User talk:Atelaes/2009

Archived discussions for 2006, 2007, 2008a, and 2008b

Thanks for the note; the template had an extra nested span, and I left it unbalanced. Fixed now. —Michael Z. 2009-01-02 21:40 z

Replied on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

• (uncountable) The dried leaves or buds of the tea plant, Camellia sinensis.

At the time I made the edit, I understood the rationale behind the appearance and targets of wiki links, and why Wiktionary would follow a more narrow variance between the two, the word rather than the plant being the proper topic. In the case of Camellia sinensis and tea plant, I did check that the latter is here on Wiktionary (as on Wikipedia) strictly defined as Camellia sinensis, which doesn't have it own article here, and so my edit seemed to me within this narrow variance.

My initial thought was that if C. sinensis had its own article, there would be two links to two articles which would have virtually nothing in the way of difference between them (On Wikipedia, tea plant forwards to Camellia sinensis).

• (uncountable) The dried leaves or buds of the tea plant, Camellia sinensis.

I wondered, then, whether Wiktionary shouldn't as a matter of policy simply link scientific names back into Wikipedia, rather than provide a definition which is itself, strictly, its own topic.

• (uncountable) The dried leaves or buds of the tea plant, Camellia sinensis.

Having reviewed Canis lupus, grey wolf and wolf, I do see your point. The red Camellia sinensis link should continue to beckon someone to write the article.

-SM 01:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you add User:EncycloPetey/WOTD to your watchlist I won't have to 'poke you each month. We have three words in particular coming up soon that could use your attention. --EncycloPetey 02:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it is. I've just been lazy. I did manage to get the first one, didn't I? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Prince Kassad took care of the creation of the 'new school' counterparts --Polyglot 21:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at the etymologies? I can never remember how to format for hypothetical source words in extinct languages. --EncycloPetey 22:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I finally found away to include those bastardly words that shouldn't be included, just for you. :p If you want me to make the index pages better in some way, prod me. Conrad.Irwin 01:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

from IRC for a short bit. - 70.79.96.121 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to say I am utterly puzzled by the possible justifications of the reverts at (deprecated template usage) lurv and (deprecated template usage) lurve. AFAICT, the only thing going on was removing an outdated (conversation was closed for all practical purpose back in July) template. The edits were otherwise sound, and I am quite certain if I had actually been logged (the computer I was editing from had cookies issues), they would not have been reverted. Are anonymous edits really that suspicious? Circeus 08:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem was the removal of an rfv. Anytime an anon removes an rfv/d/c, I revert it out of hand, simply assuming that it shouldn't be removed. Had you removed them logged in, I wouldn't have questioned it. I suppose I could have checked to see if there were actual cites on the citations page (which there apparently are). Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes,

Thanks for notifying me that you corrected the template for rmy. This allowed me to update my list at http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/User:PolyBot/Languages

This is not the same as Norman. See the comments I left for Robert. (new section at the bottom) --EncycloPetey 08:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.....both our entry and Wikipedia's article describe it as a dialect of Norman, not a language. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Opinon is more divided than either short article would indicate. Consider Jérrais, which is another of the Channel languages, and which has its own Wiki-projects. The Channel languages are severely understudied and undervalued in all the sources I've seen. --EncycloPetey 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The biggest problem I see with the format you've used is that it doesn't explain why there is a parenthetical repetition of the English word after the translations. That's not how we do that for any regionalisms I've seen for other languages. We really need a style guide for these situations somewhere, so the Brazilian Portuguese, Mexican Spanish, and other regionalistic translations are formatted the same way consistently in Translations tables. --EncycloPetey 08:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

My impression was that parenthetical dialect specification was standard for translations (simply based upon seeing stuff in practice). I very much agree that we should have some sort of policy on this. I don't have the energy to formulate a BP post for it right now, but I might be able to tomorrow (unless you feel like doing it). Another issue which could do with raising is language grouping. Should Western Apache sort under W, or should it be under A. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have no strong opinion in either issue. Yes, we use parentheses for dialects, but not in any consistent way; putting it after the translations removes the context of of what the parenthetic note says, especially when it's not the name of a well-known country. The latter issue you raise, in particular, could be contentious, since it will impact many languages (group Old X separately or with modern X? likewise: Ancient X? Northern X? Western X? Argentinian X?) The issue has been raised before, but has always bogged down in details of cases without reaching a conclusion. I'd just like a consistent and implementable decision that's clearly written and posted prominently. That way, I can remember how to sort translations listed from various Chinese languages, Ancient Greek, Old English, Western Apache, Northern Sami, Brazilian Portuguese, etc. --EncycloPetey 09:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The solution we should really be shooting for is custom translation organization. So, if someone is only interested in translations in five languages, they can skip the three hundred we have at water; if someone wants to sort them by genetic classification (as I would really like to do), they can do that; etc. It wouldn't be impossible, but I'm fairly confident it would be impractical with our current software. In any case, you're right that what we really need is a consistent policy, and I'm fairly apathetic about what it is, so long as it exists. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I ran the automation to fix 300+ entries from your list and EP's and a few from previously; see contribs for UllmannBot. The dump for today just finished, I figure on downloading it and running the report again? Robert Ullmann 09:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

That would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Robert Ullmann 13:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't AF be able to do this easily?—msh210℠ 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and it did a whole bunch of them. But there were a small number of stragglers (three to be exact), and I decided it'd be easier to do them by hand than to bug Robert. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you look at this and see if it's more than just tosh? 50 Xylophone Players talk 14:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nope. Utter rubbish. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

hey you helped me out before so I thought i'd ask you: How do I make a Index page for a language, do I put every word there manually so to speak? It is this index id like to make. Thanks in advance Edelstam 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've done this edit - could you check (and probably correct I'm afraid) the way I treated the Greek section? I'm watching the page so I'll be wiser next time whatever the outcome. Thanks. --Duncan 18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would appreciate your input at the talk page. The specific detail that bothers me is whether the "traditional" analysis, which cannot be held as true today according to Beekes, deserves equal prominence in the etymology section. Or perhaps wording can be changed in a way that gives each of those explanations their respective context. I have a feeling that Bogorm thinks that I'm "ideologically predisposed" for a certain etymological scenario, hence my reluctance to act as an arbitrator in this particular case, so I'd appreciate if you could express your opinion on the matter. Cheers! --Ivan Štambuk 13:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help about the Sanskrit words and Hellenismos. I do not understand some of your syntax, like 'sc=polytonic;' I do not know how important some of it is. That interesting you do a lot of work on Greek words (and probably Hebrew)... I have edit a fair amount of such Wikipedia articles....--Dchmelik 10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, frankly speaking I was only lucky in that it was too late at night here to react when I read your first comment in the RFV room yesterday, otherwise I would probably have used some strong words which I'd regret today as well. Trouble is, the "Romany issue" is very keenly felt in Eastern Europe, so that what you said sounded to Eastern European ears as tantamount to being undeservedly called a racist fogey. Anyway, I've done many such unintentional blunders in my life too, so I gladly accept your RFV room apology and bear you no grudge. (Needless to say I never had any quarrel with the template itself). Cheerio, --Duncan 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, rereading my initial comment, I realize how pig-headed I must have sounded.  :-) Though, I must admit I had no idea that I would be touching on such sensitive issues. I'm glad this could be resolved. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for showing me how to add a Noun (reset) properly. Trafford09 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sure. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Forwarding for your attention; see User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie#Countability_of_lulz. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that is old. Ruakh has done some excellent work on the entry since that discussion took place, so I'll leave the entry as is. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, though. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

thank you! It is also anadverb, sense I added, though I didn't manage to getspace the corresponding template right sad smiley( perhaps I should have put this on the respectivediscussion page, a bit confused now:/)--史凡 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just saw your reply on on EP's page . Thank you very much for the information about the pipe -- symble, I guess I will soon have occasion to try it out! tongu out of mouth smiley.

I went backto the entry, but couldnot figure out the inflection line for adverb. It doesinflect as far as I know. Anyway, Thank you for the help!--史凡 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS, I realized afterwards that the convention is synonyms as definitions for non-English entries I thought, I'll leave it like is for now though.

Thank you for your help. I've been on wikipedia for a little while but this is all new to me.J8079s 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

See my talk page for my reply. Thanks for asking, and I look forward to your reply. JesseW 07:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes, I really cannot fathom how you could embrace the Macedonist claim about the superfluity of one additional definition for the historic meaning of the word. In fact there is exigence not for one, but for two definitions elucidating the development of the notion through centuries. In the Middle Ages Macedonia as a geographical notion denoted the region between Alexandroupolis and Constantinople on the other side of the Balcan pæninsula. I exprest my concerns on Talk:Macedonia and intend to restore the erased definition and to add another one for the Byzantime time. RSVP. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I won't have time to investigate this properly for a little while. My initial thoughts are that the word "original" must go, and that the two ancient definitions seemed redundant (but perhaps they're not). Feel free to make any necessary changes, and I'll get back to it when I can. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, there can be only one Macedonia and this is the Greek. Calling FYROM "Macedonia" is a crime against history.--HIZUMI 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hizumi, no offense, but you need to go and chill in the Thermaikos with you Turk-Macedonian-everything non Greek-haters. As far as the logical discussion goes, check the discussion page, and see what I've written. As Bogorm confirmed, the term Vardar Macedonia is not a term used to describe the Republic of Macedonia, and should not be listed, as such, in the country in the Balkans section. And the term Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας, which whether you like it or not, is used in everyday Greek (check this out), should also be added to the other definitions in Greek (including FYROM, ΦΥΡΟΜ, Σκόπια etc.). I've already done this (what I said should be done), and I hope the changes won't be reverted, and that is why I'm writing to you (Atelaes), to have it in mind. I never said that the term doesn't describe any ancient kingdoms or states that have existed, I just noted that there is no such thing as an original Macedonia (even though you probably have just read that the original Macedonia is Greek, and you have committed a crime against history talking to me). So all the changes I have made are perfectly acceptable, and I hope you will have this in mind when reviewing the page. --Guitardemon666 00:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, they are not. As soon as you re-add Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας in the Greek section, which is either a non-existent or biased term used by people with an inimical stance to the Hellenic Republic, I shall feel obliged to add БЮРМ in the Russian section and マケドニア旧ユーゴスラビア共和国 in the Japanese one, which again would be inadæquate given the official position of these countries, which is accepted by the majority of their people. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well my dear friend, that term was and is used by many Greek residents, and from what I present you here, the third biggest party in Greece uses it too (even though the nationalists weren't too happy to see that). If you have any doubts, just look ΣΥΡΙΖΑ up in Wikipedia. This however, is not a political dictionary for it to be listing countries in the names they are recognized by other countries (Taiwan is not internationally recognized, so maybe it should not be listed in the languages of the countries that haven't recognized it?), it's a dictionary listing terms used for a specific entity/party (in this case) in any given language (of which we are able to obtain info, at least). Iran is a country in a region still called Persia, but the translations there don't say Persia in any language, because Persia is not Iran, just as Vardar Macedonia is not the Republic of Macedonia. Guitardemon666 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I need to use a language template Template:xur for Urartian, but it doesn't exist in Wiktionary yet. I'm not sure what's the protocol. Is it enough if I create one, or additional steps must be taken? --Vahagn Petrosyan 04:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The creation of the template is sufficient. Just follow the patter for one of the others, and you should be fine. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I want to quote Herodotus for Ἀρμενία. Can you trim down this bulk of Greek passage, so that it would correspond to English translation?

Greek
τὰ πλοῖα αὐτοῖσι ἐστὶ τὰ κατὰ τὸν ποταμὸν πορευόμενα ἐς τὴν Βαβυλῶνα,ἐόντα κυκλοτερέα, πάντα σκύτινα.

these boats which are down the stream going into Babylon are round, all skinned

ἐπεὰν γὰρ ἐν τοῖσι Ἀρμενίοισι τοῖσι κατύπερθε Ἀσσυρίων οἰκημένοισι νομέας ἰτέης ταμόμενοι ποιήσωνται,

for in the (land) of the Armenians, who dwell above that of the Assyrians, (some verb, maybe tend, shepherd?) willow (again, something confusing, something to do with supplies, economy...?) making

English
Their boats which ply the river and go to Babylon are all of skins, and round. They make these in Armenia, higher up the stream than Assyria.
Thanks in advance. --Vahagn Petrosyan 10:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.....there's a couple things here. First of all, there's some stuff in the English translation which comes after where you've stopped that you'll want to reinsert. I've done an incredibly rough translation (rough partially because there's some stuff I don't recognize, and partially because its six in the morning here and I need to go to bed), so hopefully you can figure out what needs to be reinserted. However, I think I've cut the Greek down to where you want it. Also, I don't think this is actually a form of Ἀρμενία, but rather a form of Ἀρμένιος (not positive, the form is not one I recognize. It looks like a verbal dative plural, but it doesn't seem to be used that way). I'll try and look into it more in the morning. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were right, it's not a form of Ἀρμενία. Ἀρμενίοισι is dat pl epic ionic aeolic of Ἀρμένιος according to this. I can't use it in a quote for Ἀρμενία. Thanks for your efforts, anyway. By the way, the full passage is here, if you're interested. --Vahagn Petrosyan 12:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because you voted last time, I'm informing you of Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-03/User:Equinox for admin.—msh210℠ 17:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Atelaes -- Re this comment, who's WM? -- WikiPedant 19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I ſurmiſe that this is WikiMedia, is not it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Correct surmised. Wikimedia was my intended referent. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. Please take a look a the 1658 quotation I added to our entry for (deprecated template usage) præscience. The Google Book Search hit gives the book’s first word as “Autokatakrisis”, but notes that “he first word of title is in Greek characters”. My knowledge of Ancient Greek is very limited, but I can read the alphabet, so I transcribed the word as Αυτοκατακρισις; is (deprecated template usage) αυτοκατακρισις (autokatakrisis) the correct spelling? I’m guessing that I’ve missed out some pitch and breathing marks. Please correct the quotation in the entry as you see fit. Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've added the proper diacritics. I can't be absolutely certain that the acute is accurately placed, as my dictionaries don't have the word (the author may have coined it, or it might be later Greek, or my dictionaries may have simply missed it). However, compound words like that usually have recessive accent (such as (deprecated template usage) αὐτοκατάκριτος (autokatákritos)), so I'm fairly confident it's correct. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. So, is (deprecated template usage) αὐτοκατάκρισις (autokatákrisis) the case, as the book’s title suggests? And does the Ancient Greek word warrant an entry? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It might, but if so, I haven't the resources to create it. My guess is that it's later Greek, perhaps coming up in Christian authors. I have plenty of materials on the LXX and NT, but nothing for later Christian writings. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, looking at the google results, I wonder if it even is a real grc word. I almost wonder if it's a modern coining. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, never mind, then. Thanks for your help with the quotation. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm trying to clean up the list of requested Persian entries (http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Requested_entries:Persian) and I came across a request that doesn't really make sense to me.

I have never heard of the entry "صقلیب" before and I tried to look it up on a lot of different dictionaries but it doesn't seem to exist. A Google search on the word only brings up two pages from Wiktionary so I'm just left with the sentence for the entry: "Sclave of greek Σκλάβος, latin sclavus". Do you know if this Persian word has any relations with "Σκλάβος"? Arvin 17:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

That request was made by User:Nemzag. You should not be at all surprised if the word does not exist, as Nemzag loves to request words which don't exist (but should according to some rubric of his). See this convo for some background reading. Simply delete the request without fulfilling it without any feelings of guilt. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aha, well that's annoying considering I just wasted some time looking for a non-existing word... Thanks for the info :) Arvin 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to the club. You can see the output of my own frustration two threads down from the previously linked one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. Why did you remove the category link in this edit? --Jackofclubs 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

A couple of reasons. The initial impetus was that a user was adding ang proper nouns with inflections, which were getting categorized as nouns because they had inflections. Secondly, this is simply not how categorization is supposed to work. The POS categorization should happen within the inflection line template, not the inflection template (I wish we had less confusing terms, but.....). ang inflection line templates do, in fact, properly categorize, and so there shouldn't be any problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

So, since I was the one who removed the categorization feature in {{oe-noun}} (which, incidentally, should really be moved to {{ang-declnoun}} or something), I'd be willing to put {{ang-noun}} into all the entries which became uncategorized by that move. However, I was wondering if you could help me use the template. It appears that there are a bunch of optional parameters, such as genitive, dative, and accusative built into the template. I guess I'm a bit confused by this. Is there a form which is usually put into the inflection line, and if so, why are all the others built into the template? Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

• The short answer is, I don't know. {{ang-noun}} wasn't designed by me but by User:Williamsayers79, and I never use it. The inflection line only needs the nominative singular really, and the gender. But coding in the diacritics is important, which is why I usually tend to do it all manually. Ƿidsiþ 20:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Well, say (deprecated template usage) stān for example. Ƿidsiþ 06:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

    Done. The template takes two parameters, g and head, and is now in place at stan. You don't need any sorting feature, do you? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Looks great! I'm stil not exactly sure why we needed it, but this template certainly seems to do the job perfectly. Thanks! Ƿidsiþ 13:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes,

When you delete a deprecated template, could you give the newer version in the deletion summary? E.g., for {{OHG.}}, something like "use {{etyl|goh}}"?

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 03:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ugh...that's going to add hours of work, but....fine.  :-P. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wait, is it really going to add hours of work? If so, don't worry about it, it's not that big a deal. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I was just being a whiny bitch. It adds three seconds per template. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is important, because four or five months ago I was wondering what should be the code for {{etyl|}}, when I wanted to add Old High German (OHG), and I searched for several minutes, until I discovered that the abbreviation is goh - German Old High... So, this effort would be forsooth helpful for other editors. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In this edit, you stated the etymology is Quechan. I think you might have mistaken it for Quechua (qu), which seems like a more likely origin of the word. --Jackofclubs 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well.....that's an interesting question. The situation is thus: the first set of 639 codes had Quechua(n) as a single language, with the code {{qu}}. However, Quechua(n) is actually a language family, with a whole bunch of languages in it (and newer 639's have recognized this fact). Now, since we have no good Quechua(n) people here, we have not yet managed to get on board with this fact, and still treat Quechua as a single language. However, this isn't really true, and will have to be fixed eventually. So, right now we have two templates, {{qu}} "Quechua" language and {{etyl:qwe}} "Quechuan" macrolanguage. If I were really ambitious, I'd go around and change all the qu's in etymologies to qwe's, but I'm not. Once we get a Quechua person of some sort, hopefully they'll be able to sort this out better. As it is, Quechua presence is still pretty small, and I'm not too worried. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I just realized that this was all about a missing u. It has been inserted. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are actually two Latin verbs spelled this way. I've created the section for the other one. Are you sure that you put the etymology on the right one? I suspect it properly belongs with the second etymology that I have added. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You know, it's interesting. The OLD doesn't seem to have an entry vadō, only vādō, which it says is cognate with vadum, in addition to the Germanic words. So....I'm not quite sure what to tell you on that one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would have though (deprecated template usage) vādō to be cognate with English (deprecated template usage) go, based on what little I've found. I am genuinely surprised that the OLD doesn't have an entry for (deprecated template usage) vadō, though. I'm not sure what to make of that myself. --EncycloPetey 04:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess, personally, I would put my bets on the OLD, as it's newer, but L&S is certainly no slacker. Then again, it is slightly odd that there are two verbs locomotion verbs which are identical save inflection and vowel length. Do you have a good third dictionary to be a tie-breaker? The only other Latin dictionary I've got is the little Langenscheidt. It's only got vādō, but it's certainly not comprehensive. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have several Latin dictionaries, maybe I can help. Dvoretsky's Latin-Russian dictionary has:

Etymology 1. vādo (vāsī), -are— to move, go

Etymology 2. vado, -ere - to ford

and Ausführliches Lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch von Karl Ernst Georges has

Etymology 1. vado, āre (vadum) — waten, durchwaten

Etymology 2. vādo, ere (vgl. ahd. watan, waten) — wandern, gehen, schreiten, losgehen, losschreiten

Vahagn Petrosyan 07:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dvoretsky agrees completely with L&S, and......the other one is yet a third opinion. It agrees on the ety of vādo with OLD. Do you by chance have the ety from them on vadum? It could be that vādo and vadum are cognate, with vado being a descendant of vadum. However, I see nothing semantically to connect vādo and vadum....except vado.  :-P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The conversation started because of a request for the Latin progenitor verb of (deprecated template usage) vadear, which is a first-conjugation Spanish verb. This is weak evidence for a first-conjugation verb in Latin, but some evidence nonetheless. Unfortunately, the RAE does not seem to indicate the Latin verb from which the Spanish one is supposed to come. I may have to do some poking around in Latin texts this weekend to see whether I can find clear support via conjugated forms to support verbs in two conjugational patterns. --EncycloPetey 13:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nobody has ever requæsted the Latin progenitor of this Spanish verb. Doremítzwr mentioned the existence of the Spanish entry at vadeo in the same unrelated way as he mentioned the Turkish entry already created at vade. He has stated clearly that he is seeking the Latin verb for I go (vado, vadere) and this whole misapprehension is not caused by me. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vahagn, in his Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Latine Ernout claims a *wā- root, whence Armenian gam, I am coming. Is the spelling correct? Could you create and link the entry? He mentions also Hittite uwa-, to come.(On est donc amené a suppose la soit un ancienne athématique *wādh-, *wədh-, soit l'élargissement d'une racine *wā-... ; l'arménien a gam, mais au sens de "je viens" qui fait penser au hittite uwa-, "venir"). He explains that the suffix -de/o- similar to Old Irish determined præteritum ducuaid/docoid in its præsent form and that explains why it has no perfectum. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I misquoted Dvoretsky, sorry. His definitions were:

Etymology 1. vādo, -ere — to move, go

Etymology 2. vado, -āre — to ford

This coincides with the German definition. As concerns the etymology of vadum, none of them has it. But thanks to Bogorm mentioning Armenian gam I found evidence that all those are connected. Here is what Armenian etymological dictionary says:

...(deprecated template usage) գամ (gam) is derived from Proto-Indo-European *wā-, which itself has disappeared everywhere else, but its extended form *wādʰ- has given rise to Latin (deprecated template usage) vādo, (deprecated template usage) vado, (deprecated template usage) vadum, Old Norse (deprecated template usage) vaða, Old High German (deprecated template usage) watan (German (deprecated template usage) waten), Old English (deprecated template usage) wadan (English wade).
The origin from PIE Proto-Indo-European *wā- is also confirmed by Hittite wā, wā "to go", uwa- "to come"...

This is not the only dictionary claiming the relationship: see MW, for example. --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In your opinion, then, is this a rare case of two homographs in Latin with a single, shared etymology? That is, should the etymology sections be merged? --EncycloPetey 13:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an authority in Latin but, for what it's worth, I'd keep the division between Etymology 1 and Etymology 2 in vado, and mention in Etymology 2 that it's related to Etymology 1. And that they are related, I have no doubt: in addition to above sources Oxford Dictionary of English says wade is related to vadum and Collins English Dictionary - to vādere "I go". And this is from Webster's Unabridged 3 — "Etymology of wade: Middle English waden, from Old English wadan; akin to Old High German watan to go, wade, Old Norse vatha to go through, wade, Latin vadere to go, Old English wæd ford, Old Norse vath, Latin vadum". --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I believe User:A-cai knows more than I about this. Middle Chinese has early and late versions, and the one that Unihan has in its databse is the Tang version of Middle Chinese, as reconstructed in a print source (a book) that they use as their source. I don't know the codes. See if A-cai knows. 24.29.238.60 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Have you deleted ιχθύς? The spelling is correct (no diacritics for the modern Greek word), so what was the problem? --flyax 06:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I deleted it because it was put in as Ancient Greek. If it's Greek, by all means create it. It's kind of funny, actually, 'cuz I was just looking at that myself before you noted it (I'm assuming in both of our cases it was because of Interwicket.) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, well I actually went ahead and restored it, and fixed the language header. Please feel free to add anything you like to it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are perhaps more familiar with this law than I am and although I perused the Wikipedia article, I did not encounter there a mention of Ancient Greek θ. Just to note that MW takes the kinship for granted as do Douglas Harper (2001–2024) “scathe”, in Online Etymology Dictionary. and “scath”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC.. Howbeit, I am not here to argue about reliability of sources, but to ask you whether Old Norse ð in (deprecated template usage) skaða can be related to Greek θ or the Grimm's law again precludes this possibility. How about Old High German d in skado -> Schaden? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You know, truth be told, I rather think that the words are cognate, if you want my personal opinion, just so we're clear. Grimm's Law is limited to Germanic reflexes, and says nothing about Greek, so it doesn't preclude cognateship on its own. However, based on it, a Proto-Germanic þ implies a PIE t, which would give a Greek τ. A Greek θ implies a PIE dʰ, which would give Germanic d (by the way, have you seen w:Indo-European sound laws? Ivan clued me into it awhile back, and I have found it quite useful). So....as for the OHG d...it sort of depends. My understanding of Germanic phonological development is basically null, but if the OHG d came from a PIE dʰ, then we'd have something, but if it came from a proto-Germanic þ (which is what I'm kind of assuming), which came from a PIE t, then we have a problem. Ultimately, the problem is that ἀσκηθής is completely isolated in Greek, and so we can't compare other forms, and see if perhaps the theta developed from a tau plus some aspirated something or other. I've linked my reference, so you can take a look for yourself (which I don't usually do, because Beekes' numbering system is completely arbitrary, and the only way I can find the number is by utilizing a binary search algorithm, which is quite tedious). In closing, I don't really have a problem with the etymologies of scathe and ἀσκηθής contradicting each other, as our sources clearly contradict each other, and such is the real state the academic viewpoint (divided). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

You want to drop into #wiktionary-el for a minute? Then we can figure something out quickly... -- ArielGlenn 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at template talk:IPA? I think it would be appropriate to switch some of the links where we actually have local pronunciation guides.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, you didn't tell me why the etymology for "rank" was incorrect on neither my talk page nor your edit summary. I got it directly from Wikipedia (). Look under "rank", there is a source for it, I wouldn't have added anything if there wasn't a source. Parthian Scribe 07:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rank? Steel Blade 07:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is always a question, something can't just be "simply false". There is no conflict between my etymology and the one already there. If you want an online source that you can read, here is one .Parthian Scribe 18:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

And about the first book being "wrong", it was written by Richard Nelson Fry who is pretty reputable. There also wasn't any reason for him to make stuff up since he wasn't Iranian. Parthian Scribe 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I link to three of the foremost online dictionaries, all of which claim a Germanic origin straight from PIE, and you link to a homespun Iranian politics site? That can't possibly be considered a valid retort. Show me a respectable dictionary which backs up your claim, and I will give it credence. As for the 'pedia entry, as I previously said, I don't know what happened there. I find it rather more likely that the person who added it misread or misquoted the source, but I don't know. I am not accusing Dr. Fry of anything. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make; that site was really just summarizing a book that was published by an Oxford-based group.

By the way, I really feel like you are trying to ridicule me, I'm sorry if that's not your intention, but that is how I personally feel. Parthian Scribe 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not trying to ridicule you. Our argument has nothing to do with either of our intelligences (rest assured, I don't have a firm enough grasp of historical linguistics to come up with any of this on my own). My point is simply this: There are three well known dictionaries which back up the old etymology, while there is one unofficial looking site which I've never heard of which backs up the new one. The former has a clear advantage, and until better sources can be found which support a Persian origin, I don't think there's much more to be said. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, according to Maro, who appears to have some knowledge of Old Polish, assigning separate Wiktionary pseudocode would be much more preferred than just treating Old Polish as some kind of archaic form of Polish. Especially if some of the inflections (like dual) are lost in the living language for centuries now. We can use some type of pseudocode like pl-old to utilize templates for categorization/wikification puropses, or just categorize manually (given that there are only a few Old Polish entries present at this moment). --Ivan Štambuk 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.....I don't find that argument terribly convincing, speaking as one who is covering a "language" which lasts for 2,000 years. It's certainly possible to document variations over time. Then again, I suppose that could clutter up the Polish entries for most users who probably don't give a rat's ass about archaic morphology. *sigh* That leads us to two of the big issues which Wiktionary will eventually have to deal with much better than it is: 1. How do we decide where to delineate historical developments of languages? Certain IE langauges such as English and French have it nice, probably because the people deciding these distinctions were largely English and French speakers. 2. How do we pack entries with tons of information, and leave them usable to the average dictionary user. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a look at रक्त and tell me how to fix the bold script problem there. Thanks :D --Dijan 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you talking about the Urdu spelling of the adjective? If so, the best bet is probably the creation of {{hi-adj}}. It would probably be nearly identical to {{hi-noun}}, with the categorization changed. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was talking about the Urdu spelling of the adjective. Can you check the {{l}} template to make sure that the bold is turned off there as well when script is specified. --Dijan 02:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

رکت
رکت
رکت
رکت
I don't think {{l}} is doing anything. Somehow {{infl}} was doing it. I'll take a look. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's interesting. It looks like {{infl}} italicizes or bolds every other numbered parameter. I suppose it's expecting a title, and then a link. I think that {{infl}} is more aimed at Latin scripts, and runs into problems with others. As a general rule, you'll get better results from a language specific inflection template over {{infl}}. Now that we've got {{hi-adj}}, this should all be a moot point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks :D --Dijan 02:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to check the ety on this when you get a sec. My source seems to imply that the Gothic at least is a natural PIE reflex, and cognate with the Latin, instead of descended from it. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Ah - you're right. The Gothic is indeed a Latin cognate. My mistake. Ƿidsiþ 06:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary%3AVotes%2Fsy-2009-04%2FUser%3AJackofclubs_for_admin&diff=6451977&oldid=6451965 Conrad.Irwin 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, yeah. I think I'll blame it on the vote creator setup. It's not like I should have to put any actual thought into the creation of a vote. ;-) Thanks for fixing it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

When adding languages in the Descendants section, I am not sure whether I need to add those where the word was loaned, exempli gratia here (under efendija) are Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and even Arabic and Persian descendants/loanwords. How do you proceed with English loanwords, do you list them under the Ancient Greek noun? eschatology under έσχατον#Descendants (ultimate)? I am asking, because the linguistic distance from Greek to Bg, SC, Farsi and English is the same - Indo-Germanic languages from different families, so if you would list escatology under έσχατον, I would proceed accordingly on the same wise with the Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian and other cognates. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is a good question which, truth be told, I have not really settled in my own mind. I think that it is reasonable to add English, as well as Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, and Persian words to the Descedants section of Ancient Greek words. Generally, I am a little choosier about the descendants section than the etymology. So, for example, if there were twenty words that came from the same Ancient Greek word, I would mention the Ancient Greek word in all of their etymologies, but not list them all under the descendants section of that Greek word. I feel like, as we move along, we'll probably come up with better selection criteria for this, perhaps listing only the immediate descendants (which would, in many cases, only be Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew, and a few others), but for now, listing English, SC, and whatever else is perfectly fine. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Choosier about the Descendants than about the etymology?! When I recollected how choosy you were about one Gothic cognate in an etymology section and your ensuing action, I was consternated because of mine edit in αὐθέντης#Descendants, but then I beheld my descendant there hale and sound. Please, do not try to petrify me again like that... Well, I shall add the corresponding descendants, but might I express mine opinion that you are less choosy, since you do not repugn their addition (unlike yonder unfortunate cognate, which is still not mentioned, neither in the Anc. Gr. nor in the OE noun). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

In fairness there was a general policy on which cognates to include in an etymology, while there is none for descendants. Some of your edits previous to the one in question had clearly overstepped that bound, and I think the addition of the Gothic was the straw that broke the camel's back. Admittedly, the distinction between such a straw and a simple overreaction on my part is difficult to determine. In any case, I am quite open to any genuine descendants being listed, at least until such time as we draw up a policy on them. One caveat is that the entry for the most recent grc etymon is the appropriate place for such a listing (e.g. if someone listed planet under the descendants header of πλανάω, I would move it to πλανήτης). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good morning ! What do you think of my theory ?

• Sing< seduct+ suffix= se+ duct( take away), charm, seduce, connected with sect( cut)
• ring<reduct+ suffix= re+duct( take back), reduce, connected with rectus ( right)
• thing< teductus*= te+duct( unknown + take/drive)connected with tectus( protected, roof) and thetos< thektos( laid in Greek)
• wing<veduct+suffix= ve+duct( take away), connected with vectus ( driven)
• king<conduct+ suffix( together drive), connected with cunctus ? = driver

Mark Mage--86.218.93.114 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

cunctus means whole in Latin. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I must mirror the statements of Stephen. I do not understand quite what you're proposing here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry,Ataelaes, I wrote too quickly. Is it clearer ?

• Sing( chanter) comes from the root "seduct", with prefix "se" and root "duc"( take apart, drive apart). In Latin, the word means seduce, charm, take apart. It's connected with "sectus"= cut ( syncop of syllable du)
• Sink( couler, évier)comes from the same root. The meaning of destruction of a boat comes from the idea of taking apart. The meaning of place to wash is perhaps connected with the idea of going apart
• Ring ( anneau, ring de boxe) comes from the root "reduct", with prefix "re"(again, back) and root "duc"( take back, drive back). In Latin , it means also reduce. Ring would mean reduced place. It's connected with rectus ( right) with the meaning of re-erect.
• Thing, German Ding( chose) comes from the root "deduct" with prefix de ( from) and root "duc" ( take from, drive from). In Latin, it's connected with the word tectum( with an alternance of mute and voiced consonant), which means protect, roof. In my opinion, it's connected too with Greek thêtos (posé, laid) that would come from disappeared "thektos".
• Think, german denke, comes from the same root with the meaning of deduce( one of the meaning of the verb in latin).
• Thank,german danke comes from dedic with prefix "de" (from ) and root "dic"( say). In Latin, it means dedicate.
• Wing (aile) comes from the prefix ve( away) and root duc( drive , take). The word doesn't exist but is supposed by the series. It's connected with the word vectus( transport)
• Wink( cligner de l'oeil) comes from the same root. The meaning comes from the fact that winking is used as a way of seducing.
• Bonus( good) comes from adjective bovinus( related to a beef) with the syncop of syllabe vi( as in amasse coming from amavisse). It comes also from divinus (related to god) with the same alteration that gives bis (twice)from duis. The two meanings are found together in greek adjective theotauros( god-Bull), attributed to Zeus.

Thank you for your answer. --Mark Mage 14:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes, do you object against adding (deprecated template usage) 𐍃𐍄𐌰𐌹𐌲𐌰 (stáiga) in στίχος#Etymology as a cognate? If you demand sources, I would quote Vasmer. There is no OE cognate or at least it was not listed in his Etymology dictionary. I decided to ask in order to preclude the possibility of a similar reverberation as in the case when I added 𐌳𐍂𐌿𐌽𐌾𐌿𐍃 (drunjus) to the etymology section of another grc word. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 09:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, certainly not. The entry has no etymology, and thus is rather safe from being overloaded with redundant cognates at the moment. I only objected previously because the word already had a Germanic cognate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Besides, if you know an Ancient Greek word meaning pavement, paved road, kerb or something similar and which resembles kaldrma, you may help here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll look into it, but it may be a little while, kind of busy at the moment. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:01, 24 April 2009 (U

Thank you for answering the first time. I have made new searches.

• hypothesis. Knemidôtos( wearing greaves) is the etymon of knight( boy in Old english,)

It is said to be related to ham in PIE.

• Observation 1
• In latin and Greek, the words for humanity( both male and female) are often ambivalent
• example 1:
• Virgo, virginis can be cut in Vir( man) + gynê, greek, woman
• hominis is very near in phonetics to femina ( fostis, fostia et fordeum= hostis , hostia , hordeum, in texts). So in English, Woman comes from homo,hominis
• femen (latin) means thigh( top of the leg)
• example 2
• parthênos( girl) is probably a cognate of thenar( palm of the hand)( parathênos* ? )
• Mount Parnassos comes from mount parthênassos*( it was said to be the mount of Muses)
• So peronê, bone of the leg, is linked with parthênos and parnôpes, a species of grasshoppers( jumping insect with big legs)
• In latin, perna, means thigh and ham and gives pierna ( leg) in Spannish. In Greek, the same word has been borrowed, whith the meaning of ham.

example 3

• In greek, gonos(knee) Gônos( birth) and gônia, angle are very similar
• In latin, cunus means corner, genu means knee and cunnus pussy, cunt( probably from cuninus, small angle, corner) cf french expression "petit coin", that means toilet.
• Observation n° 2
• In real life, thighs are the place where boys and girls mix.
• Observation n°3
• euknemides achaioi ( athenians with nice greaves) is a topos of Iliad about warriors.
• In phonetics, syllable "dô" is often syncopated in Latin. I haven't checked in Greek, but in my opinion, it's the same thing.
• so knemidôtos gives Knemitos.
• We have a link betwwen optimus and optikos( best and related to sight). En français, you say "les gens en vue" to mean well-known people. "
• So "m" can transform in "k". Knemitos= knekitos.
• The "i" between consonants is often syncopated. Knektos.
• And we have "rektos" giving "right", so "knectos" gives "knight".

CQFD

• We have a connexion between leg, boy, ham and armed boy

and in phonetic knemidôtos>knemitos>knekitos>knektos>....knight. The cognate of Knemidôtos in PIE is a very good client for the etymon of knight. --Mark Mage 15:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Is there anymore relevant admin-lit I should read that's not mentioned at User:Jackofclubs#Admin notes? --Jackofclubs 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would also suggest Help:Sysop tools. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It depends on what you might consider relevant. For example: WT:WL and WT:DW are pages I'd consider to be of key usefulness for an admin, although neither is about being an admin. --EncycloPetey 14:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. Is (deprecated template usage) φιλἐραστής (philerastḗs) the correct form of the Ancient Greek etymon-cum-translation of (deprecated template usage) philerast, or have I got the accentuation and/or ending and/or something else wrong? I think all the other etyma are correct — I reproduced them literatim from those given in the OED and most are blue-linked; however, I’m not sure about (deprecated template usage) φιλεῖν (phileîn) either, since the iota in the OED had a circumflex (though I thought the tilde and the circumflex to be equivalent in Ancient Greek). Sorry if I’ve made a mess of those words. Thanks in advance. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've cleaned it up a bit. A couple of notes for future reference with grc. First, breathing marks only appear on the first (or second in the case of initial diphthongs) letter of a word. They do not appear in the middle of a word. Secondly, we use the present active indicative 1st singular as the verb lemma form here, where some etymological dictionaries use the present active infinitive. Any verb which ends in ν almost certainly needs to be changed. Also, if you are confused about the removal of φιλ-, you may want to read my thoughts on prefixes in Ancient Greek. Finally, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the latter portion of the etymology (one way or the other), but I will take your word for it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cool, the points about the spiritūs and verb lemmata are noted. In re your final point: do you reckon that the latter part of the etymology needs a reference to back it up? I imagine I could find one without too much difficulty… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

About Ancient Greek prefixes. What do you suggest to do with the prefix ἐμ-, which I'd like to use in the etymology of empyreal. Use ἐν instead? --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. This is simply a standard rule in Ancient Greek phonology; nu becomes mu in front of a labial, just like how pi becomes a phi before an aspirate (see apostasy, the intermediate etymon). I realize this seems a bit odd to a English speakers, who definitely have prefixes like peri- and -logy, but that is because these things mean nothing in isolation. It would be silly to posit a friend- as the etymon of friendship; it is simply friend, a word which has been joined according to standard rules, and retains its standard definition in the compound. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’ll take your word for it on this one, but I’d like to enquire: What is your position on the English suffixes (deprecated template usage) -man, (deprecated template usage) -woman, and (deprecated template usage) -person? Those suffixes exist as words in their own right ((deprecated template usage) man, (deprecated template usage) woman, (deprecated template usage) person). According to your logic, ought not the suffix entries to be deleted? Contrast the many words formed by (deprecated template usage) here, (deprecated template usage) there, or (deprecated template usage) where + — none of those are considered affixes; in your opinion, is this position defensible, or is the distinction merely abitrary? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

To be completely honest, I'm a bit torn by -man. I think that there might be merits to it, and then again there might not be. If the suffix use of man is restricted to those four categories, then it might be worthwhile to state that it is so. However, I suspect that it is not, and that -man is simply man used as a combining form. In any case, it is a bit silly that man is not even mentioned in -man. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I’ve made a few more changes to the etymology; are these tweaks OK? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

They're not awful, but I don't think they're ideal. To begin with, I think that φιλέω should be first, as I feel like it's a stronger/more likely contributor. Additionally, I prefer to avoid strong logical connectors like "or," as it might not be "or," it might be "and," or something else entirely. Leaving it vague is most appropriate and is well accomplished by the comma. Also, while some people admittedly use the word "cognate" in the sense you have used it, I prefer to reserve it for natural cognateship (i.e. excluding borrowings). So, besides the transliteration correction, I would prefer the edit be undone. However, I do not believe it so strongly that I'll do it myself. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

(deprecated template usage) Κωμῳδία (Kōmōidía) but (deprecated template usage) ᾠδή (ōidḗ) — which is correct? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

There has been some disagreement about this. User:Gilgamesh wanted "ōi," but I prefer simply "ō," and have been editing thus. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, <ō> is what the spelling (ω) would suggest to me. However, I see that the Classical pronunciation of ῳ is , so I can see Gilgamesh’s point. What is that little line beneath the omega, and why did the disappear in later pronunciations? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

See w:Iota subscript. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

From reading that, my preference now lies with transcribing ῳ using <ōi>. However, ideally, we would have some means of distinguishing the iota subscript from an ordinary iota in transcription — perhaps using Turkish’s <ı>? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

All my 9 English etymological dictionaries transliterate ῳ as ōi. Why reinvent the wheel? --Vahagn Petrosyan 19:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We’re not reinventing it, we’re improving it. (The wheel would be a bit rubbish if we’d kept the original designs.) If we can improve upon common practice, then we should try to; IMO the iota–iota subscript–no iota distinction is a useful one to make / maintain. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Doremítzwr, sorry to cavil at that, but using Turkish letters for (Ancient) Greek is verily inappropriate, since you are probably aware of the strenuous relations and what macabre reminiscence this may have for the Orthodox peoples on the Balkan pæninsula (I am referring to the period 1453/1460-1821 for Greece). As for the rest, if 9 etymological dictionaries prefer this spelling, then I join you and Vahagn in demanding its adoption. At least the relation would be bijective (ῳ-ōi and ω-ō) and not surjective (preciser: non-injective) as currently. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pace Balkan bad blood, I don’t find it to be a reasonable objection to our use of <ı> for transcribing the iota subscript. For one thing, <ı> only started being used in the writing of Turkish when Atatürk introduced it in 1928 alongside the rest of the new Turkish alphabet, so the objection is anachronistic. Conversely, a similar argument could be made against your “linguistic credo” and its consequential fusion of the Serbo-Croatian triad, considering those latter-day atrocities which accompanied the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. However, neither of those arguments are pertinent to linguistic categorisation or to our transliteration schemes; there is no onus on us to walk on nationalistic eggshells. For another thing, even the scheme of <ῳ> → <ōi> with <ω> → <ō> is potentially still surjective, such as in those cases where we need to transcribe <ωι> &c. So, for a genuinely injective transliteration scheme, I again advocate the use of <ı> to transcribe the iota subscript. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

To begin with, using any non-ASCI characters for transliteration is a bad idea. Transliterations are meant to be as simple as possible, and "ı" would be meaningless to nearly all of our audience. After reviewing the topic (something I haven't done in quite some time), I must concede that ōi is really the only reasonable way to do it. Bear in mind that the combination ωι basically does not exist (there may be a few exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare). ῳ is ultimately a graphical convention to represent ωι. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. I’ve always used (deprecated template usage) bases as the plural of (deprecated template usage) basis, and have presumed hitherto that it has a straight-forward etymological basis. However, I recently discovered that the nominative plural form of (deprecated template usage) βάσις (básis), its etymon, is (deprecated template usage) βάσεις (báseis), and not *(deprecated template usage) βάσης (básēs) or whatever, as I had expected it to be. I went looking for English uses of *(deprecated template usage) baseis, and sure enough, I found some (a number sufficient for me to feel unjustified in dismissing them as typos, given this etymological revelation). Could you explain why (deprecated template usage) βάσεις (báseis) became (deprecated template usage) bases, and not *(deprecated template usage) baseis (in contrast with (deprecated template usage) πόλεις (póleis), which became (deprecated template usage) poleis, and not *(deprecated template usage) poles)? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I don't know, however I will relate my suspicions. "polis" does not seem to have been transmitted as naturally as "basis." What I mean is that "βάσις" became "basis" in Latin, and then (one would assume) "basis" in French (one of its varieties), and then transmitted to English. Throughout that journey, it probably changed its morphology to that of one of the intermediary languages (perhaps Latin? Ask EP if there are any -is/-es Latin patterns.). "polis," on the other hand, does not seem to have become a word in Latin (at least, not a common one anyway), and English sort of plucked it out straight from the Ancient Greek (what I've termed an ad fontes borrowing), and thus the word comes to us more or less intact. You notice this natural descent/ad fontes borrowing distinction all the time in biblical names, with common ones (such as my own name, Jesse) bearing the marks of many changes acquired on a long journey, while less common ones bear much more similarity to the original Hebrew/Aramaic.

Another possibility is that, when I think basis/bases, it simply feels better in my mind than basis/baseis or basis/basises, whereas polis/poles and polis/poleis sound terrible, with polis/polises sounding quite natural (bear in mind that I think that the plural "poleis" is a ridiculous hypercorrection which is completely unnatural in the English language). Thus, it's quite possible that the difference in plural is due more to modern English phonological rules than the words' respective histories, being somehow affected by the initial vowels "o" and "a." Being the ultimate mutt language, English is chock full of all sorts of esoteric rules that native speakers are very rarely aware of. Bear in mind that everything heretofore stated is not based on a single shred of evidence specific to the words in question, and should be taken as a mindless rant more than an informative answer. I leave it to you to do any real investigation, should the answer be that important to you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I discussed this topic with my roommate, and had a few further thoughts, if you're interested. It turns out that "basis" does in fact follow standard Latin declension (-is/-es). We decided that the reason why "basis" (as well as other, similar words, such as "crisis") retained the Latin inflection when most other Latin inherited words acquired the standard English plural is most likely that the double sibilants interfere with the English plural (three s's in a row is quite the mouthful). Again, this is just armchair thinking, without any hard evidence of any kind. I could very well be wrong. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Belated comment: the only situation when one might, in principle, want to disambiguate bases (where e corresponds to either a schwa inherited from Old French to Middle English, or alternatively to a long e from Latin) from baseis (where -eis corresponds to the Greek plural ending) is in mathematics because in this field base is a very different concept from basis. However, in effect, when authors use these two different concepts in the same paper (or book), they usually inflect the number of both these words as bases -- except for a handful of linguistically puristic authors who use baseis as the plural of basis. --Omnipaedista 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have just added some Ancient Greek etymology to essence, but the Greek diacritics is wrong; there is some kind of diacritic mark above omega in "on", which I was not able reproduce, and the diacritic mark above "u" in "ousia" is also wrong, both judging from Century 1911. Could you have a look at it?

On another note, there was some kind template indicating that an etymology needs to have a look of an expert; do you know the name of the template? Should I use {{rfe}} for this purpose? Thanks. --Dan Polansky 10:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi again, Atelaes. Did you notice this revision and its summary? If and when you have the time, could you please verify and correct the Ancient Greek words in this appendix? Danke. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've tagged it with {{attention|grc}}, so I can work on it when I get my Wiktionary drive back. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cool, thanks.  :-) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. If I wanted a word to mean the “fear of the misuse of language”, would (deprecated template usage) καταχρηστοφοβία (katakhrēstophobía) be well-formed? Also, does such a word exist in Ancient Greek? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is not an Ancient Greek word. I think that, since κατάχρησις is a iota stem, καταχρηστιφοβία might be more appropriate, but, as I have tried to consistently be honest about, I am no Greek scholar. Also, as far as I can tell (bearing in mind the preceding note), -φοβία does not exist in Ancient Greek. All English words with -phobia come from φόβος, although I'm not sure of the exact route. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is the {{etyl}} replacement for the {{AS.}} template? Is it {{etyl|ang}}? Thank you. --Dan Polansky 09:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes. My apologies for not leaving that info in the deletion log. Ruakh clued me in to how helpful that might be somewhere in the P's, if I recall. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No issue; I have added a doc to the talk page of {{AS.}}. --Dan Polansky 12:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. Sorry to mention (deprecated template usage) catachresis again so soon. Please notice what I did to its etymology; this is pretty much how the OED has it. I don’t think we’d be misrepresenting the OED if we used our lemmata instead of theirs, but I was unsure how to blend the two approaches to the etymology, since they seemed to give different semantic descriptions as well (and not only differing from us on the choice of verb form to use as etyma). Could you alter the etymology to make it appropriate to our style whilst retaining the semantic information given by the OED please? Thanks. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 10:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't figure out what {{AF.}} stood for and how to achieve the same effect using {{etyl}}. Can you help? --Dan Polansky 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

It was used for Anglo-Norman derivations. Use {{etyl|xno}} instead. --Ivan Štambuk 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You think you're getting it back anytime soon? The motherland needs you. And by motherland I mean WT:RE:grc. --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure just yet how long it'll be. However, when I do get back, I promise it'll be worth the wait. I'm cooking something up. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I promised this long time ago with that Greek consonant-stem appendix, but it really takes time to compile sth like this in accordance with the state-of-the-art scholarship on PIE studies! What is currently written is mostly based on Sihler 1995 and Matasović 2008 (the only 2 books on comparative PIE inflectional morphology that I have), plus some bits and pieces I collected from various places. We'll keep expanding this slowly with the representatives from other branches. The idea is to only list the most generally accepted theories, and those which are a result of the latest research. The reflexes at the end of a word (the so-called Auslautgesetze) are usually different from regular sound changes word-initially and medially, and are very complex in some branches (namely in Slavic and Germanic) with many competing theories with no communis opinio at the horizon, so sometimes it could be very difficult to choose the most relevant theory that should be mentioned (I've read a little book called Common Slavic Nominal Morphology: A New Synthesis which lists some 4-5 theories for just about any case ending!).

As for the Greek - methinks that the preference should be given to Attic, with other dialects sporadically mentioned when they matter (e.g. being more archaic). Mycenaean data should also be added, although prob. with different words in various cases, as there is likely no single noun with complete inflection attested.. --Ivan Štambuk 23:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time to read this all at the moment, but a quick skim reveals a very tantalizing appendix. Many thanks and well done. Concerning Ancient Greek.....I was wondering if you'd be willing to start writing a mental note for me? I'm working on an automated import of the LSJ, and if all goes well (and there're a million reasons why it might not), we'll have a lot of Ancient Greek entries, whose primary fault is outdated etymologies. At that point I'll really benefit from access to the best up-to-date works on grc etymology. At the moment, I'm nearly entirely dependent upon Beekes, which is a bad situation, as I see it. So, yeah. Thanks again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, Beekes is the only up-to-date work on grc etyms, esp. on Pre-Greek substratum words (a field of study championed by him). Leiden folks promised to provide up2date databases at the IEED project pages, so once they do so (actually, why wait?) we could download the Greek database and write a program that attaches the appropriate etymology to the appropriate headword (having the sections "dialectal forms", "compounds" and "derivatives" in mind). Or basically simply dump the whole database in some userspace, convert it to proper Unicode, and wikify all the Greek words involved in the etymology, and use the "What links here" to find out where the machine-generated entry is being mentioned. Shouldn't be much of a trouble.. --Ivan Štambuk 02:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dative plural should be πᾶσι(ν) instead of πασί(ν). Could you fix it? ( I hope you don't mind me being laconic =] ) --Omnipaedista 08:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, and thanks for noticing. Better laconic than prolix. :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

Good afternoon,

I have asked my friend "Duncan MacCall" to give me some advice regarding problem, which I'm solving right now. He gave me link on you, that maybe you are the right person in such case. Let me kindly ask you for question:

I'm looking for direct translation to old-greek (if possible 1th century after Christ), revelation, new testament, 1:8, I'm the alpha and omega......

I have found one text,in my point of view closest version (stated as a first row) but I still have lot of doubts about that.

Thank you for reading, Best regards, Pavel Pokorny

First, I must apologize for the delay in my response. Secondly, I must apologize, as I'm not sure I understand your request. If you're simply asking whether what you've quoted is the original, then I believe it is. My NA27 agrees completely with the quote you've given. Additionally, if memory serves correctly, the Book of Revelation was originally written at the end of the first century, and the wikipedia article agrees. However, just to clarify, this isn't a translation into Greek, as the book was originally written in Greek. I apologize if I have not answered your query to your satisfaction. If so, please write again. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry and thanks for answer. I didn't express my question well enough. I have problem with the right shape of greek words (like you already said from the end of 1th century). As far as I know there were lot of scriptoriums (workshops)at this times. The latest source i have been able to find is codex-Sinaiticus from the second half of 4th century. I have already contacted an czech expert, translating old greek texts and he told me, that even for expert in such field is a bit problem to find out most suitable one. In addition he told me, that there were two writing styles (1)- Big caps, normaly in some codexes and (2)-cursive, which was widely spread, becouse it was a language for common people from this times (letters, reminders etc.)

P:S: Do you know somebody who has got fonts (win Vista) for codex-Sinaiticus ? Thanks for reading, Regards, Pavel

Hello Pavel. I am not an expert by any means but I do have a general background in Koine Greek and I think I know what you are talking about. What you are looking for looks like this: εγω ειμι το αλφα και το ω, λεγει κυριοϲ ο θεοϲ, ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενοϲ, ο παντοκρατωρ. The Codex Sinaiticus was written originally in Big caps (see here) but in many sources it is usual fo the majuscules to be "transcribed" into cursives without diacritics and with variations in some letters (ϲ always replaces the usual σ and ς; Δ̣,δ̣ , Ϋ, ϋ, and Ϊ,ϊ may occur instead of Δ,Δ, Υυ, and Ι,ι etc.). Now as you can see here, there does exist a special font for this variation of the Greek writing system but, as far as I know, it is not a part of Unicode (and I have no idea where one can find it for downloading). Hope this helps a bit. --Omnipaedista 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for answer. I think, I have it now. I have downloaded such font in internet, but I have already forgotten the exact location...If somebody is interseted, please let me know, i'll send you the font personally

Regards, Pavel

I would be interested in that. If you will, you can email the font to me. --Omnipaedista 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's definitely something wrong with the template {{pt-conj|ven|cer}} of this entry, but I can't figure what that is. --Omnipaedista 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is quite the mess. This is what's happening: The template in question, {{pt-conj}} calls a worker template {{pt-conj/doWork}}, which calls an inflection specific template (in this case {{pt-conj/cer}}). The worker template has the formatting information, and the inflection specific template has the actual inflection information. While this may seem to a lot of unnecessary running around, it really is the best way to do things (it's how things are done with the grc templates). However, the problem is that the newest incarnation of the worker template requires a specific syntax from the inflection specific templates. Some of them, such as {{pt-conj/ar}} have them and work just fine, but some of them don't (such as {{pt-conj/cer}}), and are broken. So, the worker template could be reverted, but that would probably break the inflection specific templates which are in the new format. It is unfortunate that the user who has written all this code didn't make it backwards compatible, and even more unfortunate that he didn't take the time to go through and update all the inflection specific templates. In any case, this is a very large task, and one which I just don't have the time to do. Additionally, I must admit that I don't fully understand all of the intricacies going on here. I have made some edits so that the problems are at least not visible in the title, but the hidden content is still a mess. I suggest you harass User:Daniel. about it, as he's the responsible party here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I plan to add Latin ver as a cognate of ἔαρ (in Etymology 2). Would you object, if I added Old Norse (deprecated template usage) vár as well, since there is no other (ancient) Germanic cognate? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not at all. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am really sorry if I am starting to become annoying with all my template-related questions... but here's one more: in this Romanian entry, indicative imperfect (3rd person plural) should be lingeau instead of lineau, and yet, for some technical reason, it isn't; so who's "in charge" of the Romanian part of the Wiktionary so that I can direct my question to him/her? Btw, thanks again for being so explanatory with all my other questions so far; it's just that I haven't yet acquired an intuition about how Wiktionary's templates work (but, believe me, I am trying to :) ) and that I don't know many people "around here" yet. --Omnipaedista 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:Opiaterein is our resident Romanian guru, and I'm sure he can give you a more satisfying response to this issue than I. I'm quite happy to help, as there's an enormous amount of information that is often needed to get by here, and 90% of it is not written down anywhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Upon reviewing this category, I stumbled upon some weird things: three Latin words of unknown origin that Wiktionary claims to be Greek for sure (solea < σόλον (never heard of this hypothesis before, to be honest); kadamitas < κάλαμος (obsolete hypothesis?); norma < γνώμων (this one hasn't been ruled out by modern Academics yet, but it's still a bit fringe)); two latin words are of Greek origin, but the Greek words from which they originate are loanwords themselves (saccus < σάκκος < Semitic origin; zingiber < ζιγγίβερις < Sanskrit origin) and this is not mentioned in the entries; also, in entries such as fremo and tectum/tonga/tengo, one can find Francis Edward Jackson Valpy's obsolete hypotheses that fremo and tego come from βρέμω & (σ)τέγος respectively, while modern research derives both of these lat and the grc roots from PIE bhrem- and (s)teg-. Anyway, just wanted you to know about this situation. I will make the corrective edits myself in the next few days. --Omnipaedista 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is my understanding that our top Latin editor (User:EncycloPetey) is somewhat lacking in good Latin etymological materials, and is thus often consigned to writing somewhat dated etymologies. I would be rather surprised if his attitude towards you updating them was anything other than ecstatic. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quite true. My principal source for Latin etymologies is often (gack) Lewis & Short, which lags behind current scholarship by some hundred years or more. For the most part, I can spot serious problems in L&S etymologies, and in those cases avoid putting in the etymology at all (or else place a template request for etymology). In the case of a few key words, I'll ask Ivan to help with a word from an IPA root, because I never trust L&S on those. However, for words "from Greek" I usually defer to them unless I happen to know otherwise. --EncycloPetey 07:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, generally speaking, the situation's not so tragic after all. In fact, if you want my opinion, the vast majority of etymology sections that I have come across on Wikt. so far are quite up-to-date (I am so certain because, usually, only Indoeuropean words have etymology sections and I can compare what is written there with contemporary sources). The only problem is that in many cases, only a list of cognates is given, while it'd be nice to also have a hyperlink to the protoroot, if available; a large-scale project would be to (first) create a page for all the items (roots) of this appendix and then link all the relevant entries' etym.-sections with these items. It would also be somewhat useful to have something like a policy declaring which dictionaries, textbooks, and encyclopedias are canonical and up-to-date regarding the etymologies of each language or language-family, so that ideally only these few ones be accepted as sources (I already have in mind some suggestions for pie, eng, fra, grc, ell). Drifting even further away from the main topic of this thread, I'd also like to suggest that the work that has been done so far with PIE roots also be done with other reconstructed protolanguages such as Proto-Uralic or Proto-Sino-Tibetan; I would be very willing to help in such an "enterprise" in any way I can, if only there were at least a few more Wiktionarians that have the knowledge, sources, and appetite in order to embark on something like that. --Omnipaedista 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Something tells me, that I should have posted the above there instead of here :P --Omnipaedista 14:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hate to be a party pooper, but generally, on Wiktionary, if you want something done, you have to do it yourself. Ivan is the one primarily responsible for the current PIE appendices, but he is stretched rather thin. There are a number of us who would like to see more proto appendices, so appreciation would certainly not be lacking for such an endeavour, but support might. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's always nice to realize the harsh truth about how things work :) I will then put these ideas in my long-term todo-list and speak no more about them until I eventually find the time and resources to get something started. As for what kind of resources will these be, I'll try to listify them in a personal page of mine in order to make known to everyone where I'll be basing my contributions on. --Omnipaedista 12:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, such a list is an excellent idea. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 16:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. I just requæsted λάτρης. Is that the correct accentuation? It was listed as the suffix (deprecated template usage) -λατρης (-latrēs) (sans accents) in the OED, but occurred with the oxia on the alpha in compound terms like (deprecated template usage) εἰδωλολάτρης (eidōlolátrēs). I remember your opinion regarding affixes in Ancient Greek, so I requæsted the word instead. Is that the correct spelling? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm....that's a little tough. The trick is, it doesn't look like λάτρης is a word (regardless of accent or POS). It would appear that (deprecated template usage) εἰδωλολάτρης (eidōlolátrēs) might just be (deprecated template usage) εἰδωλολατρία (eidōlolatría) + (deprecated template usage) -ης (-ēs) (an idolatry-er). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

So (deprecated template usage) -ης (-ēs) is an Ancient Greek suffix, then? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Err.....sort of. (deprecated template usage) -ης (-ēs) is simply the nominative singular morphological ending of a masculine eta-based first declension noun. However, I have found that there is often a action/actor relationship between words sharing the same root and a -ια/-ης ending (compare (deprecated template usage) ἀγωνία (agōnía) and (deprecated template usage) ἀγωνιστής (agōnistḗs) or (deprecated template usage) προφητεία (prophēteía) and (deprecated template usage) προφήτης (prophḗtēs)). However, to head off what I can only assume to be your next question, I do not possess the requisite morpho-syntactic knowledge to create an appendix or something which explains this. Additionally, -ης does not always mean "person who is/does something." Take (deprecated template usage) βωλίτης (bōlítēs) for example. Rest assured that I do intend to improve Appendix:Ancient Greek first declension somewhat along the lines of what I've done with Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension, but that is a ways off yet. Such an improved appendix might contain some of the information I've related here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, λάτρης is a Modern Greek word derived from Ancient Greek λάτρις. --flyax 05:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can (deprecated template usage) λάτρις (látris) be explained as part of these words’ formations? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I should think that the thing about punctuation ought to be stated less definitely in the Layout Conventions (which I have been trying to follow as strictly as I can) if it is not actually a settled guideline. But that's fine.

About the Greek etymology, I seem to remember copying-and-pasting the template on that occasion directly from a guidelines page. I guess that's not always safe—ha. But I don't really understand the reasoning behind not showing vowel quantity—sure, it is not shown in the Greek, but it might be useful for etymological purposes. And quantity is shown in the transliterations of the entries of the Greek words themselves, are they not? Like in σιγή (which came to hand), for example. Twpsyn Pentref 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Maybe you've noticed my edits on ψίχαι. First I moved it to ψῖχες, then I saw your note about Hesychius and recreated the entry. But I'm a little bit nervous about that. I can't find Hesychius' text about ψίχαι on wikisource and Liddell-Scott says something about ψίχη, f, 1st declinsion. Could you please help me with that? --flyax 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I double-checked, and and my LSJ mirrors our comment in the inflection table of ψίξ word for word. However, I too, am unable to find Hesychius saying any such thing (I did a search for that word in the entirety of the wikisource document). My LSJ does say "s.v.l.", which I translate as "if an accurate reading." So, perhaps there are alternate readings of a manuscript, or multiple manuscripts? Not sure what to tell you. If you feel it ought to be deleted, I would have not problem doing so, as the evidence for its existence seems pretty scant. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Maybe your edition of LSJ is different than mine. The Greek edition says: Παρ' Ησυχ. φέρεται και ψίχη, ψίχηνον, πρβλ. ψιχίον, which is the translation of the 1883 edition, p. 1758 (Hesychius has also ψίχη etc.). Maybe the authors thought in these editions that they should write the singular of the actual Hesychius' word. Take a look also at this edition of Hesychius] (p. 1576). The footnote has ψίχαι without any other information. So, I could suppose that some manuscripts of Hesychius had ψίχαι, which the editor corrected to ψίχες. At any rate, I think that we must rewrite the entry. --flyax 10:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that Hesychius footnote is rather nebulous. But, yes, it does seem to be a manuscript disagreement. I'm ok with rewriting the entry, but I guess I'm not sure how. We could certainly include a bit more info, noting that ψίχαι is not just an alt spelling, but an archaic alt spelling, not attested in regular text, but only in Hesychius' dictionary. If we could find which manuscript(s) attest it, that would be pretty sweet too. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

(a) We don't know whether this is archaic or Koine or whatever. For the rest I absolutely agree with you. (b) It seems that there is only one manuscript of Hesychius. --flyax 11:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Right. Well, then perhaps its a variant reading or some sort of assumption about the original (I don't know how you'd do that with only one manuscript, but...)? In any case, some additional info might be useful to readers. Makes me kind of wonder why someone requested the word (I always assumed it was a misspelling of a verb of some sort) and why I actually fulfilled it.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your message about {{pt-conj}} was answered here on my talk page. --Daniel. 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Leave has it is

*sigh* I won't undo your edits or block you, but only because someone beat me to it. Why can't you try something productive and stop wasting everyone's time? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Those lette exist, and was used in ancient ellenistic, so please leave them...

Hi there - I have been going through all the (modern) Greek templates in order to list, and describe their use (when I return after a break I cannot remember which is which). Template:greek letter-temp is not linked to any entries - is either superseded or uncompleted. Can it be deleted? —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 15:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the delay in response. I have deleted the template, as it was part of an attempt at a new format for letters which I have long since lost interest in. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is a little problem with κράσις and κρᾶσις. I wrote a message to Ivan but it seems that he hasn't seen it yet. Could you do something with these entries? (delete, move, merge, whatever). --flyax 10:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done. Sorry about the mistake. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you know if Greek numerals used outside of Greek? If not, I'm going to make the numeral sense Greek-only instead of Translingual (similar to recent BP conversation). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also, should those entries be at the titles with apostrophe's or at the base character entry? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The single character ones (plus or minus the apostrophe things) are at least used in Greek and Ancient Greek. I can't say definitively whether other languages use them or not, but I suspect not. At the very least, I'm fairly confident that rather few languages use them as numerals, and so it would be reasonable to convert them to "Greek" and "Ancient Greek" sections (getting rid of the translingual sections), and we can add others we find later. The apostrophes must be kept, as they distinguish between minimal pairs of sorts (they're not phonetic, but....work with me). The ones which are actual words, such as (deprecated template usage) δεύτερος (deúteros), should already have the proper L2's. I guess I don't know if we should have a separate category for the numbers themselves and the words describing them, maybe Category:Greek numerals and Category:Greek numbers? The semantic difference between numeral and number continues to elude me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. One user has provided this entry with two plausible sources denying the Ancient Greek origin from σωτήρ. Less than a year ago you had to deal with Nemzag who was then denying it too. Fortunately, it could be reverted then, as he did not quote any sources unlike the current case. However, I would like to præserve the Ancient Greek origin. Do you have any sources for it? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

From the history, it appears that Nemzag was the one who introduced the σωτήρ etymology in the first place. As the alternative etymology has sources, and the σωτήρ etymology is from Nemzag, I think the chances that it's from Ancient Greek are basically nil. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you check the spelling of this verb in чути#Etymology? Perhaps I was wrong in the accent... because I do not get any google hits. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The word does exist, although it's rare. I'm not terribly surprised that a google search didn't pull up anything. I think your etymology is correct. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, do you have any sources for the last descendence from this etymology, namely: effabilis < effero. I corrected it to effabilis < effor according to the source I found. It stems from the archaic verb for, inf. fari (to speak), whereas effero stems from {{|la|fero}} (to bring). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That edit was so long ago that I really have no idea which source I might have used. I don't have access to any of my good Latin sources at the moment, so I'm not really sure, but your change seems to agree to EP's view on things, so you're probably right. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wonder: what romanization for Ancient Greek ypsilon do you recommend? Do you recommend "u" instead of "y", as specified at Wiktionary:Ancient Greek Romanization and Pronunciation? --Dan Polansky 15:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, u is preferred over y for upsilon. This is a somewhat uncommon, and so I'll offer some of my reasons. The reason that y is the traditional transliteration of upsilon is that the Romans used y when they imported Ancient Greek words into Latin. However, the Latin system is not preferable here, as it isn't in a few other situations. For one thing, the letter y is remarkably ambiguous as a vowel in modern English. It could mean /aɪ/ as in "my," /ɪ/ as in "sympathy," or /i/, as in the second y of "sympathy." Aside from the ambiguity, none of those sounds is really close to the sound represented by upsilon. Truth be told, the /u/ sound typically associated with "u" isn't fantastic either, but English doesn't really have the sound, so we make do. There are a few other situations, where a certain transliteration worked well for Latin, but is unclear or simply incorrect for English, such as "c" for kappa and "ae" for "αι." Hope that helps. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Ancient Greek upsilon is pretty much identical with the German umlauted ‘u’ (ü), right? I guess we couldn’t use that here for fear of its confusion with the diæresis diacritic… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your explanation. Provided this is not a Wiktionary invention, may I ask: what is the common practice outside of Wiktionary? Like, what are other sources that use the "u"-romanization?

On a related note, do you recommend "kh" over "ch" for chi? What is usual outside of Wiktionary? --Dan Polansky 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the late response, this reply sort of flew under my radar. Take a look at w:Romanization of Greek. They have one system which uses u, one which uses y, and one which, apparently, uses both. "kh" is the standard for chi here, but "ch" is certainly more common outside of Wiktionary. As I think about it, I don't know if I can think of another source which uses "kh". This, again, goes back to tradition, where the Romans (rightly) used ch, but it is completely inappropriate for English, as "ch" in English means /tʃ/. Quite frankly, the concept of what chi really means (at least in Classical Greek) is basically lost on English speakers, but I think the kh carries the idea better than anything else. Additionally, it coheres nicely with other things (for example, the relationship between it, kappa, and ksi are more readily grasped). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. So judging from the first table at w:Romanization of Greek (linking to http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Greek.pdf), "y" and "ch" seem to be used in the majority of romanization systems.

Specifically, "y" is used by ISO, UN/ELOT and Greeklish. "ch" is used by ISO, UN/ELOT; Greeklish uses "ch, x, h"; "BGN/PCGN" is the only one listed that uses "kh".

Merriam-Webster online uses "y" in its romanization of Greek (see "myth") and "ch" for its romanization of Greek (see "character").

I do appreciate that "u" possibly better captures the sound, and that "kh" prevents the mistake of getting pronounced like the English "ch".

I do not feel comfortable to deviate from the current Wiktionary practice, but neither do I feel comfortable to deviate from what is the great majority use outside of Wiktionary. Hmm. --Dan Polansky 08:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, in response to that, I would note a couple things. First, Wikimedia projects are somewhat revolutionary in their very nature. However, that is not, admittedly, a license to flout any and all precedents. In any case, consider your view of the other transliteration schemes you saw. As a non-expert, you're probably somewhat at a loss as to how to judge their particular scheme, as will be the vast majority of our readers. However, anyone can pick up on and scoff at inconsistency. The policy at Wiktionary:Ancient Greek Romanization and Pronunciation is consistently used by our primary grc editors, and I would plead with you to also follow it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. I got into a conversation today with someone who challenged the existence of the term (deprecated template usage) δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) and of two senses of (deprecated template usage) δῆμος (dêmos). Could you please provide supporting quotations for these terms? Especially, please provide citations of their earliest dates of attestation. Thanks very much. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll try and work on that. It will take some time, so please be patient. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for what you’ve done. I’ve done some work on the two quotations you added (dating and brining them more or less in line with WT:QUOTE, &c.). The quotation from Homer seemed to fit in better with the first sense (“a country, land”) than with the second (“person of the countryside”); I can’t really say about the Æschylus quotation, since it’s not been translated. There is no rush with this, and I thank you for any and all the work you put into this; however, of these requests, the early-attestation of (deprecated template usage) δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) would be the most useful for me. Thanks again. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see WT:TR under the latest heading nāscor. We have an editor attempting to dictate how Classical languages are translated. --EncycloPetey 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You missed enchorial, but can still catch cerebral, rhonchus, idiomatic, and astrobleme. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You don't have right to block somebody because you disagree with is opinion or interest, it's not democratic, i would like to talk with another administrator about this... How can i reach them ? I have right to express my self if you disagree just talk 94.108.201.174 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Umm....I don't recall blocking anyone recently. I don't suppose you could give me a little more detail on who you are and what you're talking about? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I quoted you on Wiktionary:Tea room#naïve, so you might be interested in taking a look at or umpiring in the discussion. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not want to come across as contumelious but please consider casting your vote for the tile logo as—besides using English—the book logo has a clear directionality of horizontal left-to-right, starkly contrasting with Arabic and Chinese, two of the six official UN languages. As such, the tile logo is the only translingual choice left and it was also elected in m:Wiktionary/logo/archive-vote-4. Warmest Regards, :)--_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In regards to the RFDO discussion at Category talk:Quechuan_derivations, why did you create {{etyl:qwe}} when {{qu}} exists? The categories created are offly similar to Category:Quechua derivations and its children. Is there a difference? Cheers. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've responded at the category talk page, but in short, the 'pedia seems to be treating one as a macrolanguage, and the other as a language. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The dative plural should be ἁλσί(ν) instead of *ἅλασί(ν). --Omnipaedista 13:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Atelaes. (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 858: Parameter 4 is not used by this template. is in a sorry state; could you spruce it up a bit when you have the time, please? Thanks. ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr   〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰  02:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply