best respond to the proposals, so I'll just do so here. Please feel free to suggest a better location, or simply move the comments and let me know where they are. For starters, I feel like I should note my comments here, which well articulate my thoughts on the matter in general. I'm not sure if I've interpreted your respective proposals correctly, but what I'm gathering is as follows: Benjamin's proposal follows his general preference for giving poorly documented languages a large bit of leeway to make decisions on a case by case basis. Essentially his proposal states that any documentation suffices, as long as the community for the specific language agrees that it does. Metaknowledge's proposal more or less agrees with Benjamin's, except that it makes a number of exceptions with languages that are deemed well documented enough to be held to higher standards. Well documented dead languages, including Ancient Greek, would not be allowed to slide by on a single mention. I'm kind of pressed for time at the moment, so I didn't read the two as thoroughly as I perhaps should have. If I have misinterpreted anything, please correct me and accept my apologies in advance for the error. I disagree with Ancient Greek being denied the right to write entries for words which are documented solely with a single mention, and I think that my linked comment addresses why rather well. In short, my reasoning is that the primary aim of any proposal is (or at least should be) to include as many words as are in any kind of widespread use in a language, and exclude those that aren't. In a dead language, we will serve that aim better by casting as wide a net as possible. I am all for including any warnings or provisos needed to let the reader know exactly how much evidence we have for the existence of the word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind response and the link! --BB12 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to thank you as well. I'll withdraw my exclusion list, and I hope you'll vote when we take this to WT:V. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Until I'm done coding my bots, I won't be on-wiki as much, so I'd appreciate a link when it's live. If I become aware of said vote, one way or another, I will certainly vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I fully appreciate it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi just posted my updates here to discuss it: User_talk:Yair_rand#sensidv2_and_trans-topv2_1261 . SebastianHellmann (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

When you have a chance, could you check if this was a good change or not? I can't tell (but I spotted it while patrolling). - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm pretty sure it's good, yes. A correction of a mistake I made some years ago now, actually. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. We have a new vote to allow words into English Wiktionary if they are found in extinct languages in "mentions" rather than actual uses. I hope you will consider voting: Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Extinct_Languages_-_Criteria_for_Inclusion. --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does Greek capitalise ethnonyms? The first of those entries is currently lowercase, the second in capitalised. Should one of them be moved? (Note that each is linked-to from a couple of places.) - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Truth be told, I don't know. My understanding of modern Greek is just this side of nothing. I suggest asking Saltmarsh or Flyax. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this when you have a chance? (Just to address basic questions like — should this template exist? Is it accurate?)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's definitely got some problems. It may be useful with some modifications, but I'd need some more context to be sure one way or the other. I'll contact the creator directly and try to figure this out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you in your Wiktionary retirement, but I'd like to set this word as the Foreign Word of the Day for next April Fools'. Could you tell me which declension paradigm/template it would use? Something neuter 3rd declension, maybe? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

That's hard to say for sure, as the grammar of an Ancient Greek word can't be determined with any certainty from its constituents. If I had to guess, I would say it's probably using the declension of πτέρυξ, and its currently cited form is genitive plural. However, there are some other possibilities. It could be a third declension dental, using an inflection similar to the participial setup (Template:grc-decl-participle-ων). There are a few other, more exotic and unlikely, possibilities. If the word is preceded by an article, that could clarify things for us. I don't have a handy copy of the source text, however. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Assemblywomen, Line 1169. The original text runs thus:

τάχα γὰρ ἔπεισι λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοτυρομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτεκεφαλλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερυγών: σὺ δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἀκροασάμενος ταχὺ καὶ ταχέως λαβὲ τρύβλιον: εἶτα λαβὼν κόνισαι λέκιθον, ἵν᾽ ἐπιδειπνῇς: ἀλλὰ λαιμάττουσί που.

No article, but can you glean anything more from context? I thought of 3rd decl, but I figured that nonce words usually follow an easier 1st or 2nd decl setup (like how new verbs coined in Spanish are almost always in the simplistic and regular 1st/-ar conjugation). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I cannot glean anything. I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but I think we should leave the entry without declension information unless we can find a reputable source which states something and gives some reasoning. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You know, an interjection like βρεκεκεκέξ (also from Aristophanes) wouldn't have a declension problem. Just saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

@Atelaes: Ah well. Thanks all the same.
@EP: True, but I'm aiming for something truly ridiculous in scope for April Fools'. We can always revert to the native Thai ceremonial name of Bangkok if all else fails. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

The additional issue with the Greek dish is that the text of its name doesn't wrap, and so it will more likely just screw up the Main Page formatting rather than provide the intended humor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

No it won't. I'll set the alt parameter of {{FWOTD}} with a carefully measured series of non-breaking spaces in the word so it won't exceed its bounds. If that doesn't work, I'll hardcode it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Non-breaking spaces, or soft hyphens? - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, whatever ;) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've replied at Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/April#Bot request for Ancient Greek edits. —Ruakh_TALK 00:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Online. Will complete changes to template shortly. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure where to go with it. I rfved it for lack of any better idea, but it could probably be converted to a participle entry + an "inflection of" section for the genitive plural of κύκλος (kúklos). Or something. As always, your advice would be appreciated. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I saw the rfv on the term, which caused me to research the term a bit myself. As it stands, I think your assessment is correct, as well as your approach. Once the rfv fails, we can convert it as you suggest. My advice is that your own is plenty sufficient. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. Thanks for creating κράσπεδον. I went ahead and created an entry for its nom., acc., and voc. plural form, κράσπεδα (kráspeda); could you look it over to make sure I've got everything in the entry, especially the pronunciation, right please? Thanks. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, on an unrelated topic, ἄπειρος#Etymology 2 has a noun POS header, but is defined as an adjective; I know substantivisation blurs the boundary somewhat, but surely the definition and presentation should be consistent. Which is it, a noun or an adjective, properly speaking? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Κράσπεδα (Kráspeda) looks good. The correct POS on ἄπειρος (ápeiros) is adjective, and I have made the change. Thanks for catching it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

IFYPFY. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, and no problem. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes, A fellow editor on wikisource is transcribing the latters of Jonathan Swift, but in them is a Greek proverb or quotation that makes use of unusual orthography. You can see the page here. I suspect that the first word is και, and that the first unusual character is some sort of ligature. Likewise I suspect one of the other odd characters is a combined αυ, but my Greek isn't practiced enough to say this with certainty. And there remains one other character I can't figure out at all. I've done what I can with the passage, but am appealing for a little more help, if you can provide it. If you do, please also check my diacriticals, especially the breathing marks. They're rather small. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

A Google search on the part of the text that's not in question turns up this (Cap. XXI, at the end). It seems to match exactly. Hope this helps. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think one of the characters is a ligature of omicron with upsilon on top of it, so the second word may be οὐδέν (oudén). —CodeCat 16:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

καὶ οὐδὲν οὐδέποτε οὔτε ταπεινὸν ἐνθυμηθήσῃ οὔτε ἄγαν ἐπιθυμήσεις τινός. See this at Perseus. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That looks like it's right, so I've gone ahaed and used the text Chuck provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you want the specific characters used, ϗ is καί, ȣ is the ου ligature, and ϑ is the variant theta in ἔπιϑυμήσεις. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

As you were mentioned in the discussion, could you give your opinion on this? --Fsojic (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've taken care of the three words mentioned, although ἵημι needs a bunch of manual work, as none of the templates will handle its alternative aorist properly and I don't have the ambition to do it by hand at the moment. Thanks for catching this, and please feel free to let me know if you see any other problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I understand, this is much work. Actually, I think none of these highly irregular verbs should be handled by template, there are too many parameters to take into account. The aorist indicative plural of δίδωμι (dídōmi) should be ἔδομεν (édomen), ἔδοτε (édote), ἔδοσαν (édosan) (the forms with kappa for the plural apparently exist, but are less frequent, and in any case limited to the indicative mood). Same goes for τίθημι (títhēmi): ἔθεμεν (éthemen), ἔθετε (éthete), ἔθεσαν (éthesan). Verbal morphology is such a pain in the... :) --Fsojic (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that is tricky. It's always been my belief that all inflections that are attested should be shown, and yet I haven't shown a good way to distinguish rare vs. common forms, or when two different paradigms are merged in typical use (i.e. when most Greek authors use the indicative of one paradigm, and the other moods from another). I am open to suggestions on this. The best approach that I've come up with thus far is prose notes in the inflection section, indicating what happens. I have added such a note to δίδωμι. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

In cases like first and second aorist where there are two more-or-less regular paradigms, I like the idea of combining them, with a double row corresponding to each row of the normal inflection table: one of paradigm 1, and one of paradigm 2 directly under it. They could be graphically distinguished by something like font color, so it's obvious which is which, with the header having the name of the first, then its principal parts, followed by "or" and the name of the second, with its principal parts, each matching their paradigm by color or whatever:

Aorist 1: ἔδωκα, ἐδωκάμην or Aorist 2: ἔδων,ἐδόμην, ἐδόθην
number			singular			dual		plural
aorist			first	second	third	second	third	first	second	third
active	indicative	1	ἔδωκα	ἔδωκας	ἔδωκε	ἐδώκατον	ἐδωκάτην	ἐδώκαμεν	ἐδώκατε	ἔδωκαν
		2	ἔδων	?	?	ἔδοτον	ἐδότην	ἔδομεν	ἔδοτε	ἔδοσαν
	subjunctive	1	δώκω	δώκῃς	δώκῃ	δώκητον	δώκητον	δώκωμεν	δώκητε	δώκωσι(ν)
		2	δῶ	δῷς	δῷ	δῶτον	δῶτον	δῶμεν	δῶτε	δῶσι(ν)

I don't know if it would be practical from a template-coding standpoint, and maybe the color-coding is overdoing it (or uses the wrong colors), but at least you get the basic idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

imho it's the best way to present usual versus less usual forms, and it's how grammars do it. --Fsojic (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you create the entry for ξοᾰνον? The English word xoanon is derived from it, and will be WotD on the 10th of this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done, at ξόανον (xóanon). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Why the different orthography? I thought I had followed Liddell & Scott correctly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ancient Greek entry titles include accents, but not vowel length markers, such as macrons and breves. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I was trying to duplicate Template:RQ:Augustinus Confessiones with the quotation module to do something link ] but I couldn't figure out how- is this possible? DTLHS (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Should be. Gimme a few; I'll try and take a whack at it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, how's that? The Latin number names should really be module level data, instead of author-level, as I imagine a number of works could make use of them, but at the moment the code doesn't support that. I'll try and fix it soon. But, it works, in any case. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure it is a good name? The usual practice is to put dialectal categories into ], as in Category:Regional Greek and Category:Regional Armenian, with Category:Regionalisms as a parent. I am not saying your choice is worse. But if we're choosing the ] format, we should do it for all languages. --Vahag (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was considering that, but truth be told, many of the Ancient Greek dialects aren't regional (such as post-classical), and the ones that are (Doric, for example) are only sort of regionalish. "Regional Ancient Greek" might make sense under "Ancient Greek dialects", but not above it. I'm all for standardizing across languages, but not at the expense of good sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

So you're not going to change other languages and will use a different scheme for Ancient Greek? --Vahag (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have no intention of changing the category structures of any other languages, though I might just argue for such a thing if someone asked my opinion. I imagine a great many languages have dialects which aren't strictly spatial in nature. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Quite a few. Dialects can be based on socioeconomic, religious and ethnic divisions as well as geographical ones. AAVE is one example that immediately comes to mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That was the first English example that came to my mind as well.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have asked a question at Wiktionary talk:About Greek#Passive verb entries which you might like to comment on. Saltmarsh (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

See Suetonius in Module:Quotations/la/data. Thanks to the wildly inconsistent wikisource formatting the anchor needs to have a period to work- any easy way to escape the period or should I just let it go and forget about linking to the exact chapter?

Does that work? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've been working on something to apply consistent formatting to the year fields- Module:User:DTLHS (Module error: No such module "pt-conj". for example)- would you mind if I added it to the module? DTLHS (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not at all. Please do. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have a couple Ancient Greek questions. If the term for a haver/doer of a particular occupation is grammatically masculine (e.g. γενεαλόγος), is a feminine form used when referring to a female haver of that occupation, or is the grammatically masculine form used even then? And if it is common to use feminine forms, what is the feminine form of γενεαλόγος? (If no term is attested, can one be hypothesized based on other pairs of m./f. words?) - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think that Ancient Greek nouns in -os can sometimes be feminine as well. I know adjectives can be. So maybe the noun really has two genders, I don't know. —CodeCat 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I suspect that Codecat is right here, that a female genealogist would be ἡ γενεαλόγος (hē genealógos). However, if there was a grammatically feminine counterpart, it would likely be γενεαλόγη (genealógē). I have to admit, however, that I don't know for sure. I can't think of any concrete examples off the top of my head. May I ask the reason for your interest? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hm, thanks for the information. I asked because I'm translating a little something into Ancient Greek. (It's hard to explain why, lol.) Perhaps I'll just rephrase and say " γενεᾱλογεῖς / γενεᾱλογέεις". On that note, I've seen it written that the Bible used contract(ed) rather than uncontracted verb forms. Did Homeric Greek use uncontracted verb forms at all? If not, who did? - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The best general rule that I was able to find is that Attic contracts more and Ionic contracts less. Homeric Greek is Ionic, it's own rather unique form, but Ionic nonetheless, and so tends to not contract, although contraction is not entirely absent. Koine Greek, the form used in the Bible, was based on Attic, and inherits its contracting propensities. I don't have enough personal experience with different dialects to offer much else. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The etymology of χρυσός from Babiniotis differs from that shown under AG by vowels - I know nothing of Hebrew, but presumably just a difference in the "diacritics". I can do little more! Saltmarsh (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you please create this entry? I especially want to see its declension, because I'm having trouble figuring out how to show all the attested Latin forms, and it seems that Latin authors have been historically confused over how to decline it (or maybe they were just unsure how much to copy the Greek paradigm). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to create {{hy-alt}} to handle 50+ Armenian dialects. Since we have Lua now, can we a create a common module for displaying dialectal forms and share it? And by that I mean will you create it? --Vahag (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I can probably do that. I'll start working on the central portion, and the grc data. I'll let you know when it's up and running and ready for the Armenian data. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, take a look at {{alter}}, Module:Alternative forms, and Module:grc:Dialects. I haven't done extensive testing, but it appears to work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It does work but there are some features without which it won't be very useful for Armenian.

• Can the module be made to use {{l}} to take advantage of its capabilities, namely automatic transliteration and auto-stripping of certain characters, such as the stress mark?
• 'dial', 'dial2', 'dial3', 'dial4' are not enough for Armenian. A given form may be present in 10–20 dialects.
• Can I specify aliases in Module:grc:Dialects as in Module:labels/data or Module:Quotations/grc/data? A given dialect may have many names, abbreviations, etc. I can't remember 50+ codes. --Vahag (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

The first two are fairly easy. It already does use {{l}}, or at least its core. I had suppressed the transliteration, as it makes it look very messy to have two parentheticals afterwards, but I can reinstate it and see what I can do to make it look less messy. Adding some more parameters shouldn't be too hard, although at 10-20, having all those named parameters sounds like a pain in the ass. Perhaps we should switch them to unnamed, and simply have parameters 3... be the dialects; I was never completely satisfied with dial, dial2.... As to aliases, I'm sure we can, but I'm not immediately sure what the best approach would be. I'll study the language module and see how they do it. I'll try and get some work done on all this tonight. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

We may use square brackets for the second one to make it less messy: παλλαμβάνω (pallambánō) --Z 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should invent new formats. In Wiktionary standard formatting using the regular templates the alternative forms would look like this or this. I imagine the role of {{alter}} in providing the same output with a standardized name of a dialect and a Wikipedia link. --Vahag (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's a good idea to limit ourselves to what the existing templates produce. If the template can produce a cleaner, more intelligible format, then it should do so. That being said, I think we should make something which jives with the overall look and feel of the site. The square brackets are completely novel, and to my eyes rather jarring, so I may just go with Vahagn's suggestion for now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have started using the module. Do you like the hyphen a lot? How about removing it and italicizing the dialect name? Qualifiers are usually italicized in Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I made a solemn oath to my dead mother that I would only ever use the hyphen in this module. Sorry, but my hands are tied. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

:) --Vahag (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, someone at WT:FEEDBACK pointed out that the masculine and neuter genitive plural forms of πᾶς are incorrectly given as παντῶν instead of πάντων. The incorrect forms are being generated automatically by {{grc-adecl-1&3-ντ}} and I don't know how to fix it. Do you? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but I'll try and get to it within the next few hours. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Sorry about the mistake. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem; thanks for fixing it! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for the encouragements (but my work isn't worth yours! and I'm always afraid to leave mistakes behind). I think the entry you are referring to is στερέω (steréō). About the Latin terminology, I'm all for the reader instruction, but don't you think we should create entries such as genitivus rei, accusativus personae to be sure they understand (as it happens, I myself don't have a glossary of these grammatical terms). What's the English grammatical tradition about this? In French we never use it (I've never heard them, anyway), and stick with translations accusatif de la personne, etc. --Fsojic (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, I'm not advocating using the Latin in our entries. I much prefer the use of plain English, like you did in στερέω (steréō), which was the entry I was thinking of. What I was saying is that the LSJ uses Latin, and I don't alway feel confident translating their abbreviated Latin into English. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. So if you encounter an obscure abbreviation, you can ask me and I'll try to answer you as best I can. --Fsojic (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cool. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I created ἐάω, believing it wasn't there yet, but I've just found this: ἐῶ. Which should be the lemma? --Fsojic (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe ἐάω is the better place. Athang was a rather problematic editor. I'm not sure why I didn't move it when I first saw it, but I have now rectified the situation. Sorry about that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, and thanks for your answer. I've found a mistake in the conjugation table of ἔρχομαι (érkhomai) and λαμβάνω (lambánō). The aorist imperative accent is irregular: ἐλθέ (elthé) and λαβέ (labé) (alongside with ἰδέ (idé), εὑρέ (heuré) and εἰπέ (eipé)). --Fsojic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Huh, so it is. Since this only applies to a few words, I don't think a change to the template is appropriate. What we can do is do point substitutions in the entries themselves. Each form has its own parameter, which is the acronym for its full form, e.g. the active indicative 1st person singular form is accessed with AI1S. However, imperatives use C (think "command"), as "I" was already taken by indicative. So, if you add "AC2S=form" to the template code, it should put that instead. I have made the changes to ἔρχομαι (érkhomai), let me know if you have any more questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I added notes in the relevant entries (only the ones that had already a conjugation table). Are they fine?

Besides, I did this, but I don't know if I was right. I don't like to have duplicates in Category:Ancient Greek verbs, so since γινώσκω is only a variant of γιγνώσκω I removed it. What do you think? --Fsojic (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's funny you should say that, as I just did the opposite on παραγίνομαι....although I sat and pondered it for moment. Honestly, I'm not really satisfied with treating such instances the same as inflected forms, but I'm not really satisfied giving them the full status of a lemma either. However, I don't really have any bright ideas on what format would make me happy. In any case, I'm certainly not going to fight you on this. Do as you think is best. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually that's when I saw παραγίνομαι that I thought of asking you :) I wasn't really happy either with my edit, because it's not really an inflected form (well, even lemmas are inflected forms, but you get my meaning). Couldn't we recreate Category:Ancient Greek alternative forms, which was deleted a few days ago? Then we could put contracted forms as ἐῶ into it too. --Fsojic (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

What does the last line do in the following code?
data = {}
data.aLink = 'Lycurgus of Athens'
data.year = '396–323 BC'
data.works = { = {}}
data.aliases = { = 'Collected Works'}


Is the work supposed to default to "Collected Works" if nothing is specified? If not, is there such a functionality? --Vahag (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is indeed what it does. If you look at the first author section in the module, you'll notice that this also works for absent authors. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

But it doesn't work. Look. --Vahag (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It does work, see. The trick is that the work parameter has to be empty, not nonexistent. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. --Vahag (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to expand {{R:LSJ}} using Lua to automatically produce Beta Code from the page name? That would be cool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I discussed doing this some time ago, but I don't think I'll ever get around to doing it myself. I had developed a plain-text file with Greek/Beta Code combinations, which is now User:Chuck Entz/LSJ beta code. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

That shouldn't be too hard. I'll work on it when I have some time. No promises on when that might be. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, that was easier than I thought. Thanks Chuck for the beta code. Five or six search and replaces, and copying and pasting from another module I was writing, and the template is now Luacized. Let me know if anyone finds any problems with it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be able to help. The template does need an optional disambiguation-string parameter for the "1", "2", etc. that they put at the end of the entry-name in cases of multiple lemmas with the same spelling.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The template does take a manual entry as parameter one, just like the old one did. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

But I was thinking more of a suffix rather than a replacement for the whole thing. We should definitely keep the first parameter for backward compatibility as well as an override for the unexpected, but we should also have the ability to tack on a "1","2","3", etc. at the end, so that we don't have to copypaste the whole thing in order to deal with a very predictable 1-character difference. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, it's such a rare thing that I'm not going to bother. A full copy-paste on maybe 1 in 50 entries is a pretty mild bug. If anyone else wants to, they're welcome to. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.

The template does not seem to work with "αἴθων". In Module:R:LSJ, search for "ἴ" finds the following items:

• ='i)/'
• ='i(/'
• =')*i/'

The second one seems incorrect; should it be removed? (I could do the removal myself, but I am double-checking with you as an Ancient Greek expert.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. I did a rough review of the vowels and their various diacritics, but there are so many combinations, and they look so similar at normal magnifications that there could be other slip-ups like this. Let me know if you run into future problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Running uniq on the list of characters found two more duplicates: ᾃ, ὕ. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

You don't even read what you delete, edits that are attested and standard, and leave the inaccurate edits. You revert out of spite. Lysdexia (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, all the reverts that Atelaes performed to your edits have improved the entries. So I agree with them. —CodeCat 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Explain yours. I shall explain mine: large is the opposite of rare; fast is the opposite of free; great is the opposite of small; whether or not defeats word order (whether A; whether A or not; not not A); there was no "way" indicated and there is no opposite construction; my edit links the cognate. Lysdexia (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry Lysdexia, but I'm tired of arguing with you. I've done it a number of times before, and it goes nowhere. You can report me wherever you like, and the result will be the same, namely, the community will side with me. Essentially, you have two options: 1. You give up your absurd crusade to return the English on Wiktionary to some archaic purity, focus on adding useful content (something which you are more than capable of), and you become a productive and appreciated member of our community. 2. You persist in your crusade, persist in complaining about the reversions of your edits, and you get blocked, for successfully longer periods of time (the last block was a week, if I recall, which puts your next one at 2 weeks to 1 month). That's it. It might well be immoral, or unjust, or whatever else, but critically it is. Make your decision. I've seen people with similar MOs follow choice 1, and so I'm holding out hope that you do too, but I've seen far more choose 2, so I'm not holding my breath. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

0: Is it customary in informal decisions to not justify one's beliefs but to go with the crowd by what "feels" or "sounds" good?

1: What makes content "useful"? I believe all you want me to do is copy and paste public domain sources. Beside that, the ignorant userbase will not let me edit by this standard.

2: periods of time -> lengths. What should the block reason be? It must be something fabricated, like "the community doesn't like how lysdexia edits". Lysdexia (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Explain yourself here. Lysdexia (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The following is copied from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/April#Can we delete the script code templates? . -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Many of these have already been deleted, as they weren't used by anything. We have Lua-based alternatives now like {{lang}}, and even the non-Lua-based {{script helper}}, which all script code templates already invoke. I've been working on converting out the remainder, but I want to make sure everyone is ok with it before I start deleting (formerly) widely used templates like {{Latn}}. —CodeCat 18:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but you've been breaking things in the process of orphaning them because you apparently didn't think everything through. That's not a good way to do things. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

What did I break? —CodeCat 23:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, for one thing you ever so slightly broke {{grc-conj-aorist-blank-am}}. Mind you, it was an easy fix, and I definitely still support abandoning the old templates and converting to Lua, but you asked.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see what you did, but I'm not sure how that fixed anything. Or rather, I don't see what was wrong with my original change. —CodeCat 00:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, to be completely honest, I don't fully understand what happened myself, and perhaps I should have investigated the matter further, but I didn't. If you preview οἰδέω (oidéō) with your version, you'll notice that, since transliterations weren't suppressed, they were produced, and produced rather oddly. The only thing I can think of is that, given multiple linked targets as the primary input into {{term/t}}, the auto-transliterate engine had some sort of spasm and included line breaks in its output for some reason. I imagine that simply suppressing the transliteration would have fixed it equally well, but I modeled my version after one of the similar templates. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it. The problem was really in {{grc-conj-aorist-1}}, which had a long string of unnamed parameters, but there were no comment tags around the line breaks. The wiki software doesn't strip whitespace (including line breaks) in unnamed parameters, only in named parameters. I added comment tags around the line breaks, and I also added in the names of the parameters. The latter wasn't necessary to fix the problem, but it helps with future maintainability, because I had a hard time figuring out just which of those parameters was number 105! —CodeCat 00:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your latest. The switch to commented-separated numbered parameters was a good one. It will definitely make understanding and maintaining the template easier. However, your switch to {{term/t}} is still not workable. For starters, it still breaks entries, ἄγω (ágō) for example, possibly because we still have line-breaks in the other templates which feed into the blanks. Additionally, I don't want transliterations in there; we're already jamming a lot of info into a fairly compact space, and the transliterations just make it that much trickier to parse. Now, perhaps {{term/t}} with suppressed transliteration might work, but I suspect we'd have to do it for all the templates, so they'd look uniform. I don't feel like doing that kind of overhaul at the moment. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

End copy. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused. I previewed the page you give me with the modifications I had made, and it looked ok. What is going wrong? —CodeCat 01:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've responded where we left off in the BP. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

We should probably continue it here instead. This is a specific issue that doesn't really have anything to do with orphaning the script templates, so I'd rather not derail the original discussion. —CodeCat 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so as I understand it, {{term}} can't be added to the top div until all the inflection templates have been fixed by adding line breaks. And if we do it for one, we should do it for all. Is that right? —CodeCat 02:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, with two provisos. First, we probably shouldn't use {{term/t}} on the blank pages at all. We should use it on the the pages which feed into them, such as {{grc-conj-aorist-1}}. Secondly, we should suppress transliteration. Past that, I can't think of any problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm wondering if I should replace "grc-ipa-rows" with "grc-pron" in every entry I encounter? Since I do other maintenance work I could do that as well. --Fsojic (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, but could you give me a few more days before you start doing so? It comes with a javascript snippet which I haven't fed to everyone yet, and it'd probably be best to not have a zillion entries using it when I do, just in case there are issues that need to be worked out. If you're interested in trying it out yourself, it's at User:Atelaes/viewSwitching.js (if you don't know how to load custom JS, just look at my page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Scratch that first part. I'm sure it'll be fine. The difference between working out a JS bug which pops up in a couple hundred entries and one in a couple dozen is essentially non-existent. Just do me a favor and give the pronunciations a quick once-over when you instantiate them. There are probably a few minor bugs left. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not that much of an expert in IPA, but if I see strange things I'll tell you :)

Another question: I've been (very slowly) working on the conjugation table of δίδωμι, here. Once I'll be done, I wonder what I should do with it? Should I put it directly into the entry, or create a model? --Fsojic (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

If it really only applies to δίδωμι (dídōmi), then I would probably put it into the entry, presumably using

{{grc-conj-aorist-blank-full|{{lang|grc|ἔδωκα}} ({{lang|grc|ἔδων}})|{{lang|grc|ἔδωκας}} ({{lang|grc|ἔδως}})|etc.}}

Looking at the code, what might be easier is to simply use the existing ωμι-mono, and simply overwrite the necessary bits.

{{grc-conj-aorist-ωμι-mono|ἔδ|ἐδ|δ|ἐδόθ|ἐδοθ|δοθ|δόθ|PC2S=δόθητι|AI1S={{lang|grc|ἔδωκα}} ({{lang|grc|ἔδων}})|AI2S={{lang|grc|ἔδωκας}} ({{lang|grc|ἔδως}})}}

-Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

One bug spotted: see ῥητορικός (rhētorikós). The ῥ is not transcribed. --Fsojic (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the same vein, should we start replacing {{grc-alt}} with {{alter}}? (And can we replace the "dialN" named parameters with automatic ones? I'd do it myself but I don't know Lua (yet.)) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 20:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

What does {{alter}} even do? It has absolutely no documentation. —CodeCat 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes created it recently; it's a Luaciziation of {{grc-alt}}. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm terrible at documentation. Sorry about that. Truth be told, I'm still not completely happy with {{alter}}. It works, and I'm happy with the name, but I don't think the parameterization is properly scalable. Dial1, dial2, dial3......it's awful. However, I'm at a loss as to a proper solution. We could limit the template to one alternative term, and have 2....on be dialects, but if you look at մուկ (muk), there are some uses with multiple words in the same template call. I'd kind of like to keep that possibility open. If anyone has any good ideas, I'm very open to hear them. That being said, it works at least as well as {{grc-alt}}, and will almost certainly supersede it, so it should be fine to replace. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose there's a way to do something like: {{alter|foo|fō|fou||hom|epi|ion|lang=grc}}? As in, empty parameter used to seperate the forms and dialects? Alternatively, since using more than one form per line is fairly rare, we could do something like {{alter|foo|hom|epi|ion|alt2=fō|alt3=fou}}, with the places reversed. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.....those are both good suggestions. The blank separator is an intriguing idea, as I think it's without precedent. I'm pretty sure it could be done with Lua, though it would probably take some getting used to by the community because of its novelty. I have to admit, it is a very elegant and reasonably intuitive solution. The alt solution is like that sort of chubby girl at work; it's a lot easier and will get the job done, but not nearly as pretty as the alternative. Let me sit on the options and digest them for a day or two. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Or {{alter}} could act as a mere qualifier template taking dialect names as positional parameters and outputting the standardized dialect name with a Wikipedia link. That's what I had in mind when I requested the template. The dialectal forms would be given by {{l}}, as usual. That will also allow us using {{l}}'s features, such as gloss= and g=. --Vahag (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by this? Example please? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

A format like this:

• {{l|grc|δαμοκρατία}} {{alter|Doric|Moric|Poric|etc.}}

--Vahag (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The disadvantage with that is that it's harder to type multiple alt forms (with the same group of dialects) on one line, as would appear to be the goal here. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, having the two separate is a terrible idea. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, now installed. Enjoy! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, entering dialects is easier now. --Vahag (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I've just seen this edit by ObsequiousNewt, which makes me wonder how much information we should have there. I seem to recall you once removed these forms in an entry I had created, replacing them with the conjugation tables, which are (of course) more thorough (not sure I'm using this English adjective properly). If we decide to put these forms there, would it be possible to add some parameters, such as the future passive (or should we say passive future? I never know), and move the parameter for the aorist passive (passive aorist?) right next to the aorist? Let's take ἀλείφω (aleíphō): we have the future first, then the aorist, followed by the perfect forms, and only then the passive aorist, which doesn't make much sense to me. --Fsojic (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, if you ask me, the variety, inconsistency, and dialectical variation of Greek stems means that these principal parts are not really meant to be in a standardized titlebar (and they're redundant besides.) I only did it because it's the standard, although there are other standards I want to see at least clarified. For example, should words be romanized in titlebars? (Thus far, I've been leaving out manual romanization.) There is an automatic romanization, but it also (although only for verbs apparently) adds the page to a category of missing romanizations. And if they are romanized, should they include (1) differentiation in α/ι/υ length, about which I've seen conflicting messages, and (2) accent, which is left out by standard but has been proposed without objection, and I agree that if there is romanization that it should include accent. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, a transliteration should be as complete as possible (so include vowel length and accent), but Atelaes thinks otherwise, if I'm not wrong.

Note to myself (well, to you too!): we should also include the comparatives and superlatives of adjectives more systematically. --Fsojic (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, there are a lot of things here. However, the first thing which needs to be addressed is the distinction between my opinion and Wiktionary policy. Despite my repeated recommendations, Wiktionary has yet to name me dictator for life, and so others are quite free to disagree with me, and even build consensus leading to policy against my opinion. While I'm sure both of you knew this without my saying so.....when it comes to Ancient Greek the distinction isn't always as easy to elucidate as one might think. Simply put, I've been doing this longer than anyone else, I wrote WT:AGRC, most of the template documentation, and set most of the precedents that people now follow. I worry that people often assume that because I got here first, or am an admin, or whatever else, that I have some higher level of authority than others, which I don't. I don't preface every sentence with "Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, but" as it would be tiring, but both of you, and anyone else, should remind yourselves that you have just as much right to determine these things as I do. To clarify, I'm not tired of these questions, I just worry sometimes that I have more authority on this project than I ought to, even if I am always right.....about everything.

All that out of the way, here are my opinions. The original {{grc-verb}} was written before we had any inflection templates, and well before we had templates in place on most entries. Once the inflection templates were created and came into common use, I came to the opinion that the headline was a poor place to hold all of that inflection information, and redundant to boot. I believe it was Maro who rewrote {{grc-verb}} such that we could create new verb entries which could not have the principle parts in the headline, but the older entries which lacked the inflection templates would keep them. It is my opinion that basically all new verb entries should include {{grc-verb}} with no parameters at all, and that if inflection tables are added to older entries, the headline info should be removed. {{grc-verb}} was last updated before we had the capacity for automatic transliteration. I think that manual transliteration is inappropriate for Ancient Greek basically everywhere, and I believe that the "entries missing transliteration" category code should be removed from the template. I also prefer not having transliterations in the inflection tables, both in the titlebars and in the tables proper. There's already a ton of information there, and adding transliterations makes it incredibly difficult to visually parse, a task which I believe is already formidable. I prefer a very simple transliteration scheme which ignores accent and vowel length, though I'm starting to think I'm the only one on the project to hold this view. I feel like I've stated my reasons for this view so many times that everyone must have read them somewhere, but if anyone hasn't, just ask and I'll do so again. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that adverbs, comparatives, and superlatives should be included in adjective inflection templates. I've asked myself a great many times why I didn't include them when I first wrote them, and have never come up with an answer. One of these days I'll add them, and if anyone feels like beating me to the punch, that would be fantastic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will totally make all of those changes. I am Newt the Progressive, ushering in a new era of reform. Relatedly™, have you done any musing on the above discussion? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Huh, so I could have sworn that that "no transliteration" category existed, but now I can't find it. Did someone delete it when I wasn't looking? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks like Vahagn killed it back in September. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I tried to fix the vocative here but it didn't work. Could you please have a look at it? --flyax (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem was that the entry was using one of Gilgamesh's helper templates, which don't make use of nor pass along the manual forms. Now fixed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm not sure you saw my message the first time (see above), so I'm posting it again - there is an error in {{grc-pron}}: initial ῥ is not transcribed. See for example ῥᾴδιος (rhā́idios). --Fsojic (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely missed that prior comment. I'll look into the rho. Thanks for pointing it out. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Besides, for some reason, the first line, which shows the pronunciation's evolution, appears only when we put "*" just before {{grc-pron}} (as in ἀκμή (akmḗ) for example). --Fsojic (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes, that's because the JS hasn't been fed to the public yet. ἀκμή (akmḗ) is an example of the code not working properly. I should probably fix that. In any case, don't create a bunch of entries with the asterisk before {{grc-pron}}. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, the JS has been offered up to all y'all. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a problem with this script. Greek entries look very strange to me, things moved around and put in places where they shouldn't be, and tabbed languages gets broken too. —CodeCat 02:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Dammit. Well, everything still looks fine for me, so it must be a browser issue that I didn't account for, or perhaps something to do with your personal settings. Could you possibly give me a screen-shot, or perhaps dig a bit into the html source and see what's happening? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I looked at grc entries in Chrome, FF, Safari, and IE, both with and without tabbed languages. My single-parameter insertBefore seemed to trip up FF, so I changed that. I can't reproduce the weirdness, everything seems shiny. So it might be something specific to your setup. Anywho, once you've got some info, let me know, and I'll dig into it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your changes seem to have fixed it. —CodeCat 02:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. Let me know if you run into anything else. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

The standard transliteration of ῥ as rh is wrong; r is a vowel and like any other aspirate follows hèta. Lysdexia (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I recently made updates to the {{helpme}} template in good faith to improve formatting and to add documentation, however, it is my impression that these edits are up for discussion. May I kindly request your comment at User_talk:Msh210#My_recent_edits since you didn't specify a reason in the edit summary? Thanks. — 2602:304:59B8:1D39:D43E:1CE2:B553:9220 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you plan on working on adding manual or automatic transliteration functionality for this template any time soon? Template {{usex}} has it, can't you use the same code? --Vahag (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't. Truth be told, I don't like transliteration in this context. I think that a fully fleshed out quote has enough information to look cluttered and difficult to visually parse already. I think that a transliteration of the whole quote adds little to nothing of value, and as such is not worth putting in. I suspect that my opinion will be the minority one, and if when people decide to add auto-transliteration, I won't fight it very hard. However, I certainly have no intention of doing the work myself. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. But you're looking at everything from the perspective of Greek. Surely for languages with harder scripts the transliteration is indispensable. --Vahag (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nope; I always assume Greek script to be utterly indecipherable to most people. I simply think that being able to sound out a phrase or sentence simply isn't a feature that readers will be looking for or find useful. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I agree. In a large block of text, the distance between the term and its translation is enough to make it hard to associate the two. I wonder if it would be possible to do something like Japanese ruby/furigana characters directly over each word. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Currently macrons are stripped from entry names in Ancient Greek. Could you edit (or ask the appropriate maintainer to edit) Module:languages/data3/g to add breves and combining macrons and breves? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Give me a few days to work in the time. Poke me again if I forget. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(pokes Atelaes) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. I second ObsequiousNewt's request. Also, please note User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym#Marking vowel length in Ancient Greek and Wiktionary:Grease pit/2014/September#Breves in Ancient Greek. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Years ago you edited the article Τυρος, saying that the name is cognate with Aramaic טור. The Hebrew word צור is certainly cognate with the Aramaic word טור. But was טור used for the city? That would explain the Greek form. Might you have a source or reference for me? Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, {{grc-IPA|w=κι}}, {{grc-IPA|w=κει}}, {{grc-IPA|w=κη}}, and {{grc-IPA|w=κοι}} all show palatalization of /k/ to /c/ in the 10th and 15th century lines, but {{grc-IPA|w=κυ}} doesn't show palatalization. Is that right? (The same applies to the equivalents with γ.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Since you participated in the the 2012 vote to de-sysop and de-checkuser Connel MacKenzie, you may wish to participate in the current discussion of this proposal. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, from the Ancient‑Greek studies at dis‑tance, that I have per‑formed in Belgium in 2012, the "Smooth‑breathing" and "Rough‑breathing" serves to in‑dicate & marking the ab‑olition of the archaic letter Di‑gamma Ϝ (Smooth) or Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ (Rough) in the word, the Ϝ or Σ/Ϻ can be at beginning or middle, it de‑pend of the position of the breathing.

{Di‑gamma Ϝ {also called ϜΑΥ : vau/vaw} is V be‑cause W was Υ/ΟΥ from Phoenician 𐤅 , Ϝ don't share shape and sound with Υ / 𐤅, after some‑time Υ be‑came later and in Modern‑Greek ; Pamphylian Digamma/Wau/Waw Ͷ is , also Ϝ be‑came Latin F , V & F are labio‑dental sound and can be con‑fused, when W & F have nothing in com‑mon, so Latin letter F sound come from Ancient‑Greek letter Ϝ sound ...}.

• http://www.webtopos.gr/eng/languages/greek/alphabet/earlyletters.htm (Source as V)
• http://www.webtopos.gr/eng/languages/greek/alphabet/upsilon.htm (Source as U, W)
• http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Digamma#Pamphylian_digamma

In the French pre‑cise book of Ancient‑Greek "Le Grand Bailly" or "Abrégé Bailly" breathing (spirit in French) are re‑pre‑sented in the words and in the de‑finition, in Section is ad‑ded the original word with Di‑gamma Ϝ or Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ. In older editions of "Le Grand Bailly" or "Abrégé Bailly", the "Table of roots" (which is no longer pre‑sent in the new editions) speci‑fies the list of roots using Di‑gamma Ϝ & Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ , yet in Wikipedia English or French, no one mention that the "Smooth breathing" and "Rough breathing" was used for Di‑gamma Ϝ & Sigma/San Σ/Ϻ removing, why ??? They talk only about a‑spired H (no one can make a‑spired H be‑fore a RHO, it's im‑possible), so it's wrong... Also In Wiktionary page for Ancient‑Greek words using breathing, the W/V or S/SH is never mentioned in "Archaic pro‑nunciation", like for ex‑ample :

• ὙΠΕΡ / HYPER that was originally writed ΣΥΠΕΡ / SHYPER (Latin : SVPERIOR), or
• ἙΞ / HEX → ΣΕΞ / SHEX (Latin : Six) or
• ἘΞ / EX → ϜΕΞ / VEX (Latin : Ex‑) or
• ἘΡΓΟΝ → ϜΕΡΓΟΝ (English : Work, Dutch : Werk) or
• ἩΛΙΟΣ / HELIOS → ΣΗΛΙΟΣ / SHELIOS {Attic} (Latin : Sol, Solis, English : Sun) or
• ἉΛΙΟΣ/ ALIOS → ΣΑΛΙΟΣ / SHALIOS {Dorian} (Latin : Sol, Solis, English : Sun) or
• ΟἸΝΟΣ → ϜΟΙΝΟΣ (Latin : VINVM, English : Wine, French : Vin) or
• ἈΡΗΣ / ARES → ͶΑΡΗΣ / WARES (God of War, War God, war it‑self personi‑fied) or
• ῬΕΩ → ΣΡΕΩ (flow) & ῬΕΩ/ἘΡΩ → ϜΡΕΩ/ϜΕΡΩ (Speak/Verity/Love) or
• ἈΝΑ → ϜΑΝΑ or ΑϜΝΑ .

{I don't use ac‑cent acute / grave in Ancient‑Greek words be‑cause at that time they didn't ex‑ist, also writing Ancient‑Greek word in minuscule is an error, be‑cause at that epoch only capital script with‑out ac‑cent ex‑isted, minuscule should be used only for Modern‑Greek in your Wiktionary or Wikipedia...}. Gmazdên (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes is only intermittently active, and this is a general topic. As I said at Talk:san, you need to discuss this at the talk page for WT:AGRC. Besides, as I said at Talk:san, you seem to have developments from several historical periods all jumbled together, and your use of hyphens mid-word is di-st-ractin-g. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I ad‑ded this con‑versation here be‑cause like that every‑body reading the article can have this in‑formation, about the hyph‑en I use it to se‑parate pre‑fix and the root, be‑cause if you check their etymo‑logy they are com‑pound words... It's may‑be dis‑tracting for you but for me is more pre‑cise, ex‑act & ac‑curate. Mangêzd (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes, I've lately been wondering where Wiktionary sourced its Constantinopolitan Greek pronunciation, specifically in how it differed from Byzantine (10th century) Greek (cf. the evolution of the pronunciation of Κωνσταντινούπολις). This information isn't sourced in the transliteration page, the Wiktionary About Ancient Greek page, or in the discussion page for the
grc-pronunciation module. I've been scouring the Internet for any tidbit related to Constantinopolitan/15th century Greek pronunciation, but Wiktionary seems to be the only place that details it. I noticed you wrote the vast majority of the module, and I assume you were drawing on some source while you were doing it. It doesn't seem that you simply borrowed Modern Greek pronunciation, because the Modern Greek pronunciation of Κωνσταντίνος differs from that of Constantinopolitan Κωνσταντῖνος. Would you care to share any of those source materials here? Thanks in advance for the help!

Tectosax (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)TectosaxReply

Atelaes hasn't been on Wiktionary in something over a year. I've actually been working on putting together a better-sourced version of the pronunciation module, but I've been busy and it's slow work. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 21:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's actually been almost 2 and a half years. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

...wow. I didn't think I'd been here for that long. — ObſequiousNewt — Geſpꝛaͤch — Beÿtraͤge 00:18, 1 December 2016 (UːːˑTC)

Hey both, just wondering if there's any update here. Thanks againǃ Tectosax (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I quite like desysopping people, and you're next on my list. --G23r0f0i (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

LOL, that sounds so threatening. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would like to know where and / or how you can (or find) the pronunciations of the words in ancient Greek such as

νοεῖν

(5th BCE Attic) IPA(key): /no.êːn/

(1st CE Egyptian) IPA(key): /noˈin/

(4th CE Koine) IPA(key): /noˈin/

(10th CE Byzantine) IPA(key): /noˈin/

(15th CE Constantinopolitan) IPA(key): /noˈin/.

And I would like to know the possibility of adding the audio of the pronunciation of the words in ancient Greek.

Grateful. I await an answer.

Nipracs

He hasn't been active here for several years, so you may be waiting for a while. You'd probably have better luck asking about this at the talk page for About Ancient Greek. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed your admin rights due to our policy on admin inactivity, as you have not used any admin tools in the past five years. This removal is without prejudice and you can request your admin rights to be restored at any time. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply