User talk:Athang1504

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary!

I understand you’re a bit vain, but it is really not a good idea to sign all your edits with you name. Only do this on discussion pages. Also, do not copy pages from other sources, this is copyright violation. H. (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Signatures should only be used on talk & discussion pages. Thanks, --Versageek 20:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

above? definition lines start with #, they aren't indented with : (and so on) Robert Ullmann 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The entry you made for the Ancient Greek was a bit encylopediac; you might want to edit w:Etymologicon magnum, and re-add the Greek entry here with a short definition and a reference there. (Is that the "right" English name?)

Why you would be blocked, I don't know ... will fix.

It would help if you would create a User page, perhaps with a pointer to the relevant Wikipedia article? Robert Ullmann 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I have already written something in Wikipedia about the Etymologicon Magnum. Anyway, I don't know if this is the "right" English name. I found an old copy of the book in the w:National Library of Greece in Athens about 15 years ago. The title was ΕΤΥΜΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΝ ΜΕΓΑ - ΚΑΤΑ ΑΛΦΑΒΗΤΟΝ , but it also had another title ETYMOLOGICON MAGNUM LEXICON.Athang1504 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please note things like definition lines start with #, and there is a standard set of headers. Please see WT:ELE, and please create your user page: User:Athang1504 Robert Ullmann 11:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have read ELE, but in some cases it doesn't work and I get only the same number (1). I have also created the user pages. By the way, I always write in the polytonic system, whether its ancient Greek or modern, but here I can't. It produces little squares. Can we do something about it, because it doesn't look nice and it is not correct? Athang1504 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consecutive definitions lines have to be consecutive, no blank lines in between.

1. one
2. two
3. three

It might help to wrap the ancient Greek in template {{polytonic}}, the characters are handled just fine here, but your system may not (apparently does not), have the correct fonts? Robert Ullmann 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I think the computer works fine, it was my fault. Athang1504 23:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi...I reverted your edit. The Etymologicum Magnum might have suggested a lot of random sources for the word, but etymology has come on a bit since those days. Etymology sections should reflect the latest academic thinking, they are not there as a repository for historical theories and folk-etymology. Widsith 12:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! - E.M. does not contain historical theories and folk-etymology (believe me, I have read and copied the most important parts of it), but the best etymologies (and grammar in some cases) according to some well-known ancient scholars. Now, I think it is up to the readers to decide.

There is noone who still thinks Zeus has any connection with the words we are listing in its etymology. This stuff is woefully outdated. Furthermore it makes no sense to say it can be "cognate" with Proto-Indo-European. PIE is the source of Ancient Greek, not a sister-language. Widsith 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

About 150 years ago,Thomas Gaisford published E.M. in Oxford, because he thought that this Lexicon was very important. I think he was right!! Athang1504 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This entry belongs to Modern Greek section. So, you should not put there any diacritics, or (par)etymologies other than the obvious, or derived terms that do not belong in modern Greek. As for the etymology of the Ancient Greek word Ἀθηνᾶ please consult a recent Lexicon, e.g. the G.Babiniotis Dictionary. --flyax 12:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right about the section. I didn't see that there were two of them. However, the etymology of the name is the same for both ancient and modern Greek (there is only one Άθηνά). Also, I don't understand this "(par)etymology", because it is given by Etymologicon magnum, not by me. If you think that G. Babiniotis has presented another "obvious" etymology, you should mention it. Athang1504 13:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The obvious etymology of modern Greek Αθηνά is the ancient Greek Ἀθηνᾶ. As for the latter, the Liddell-Scott Dictionary accepts that it has a common root with ἄνθος. G.Babiniotis' Dictionary, except the "obvious" derivation from A-ta-na po-ti-ni-ja, which is found in Linear-B inscriptions, assumes it is not of an Indo-Εuropean origin, since the name does not occur in other Indo-Εuropean languages. The "etymologies" you have found in Etymologicon Magnum are highly unlikely. They are interesting of course, but only as a way to examine how medieval scholars tried to interpret ancient words. After so many centuries, we should know better. --flyax 13:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You must stop confusing Ancient Greek with Modern Greek entries. If you want to create an entry, you should first check if it already exists. Finally, You must write your new word in the polytonic system for Ancient Greek and in the monotonic for Modern Greek. .--flyax

Encyclopedia Papyrus-Larousse (1963 - in Άθῆναι) presents some opinions on the etymology of Άθηνᾶ. It writes that some scholars have tried to correlate the name with ἄνθος but the root Άθ- is different from ἄνθ-. I agree. It also mentions a correlation with the Homeric perfect tense ἀνήνοθε (I am raised) etc. As for the "obvious" derivation from the Mycenean inscription A-ta-na po-ti-ni-ja (Αθηνά πότνια), this is not an etymology of the name Αθηνά. On the other hand, Etymologicon magnum presents two etymologies (νούν αθρείν and α + θήνη) which are very interesting (especially the first one). Also, it is not true that the anonymous writer of the 11th century, who compiled this Lexicon, tried to interpret the ancient words, because the only thing he did was to copy etymologies given by many ancient writers. That is why in some cases he presents so many different opinions; and that is why I'm trying to save them here (if it is possible). Furthermore, some of these etymologies and the book are mentioned in many books and Encyclopedias.Athang1504 21:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you intend to copy here all the etymologies you find interesting from EM, then you have not understood the scope of this project. --flyax 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Although several others have dicussed with you various problems in your entries, in particular the etymological content you are adding and your inconsistent use of proper markup (polytonic vs monotonic), you continue to ignore their comments and inappropriately revert edits.

Please look at About Greek and About Ancient Greek for the policy on which orthographic system gets used for which language, and if you disagree with it, post a comment to the discussion page instead of ignoring the policy.

As for the etymologies and derived terms, as other people have already said, your source from 900 years ago does not use current scientific methods and its information is not accurate. The use of such sources with their resulting "folk etymologies" is not acceptable. Please use a current source. Some examples (thanks to User:Flyax):

for Ancient Greek,

• A Greek-English Lexicon, H.G. Liddell, R. Scott (on-line: ) (available in translation as: Μέγα Λεξικόν της Ελληνικής Γλώσσης)
• Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen, J.B. Hofmann (in translation as: Ετυμολογικόν Λεξικόν της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής, translated by Α. Παπανικολάου)

for Modern Greek,

• Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής, Ιδρύματος Τριανταφυλλίδη (on-line: )
• Ετυμολογικό Λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής, Ν.Π. Ανδριώτη
• Λεξικό της Νέας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Γ. Μπαμπινιώτη (this covers etymologies of ancient roots as well)

If you continue to add this unacceptable content to your entries, you will be blocked. ArielGlenn 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a misunderstanding here. As you have probably noticed, I started about two months ago. In the beginning I thought that we had to sign everything that we wrote but after the first messages I stopped. So it is obvious that I didn't ignore anyone. Also, there were some errors with a few entries I made (headings and the use of the polytonic template) but this was only a matter of experience. As for the etymologies from EM, I have already explained the reasons above. I see that you have sent a couple of messages to other administrators asking for their opinion on this. I am waiting for their response. In the meantime, I will continue with "simple" entries without the use of EM.

Please let me know about this, and also how we write a Greek word that begins with a capital vowel (e.g. (Έ)λλην), because I can't find it anywhere. Athang1504 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Capital vowels are marked with the accent if they carry the stress, e.g. Έλληνας. I have added that to WT:AEL, thank you for your observation. As for the EM, several of the administrators I notified have already raised concerns earlier on this very talk page or elsewhere (e.g. WT:RFV#Ουρανός, WT:RFV#ωκύς). If you would like, I am often on irc as atglenn, and we can talk about this or anything else. If you aren't familiar with irc usage, chatzilla is a good client that works with firefox. ArielGlenn 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You were probably talking about leading vowels in Ancient Greek :-/ Another good observation... I added the capitals to the edit tools so they should all show up now. ArielGlenn 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. Now everything works fine. I have also seen WT:RFV#Oυρανός. Flyax behaves like a professor(GB) at UOA. He still doesn't understand why I couldn't write some ancient Greek words that began with a capital vowel in the polytonic system. Athang1504 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem, and actually Flyax was the one who pointed out that the caps were missing; I don't think it had occurred to anyone earlier because we generally have polytonic keyboard layouts and don't rely on the edit tools at all. ArielGlenn 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Athang1504 for your kind words. Apparently, you understand very well the difference between Ancient and Modern Greek entries. So, when you reverted my edits in Ίσις and ώρα, it was not something due to your lack of understanding, I suppose. Αιδώς, Αργείοι! --flyax 12:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, ArielGlenn. There is something wrong with the polytonic template today. It doesn't appear on my screen at all except for a few letters. Could you do something about it? Athang1504 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

People have been making other edits. You might have a caching issue. Try going to MediaWiki:Monobook.js and Ctrl-F5 at that page, then reload your page you are editing and see what happens. ArielGlenn 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but it still doesn't work. Yesterday it was perfect. Could you do the same again? --Athang1504 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Today's edits were to other sections; they didn't touch this area at all. (Everything shows up fine for me at the moment.) One other thing you can try (as mentioned at MediaWiki_talk:Edittools) is to clear your browser cache, and restart your system.... If this still doesn't work I'll have to ask around. ArielGlenn 23:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have restarted my system many times already but nothing happens. My keyboard has Latin and Greek caracters but I can only write in the monotonic system. I need this polytonic template in order to write ancient Greek text. If we cannot find a solution, I'll have to get a polytonic program. Anyway, thank you very much for your effort.--Athang1504 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Two questions: have you cleared your browser cache? And, what OS and browser are you using? Thanks ArielGlenn 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC) (BTW if I'm right and your copy is just out of sync and you see the Modern Greek character set where the polytonic ones should be, try looking one or two further down in the menu and see if you find them... that's what happened to me earlier.) ArielGlenn 02:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right. Now it works again. Thank you. Athang1504 10:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Methinks your etymology is wrong. Cognate is not the same thing as a loanword. Cheers --Ivan Štambuk 17:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your changes to the etymology, as they are not supported by most current sources. Please use current sources that reflect mainstream linguistic thought. Also, you don't need to add meanings for derived terms; they will be provided in the entries for those lemmas. Thanks, ArielGlenn 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, about the translations for the derived terms. I thought that it would help the reader. Now, the verb βάλλω is very important - because so many other words are derived from it- but this too is derived from an ancient root which is βῶ (bô). From βῶ > root βαλ- > βάλλω etc. Athang1504 10:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

We would have to keep the translations in sync both here and on the page for the lemma; it's better to just have them in one place, since the entry is a link to the derived term in any case. As to βῶ, as flyax said below about constructed Greek roots, that's not the approach taken by etymologists today. ArielGlenn 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

We use here a special template for the pronunciation of Ancient Greek words. It's {{grc-ipa-rows}}. Please see some examples (ἥρως, ἰῶμαι) and use this template or leave the pronunciation for someone else.--flyax 12:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay,you are right about this.Athang1504 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hoped that you had seen the rfv tag I put in these entries. If you haven't, please, read my comments in the RVF page and if you have any reliable sources, give your point. Until you do so, please don't refer to these words in your etymologies, because this will only mean new RFV tags. Thank you. --flyax 12:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I have seen them. You are right about the verb ἰάομαι > ἰῶμαι, but please see my point: Obviously, this verb was formed later from a more ancient root, and this root is related to ἔω (éō) and ἰῶ (iô). Both these verbs mean πορεύομαι ("I go" ), but they also have other meanings. Again, it is obvious that the verbs βαίνω (baínō) and βάλλω (bállō) are derived from a common root which is the original "verb" βῶ (bô) (go) etc. I'm sure that you already know that the English word "go" is derived from a PIE base, so I think EM is correct: there is a root βώ (or something similar). Athang1504 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Firstly I would like to make it clear that I don't accept EM as the basis of our discussion. Now, let's see. From your answer I understand that you consider these three "verbs" as hypothetical forms, as some more ancient roots. Well, as far as I know, there is no need to reconstruct hypothetical Greek verbs. What modern science does is try to reconstruct PIE roots. That's why I put "from PIE *qwelio" in βάλλω, as I found it in Hofmann and Babiniotis. Finally, if you agree that the only βῶ we found in texts is the subjunctive of ἔβην (βαίνω), the only ἰῶ is the imperative of ἰῶμαι and the only ἔω is the Ionic subjunctive of εἰμί, then I hope that you also agree that these entries should be modified.--flyax 15:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the Encyclopedia Papyrus-Larousse (and other sources), the verb βαίνω is derived from a root βα- (Sanscr. ga' , Engl. go). Therefore, there is a root very close to βω which is not hypothetical. I hope you agree. Athang1504 23:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

In my (Greek) edition of Papyrus Larousse Britannica I read: βαίνω <*βαν-jο < *βαμ-jo <*g^wm_o-jo, which is a form of the root *g^wem-. This is identical with the etymology I found in Hofmann and Babiniotis. According to the same book, there is another IE root *g^wa with the same meaning that gave βα-, βη-, which is found in the other tenses of βαίνω (βήσομαι, ἔβην). However, neither Papyrus Larousse nor any other reliable source says anything about a hypothetical verb βῶ. Period. Please don't try to deny this simple fact. --flyax 00:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that I wrote (above) that my Papyrus Larousse (1963) says something about a hypothetical verb βῶ, but that it mentions a real root βα- which has nothing to do with other tenses of the verb "βαίνω". It says that βαίνω is derived from that root (βα-). Therefore, I do deny this "fact". Period. I also say that the verbs ἔω (éō) and ἰῶ (iô) exist and are releted to Ἰώ (Iṓ) and Ἶσις (Îsis). Athang1504 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only copied what I found in Papyrus Larousse Britannica, Greek Edition (c) 1984-1996. So, please don't insist. Maybe your edition is earlier than mine. Anyway, we are not discussing the root -βα or -βη, but your entry for the hypothetical verb βῶ. Is it a valid entry, as it is written? I say it is not. That was the simple fact I referred to. About ἔω and ἰῶ, if you say that they exist, then, please, give me a quote. And something else. Does this phrase "τα μεγαλιθικά των Βρεττανικών νησιών, όπως και της δυτικής Ευρώπης γενικότερα, είναι δημιούργημα των προϊστορικών Ελλήνων που μετανάστευσαν κόποτε εκεί" belong to you? And something else. Is it real that the Indo-European origin of Greeks is denied in the books of Athanasios Angelopoulos? And is this the reason that you refuse to use IE roots? I am just wondering. --flyax 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am wondering too...Anyway, do you think it's a good idea to answer all these questions here? I need a "Britannica". However, I'll see what I can do for you. Just give me a couple of days and I'll write something below, I promise. In the meantime, please check my new entries and don't revert them. Athang1504 21:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I notice you putting a number of references to books by Athanasios G. Angelopoulos. Given your user name, I need to ask what your connection is to the author, and also to remind you that (as I am sure you know), self-promotion -- or promotion of a specific minority viewpoint on Wiktionary -- is not acceptable. ArielGlenn 22:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has nothing to do with self-promotion... In some cases I have to use these books for reference because they contain information that is not found anywhere else. If I don't mention them, it is obvious that you (or somebody else) will ask for references. What do you think?---As for the entry "νάνος" , I had to present another word ( "μέλας" ) as an example. So, we see that both words are formed from "νή" or "μή", respectively, which is the same thing (no). I hope that you agree. Athang1504 00:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me for my persistence, but if this is information not substantiated by mainstream sources, it should not be added to articles. I have checked the etymologies for νάνος and μέλας in several sources, (Beekes, Hoffman, Babiniotis) and none of them mention the interpretation you have given when they discuss possibilities. Rather, they talk about things like, for example, μέλας < PIE *mel- or not. Additionally, it really is important for us to know if you are the author or are someone else; it makes a difference according to Wiktionary policy. ArielGlenn 02:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The words νή or μή, άνω and λάω do exist in many lexicons and encyclopedias. So, it is obvious that they form the words νάνος and μέλας. The etymologies are also given in the Etymologicon magnum. What else??? - Now, my user name is Athang1504. If Athang is related to Athanasios Angelopoulos, could you please tell me what the number 1504 means? Athang1504 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you the author Athanasios Angelopoulos? If not, simply say so and that question is resolved. Do you have current linguistic sources for these etymologies? If so, please provide them explicitly with the page number and the plain text from your source which states the etymology, not just mention of the existence of these other words or roots. If you are relying on the EM, as I pointed out above, that is superceded both in content and in methodology by current work. If on the other hand you are relying on your own notions of what you think the etymology ought to be and you cannot substantiate that with current lingustic sources, do not add it to the articles. Until I have clear answers from you, I or others will revert or delete contributions that we consider dubious (and some people are ready to revert all of them, see WT:RFV#Etymology of ἄλφα). If you continue to be obstinate about this we will have to block you. It's not personal, but we have to protect the integrity of the project. It takes a good chunk of time to go through and double check each of your contributions and replace bad material with current information, time that is better spent elsewhere. ArielGlenn 08:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Ariel Glenn, you are 100% wrong. You and professor "Flyax" have been replacing good material with bad information, and we all know very well that there is a reason for that. Our prehistory is a lot different from what they teach in schools and Universities. Some people keep changing everything. In a few years from now some other "scholars" will say that even Parthenon is not Greek. It's all politics, you know. So, what's going to be? Do you want the truth or not? Flyax is asking some very interesting questions. Should I answer them? In any case, some of Angelopoulos' books can be found in the National Library of Greece (http://www.nlg.gr - as Angelopoulos, Athanasios G. (1953-)) and The Library of Congress (http://catalog.loc.gov - as Angelopoulos, Athanasios (1953-)). I'm sure you already know that. And, please, don't tell me that this is self-promotion, because I was forced to do it by both of you. Until I have a good answer from you, I won't write a single comma...213.16.146.58 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)-- Athang1504 22:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Taking a look at your userpage it comes to mind that you may very well want to take a look at the guidelines for it set out at WT:USER#Userpages, as your current page doesn't comply well. Please try and make sure that the content on your userpage remains constructive towards the goals of Wiktionary. It would be highly appreciated if you would remove the sections on Greek mythology and prehistory, the golden number φ, and the megalithic cubit in accordance with the guidelines, as none of those seem constructive towards the current and future goals of Wiktionary. Thank you very much. --Neskaya ^talk 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

To avoid the question tomorrow of why I blocked you and 'what did you do' ... Yesterday's message on your talk page asked for you to remove ALL nonWiktionary userpage content. Today, your userpage changed so that you cited yourself. The next time I see you citing yourself, the ban is not going to be so lenient as 24 hours. I understand that normally people's userpages are their own area for expressing what they're interested in, however your userpage was clearly not in accordance with WT:USER. Thanks, --Neskaya ^talk 05:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, you've been sort of on the receiving end of a bad stick the last few weeks or so, huh? There's a certain extent where I don't feel a whole lot of pity for you, as I've just spent the better part of my day going through your contributions, cleaning up badly formatted entries, fixing incorrect etymologies, deleting words which don't exist (you may now notice a few red links on your user page). However, one thing I did notice is that a few of your last entries were fairly respectable. And that's what I'd like to chat with you about. You have three options at this point. Your first (the worst) option is to try and go back to your old tricks. This option will result in successively longer blocks, until you are finally permanently blocked. Your second option is to get mad at the whole Wiktionary system and leave, never to return. While this isn't the worst option, it's not the best either. The third option is to get with the program, because we could certainly use another good editor on Ancient Greek. While this doesn't mean you have to stop believing all of the stuff that was recently on your user page, it does mean that you need to realize that the academic community finds such theories to be nothing short of absurd. Wiktionary is not in the least bit concerned about truth; rather we are concerned about following the academic consensus. Since the academic consensus is that Mycenaean Greeks did not build Stonehenge, that is what we print. Same goes for some the archaic etymologies you've been putting up. So, if you're willing to go along with our program, we'd be happy to have you. If you have any questions, comments, or threats of personal harm, feel free to drop them on my talk page. Atelaes 06:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply