User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 10

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} 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Had you troubled to read what you comment on, you might have noticed in my list the Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English, Oxford University Press, 2009, which I'm sure you'll agree is not American. Furthermore, I stated that I checked well over a dozen dictionaries. Your expression "to make way for your opinions," therefore, is manifestly provocative and informally fallacious. What I replaced was opinion, simply words with no references or citations of any kind. What you replaced is called evidence. I cannot help but notice that you suffer no hesitation in violating your own standard in deleting redactions.

It is unsurprising that the OED has an entry for a word that is not in use, although why you failed to cite it is a puzzle. The OED is a historical dictionary, the purpose of which is to record every word that can be found in writing throughout the history of the language. You can also find another adjective form (temerous) there. Perhaps you should list that in Wiktionary. That has at least the distinction of inclusion in a few other dictionaries as an obsolete synonym of temerarious.

I do thank you for pointing out that it is listed in the OED.

The problem was not the additon of dictionary notes. The problem was that you removed all content from the page to replace them with your opinions about usage of the word. Obsolete or archaic words are still words. --EncycloPetey 18:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm quite surprised by your behaviour: you've reverted my edit on Wikiquote saying that I wrote the opposite of what I actually wrote; you've reverted lots of edits without any explanation in the edit summary or in the talk page where I explained what I did as it's customary on wikis; and finally on that basis you've blocked me without any warning, for three days. Can you please explain (in the proper talk pages) why you think that my edits were wrong, so that I can understand, and why you thought it was necessary to block me instead of asking me to stop and explaining me why my edits were wrong? Thank you. --Nemo 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you will please explain why a person who almost never edits here sees fit to thoroughly and incorrectly restructure our template categorization on his own personal whim, without any understanding of what the categories were designed to do, and to create new categories with generic and uninformative names and with heterogeneous groupings, then I can respond to that. The template categories are not there for occasional non-editors. They exist for the people who make use of them, and group templates by their function. If you don't understand the category structure, then it is probably because you do not know what we use our templates for, and thus do not know why they are grouped they way they are. If you would like to completely change our template category system, it would be advisable to outline a proposal and post it for comment first. I will not be posting 100 comments on your errors on the nearly 100 category talk pages as you have asked, since that would be a serious waste of time. Wiktionary does not work like the other MW wikis in this regard. You were blocked for disrupting Wiktionary, and to be certain there was sufficient time to undo the damage you had done. --EncycloPetey 00:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there EP. The entry robot is missing several languages in the entry, and since you know Portuguese and Galician, I was wondering if you would be willing to add both of those languages to the entry for robot? Thanks, Razorflame 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey -- Your ears may be burning. -- WikiPedant 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this anonymous edit correct or not? When I added those pronunciations, I was going on the basis of what was already created from your Laboratorium and your recent edits.

On another note, is it worthwhile to use the {{l}} template for derived and related terms and alternative forms/spellings on Latin entries; it seems to save time searching each entry to see if other sections exist, though I guess you could do the same with the #Latin method. Even though it's unlikely there will be another language section on most pages, there may be for verbs especially, and so it seems we aren't thinking in the long term as to whether new sections may be added at a later date. Caladon 19:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The IPA for Classical au is debatable; I do not have a particular transcription I'm confident about. I use /aʊ/ based on what little I've read, but I have yet to see any publication made a clear assertion about that diphthong's pronunciation in Classical Latin.

I personally prefer to use "#Latin", but {{l}} works just as well. I tend to use section linking because I never know when a Latin term will have been borrowed into another language, or when there will (eventually) be a section on that page for another language. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure there are no macrons in the positions changed in this edit ? The question can also be applied to lego; should there be a macron on lectum? The google results for intellēxī and intellexī favor with a macron on the 'e', and there are barely any results for dīlexī, with no macron on the 'e'. Most sources seem to show both parts with macrons -lēxī, -lēgī and -lēctum. Caladon 09:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be a case where my sources are divided on the issue. However, both Wheelock and Feyerabend agree with the macrons as they were before I removed them, so I'd tend to favor their re-inclusion on that basis. --EncycloPetey 02:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, the vote that you opposed here is actually unrelated to changing male to masculine and female to feminine. That vote is here. Judging by your argument, I think you might want to move your vote. Ultimateria 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I voted according to what the vote says, not according to what people claim it says. If it's not about what it says, then it needs to be rewritten and restarted. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you reply to that point on the vote's talk page, as I deliberately commented there to avoid cluttering the main vote page with my thoughts. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which point is "that" point? --EncycloPetey 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I've been involved in an ongoing debate with user Msh210 here in regards to the term gobby. In short, I made this edit based upon the following: . Apparently dictionaries need correcting however and what was formerly there is accurate as he came and reverted me here and added this based upon a Google search result here .

You will note that his Google search result is inconsistent in it's usage of the word. In addition to that, none of the examples even used the term in the form of his reversion: loudly critical. Two examples spoke on obesity however.

As if understanding Msh210 wasn't confusing enough, he later states that his campaign in regards to this word is not in support of his reversion but the definition of talkative as shown here . You'll also note that I am "to get cracking" on a task that he has assigned according to him. The behavior of this user has been disruptive and I think a third party is very much needed! Cheers! 65.31.103.28 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just as another link for you to check out, EP, in case those weren't enough, there's citations:gobby. Have fun.  :-) ​—msh210℠ 19:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Anonymous, "get cracking" was because words on RFV are presumed invalid unless verified. So the sense (senses now) up for verification will be removed unless verified. Technically, a month is granted, as described atop that page, but often in practice it's longer. Your removal of a sense without look for citations for it was what made me revert it; that sense is now up for verification, so you should have no complaints: it, too, will be removed in a month if not cited.​—msh210℠ 19:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm no doctor, but are you certain? --Thrissel 23:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

In modern English, yes. Note that all the dates you found are from the Victorian era. If you want to create an entry, it should be listed as {{obsolete}}, since the plural is no longer used. --EncycloPetey 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for correcting that punctuation!

--UnicornTapestry 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. That's just one of the many differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure? The book as listed on Google Books spells it (deprecated template usage) huggable in that sentence. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not when I looked, it wasn't. You may have viewed a different edition, apparently the third edition (1995) spells the word differently. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This user Special:Contributions.72.213.155.213 doesn't seem to be doing any constructive work except for vandalising. Also, could you help formatting fogunk? According to this, it's a Hungarian word. Mainstream Mainline 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is, but it doesn't mean what you tink it means. It's we'll, not we. It is poor form to edit in languages you do not speak. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I moved it to User:EncycloPetey/Incomplete etyl-fr. --Bequw → τ 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on adding/improving entries related to plant morphology and development (I've posted a lengthier explanation over at WP:PLANTS). Since you're already around here on wikt: I was hoping you wouldn't mind reviewing my additions? Right now I'm puzzling over establishment growth, and can only hope I'm not going to completely misrepresent the thing. I've come to realise some of our most basic botanical morphology terms (such as apex, base, shoot and abaxial/adaxial) actually leave quite a bit to be desired, but I have yet to find good concise definitions in the literature to begin with (and avoiding circularity is turning out to be something of a challenge). Circeus 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

One place you may find help is B. D. Jackson's A Glossary of Botanic Terms. It's very dated in some ways, but it's also out of copyright if I'm not mistaken (first ed. was 1900). If so, then its contents could be used with suitable sourcing and minimal change. I tried adding bryophyte-specific terms once, but found that there was so much overhead missing—we lacked many of the terms needed to explain the more specialist terms-so I didn't pursue it as thoroughly as I would have liked. --EncycloPetey 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've nominated a couple words for word of the day...but how are they picked after they have been nominated? Ks0stm ^(T•C) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I pick them. That's the entire process. BTW, I only see one nomination with your signature. --EncycloPetey 03:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are some from way back last July/August-ish, I think. But thanks for answering my question. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C) 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Present indicative: second-person singular should read sapīs instead of sapis; third-person plural should read sapiunt instead of sapunt. --Omnipaedista 10:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is your source? It disagrees with my sources regarding sapis. I've corrected the third-person plural present active indicative. --EncycloPetey 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not a truly appropriate source: : PDF-page 27. Of course, the macron in that edition could be there for metrical purposes or it could even be a mistake of the executive editor (assuming that the macron is misplaced, of course). Incidentally, could you name your sources specifically regarding the macrons in Latin verb conjugations? It was hard for me to find a reliable one so far. For example, I was not aware of the "exceptional" conjugation table for 3rd conjugation -iō Latin verbs with no passive voice. --Omnipaedista 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I usually use several, and sometimes have to work by comparison, which is not ideal. Wheelock's Latin has tables for many forms, but only for a few model verbs, and I rely on it at the various supplementary resources published by others to accompany it, such as Grote's A Comprehensive Guide to Wheelock's Latin. The 501 Latin Verbs Fully Conjugated and The Big Gold Book of Latin Verbs are pretty good, but both do contain errors I find from time to time, but the latter is usually pretty good with macrons (though there are exceptions to that). Sometimes, I have to work out discrepancies between sources painstakingly by comparison against other sources and first principles, which is irritating, and which is why I've mostly been using FitBot to conjugate regular first-conjugation verbs thus far. There really aren't a lot of sources that follow through on describing the macrons for non-lemmata of verbs. Most irritatingly, I have yet to find a source that lays out the rules for placement of secondary stress. Although several books I own hint at their existence, they fail to actually state any of them. --EncycloPetey 03:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think "identicus" is a real, attestable, CFI-meeting Latin word?

I have crated an entry for "identicus", found in Century 1911 and also in an etymology in M-W online, but the word is not in Lewis & Short, and is not found in Latin Wikisource. Thank you. --Dan Polansky 11:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

My M-W calls it ML., but I do not find *identicus in Latham or Niermeyer. The RAE derives Spanish idéntico from pieces rather than from a Latin word, and I'd be inclined to think that it was actually some Medieval French or Italian word that lad to the English. I find no evidence of a potential source word in Medieval Latin. In any case, it would be very unusual for a -cal adjective in English to come from -cus rather than -calis. The original OED has the same etymology given, but says it's from "scholastic" Latin, and the earliest citations the OED has for identic and identical date from 1633/1647. So, there may be a source word in the academic Latin of the Renaissance, but I have no good sources for that period. Medieval Latin is not correct, but Renaissance Latin (1300-1500) or early New Latin are possibilities. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hm. I'm not sure what to do now. I could have avoided creating the entry before going to ask about its validity, I admit. Do you think I should send the entry to RFV and probably let it die there? --Dan Polansky 11:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You could also ask the Latin specialists on WP, where there might be someone with sources for more recent forms of Latin. Otherwise, I don't see any other option. If you, I, and Caladon don't find a citation, then a citation is not likely to be found. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've sent the entry to RFV. --Dan Polansky 07:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. I know you as a defender of "capitalization only for proper nouns". Please could you take a look at the discussion at RFD puli. If this carries on, it will extend to all animal, bird, fish, flower, and who knows what else, leading to a dictionary of all capital entries! Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 10:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... No, there are plenty of capitalized common nouns in English, although many of these derive from proper nouns. I've added a comment, however. --EncycloPetey 17:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I may bother you with a trivial question. I have noticed that in a few entries, the word dies appears as dīēs, instead of diēs. According to L&S, this is a "legitimate" variation. But it is a rare variation. I am wondering whether we should standardize the occurrences of this word on Wiktionary by replacing dīēs with diēs for consistency reasons. --Omnipaedista 06:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

We should use a standard, yes. However, L&S are not a reliable source for current opinion on placement of macrons. I'd check Feyerabend, Wheelock, or the OLD for current opinion. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please may you help me with a quote for feudātōrius (“feudal; vassal”), namely "servitium, quo feudatorii grana ſua ad Domini molendinum, ibi molenda perferre, ex conſuetudine, aſtringuntur", from . To give it a more literal translation do you think this sounds any good for a translation: "Vassals there are forced to put up with a service whereby their grains are ground at their master’s mill in accordance with custom." Obviously regarding all of these terms that were requested on WT:RE:la, that is feudō, feudātōrius, and feudum, please add and correct what you can, since you have many more sources than I do for these.

Note, also for you to check and by new and anonymous editors, which may have escaped your attention. Caladon 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Much has escaped my attention lately. My offline work has been very time-consuming of late. I'll have to give that translation some thought. I usually try to use a translation that (as much as possible) preserves word order of the original. I also note that the source capitalizes Domini, suggesting that he (at least) may think it refers to the Lord (God) rather than a Lord, even though that would result in a rather odd interpretation. I may not respond before this weekend, as I still have much work offline waiting. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to see if you've had any more thoughts on this translation, have you got more time now and are those anonymous edits correct or not? Unfortunately, I have a lot of questions lined up for when you are back and more active, and I don't want to overload you with them all if you are not. Caladon 13:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No luck, no. The context of the quote is a bit out of my range of knowledge. I did say to Doremwitzr that feudatorius looks like it should be translated as (deprecated template usage) feudatory because it seems to carry a more specific definition than merely "feudal". Beyond that, I don't have a suggestion. --EncycloPetey 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You wrote on my talk page:

=== man ===

If you wish to proscribe certain words from Wiktionary, then please start a vote to do so. Your political agenda pushing is reason for a block if it continues. --EncycloPetey 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am very curious as to what makes you think (or claim to think) that I'm interested in proscribing any word from Wiktionary. None of my edits have had anything to do with proscribing words. The edits of mine to which I can only assume you are referring have been very minor reorderings. I have no idea how or why you made the leap from my minor reorderings to accusing me of wanting to proscribe words. Do you?

These minor reorderings (as I have tried to explain to you previously) address a very obvious and obviously political systemic bias in Wiktionary whereby almost all terms associated with maleness have been placed before almost all terms associated with femaleness. I have simply reordered a few instances where the term associated with femaleness comes alphabetically (which is an apolitical, dispassionate ordering rationale) before the term associated with maleness. Your responses to these edits (i.e. reverting them to the previous orderings whereby your personal gender is always placed first, with no objective rationale provided for such ordering) actually demonstrates your own political agenda pushing and appears to be a totally subjective knee-jerk reaction on your part.

Moreover, you continue to fail to provide any objective reason or argument as to why all terms associated with maleness should consistently be placed before all terms associated with femaleness. (And 'standard practice' is not a reason - it is synonmyous in this case with systemic bias.) --Tyranny Sue 04:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Instituting a different systemic bias (as you call it) requires a vote. Pretending that your agenda is apolitical is no excuse. --EncycloPetey 05:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You seem to have a deep-seated problem with the concept of balance. That is unfortunate.

As an admin/bureaucrat/whatever, being blind to the hypocrisy of your own accusations about political agenda pushing is deeply irresponsible.

Trying to put words into my mouth is just childish (as well as, of course, disappointing and a cause for concern).--TyrS 03:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey, I apologize if I have caused any disruption. I am aware of the difference between phonemic and phonetic transcriptions as I have been following the guide at WT:PRON, specifically:

In phonemic transcriptions, it is important to choose from a consistent set of IPA symbols, such as those listed at w:Help:IPA for English, in order to avoid making unintended claims about what sounds are phonemically contrastive in English. If there is any doubt about whether a particular sound is phonemically contrastive in English or in any particular dialect, it is best to use phonetic transcription, given in square brackets.

I have been trying to use consistent symbols for phonemic transcriptions, such as the ones found at w:IPA chart for English dialects, especially for words that have the same phonemic composition in both RP and GenAm, using square brackets as needed to indicate non-phonemic differences in the realizations of those phonemes in various accents. (For an example, see what I've done at butter, which ultimately has the same phonetic makeup in both RP and GenAm but differences in its phonetic realizations in both accents.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not inaccurate to transcribe phonetic details such as or between slashes since they are not phonemically contrastive?

As for English r, I was unaware that there was a community decision on the use of /ɹ/ over /r/; again, I had simply been trying to use the consistent set of IPA symbols at w:IPA chart for English dialects and w:Help:IPA for English, which both imply that /r/ is acceptable for phonemic transcriptions of English. I will henceforth use /ɹ/ for English r. Thanks for your time! --Andrew C ^talk (afc0703) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. Forgive the spam, but I need to know urgently what the two Latin words scita and scienda mean. My guess is that they're related to either sciō (“I can, know, understand, have knowledge”) or scītor (“I seek to know”, “I ask, enquire”) (which we don't have), or to both of them. They have a specialised use in English as terms of political science, as demonstrated by this quotation:

As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings." (taken from w:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn#Work)

Any help you can give me with these words (the greatest being the creation of entries for them) would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm away from my resources at the moment, so I can't be certain, but I suspect that scita is here derived as a plural neuter substantive use of the perfect passive participle scitus, from scio. It would thus mean "the things which are known". I'm less certain about scienda, but it seems to be a similar situation in a gerundive form. Latin gerundives are more difficult to translate accurately, but hey carry a present, active quality to them. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The best translation I can give for scienda is "that which is to be known" or "that which ought to be understood", in contrast to scita "that which is known / understood". --EncycloPetey 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input, EP. And I'm sorry for not responding sooner; I've been extremely busy lately. Check out scita#English and scienda#English, if you're interested; BTW, would they make good WsOTD, do you think?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to make this much better - noting that it doesn't even use {{oc-conj}}. Given the number of dialects, what's the best way to proceed here? Include them all? If so, we probably need {{oc-conj-Auvergne}} et al. to make it work. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just don't know enough about Occitan to give a simple answer. Can you point me to a good resource covering Occitan conjugation and dialectical spelling? It wouldn't necessarily have to be in English, as the basics should be visible in a table, and I can fumble through several Romance languages that I haven't studied formally.

Question: Why isn't {{oc-conj}} used for the inflection line of conjunctions, as {{en-conj}} is done? --EncycloPetey 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is an ambiguous name. I think for most languages people use {{infl|xx|conjunction}} instead of a {{xx-conj}} label. Same with {{fr-conj}} and {{fr-conj-table}}. Come to think of it, I don't know why these two templates are separate. There's no obvious advantage to it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Had you noticed User talk:Doremítzwr#Citations:feodatorius? I think your resources and expertise are requested. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. Could you take a look at WT:RFD#prae- and WT:RFD#pre-, please? I imagine you may be able to answer those requests.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I understood. Thank you for the welcome. OffsBlink 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any objections? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. I saw the discussion, but since I've no real knowledge of the language(s), I decided not to comment. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. What is the source of the current etymology of "vestigium": vestīgō (“track, follow”)? From looking at “vestige”, in OneLook Dictionary Search., I see Encarta and Merriam-Webster online end the etymology of "vestige" with "vestigium". Online Etymology Dictionary says that the origin of "vestigium" is unknown. Webster 1913 and Century 1911 also end the etymology of "vestige" with "vestigium". --Dan Polansky 12:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lewis & Short provide that etymology. --EncycloPetey 01:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have added L&S to references in "vestigium". Do you mean Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary, 1879, or is there a later edition of Lewis & Short? I estimate that you are using your printed copy to look up the etymology, right? Or can the etymology be traced online? --Dan Polansky 16:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am using a printed copy, and there is only one edition in existence, so far as I know. I do no know whether there is an on-line copy that can trace etymologies, since it is quite common for L&S to give the etymology as "", which means "same as the last preceding entry that has an explicit etymology" (there can be several instances of in a row all pointing back to the same previous entry. The on-line edition I have seen lists individual entries on the screen at a time, which makes it really difficult to figure out which entry is the one referred to. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I did not know that thing about "id.", and it was really helpful. It turns out that perseus.tufts.edu has, at the top of each entry, blue navigation arrows that take the reader to the previous and the next entry. The etymology "vestigo" is given at the entry vestigator, and is thus traceable online. --Dan Polansky 08:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did some more digging. I found that An Elementary Latin Dictionary by Ch. T. Lewis, 1894, mentions "vestigo" merely as "cf." in its entry for "vestigium". It seems to me that it would be better to remove "vestigo" from the etymology of "vestigium", given that only one source so far speaks in favor of the etymology. Thoughts? --Dan Polansky 11:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I disagree, particularly as (1) Lewis' Elementary Dictionary is a very crude edition with many mistakes/omissions that was cobbled together for school children, and (2) You've only looked in dictionaries of English. I do not agree with removing the only etymology given simply because we don't have additional support for it. If we did that, we'd be removing huge portions of Wiktionary. Citing a source for the etymology is sufficient, if you feel there is doubt, but it would be better to look in additional Latin resources, such as the OLD (which I unfortunately do not have access to). --EncycloPetey 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not see how Lewis 1894 has intentionally introduced "cf." into the etymology of "vestigium" to cater for schoolchildren. The absence of further etymology of "vestigium" in English dictionaries does throw a substantial doubt IMHO, given that those dictonaries include as complete etymology chains as possible at other entries. One of the English dictionaries even explicitly says that the origin of "vestigium" is unknown. If you see it differently, all right then. At some point, I might get access to some modern Latin dictionary with etymologies. Let it be now. --Dan Polansky 07:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here are the relevant entries in Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968). --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. If the OLD says the etymology is dubious, I'm inclined to follow it as it is considered the gold standard for Latin dictionaries (at least in English). --EncycloPetey 13:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up quotes. I get the point. Can you tell me your source for early Shakespeare editions? Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 03:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice that you deleted this, giving the reason "Roman names did not have "surnames"". If there are no Latin surnames, then what are Niger and Crista (both currently categorized under Category:la:surnames)? --Yair rand 22:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Niger is an agnomen, and belongs in Category:Latin agnomina; I can't be sure about Crista without seeing an example of its use. --EncycloPetey 02:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. Yes, I had looked up rat, but my thinking was that gym rat was idiomatic because it restricted the sense of rat to one particular sense and specifically excluded other senses like rodent. However, w:idiom on Wikipedia only says: "...a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.", but does go on to say: "John Saeed defines an “idiom” as words collocated that became affixed to each other until metamorphosing into a fossilised term".

I will take the "stricter" interpretation you suggest and only use the {{idiom}} tag in Wiktionary for two or more word phrases where the meaning cannot be inferred from any of the definitions of the component words. Thanks for being patient! Facts707 21:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Proper nouns are confused. Are there rules for proper nouns? 91.106.31.194 01:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but they are not always simple. I started a page at User:EncycloPetey/English proper nouns, but it is incomplete. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. 91.106.31.194 02:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, but the proper nouns of Wiktionary are very confused. 91.106.39.136 14:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Hi EP. Seeing that days of the week are a borderline case, is it right that IP 91.106.39.136 should have just now changed them all to ordinary nouns, without any discussion? -- ALGRIF talk 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  I've considered making that change on more than one occasion. You are correct that days of the week are one group whose status is debated, but I think the grammar more closely matches that of common nouns, myself. I don't know whether discussion of the topic would actually yield any new information. It would, ultimately, come down to personal opinion of community members, I suspect. --EncycloPetey 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've undesrtood why my vision of a short Wiktionary:English pronunciation key doesn't fit to all, but I would persist to let it the shortest as possible (for me the article sound buttons are too huge for an already waste board). Moreover, could we please add an audio link into {{IPAchar}}? JackPotte 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That template is used in many more places where an audio link would not be appropraite. So, it might be better to create an alternative version of that template, rather than modify the existing one. --EncycloPetey 15:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Done could you please add it into the News for editors page? JackPotte 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For what purpose? It's not a template that's going to be widely used. It's just on the one page, and possibly a few others, rather than being the sort of site-wide change we announce there. A note in the Beer Parlour would probably suffice for those users who could benefit. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. The OED has (deprecated template usage) Triassic as an adjective. My Italian dictionaries have the equivalent (deprecated template usage) triassico as an adjective and simple noun. What do other dictionaries do? SemperBlotto 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many of them seem to think it's an adjective, but by modern grammatical standards, especially the ones we've been using here, that's just attributive use of the noun in English, as in "Beatles album", "Paris street", or "freedom rally". Other languages may have a separate adjective, which can be spotted if it inflects for gender, but English has only the proper noun.

The confusion comes about (I imagine) because all of the geologic periods are etymologically derived from adjectives. This is the same problem we have with the names of muscles; words like biceps, triceps, pectorals are all etymologically from adjectives and so some anatomists prescribe their use as such, while in mainstream English these same words are used as nouns. When it comes to geological periods, however, there is no prescriptiveness among geologists or paleontologists. They simply use the period names as weak proper nouns (preceded by "the", like "the Alps" or "the Colosseum"). --EncycloPetey 16:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excuse my interruption. OED, Merriam–Webster, Random House and American Heritage all include both adjective and noun for at least some geologic periods. In many uses it is impossible to differentiate the attributive noun from the adjective, but I think there are some clear adjectival uses. I'll add some citations to relevant entries. —Michael Z. 2010-04-20 21:32 z

If you can provide good information, then no excuse is needed! I am aware of the OED, etc., but the citations they provide are ambiguous at best. I worked with a paleontology museum for several years, and found that the words were used as if they were nouns or attributively, no different from "Stone Age" in terms of usage. Yet, OED & co. do not list "Stone Age" as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 00:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused. If the nom sing is acceleration, wouldn't that be the entry title? Wouldn't that at least be the link target of the nom sing in the inflection table? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I suppose I could have taken five seconds to investigate it myself. There was a small error in the template parameters, which I have fixed. Sorry to have bothered you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the error. I wasn't bothered, since I was offline for the whole exchange. :P --EncycloPetey 01:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't know bots maintained that kinda thing, yeah that'd definitely be a losing battle. I always figured that they were just what happened whenever people clicked 'new section' and stuff. I guess it always confused me since I know they're not necessary for the code to display on the page and the spaceyness makes it hard to see the discrete sections, but I can extrapolate them without modifying them, I think it's just bad habits to try and shrink as much space which I should avoid, thanks for telling me about the bot because I don't want to have efforts go to waste so I'll try to spend it more on creating good sections like etymology. Ty 14:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess cream and sugar are allowed to be added to tea, but not milk or honey. I have a funny feeling you're not British. Facts707 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am not British, but that has nothing to do with it. espite not being British, I've probably watched more British sci-fi than you have. --EncycloPetey 05:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, at least I can have cream in my coffee and whitener in my tea. Facts707 05:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I for one can't believe we have that category at all. We're a dictionary, not a cookbook. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

AutoFormat is tagging 'gerund' as a non-standard header. Should we have a vote to have this header added to WT:ELE? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• <butting in>For Italian entries, we use ===Verb=== as the header, and {{gerund of}} in the definition line. </butting in> SemperBlotto 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

  For Spanish we do that too, but that doesn't work for Latin. Latin gerunds have their own inflection and grammar that differs significantly from verbs and differs markedly from nouns as well. Unlike Latin verbs they have both gender and case, but lack person and number. Unlike modern Romance gerunds they have a fixed gender, but have variable case endings and are distinct from the present participle in both form and function. The modern Romance gerund does not derive from the Classical Latin gerund directly, but rather from the Latin gerundive, which is just a fancy kind of participle that resembles the gerund, and which over time gradually replaced the gerund in many grammatical situations. Any time the gerund requires an object, for example, you use the gerundive participle instead, because a gerund cannot have an object in Latin. The Latin gerund has no nominative form at all, and is only used in the accusative when it follows a preposition that governs the accusative. It therefore requires its own inflection table template, which I haven't gotten around to making yet, in part beacuse it will be rather POS-specific.

  There's no need for a vote or changes to ELE, since this is a Latin-specific issue that I don't expect to impact other languages. Yes, AF is tagging these, but only because Robert told it to do so, not because any policy requires that this happen. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shall I nominate you for unwhitelisting then? If you have to be a perfect editor to be whitelisted, what makes you think you're perfect? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'd fail on this edit alone. Isn't this more about someone being interested in Latin, and you not liking it? I've seen one bad edit from him, and one from you. Sounds like one all to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Typo nazi. Fuck off. — opiaterein — 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

See User talk:Mglovesfun#Apology. Issue ended. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you double-check the def here? It doesn't really seem to jive with that given at prolix. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Both Caladon and I have checked (deprecated template usage) prolixus already. It is possible that this is a situation where an English word has shifted radically in meaning from its source word. For example, I can imagine that courteous persons in court would have used flowery language, leading to a shift in meaning. --EncycloPetey 22:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

May I ask why you removed the language specific linking? Seems like this is a good thing to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The lang=oc tag links to the language section. --EncycloPetey 23:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Um.....yeah. We want that, right? It's not the plural of the English word, just the Occitan. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Wikilinking brackets break lang=.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talk page. Caladon 06:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unlikely other templates, when you add f=lemosina (example) it doesn't add that the feminine plural is lemosinas. I'm a bit scared of breaking the template, so could yo do it, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you wanting a template that works for nouns that are feminine (which this does, AFAICT), or something else? --EncycloPetey 15:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither of the quotes supports the spelling to which you added them. The italicized Xiphias spelling, in particular, looks like a genus name, which would be Translingual by our standards. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I don't think so – Sword Fish is also capitalised and italicised – but I will look for some more. Usage of that era makes little distinction. Ƿidsiþ 06:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! I would like you to substantiate the translation section of WT:ALA, as there are a few parts that I am not certain about.

1. For English verbs in the infinitive, e.g. love, do we supply the Latin in the 1st sg. present indicative as in amō, as some ditionaries do, or in the infinitive, amāre
2. When translating adjectives, do we only supply the first lemma, e.g. cārus or do we give all genders?

Thank you!—verily nest no settingsuns 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. We use the lemma for Latin verbs. On Wiktionary, and in most Latin dictionaries, this is the 1st-person singular present active indicative (e.g. amō). So when a Latin translation is used in a Translations section, we use that form, and the page for that form should have most of the information about that verb.
2. When translating adjectives in any language, we give only the lemma form (main form). For Latin, this is the nominative masculine singular. The other genders and cases are not given, since they will be listed on the lemma's page.

--EncycloPetey 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've seen the usage header in a couple places on Wiktionary. Nicoleta 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then those need to be corrected. "Usage" is not an acceptable header. Most of the acceptable header names are listed at WT:ELE, which is our primary style guide. --EncycloPetey 04:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Usage Notes" is listed under the headers on that page. Nicoleta 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Minor point "Usage notes" is listed, not "Usage" nor "Usage Notes". Wiktionary and its bots are very particular about precise uniformity of section headers, including both capitalization and spelling. Non-standard capitalization in a section header is marked as an error just as much as a misspelling or a missing word. --EncycloPetey 04:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gaaaa lol, I'll go back and edit :-p. Since when were English titles not uniformly capitalized? Usually only see that in French or Spanish. Nicoleta 04:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

We've chosen to capitalize only the initial letter, as with titles of articles in many academic journals, for example. This is a community choice for consistency. Wiktionary is maintained mostly by bots, since we have a million and a half pages and about 50 admins (not all active). Most pages are seldom examined, and many are in languages that only one or two editors here speak. The uniformity also helps the bots and makes certain that content is (1) easier for English learners, who thus have to learn fewer header words, and (2) easier to convert for another language Wiktionary's entries. Without the uniformity, all that would be much more difficult for all concerned. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I understand lol. However out of curiosity, I just checked the German Wikipedia, and they capitalize the initial letter and all nouns, as anywhere else in German, do the bots have any issues with that? Nicoleta 04:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's German and Wikipedia. Different project and different bots. Each language and each project has its own admins and bots. --EncycloPetey 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Well, since I have you online lol, do you do Wikipedia too? How do I add citations there? http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Talk:Brihannala Nicoleta 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do Wikipedia from time to time, but adding "Citations" (which means something different than here on Wiktionary) on Wikipedia is complicated. How you add them depends on what you're adding, where it came from, and where you're putting it. You'll probably have to learn through trial and error, because I can't provide a general answer that would be meaningful (or less than several pages long). There are differnt templates for different kinds of sources and the parameters don't match up between all of them. You might start by looking at their "Template:Cite book" and "Template:Cite journal" and see if the doco makes sense to you. --EncycloPetey 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Based on your subsequent edit to falseto, I presume that it is just the shoehorning the "last resort phonetics" into the {{hyphenation}} template that you think I did wrong? If so then there will only be a small handful of entries that need cleaning up (afaicr that is the only entry that I've come across with that in my most recent period of activity), and there will be more effort required to hunt them out and fix them than them just being fixed when they turn up (although suppose the pronunciation exceptions report might be added to to find capital letters in the template? I'll ask Robert if you think it worth it). If this isn't (all) the issue, please can you be more explicit about what I'm doing wrong. Thryduulf 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the shoehorning is the problem, since hyphenation should indicate to a typesetter where it is legitimate to break a word that wraps from one line to the next. I found at least three instances of this in the dozen recent edits of yours that I looked at. Yes, this will require a lot of work to clean up, but this problem should never have happened in the first place. You were supposedly cleaning up pronunciation sections, but in doing so added more things that have to be cleaned up in the process. No, we can't just hop that they'll turn up, because errors propogate as people copy what they see being done. --EncycloPetey 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not all gargoyles are gutters. Yours is much more erroneous. My edit DOES NOT SAY that all water spouts are gargoyles. Purplebackpack89 22:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, your edit does: "A carved grotesque figure on a spout which conveys water". That extends the definition to grotesque spouts in fountains and any other water spout. It is therefore a much greater error for including many, many iterms that are not gargoyles. The original wording does not say that gargoyles are gutters; it says they convey water away from the gutters. --EncycloPetey 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all your recent work completing requests submitted at WT:RE:la.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

These should be merged into one, to be made more like {{fr-noun}}, so that if the feminine (or more rarely) the masculine is specified it creates a default feminine singular and feminine plural. This will take some thinking about, however. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I kind of think so too. I've been considering the same thing for Spanish, but the template has to be able to handle gender, plurals, pluralia tanta, uncountables, and nouns with a form in the other gender (and their plurals, as well as possibilities where something doesn't go as planned and (ideally) generate a plural in "-s" automatically as the default. I suspect that the same coding will do this for both Spanish and Catalan only minimal revision.

The problem I worry about is that the template will be used a lot as the noun category fills up, and a variable gender noun will require a switch or "if", which adds server strain usually. Although most nouns have only one gender, the code still contains that "if" and the server still plays out all possibilities, which means the server strain is there whether the check on the "if" is actually needed or not. This is why Spanish and Catalan have separate f/m templates for the nouns with a form in the other gender. --EncycloPetey 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can do a #switch and not need the #if. #switch m - f - mp - fp - mf - mfp... etc. — opiaterein — 15:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only if the template judges a difference between mf and fm, and I'm not happy about the idea of using those parameter values that way. However, it will still require "if"s to check for the inclusion of an alternative gender form in those situations, after the switch is used, so that it can generate an error message if the form was not included. --EncycloPetey 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Must also point out that a lot of Feminine nouns will need the plural specified, since -a changes to -es. Only f. nouns that don't end in -a will be able to take a default "s" for plural. — opiaterein — 15:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

And without knowing those rules for plural formation in Catalan, I'm hesitant to tackle the template straightaway. --EncycloPetey 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't think of anything except for a>es (which applies also to masculine nouns ending in a) where the rules differ drastically from Spanish, or any other Iberian language... it's basically the same as Asturian changing a>es and u>os. Basically, consonants and most vowels add -s, -a changes to -es. But I'm afraid if I do work on Catalan fundamental stuff here that Carolina wren will get all pissed off :D, though he/she has been somewhat scarce of late. — opiaterein — 15:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, "if"s are actually pretty cheap. What's expensive — or at least, more expensive than you'd expect — is when one branch of the "if" includes a template, since the server fully processes both branches (hence expanding both branches' template calls) before invoking the "if" to find out which branch to use. (And honestly, even if one branch includes a template, you probably shouldn't worry about it too much. Broadly speaking, we can leave server optimization to the people who are paid to deal with it, or at least to people like Robert Ullmann who have a thorough understanding of it. Sacrificing usability for performance is a poor trade-off when we can't judge how much performance we actually gain by it.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Robert was one of the people who helped out a great deal when I revised {{es-verb}}, and I'll definitely seek his opinion on any major change to {{es-noun}} before putting it into effect. I expect I'll try to proceed with a revision of the noun templates for Spanish and possibly Catalan sometime soon here. I'll have considerable time off in about a month, and will thus have plenty of time to make any manual template updates to template calls that might be required. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, but I didn't actually invent the word. I just got it from dexonline.ro, which is the main source of etymologies for Romanian words, and also from myetymology.com. I don't know if it's necessarily right; it's just what they have. I also see an alternative one as desfilare, but I that seems even less right.

What declension is aperio? Thanks, Razorflame 05:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding the inflection type :) Razorflame 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. I don't see what useful purpose your reversion serves. As I said in my edit summary to justify the inclusion of (deprecated template usage) equīsōn- in the derivation, "It's best to include the stem, since it's unclear otherwise why the English word ends in 'n' whereas the lemma of its Latin etymon lacks it." The OED gives the etymology as It is clear to me that (deprecated template usage) equison derives from neither the nominative singular form of its Latin etymon equīsō nor its accusative singular form equīsōnem, but rather that it was adopted as the stem, sans any case ending. If English adopted either of those inflexions, we'd have *(deprecated template usage) equisones in the plural, and very probably *(deprecated template usage) equisoes or *(deprecated template usage) equisonems, too. This is how Latin nouns are adopted into English in an Anglicised form by the Classically aware — the stem is adopted, not the nominative singular, which allows the noun to be treated as an ordinary English one, with no vestige of Classical inflexion. (As you'll know, verbs are similarly treated, with their Anglicised forms tending to be modelled on the stems of the perfect passive participles of their Latin etyma.) This is not common knowledge that you can expect our readers to know. Moreover, neglecting this detail leads to inaccuracy. For example, there is a difference in derivation between tripus and tripod: Ultimately, both derive from the Latin tripūs, itself a derivation of the Ancient Greek τρίπους (trípous); however, whereas for (deprecated template usage) tripus, that is the end of the story, for (deprecated template usage) tripod, it is more accurate to state (as the OED does) that the English noun is modelled on the Latin stem (deprecated template usage) tripod-. Now please, for the sake of clarity and accuracy, allow the stem to be noted in the etymology.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: "It is clear to me that (deprecated template usage) equison derives from neither the nominative singular form of its Latin etymon equīsō nor its accusative singular form equīsōnem, but rather that it was adopted as the stem," And that is precisely why we shouldn't list the stem in the etymology. The OED's etymology has incorrectly led you to believe that the stem was adopted and used rather than the word, which is incorrect. Etymologies that trace the development of words through phantom "stems" lead to erroneous views of how the etymology progressed. That isn't how the word entered English, and we should not mislead our readers into thinking that it is so. I honestly have no idea why the OED chose the accusative for their etymology, unless that is their house style for derivation of words from third-declension Latin nouns. Other dictionaries do not use the accusative; some prefer the ablative. Wiktionary uses the nominative, and so that is a second reason why the lemma nominative should appear in the etymology. Please do not introduce misleading etymologies. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: I have corrected the etymology of (deprecated template usage) tripod, which comes from a collateral form of the noun, and not from tripus. --EncycloPetey 14:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I checked all 25 of the general-use OneLook dictionaries that list (deprecated template usage) tripod and none of them agree with you that it derives from the nominative (or accusative or vocative) plural form tripodēs. These are the derivations variously suggested:

1. Latin tripūs, tripod-, from Greek tripous, three-footed: tri-, tri- + pous, foot
2. < Latin tripod-, stem of tripus < Greek tripous "three-footed" < pous "foot"
3. Middle English, from Latin tripod-, tripus, from Greek tripod-, tripous, from tripod-, tripous, adjective, three-footed, from tri- + pod-, pous foot
4. Formerly tripode…from Latin tripus (tripod-), from Gr. τρίπους (τριποδ-), three-footed, having three feet or three legs; as a noun, a three-legged table, a three-legged stool, a three-footed brass kettle, a musical instrument, etc.; from τρει\ς (τρι-), three, + πούς (ποδ-)
5. L tripus (gen. tripodis) < Gr tripous < tri-, tri- + pous, foot
6. < L tripod- (s. of tripūs) < Gk tripod- (s. of trípous) orig., three-footed
7. from L. tripus (gen. tripodis), from Gk. tripous (gen. tripodos) "a three-legged stool or table," lit. "three-footed," from tri- "three" + pous (gen. podos) "foot"
8. L. tripus, tripodis; Gr. three, and foot.

You'll notice that five note the stem and three note the genitive; of the five that note the stem, three give it before the nom. sg., and of those, two explicitly state that the English word derives from the stem, and not from any particular inflexion of the Latin etymon. Maybe some other authority gives the acc. sg. or the abl. sg.; I don't know. If you have an authority or rationale which favours the plural, then please give it, because at the moment, your position looks baseless.

As for me, I see all this as only reinforcing my interpretation of the derivations (both of (deprecated template usage) equison and of (deprecated template usage) tripod). Other sources note the genitive, accusative, ablative, or whichever other singular alongside or in place of the nominative because those collateral forms usually show the full stem, whereas the nom. sg. forms are frequently divergent in form, sometimes radically so, and for that reason fail to resemble closely their descendants in English. That does not mean that those sources think that the English word derives from any of those particular forms; as you suggested, it is unlikely to be for any reason more significant than house style. (Consider the converse: how would we decide the true derivation if we actually had different sources claiming derivation from different inflexions of the same word?) For words like innuendo, it is correct to claim its derivation from the ablative singular; for words like (deprecated template usage) tripus, it is correct to claim its derivation from the nominative singular; and for words like (deprecated template usage) tripod, it is correct to claim its derivation from the case-ending-less stem of the word as a lexeme.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your arguments, while well-worded, ignore the fact that we have house style for writing content here, and this is not always the same as what print dictionaries have done in the past. Our entries can link to a full entry about a Latin noun, and need not explain the inflection of the source word in the etymology section; that information is just a click away. Yes, when the English word derives from a specific inflected form of a Latin word (as with innuendo), we can include that as part of the etymology. Doing so is long-accepted and standard practice. However, this does not extend to roots and stems that are not even permitted here under CFI.

Note also, that this is an inflected form of innuendum, and is not a collateral form. A collateral form is what we usually call an alternative form or alternative spelling on Wiktionary. My Latin dictionaries imply that tripodes is a collateral form with tripus, like English bicep/biceps are collateral forms with the same meaning. Latin has a number of collateral forms with a different gender, different declension, or different number. From what I found on a quick search, tripodes, although plural in form, can have a singular meaning. I will have to investigate further by finding Latin quotations to support this implication, and this may not be easy.

In any case, Latin words that entered English very early, especially via forms of French tend to come through the ablative. From what I understand through conversations with Carolina Wren, Catalan dictionaries note the same thing in their etymologies. Nouns tended to drift towards use of the Latin ablative form in what is today France and Spain, from which the modern nouns in the descendant languages derive. I know this as well from my years of studying onomastics; modern forms descend from the ablative rather than the nominative form in western Romance languages. --EncycloPetey 20:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not calling for us to link to stems or to have entries for them; the stem in the etymology for (deprecated template usage) equison was always noted as {{term||equīsōn-}}. Even if you opposed that method, I'd still advocate noting at the very least that (deprecated template usage) equison derives "From the stem of the Latin equīsō…".

Yes, I'd mistaken "collateral form" for "inflected form"; I think I understand the difference now. Still, you say that your "Latin dictionaries imply that tripodes is a collateral form with tripus"; however, as you recognise, you need to do the legwork to substantiate that, and even then, it doesn't go very far to showing that the English (deprecated template usage) tripod derives from the Latin (deprecated template usage) tripodēs.

I can't speak for Catalan or the rest of the western Romance languages with any real knowledge, but I don't see how they would apply in this case, because (deprecated template usage) equison did not enter English from Latin very early on.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not quite sure where to chime in here, but this issue is something I've been wrestling with myself, with no result as of yet. In Ancient Greek third declension nouns, the lemma form (nom sing) quite often does a fantastic job of hiding some of the stem. Take arthropod for example. How do you get "pod" from "pous"? Unless you know Ancient Greek fairly well, the answer is rather nebulous. So, I can sympathize with what Doremitzwr's trying to do here. At the same time, EP rightly notes that the stem is not some independent entity, which can be cited in a vacuum. Also, we have to simply admit that our current etymology format is woefully incapable of hand-holding the user through every nuanced element of a word's journey through time. The best I've come up with thus far, and I'm still not completely satisfied, is something along the lines of "from Ancient Greek πούς (stem ποδ-)". Anywho, that's all I've got. If you two come to some consensus on the subject, let me know. If, on the other hand, you simply continue to badger each other (as is my suspicion), please bear in mind that both of you have solid arguments on your side, and neither is being dull. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. I guess what we need to do is find a way of displaying the stem form without implying that it is some independent entry. Would "From the stem ((deprecated template usage) equīsōn-) of the Latin equīsō…" work? (The problem with your solution, Atelaes, is that the need for transcriptions (and, optionally, a gloss) means that it generates a lot of parentheses; e.g., "from Ancient Greek πούς (poús, “foot”) (stem ποδ- (pod-))". However, I suppose something like "from Ancient Greek πούς (poús), ποδ- (pod-, “foot”)" would resolve that, though then it isn't clear what ποδ- (pod-) is in that arrangement.)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't suppose you'd have anything to add to this discussion? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. I'll never write during an asleep night (in my local time), i think it's better for WP health (and mine too i sumise) :) regretful thanks.--Pierpao 06:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to this, it does have a plural. Razorflame 02:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't ask you. You don't speak Romanian (or Catalan, or Galician, ...). --EncycloPetey 02:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I speak basic Romanian, and I know enough Romanian grammar to know that this word has a plural. Razorflame 22:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where has the word land, been added after the word? Thanks for assistence. -- Bugoslav 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I'm behind you on this one. —Ruakh_TALK 12:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

So am I. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Me too. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 12:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you link to the promise he made not to edit in languages he doesn't know, please?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

For one specific example, see this diff and the revision of the promise. See also the history of Razorflame's talk page, Opiaterein's talk page, the talk page of anyone else he has promised to (too numerous to remember), the relevant block logs, the history of User:Razorflame/Promise. Conrad.Irwin 12:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yup, from what I've just read and reviewed, this block was completely justified; nay, it was a contractual obligation.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Never before have we had any user with such a long history of mangling entries in languages they have minimal if any understanding of... and still being allowed to edit. It blows my mind that he can repeatedly be told to not edit languages he doesn't know, promise not to, and then just repeat the process on a new language... I don't understand how anyone can trust that. — opiaterein — 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why this ?
Colleague Štambuk told me that I can add Croatian entries, if I don't delete "Serbo-Croatian" . Kubura 03:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

But you did effectively delete the SC, by changing it to Croatian. Additionally, you obliterated some of the formatting, and replaced a sensible definition with a nebulous one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, looking further, I see that you created it as simply Croatian. Well, to that end I can't say for sure, except that Krun is a long-time editor, and respected admin. When a new editor reverts an admin, other admins will generally revert outright. In Krun's defense, he was adding information, as well as better formatting and a better definition to the entry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Atelaes has explained most of the problem. Additionally, you defined an Adjective as "the patrolling one", which is nonsense. "The patrolling" one could be a definition for a noun, but not for an adjective. --EncycloPetey 04:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please can you check Antonyms section in both articles. It seems you exchanged the two definitions--Pierpao 05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, you misunderstood Wiktionary formatting. There is nothing wrong with the Antonyms sections in those articles. --EncycloPetey 05:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry again--Pierpao 06:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why are you an admin here if you can't accept being in the minority? People don't like votes when there's already a consensus among the community. Reverting that consensus, I'd consider that vandalism. If an IP did that, would you block them? Well? Yes you would. So why not block yourself for one day? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you provide context, so that I know what you're ranting about, please? If you are referring to the list, please provide (1) evidence for your claim "numeral" is not Engiish (which is easily refuted), and (2) evidence of a community consensus on the POS headers (the last vote attained no consensus). Why not block yourself for taking a widespread-use template and pushing your POV? All I did was to restore the original form, which is community standard practice when there is no consensus--we choose the older one.

And to answer yor hypothetical question: No, I would not have blocked an IP for making the kind of edit you did, nor did I consider blocking you. What I do in those situations is to revert the template and protect it from editing by IPs. However, since the template is already protected, and since you are an admin (not an IP), that avenue of dealing with the problem is not available. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sysop:(Wikipedian) It's Hard Work, But SomeTWO Has To Do (It). :)--Pierpao 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks--Pierpao 19:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, would you like to take a look at this when you have some time? I'm not really sure what we do about New Latin words or anything. — opiaterein — 21:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Way ahead of you. I got an edit conflict when I tried to save :) PS - It's not New Latin, just post-Classical; it shows up in the first few centuries AD. --EncycloPetey 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Myyy baaad :D (I was watching TV and someone was talking about Dante's Divine Comedy, so I went to see what purgatorio was lookin' like. I couldn't handle the red link in the etymology) — opiaterein — 21:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. When you have the time, please respond in #equison etymology. I'd like to reach a resolution with you on this so that I can take your talk page off my watchlist (you've a busy one). Sorry to pester you. Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that we're going to arrive at an easy solution, or that the solution lies in any decision made by just the two of us. As Atelaes points out, this affects etymologies from third-declension Ancient Greek words as well. It might be better to start a BP discussion laying out the two proposed formats with their rationales, and get more community opinion. This could lead to a "no consensus" situation, but it might also lead to a solution, and at the very least will lead to an awareness of the problem. Sometimes, a problem known now produces an elegant solution later. --EncycloPetey 20:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. What is your proposed format, then?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just as I had done, without including the root, and linking/showing only the lemma form or listing/linking the specific inflected form as intermediary if/when that form is known. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've started the discussion in Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Noting stems in etymologies. Please let me know if the summary I've given and how I've laid out our differing positions is acceptable to you.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. I've posted two comments directed at you in Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Noting stems in etymologies without response since 10/V. Please reply to them or declare your intention not to do so. Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see them. I see a comment about CodeCat's Dutch issue, but your comment does not pose anything that seems to require comment. You've made a statement. I do not know what the other comment you refer to might be. --EncycloPetey 03:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Explicated.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've replied again.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've added another comment for your consideration.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. I don't mean to badger you, but could you please at least let me know whether or not you intend to respond to that discussion? Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. If/when you create reparātus, note the citations I've collected at Citations:reparatus and Talk:reparatus, which may come in handy. :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was quick! Thanks very much.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure.... those citations have the dates of republication; not the dates of the original texts. At a glance, they appear to all be medieval text quotations/reprintings from church records, which means the context won't necessarily be so easy to determine, especially since some of them only afford me a snippet view. Thanks, but I'm still way behind on just entering basic Latin vocabulary, and have only just recently started trying to add any real supporting quotations in Latin (starting with the cardinal numerals). I'm skilled enough to get the gist of most things I read, especially if I have some idea of the context. I can tell when a published translation is... er "free" (19th century translations of Ovid are notorious for this; I've seen even some serious mistranslations of Pliny the Elder in the past few days), and can usually modify such "free" translations to more closely match the Latin text. However, generating a quality translation de novo can still be slow and painful for me with certain passages, because I'm not yet fluid in the idiom of certain verb tenses or some of the odd uses of particular cases. Hence, I still rate myself a "2". --EncycloPetey 02:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd guessed that they were republication dates (except maybe the 1853 work). TBH, I was just looking for supporting quotations, and was too tired to the proper job I usually do with English citations. I get the feeling you're being too modest when you rank yourself a mere "2". By your standards, I sure as hell don't deserve the "1" I give myself (however, I had to show that I have some proficiency in Latin, for the sake of other editors' information). Some of the citations on the talk page are full-page views (and centuries old), if that's better. Anyway, keep up the good work.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate it!

Hi, trying to get it to categorize in Catalan countable nouns, except when 2=- (like {{ca-noun|m|-}}. I think that's the only modification left to make, then it'll be ready. PS I based it on 'your' {{oc-noun}}, which is perfect. I just added ifewq NAMESPACE, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should work now. --EncycloPetey 15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please can you explain why you reverted my formatting changes to blauw ? Even if the {{sense}} formatting is somehow wrong (afaik that's exactly how it's meant to be used), you've reinstated a spurious "{{" (see the first line of the second block of changes in the diff), and this will need to be fixed. Cheers. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've already explained in the same place you proposed AF making these sorts of changes. Derived terms should not use the {{sense}} template. --EncycloPetey 16:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't spotted that, but your comment there doesn't make sense (I've explained there). Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd let you know that I made this. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 00:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I did see it. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. My usual template didn't work in this case, and I erred on the incomplete side. I've just added more detail for the citation for eraris

Ruzulo 05:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I had seen where you had previously deleted the entry for flite (to quarrel), with the notation of "(Promotional)". This flite is not the software, but a legitimate English word. Please do not delete. Leasnam 20:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

For the conjugations for Spanish verbs, I'll look at that one website that gives all of the conjugations, and I will spend the time to figure out how to make the conjugation template work correctly. Thank you for the constructive criticism once again. I very much so appreciate it :) Razorflame 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm curious, now that we have collapsible quotes, what value do you see citation pages having? Especially when they are duplicates of the information already on the main page (doge). When quotations could easily take up an entire screen, it's obviously beneficial to move some of them to a subpage, but now that that is less of an issue, what is the purpose of the citation namespace to you (besides compiling evidence for undefined terms)? Nadando 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a fan of the implementation for collapsible quotes. That may change, but the subsidiary pages can't be done away with. The whole reason we adopted them in the first place was as a way to accumulate citations for items that might not yet warrant an entry, such as neologisms. You can't use collapsible quotes if there's no entry yet. There are also citations that may not fit any existing sense in an entry, but which (in isolation) do not lend themselves to the writing of a new definiton line. There again, the citations namespace is useful. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Also, quotes which are of undefined sense can go there. Additionally, quotes which are bot harvested can go there. Finally, it serves as a place to have all the quotes, and nothing but the quotes, so they can be examined more carefully. What I think would be useful is a sorting table, so the quotes can be seen sorted by date, or by sense, or by....perhaps something else.....country? There are still a number of useful things about citations pages. EP, you don't like the hideable quotes? I would very much appreciate it if you could chime in on the BP discussion and give your thoughts, even if they are simply "I hate collapsible quotes for no explainable reason, and nothing you can do will make me support them." As I'm trying to get a sense of the community's opinion on the matter. Better yet, if you have some specific critique(s), then I might be able to modify the setup to appease you. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another use for citation pages: Sometimes, proper context requires a cumbersomely long quotation or publication information is particularly verbose; in those cases, it is nice to have a trimmed version for the entry, with the original version still extant in the Citations: space.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, sometimes we catalogue one or more “proto-quotations” on the citation page, which definitely can't be put as an example on any sense, but help show how the term came into use. Being able to search the text of all citations in their own namespace is not ideal, but still very valuable (it's our clipping file, which is a potential mine for many more citations). Of course the citations pages also serve as a lemma or “super-lemma” page, to aggregate spelling variants and more (e.g.s Citations:battleship grey, Citations:horilka, Citations:Kiev, Citations:ustav, Citations:Ukraine).

Every entry citation should be on the citations page for completion. By adding duplication in the main-space entry, we are creating a problem (although citations are already duplicated where they attest two different words, so we won't eliminate this until we get a proper database). —Michael Z. 2010-05-17 18:21 z

Which date are you using for this change (just so I know for future reference)? Caladon 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

My opinon changes from time to time when I learn new information. My best information at this point is that Classical Latin already had this vowel change, and that the original diphthong was part of Old Latin (or at least pre-Classical). --EncycloPetey 20:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this mean a number of entries need to be updated, based upon when they first appear? Should both pronunciations be shown for a word attested both before and after Classical Latin? Caladon 07:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the pronunciation is identified as "Classical", then only the updated form should be listed. I haven't tried to enter any pre-Clasical pronunciations, because the information I have is sketchy on most of the vowel sounds, and often lacks specifics needed for assigning an IPA symbol. Ecclesiastical pronunciations shouldn't need to be updated. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. There is some disagreement about this. Could you join the discussion at User talk:Caladon#cohaereō please? Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Remember to provide an edit summary for your edits, especially testy ones. I'm thinking in particular of this edit, which reverted a new user's edit to an inaccurate version without giving a reason. If you want more editors on the English Wiktionary that isn't the way to go about it. Happy editing.--71.197.165.247 16:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The edit summary was automatic. This is not wikipedia, edit summaries are not mandatory, and you are not in a position to be giving orders. — opiaterein — 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries are not mandatory on Wikipedia either. They are simply advisable, and admins who care about the project qua wiki should use them where their inclusion helps encourage new editors to stick around. (At no point did I give 'orders'. Is anyone in a position to give them?) --71.197.165.247 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Remember to provide an edit summary for your edits, especially testy ones." That sounds a bit bossy to me. "...admins who care about the project qua wiki should use them..." This is your opinion. Not all wiktionary editors are easily swayed by opinions outside their own. — opiaterein — 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I also wish editors here would give edit summaries that are, in fact, summaries of their edits. The anon didn't seem particularly bossy to me, and any such impression that you got should have been dispelled by his subsequent disavowal that he gave any orders.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, the anon's phrasing resembled the sort of phrasing that administrators use with anonymous newbies, so if you think that administrators are bossy, then yes, the anon was bossy as well. —Ruakh_TALK 23:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. It seemed pretty normal to me. Could've been politer, but I didn't find anything bothersome about it.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, there is a point where EP is not a newb, and the anon is not an admin, which changes things a bit, I think. The tone sort of implies a sense of "I know what I'm doing, and you don't, but I'm here to help". This is fine when a seasoned editor (who is assumed to know what they're doing) is speaking to a new editor (who is assumed not to), but is, I think, a bit unacceptable when an anon is addressing one of our 'crats. I guess this all comes from my view that when you're new on a project, it's rude and rather stupid to tell folks who've been there awhile how they should be doing things. Whenever I'm on unfamiliar ground (I do bounce around to other projects occasionally) I generally take the approach of asking how things should be done, and begging forgiveness for any of my blunders. Finally, there is no option for commentary on rollbacks, so the comment itself is uninformed, which sort of reinforces my point. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's also very odd that the anon commented about wanting "more editors", and in doing so linked his comment to a page on meta that shows (quite clearly) that the English Wiktionary has far more users and admins than any other Wiktionary project. Sort of undermines any point he might have been trying to make, doesn't it? In any case, the anon also missed the fact that I posted an explanation directly to the anon who had been reverted (which the anon thanked me for and replied to), and that (as Atelaes noted) it isn't possible to insert an edit summary to a reversion. --EncycloPetey 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good more editors where articles to save the page. This is a edit summary. QuickGround 05:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand your comment. It does not make sense in English. --EncycloPetey 05:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

He left one of those for me as well, however, I view it more as a disruption than anything else. Razorflame 05:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there EP. Is this one any better? SemperBlotto 07:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

p.s. I didn't know how to say that it was "New Latin".

No, this isn't any better, since this isn't an adjective and it's not a lemma form. --EncycloPetey 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. Check out Citations:irreparate#Latin citations of irreparate — I've collected three citations of the use of irreparate in Latin. If you can, could you add a Latin entry for (deprecated template usage) irreparate please? ATM, that same page has both English and Italian entries.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what I can do with it. It appears to be a very recent Latin coinage. While I can guess what the lemma form ought to be (this isn't it), I have no dictionaries that have a suitable lemma form listed, so I'd be creating an entry for an unattested word (other than this form). I expect it's a back-formation into Latin from English or Italian, since it does not appear in Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin. --EncycloPetey 17:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If the lemma is irreparatus, then that's attestable…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes and no. It's the primary form for what I assume is a participle, but that begs the question of whether the parent verb irreparo exists, and I can find exactly three citations for that lemma form. I do not know whether these three citations support a single definition, or what precisely that definition should be, since (as I said) the word appears in none of my dictionaries for any period. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Three's enough, isn't it? Searching google books:"irreparo" OR "irreparas" OR "irreparat" OR "irreparamus" OR "irreparatis" OR "irreparant" (the assumed conjugation of irreparō's present active indicative forms) yields 44 hits; I'm sure that searching for other conjugated forms will yield more hits. Given all the quotations that are available and the transparency of the etymology (in + reparō), I'd say that you have more than enough to work with. You needn't defer to dictionaries. Trust your abilities; you're better than you think.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The rather controversial vote is shortly coming to a close. I suspect you all know at least the basics of the issues surrounding it. Since it is rather close, incredibly controversial, and tempers are flared, I think one of you could go a long way to preventing future clashes by closing it when the time comes. All of our current 'crats have a great deal of respect from the general community, and, while there isn't a strong precedent for 'crats demonstrating authority in vote closing on this project, I suspect that most people would nonetheless recognize that authority and respect it. I certainly would. Thanks for your consideration. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Doremítzwr has posted a message at our discussion on my talk page; I didn't know whether you had noticed it. Caladon 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you would, can you get a bot to go over the declension tables so the cases are betterly ranked as vocative, nominative, accusative, dative/locative, ablative, genitive? instead of the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, vocative, locative. The former is by person—the ranks as they are are uncanny, unless they are supposed to fall by the word order in a clause? If so, then locative or vocative is always the first word, then ablative, and so on with nominative the last. Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum? Lysdexia 22:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is the standard order as they appear in most English language textbooks, and we have chosen to follow that order. Nominative should definitely be first as it is the lemma form for nouns and adjectives. I am not sure what you mean by "Can you write me a statement with all declensions of verbum?"; it is only second declension.

Please do not use archaic English to translate entries. We wish to use modern English for translations, not English of the 19th-century and earlier. Also, please do not remove spaces as you've been doing. They are supposed to be there, and will be re-inserted by bot. You don't need to get into an edit war with the bots. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know the order was chosen, but it doesn't answer my proposal. Nominative (or first-person) may be first, but the vocative (or imperative) is the nouhth. Sorry, I mean class for your declension, and declension for your inflection—write the sýntagm for verb-.

What in the hell do you mean—where is the policy on what kinds of words one may not put in entries? And why are spaces supposed to be there? Lysdexia 02:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not know what "nouhth" or "sýntagm". mean either.

Please see Wiktionary:AGF#Advice to newcomers. If your primary purpose here is to push your edits on the community while ignoring the advice of the experienced, then you have violated policy. No further argument from policy will be offered. If you choose to wiki-lawyer rather than learn and contribute, then you should find another community elsewhere. whose purpose is arguing. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Crude translation of the quote: diligent, clean, industrious/, with not too much, not too few ardour/passion (?) they wove at/on the gobelin (= some sort of tapestry) of the culture: swindlers (?) that, when they met each other, smiled at each other like haruspices.

Compare: de:fleißig, sauber, de:emsig, mit nicht zu viel, nicht zu wenig Leidenschaft webten sie am Gobelin der Kultur: de:flinkhändige Schwindler, die, wenn si sich trafen, einander zulächelten wie Haruspices. H. (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps: "Diligent, sober, and industrious, with neither too much passion nor too little, the conmen (mountebanks?) wove a cultural tapestry with crafty hands, and on meeting each other, smiled like haruspices." --EncycloPetey 04:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there no problem with -ābilis being written for 'with a macron' and not 'without one', like in the example of (deprecated template usage) stabilis? These affixes can be quite confusing at times, especially when old entries are still in use for them. Caladon 17:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't think its a problem, since macrons are contextual in many situations. The entry for stabilis should not have a macron, and I think including one in the etymology would lead to more confusion for the general user than leaving it out. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have no prob. removing the Latin. Regarding the Greek, I think it should remain, because if we're doing an etymology, the original source of the word should be used, with transliteration provided, since the English-language borrowing of it is also an entry...--71.111.229.19 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

But it's not the original source. The word word constructed in Latin using a Latin suffix. The Ancient Greek did not directly provide this word, and as an etymological source, "compare" is certainly an inappropriate avenue for introducing it. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

In either case, does the phrase "Compare spatha and spathe." really mean "Compare English spatha and English spathe"? Thanks--71.111.229.19 09:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your work on WOTD. As you probably know, proponents of the main-page redesign are seeking volunteers for the proposed new WOTD-like features. I was considering volunteering for one of them, but wonder if you can fill me in on how much work WOTD is, and what kind of work. (That is, what do you do?) Thanks much.​—msh210℠ 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Initially, it was quite a lot of work. At this point (after several years), it's become less work, except for the initial set-up each month and the archiving.

What I generally do these days:

1. Monitor the nominations page, which I have on my Watchlist. I check for any previously used noms and strike them, and I cross off red links or other non-choices as they come in. Also each month, I strike off used noms and achive the oldest noms.
2. I set up the list page for the month, which organizes the upcoming slections. I also have a personal userspace page I've been keeping, to help me keep track of selections.
3. Making selections. This involves the most creativity and planning. I try to avoid having too many nouns in a month, or having words that mostly start with a, b, or c, or having words from a single jargon, etc. I often have to supplement the nominations with my own choices. In order to avoid depending on just my own personal vocabulary, I read books, and keep a notepad of interesting words. I also find words watching some TV or movies, and keep an eye on Recent Changes and New entries so that other people are contributing indirectly without having nominated them. People enjoy seeing the entries they've created appear on the main page, and there are always interesting new words being added to Wiktionary.
4. Putting the selections into the recycled templates. Vildricianus set up a system that recycles a page for each day of the year and so that the correct day is automatically selected. So, I put the information into the templates, and the pages then automagically appear on the main page on the correct day. I try to stay at least three days ahead, and prefer to put in a whole week's worth of items in advance, but my schedule doesn't always give me enough time to keep that far ahead.
5. Basic clean-up and formatting of selected entries. I try to make sure the major definitions are in and correct, though I don't always have time for this. I also add IPA, because I know how, and will occasionally add etymology, qoutatios, or other sections depending on the time I have. I used to do a lot more of this, in the early days, but it made for too much work. I now depend more on having others do this part.
6. Monitoring the selection for the day it's featured, to be certain there isn't any vandalism.
7. Archive featured nominations lists at the end of the month. This means (1) subst'ing and protecting the monthly page lists, which takes little time, (2) pasting a "was WOTD" template onto each featured entry, which takes only a little more time, and (3) maintaining an alphabetical index of selections, which takes a lot of time and for which I'm currently behind.

That's pretty much the what I do, without much detail on the how or why. In all, I'd estimate that I now spend about two to four hours each week working on WOTD, with a little more around the beginning and ending of each month. However, I spend a little more time when I am able to, or when I have the inclination because of an interesting nomination. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Without attempting to volunteer for anything, I want to echo msh210's thanks for your work on WOTD. The results are highly useful and the effort is appreciated! - DaveRoss 20:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wow. Yikes. First of all, I'll repeat my thanks ("again, with more feeling"), this time with a greater appreciation of what you do. Second of all, re item 6 (monitoring for vandalism), I have a half-baked suggestion of automatically protecting WOTDs: instead of adding the was-WOTD template to each page after the fact, add a is-WOTD template before the fact, and have the template automatically (1) do nothing until the date, (2) protect the page on the date, and (3) display the was-WOTD template after the date. This shouldn't be too hard; if you like, I believe I can set it up: just say the word. It will lessen your (or the community's, but de facto your) need to monitor WOTDs for vandalism, at the expense, of course, of making you (de facto you) keep to a tighter schedule of adding the is/was-WOTD template.​—msh210℠ 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism to the current WOTD is rare, and we do get IPs adding useful translations, so I'll pass on the suggestion of protecting the current WOTD entry. The templates that display on the Main Page are all protected (and should be), but the entry itself is not protected and benefits from its editability. Other regulars here contribute translations on the day, and they monitor for vandalism as well. --EncycloPetey 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do we want these , , etc.? Caladon 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. Those are forms where the letters are written with different orthography, not different forms or spellings. --EncycloPetey 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I know I'm going back six months here, but I think you made a mistake when you moved a citation from sense 2 to sense 1. You and I are ‘male’ in a sense which our hormones are not; we are male because we possess ‘male’ hormones, which are male only because we possess them. (Scientifically I know this isn't solid, but linguistically I think that's how it works.) Male hormones are male in the same way as a male voice is. Our sense 1 is like the OED's sense 1, and their cites include only ‘male rats’, ‘the male sex’, ‘male kind’, ‘male sparrows’ etc., whereas their sense 2 (=our sense 2) has references to ‘male force’, ‘male voice’, ‘a male domain’, ‘male plumage’, as well as ‘male hormones’. Ƿidsiþ 08:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

And I disagree based on current usage of the terms (both in and out of biology). The "male" hormones are innate features inherently and necessarily associated with "maleness", which constitutes the primary sense. A "male" voice is only male in humans, and only secondarily considered "male" by association. Someone who is a male, may not have a voice that is considered "male", but will necessarily have "male" hormones. I agree with the OED about the placement of their quotations on 'male force', 'male domain', and 'male plumage', as these are also secondarily associated with "maleness", and not inherently "male".

To me, the cites the OED lists for sense 1 look more to me like attributive use of a noun, rather than descriptive use of an adjective, but I'll concede now that it's also likely to be the result of seeing those phrases in isolation away from a larger context. However, to say that the first sense we have applies only to entire entities, or to groups of entities, is to assign a specificity which the term doesn't bear out. The "male member" is not male because it is possessed by a male, but rather the organism is male because it possesses that appendage. And I do mean that both biologically and linguistically. Likewise, a "male hormone" is not male because it is found in males, as the hormone testosterone occurs and is produced in both males and females. Rather, the male hormone is a determining factor in maleness and is inerent to "maleness" rather than being secondarily associated with it. --EncycloPetey 15:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are arguing that ‘male hormone’ is not a good fit for sense 2 – and perhaps you're right. But my primary concern is that it isn't a good fit for sense 1, which I believe should be about describing entities which belong to one of the two major divisions of living creatures. Male hormones do not get together with female hormones and reproduce; they are not male in that sense, which is what I think sense 1 should be about. Rather, male hormones are hormones which are produced by or associated with members of that class (though even then not exclusively, as you point out). So whether this means we need a third sense, perhaps along the lines of ‘being a necessary or inherent characteristic of’ which is different from the current sense 2 ‘pertaining to or associated with’, I don't know...but you understand what I mean don't you? A male antelope is male in a different way from a male hormone, that is my point. Ƿidsiþ 04:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I see what you mean. Did you see what I meant when I described that as attributive use of the noun, rather than an adjective? To me, a "male antelope" is an antelope that is a male. So, I believe that the sense you are describing is not either of the two adjective senses, but is the noun sense further down the page. --EncycloPetey 14:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yep – and it's possible, originally. But since that is the first recorded use of the adjective, predating the ‘belonging to’ sense by 200 years (and recorded just as early as the noun), it seems fair to follow the OED in treating it as a true adjective and give it its own sense. Ƿidsiþ 15:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If it is attributive use of the noun, then of course it's going to be dated as early as the noun and predate the adjectival use. This is only the first recorded use of the adjective because someone somewhere decided this was adjectival; we don't have to agree with that call if the evidence is contrary to that interpretation. --EncycloPetey 15:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, it doesn't seem obvious to me that a noun would be used attributively immediately. Also, the first citation the OED has found is from 1382 (‘Two þou schalt brynge in to þe ark, þat male sex & female’) doesn't sound very attributive to my ear. There's also the fact that etymologically we got the word from Old French where it was already used as an adjective – indeed, was an adjective before it was ever a noun. But I'll leave it at that for now, and if you still disagree maybe we should copy all this to the talk page. Ƿidsiþ 16:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you notice, the 1382 quote puts "male sex" and "female" as parallel items, so it's either attributive use of the noun male or substantive use of the adjective female. Clearly the word (in either interpretation) was already in a dual use from very early on. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Adjectives were used with ‘nouns implied’ a lot more in those days, in formulas like ‘the quick and the dead’, ‘a good man and a true’ etc. Ƿidsiþ 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I thought it would be useful for clarification, but now that I think about it, it's extremely redundant. Gl1d3r 16:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Gl1d3rReply

Uses the code {{scn}} but has the language heading Sardinian- which is it? Nadando 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's Sicilian. Thanks for catching that. --EncycloPetey 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is that not plurale tantum in Latin?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for adding the Latin section so quickly.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are a few thousand ghits for "more googleable" etc, with both spellings: It seems natural for it to be used as a comparative - is it the quality of cites that's the problem? (Also, I'm not sure whether the main entries should be at "G-" or "g-".) Interplanet Janet 10:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You need to read WT:CFI. A general web search is not useful for citations. We require durably archived (published) uses of the word, not merely a written form found in an on-line search. Whether the entry shoud be at G- or g- should be determined by citations found. See Citations:listen for a model of what a good set of citations should look like. --EncycloPetey 13:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this source support my addition to the entry? Nadando 22:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

On its own, no, and I can't find that word in any period through Medieval Latin. That French dictionary you've found could mean that tadorne comes from the "Latin name" (i.e. genus name), rather than from a true Latin word. I'm still looking, but what I've found so far dates the genus name to 1822 or 1817. Wikipedia says, "The genus name Tadorna comes from Celtic roots," but without looking up the original publication of the genus, I can't be sure whether that means it was an 1822 (or 1817) de novo Latinization of a Celtic root, or whether it comes from an earlier Latinization. The Bird Life International website indicates that Tadorna tadorna was published by Linnaeus, which suggests that the genus name was derived in 1822 (or 1817) from the Linnean species epithet. I'm not familiar enough with the ornithological literature to determine what name Linnaeus actually used, but he's not credited with naming the genus. --EncycloPetey 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am sorry to be an inconvenience, but I copied the format, almost exactly, from existing entries of Latin inflected forms. So, consider it error propagation. If you, or anyone, could tell me specifically what is wrong with the pages, I will gladly rectify them myself.

Anyhow, I am somewhat experienced with Perl, and I would be willing to help code the bots, if any additional help is needed. Attys 07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which entries did you copy? There are some that need to be corrected. The forms of the adjective (deprecated template usage) albus are done correctly for a first and second declension regular adjective, but pointing out the "right" way can be tricky since the inflection pattern often varies with different parts of speech or declension patterns.

Most of the entries I've seen that you did are very, very wrong, with one or more serious errors. On (deprecated template usage) pilaris, you left out the definition. Your inflection line for daphnon is formatted incorrectly, since it uses a stem-and-suffix approach that hasn't been used here for years. Your links in the table for danisticus and damnosus are wrong, but for different reasons. The former links to pages with macrons (which shouldn't exist), while the latter neglects to show the macrons in the table. I have the strong impression that you haven't read any of the template documentation.

And that's just some of the problems. Your entries for some inflected forms like (deprecated template usage) portae include a section for "Etymology 1", even though there is only one etymology. you also used the {{term}} template incorrectly by including a hash to a language section and labelled the part of speech as Adjective when it's actually a noun. I don't have the time to keep up with the rapid propogation of your errors because each edit seems to introduce new errors. A play-by-play critique would take too much time. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The following have been fixed: pilaris, damnosus, portae. I looked over the links in danisticus. I see: danista, danistica, danisticum, lend#English, and money#English.

As for daphnon, I explained the lack of proper inflection in the talk page.

I believe your initial question is a rhetorical device; as a response, I will simply issue a recognition of carelessness on my part (although earlier errors were in fact a result of my using outdated entries). I have briefly read, but by no means committed to memory, the template documentation. I will revisit it, along with the guidelines, in order that I avoid such mistakes in the future. I thank you for your explanation and time.

Finally, I offer personally to delete all inflected form pages that I have created, in order to save you or others the trouble of reviewing them. Attys 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, neither (deprecated template usage) damnosus nor (deprecated template usage) portae has been fully corrected. I will make corrections now. AugPi (another user) has corrected (deprecated template usage) danisticus. The difficulty with (deprecated template usage) daphnon is not a lack of inflection table, but the incorrect form of inflection line. The inflection line is the text that immediately follows the part of speech subheader. You have added a line, but it is incorrectly formatted.

Thank you for offering to delete the entries, but there are two problems with that. First, only a Wiktionary sysop has the authorization to delete entries. Second, a deleted page still does not permit the bots to run properly. When a page has been deleted, the bot recognizes this, and balks. So, even a deleted entry still requires the page to be corrected manually. This is why we do not encourage the manual creation of inflected form pages. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Never seen it done before, has this been a cross-language standard or strictly Latin? or is there a reason for obscura to be granted exception? 124.171.164.148 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's a good question. Personally, I don't think that such an etymology is something we want. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's logically required. We have Latin entries that have, e.g., a section for a noun (lemma) and for forms of an adjective (non-lemmata). If the noun gets an etymology, then where do the inflected forms of the adjectives go, if the etymology isn't the same as that of the noun? Our data structure necessitates the etymology in many of these situations. Further the etymology brokers a compromise with those editors who insist of providing the meaning/translation for non-lemmata. Rather than repeating nearly identical translations for every sense (which might later have to all be altered), the meaning of the root word is given in the etymology. So, this is indeed something we want.

For an English example, see (deprecated template usage) weeds. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Atelaes. When there are multiple etymologies, but no etymological information aside from what's already in the sense line, I just use ===Etymology 1=== and so on with an empty etymology.
Also, unrelated: in the pronunciations, shouldn't the syllable break be between the /p/ and /s/? There's a general cross-linguistic rule that consonants prefer to attach to following syllables, rather than preceding ones, as long as the language's phonotactics allow it (and Classical Latin definitely allows initial /sk/, as in scribo).
—Ruakh_TALK 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Normally, the syllable would break there if there is an attached prefix. For many Latin words beginning with ob-, the syllable would break after that. However, L&S do not indicate that this happens in obscurus, etc., so I have followed the usual rules for syllable breaks. However, I have now checked additional sources, and some of them do indicate the syllable break where you say (as I would have normally expected). I'll make that change.

I strongly disagree with the idea of creating empty sections, such as an etymology section that does not have any etymological information. --EncycloPetey 19:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: pronunciation: interesting, thanks!
Re: etymology: Well, it's not really an empty section, any more than ==Latin== or ==Hebrew== is: it contains the POS sections and such. But yeah, it's poorly named. Normally "Etymology 1" means "here is one etymology, plus everything about the word with this spelling and that etymology"; but when there's no etymological information, it means "here is everything about the word with this spelling and one etymology", which is not intuitive.
—Ruakh_TALK 19:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, not intuitive, and I would expect editors to add etymologies to those empty sections, and could not justify to myself removing information to create blank sections. It feels like we're telling our users, "Everything under this header shares an etymology, but we're not going to tell you what that etymology is; figure it out for yourself." --EncycloPetey 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to voice someone else's opinion, since he's not really here to voice it for himself: CM was also very strongly against blank Etym sections, as I recall. (I have no strong feelings on the matter myself.)​—msh210℠ 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

@EP: It does feel that way, but then we do give them the etymology, in the definition line. At least, the etymology you've given at ] gives no information that the definition lines don't. (Indeed, I'd argue that that etymology isn't even totally accurate, since it says "inflected form", when there are actually at least two distinct inflected forms there, and possibly more, depending how you count.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

And each sense of any word arguably has its own independent etymology, including date of coinage or first application of an existing word to that sense. Such subtleties of distinction usually are not considered in any other entry, so I don't see that the etymology of obscura should be any more precise than it is. While the etymology at obscura may not seem to contain information not in the inflection line, that situation could change. Additional etymological information could be added, which is much the same arguemtn we've been having about compounds where the current etymology is of the transparent X + Y sort. Such etymologies have the potential to grow, and does this one. We may, for example, find that we can trace obscura back to a PIE root with a different inflectional ending. The etymology also does communicate one thing that isn't in the individual sense lines, and that is that they share an etymology that is the same. A blank etymology section would leave a user guessing whether there was a shared etymology or an error. The individual inflection lines have to be compared and processed, which may be easier when there are no interspersed quotations, but that too can change. The etymology text thus makes it clear that the items listed have a shared etymology and what part of that etymology is shared. The whole point of an etymology section is to have a place to put that kind of information. Etymological information shouldn't be restricted to the definitions section. That would not be serving our users. --EncycloPetey 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, you hit me with a huge brick of technical discussion. I got lost in it. The English weeds given is not a great example to go by. They have two etymologies and one sense is of a different part of speech. On the page obscura, it's just an inflection, same PoS and same meaning. I think the average user would figure that an inflection is somehow derived from the headword, or its etymology is related to its headword's.

I understand that empty etymology sections are undesired, but my point was that (I don't think) an etymology section is necessary at all in this case, given that there are no subsections (e.g. where there are two senses with different etymologies - like there is in weeds). In weeds, it is required to separate the two senses which have different origins, but in obscura the origins are the same. Should there then be etymology sections on, for example, played? If not, perhaps a clear example what differentiates these two words may help. 124.171.164.148 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word (deprecated template usage) played will not be a perfect example either, as there will likely be a Middle English or Old English verb form from which the modern verb form descends. That's one of my points about obscura. There may very well be an Old Latin or PIE root form that will later be added to the etymology. Why do you think an etymology section should be excluded when all the subsections have the same etymology? That does not make logical sense to me. With obscura that point becomes problematic in part because there is more than one pronunciation and more than one part-of-speech section to consider.

In any case, if we follow your suggestion, then we have no truly objective way to explain to users why some entries will have etymology info and some will not. Even though you say that obscura doesn't need it, you're looking at the current content only, and not what the potential future content may become. As an illustration of what I mean: we like to add representative example quotations (and translations of those quotations) after each sense in an entry. When those are (eventually) added to obscura, it will no longer be at all obvious from a casual glance that all the listed forms come from the same main word. Look at (deprecated template usage) quattuor, and imagine that quotations such as found there occur after each sense of obscura. At that point, the etymological relationship is no longer clear, which is another reason to have information in the etymology section. --EncycloPetey 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems logical to me that etymologies if inflections be omitted if they follow the same etymology and are comprised of only inflections. Because to me, it's pretty obvious that an inflected form will be derived from its headword (as I've stated). Do you know of any inflected forms which derive from other words than the headword? I wouldn't be surprised if you can find an inflection which has evidence of being derived directly from the origin of the headword, but cannot think of any whose etymologies are distinct.

However, if there was to be words coined in the future to add etymologies, then if we were to be thinking of the future, we would be adding etymologies for every form, wouldn't we? Would you be a supporter of having every form-of entry its own etymology section? -- 124.171.164.148 04:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Ruakh. This word needs no etymology header, not even a blank one, as an etymology section is not needed to separate the inflected forms from anything else. Also, your argument about having to explain to users why there is no etymology is not really valid, as we already have to tell them why there are no synonyms and no definition. Inflected forms are basically soft redirects. When they mix with real entries, then we have to do some fancy handword to make them fit together, but not here. Besides that, played is a perfect example. It probably does come from an Old English and/or Middle English form, but I think it's pedantic to note that, unless it's some odd, irregular form, which is explained by the etymology. went probably deserves an etymology, and even shown, but not played, as it forms an utterly standard past tense form. We do need to put our heads together at some point and think of a better way to format inflected form entries, as the current format is inadequate, but in the meantime, that etymology is extraneous, and should die a slow and painful death by fire. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, you don't seem to be registering any of the points I've raised. So, (1) Would you want (deprecated template usage) weeds to have an etymology or not? Please explain. (2) Would you want leves to have an etymology? Please explain. (3) Would you want hilaratis to have an etymology? Please explain. I do have a follow-up question or two, but need to know this is going to be acknowledged before I bother with that again. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

weeds: yes, because there are two etymologies and the etymology header is used to separate them, it's either that or leave one blank - and where the necessity arises it may as well be provided. But, if the obsolete definition did not exist, then no.

leves: no, unless the inflection is irregular and was derived from another word other than the headword, the inflection line should be self-explanatory of the etymology.

hilaratis: no, because all definitions are inflection-line templates and reference the headword for information of its etymology. -- 124.171.164.148 06:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree with the anon. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agh, I must admit myself guilty of not paying close enough attention. I did not notice that both leves and hilaritus have inflections of different words. So I will admit that it would be quite reasonable to have etymology sections in all three sections. However, see my next post. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up questions for each of those listed in (1), (2), (3). Without following links back to other pages (since the inflection line is self-explanatory), how many different etymologies do you think are on each page? Specify which sections you think are related and which aren't. --EncycloPetey 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see where you were going with this. In leves, non-blank etymologies serve as a useful note that the inflections come from two different heteronyms. However, I must note that in this case, it is a confusing situation, and we have nothing to clarify it except etymology, even though we should probably have something else. Ultimately, it is a fairly uncommon situation. In hilaritus, the non-blank etymologies, while less useful than in leves, are still marginally useful in noting that one inflection is a direct inflection, while the others are participial inflections (ultimately, both of the same verb). Quite frankly, I would still say that hilaritus does not merit two etymology sections, as all the words are still intimately etymologically related. In any case, this doesn't really prove much except that which was already conceded by both parties, which is that etymologies are useful for dividing etymologically distinct content. What you may have proven, which was not already conceded, is that inflected forms might sometimes merit non-blank etymologies, in certain exceptionally confusing cases. Oh, and to respond to a point which you raised earlier (and I don't think that anyone has yet responded to): When obscura does get a bunch of quotes in the future, as I very much hope it does, the relationship between the senses will still be quite clear to most users, as hidden quotes will almost certainly have been activated globally by then, preventing large amounts of quotes from interfering with the relationships between adjacent senses. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Almost there. The additional point I was illustrating is that it isn't always easy to determine how many etymologies are present in an entry. (And I could provide more complicated mind-twisting examples.) As a result, including etymologies in non-lemmata can be useful. Now the crux: How then do we clearly explain to editors when a non-lemma entry should (or should not) have an etymology section? If it isn't always clear to even an experienced editor, then how can we explain and rationalize it for the more casual contributors? It's a much, much simpler path to say that etymologies are OK for these, and here is a minimal format that may be used. Creating a whole set of criteria with explanations and rationale for including an etymologies is overhead that Wiktionary just doesn't need. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I still cannot see the relevance of the number of etymologies, as the etymology on the inflected form's page does not detail how many etymologies there are either. Nor does the etymology detail which sense/etymology of that entry it is from, except those with section links in which case the inflection template normally links there too. However, if those who had supported my opinion have become convinced that you have a point in doing this, I will accept that you're right and I am just thick-headed and cannot grasp your reason for this. Sorry for wasting your time! -- 124.171.164.148 04:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I'm still opposing the etymology. I will grant you that it's not always clear how many etymology sections there should be, however I don't think allowing the etymology in question alleviates that in any way. The standard for etymologies for inflected forms is quite simple and cut-and-dry. If the entry consists of inflections from a single word, then it should not have an etymology section. If there is anything else besides that (inflections from another word, a lemma entry, etc.), then it can have an etymology section. leves has the slight complication that it has inflections from two words, which happen to be heteronyms. However, that's not really all that mind-bending. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re leves: That depends on how you count it. It could be forms of two heteronyms or of two pairs of heteronyms. My underpinning practical concern isn't addressed in your response. How do we explain to potential contributors what is "cut-and-dry"? For example, all the inflected forms of seneciō will be a problem. There are two "words" inflecting here, but it's not clear how many etymologies there are. Not cut-and-dry, clearly, but there are similar situations that are less clear. What about the inflected forms of senex, which is both an adjective meaning "old" and a noun meaning "old person", but the lemma form is the same for both? Is that cut-and-dry? This problem is actually quite common in Latin and other highly inflected languages. --EncycloPetey 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you and Daniel are the only two that like numeral over number. Why contribute if you can't listen to others? Just start your own Wiktionary where you won't have to 'tolerate' other people. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Mglovesfun, please stop being an idiot. Can you please provide links of where Encyclopetey's edits are going against the community consensus, this will make it easier to resolve the apparent difference in beliefs that you two seem to hold. Conrad.Irwin 21:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2010-06/User:EncycloPetey for desysopping. Surely you can read the recent changes, CI. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

And WT:BP#EncycloPetey. Explain how deleting valid categories that contain entries is acceptable. If it is, why not delete Category:English nouns? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You mean like the ones you deleted? I deleted a newly created duplicate category. You deleted a long-existing valid category with about 60 entries. --EncycloPetey 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've never attempted to defend yourself, so here's my theory (which you'll write off as madness, no matter what I write)

1. You can't defend yourself
2. You consider if below yourself to talk to people like me

Saying that it's madness is an excuse not to answer, not an answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Deleting my responses and defense is not evidence of an absence of defense. I do not consider it worthwhile to bother defending against personal attacks. I prefer to discuss issues, which is very difficult when I'm blocked each time an issue is raised. I'd much rather spend my time contributing than having to answer empty charges against me. --EncycloPetey 21:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No you don't want to discuss the issues. The issue is, if there is a community consensus, why do you choose to ignore it? I didn't realising deleting valid entries counts as "contributing". You are a very good editor, but extremely stubborn with little tolerance for others who prefers things to be in his mould. The issue is, if an informal discussion leads to a strong consensus, why delete categories coming from that consensus? If you don't have an answer, accuse me of being insane like you did last time (but I don't defend against personal attacks). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please provide evidence Mglovesfun. Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, EP you're a stubborn individual and you probably know it. I think you're a very good editor. I don't hate you. I dislike some things about you. If you were more like some editors and listened to other editors, you'd be one of the best editors we have. Right now, you're a big asset and a slightly smaller than that liability. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please provide some evidence. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2010/March#Number versus numeral (again). I elected not to start a vote on the basis it's bad faith when a vote will pass almost unopposed. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Five people participated in that discussion. It did not resolve the issue of header or category names. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I asked who would openly support numeral, it was only two. Two in the context of our contributors is very little. Is two enough to delete ]? That is unambiguous vandalism. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you ask the right question, you can get the right answer. A well-written vote will settle this issue in an unbias and fairer way. Conrad.Irwin 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to ask EncycloPetey if he will abide by the result of the vote, or just continue deleting others people's work regardless. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your question is loaded, a bit like "Will you stop beating your spouse?" Please note that we've already had a related vote on this, which had the result of "no consensus", yet you have continually pushed one viewpoint over the other. Who then is not abiding by the result of a vote? What entries have I deleted that did not duplicate exactly a previously existing entry? Ah, I deleted a single category, and a pattern has been inferred from this. A bit like the old story of the man who determined that all Indians walk in single file because the one he saw did. Your questions, viewpoint, and accusations are not as fair or unbiased as you seem to think. --EncycloPetey 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is just evading the question. I was hoping for 'yes' or 'no'. I have no viewpoint on the matter other than the minority should not bully the majority. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see you didn't ask a question. Conrad.Irwin 23:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was an indirect question: EncycloPetey, will you abide by the vote? Please answer yes or no. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

How is this a loaded question? I'm asking you about something in the future to avoid you deleting categories for your own personal self-interest (which you do not deny doing). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This thread labelled "Numeral" consists instead of allegations and innuendo. You seem to have missed my reply "I'd much rather spend my time contributing than having to answer empty charges against me". That covers pretty much everything you've said here. --EncycloPetey 23:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

So answering yes or no is too difficult for you? Explain how your point of view is backed up by a vote. Explain how deleting valid categories is contributing. Explain how your character, seeking arguments is off-topic. If your behaviour is beyond reproach, is mine as well? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You don't seem to have actually read any of my responses. You can find most of the answers to these questions in the previous replies, above. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

To prove my point, I deleted Category:Latin numerals. But if you reply, I'll consider it a personal attack and not worth my time to reply. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, they're not. Or spell it out to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

All I see is you evading my questions. If deleting categories for no other reason than personal preference is allowed, why restore it? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok since EP is not gonna answer, can someone else? What are the answers to my questions? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given that most of them are irrelevant, and the remainder are not answerable, I imagine not. Sorry. Conrad.Irwin 00:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I imagine you just don't understand. EncycloPetey says he's already answered, you're saying he hasn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

He has given you as much of an answer as is necessary, I wouldn't call it an answer myself, but I can see why he says it is one. Conrad.Irwin 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only now, after the contributions of this user ceased popping up on my wathclist, did I notice that you have blocked him for one month. Although I understand completely your being discontent with his formatting, his contributions in etymologies are needed and valuable. Therefore, I would volunteer for rectifying his formatting, if you were willing to unblock him. Does that seem acceptable to you? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

As long as the many other contributors who have complained about his edits are agreeable. Did you look at his talk page? Nearly every major editor here has had conversations pointing out errors in content and/or format, and Flibjib8 does not seem amenable to to changing his ways. It's not a matter of simple education, but of intransigency. When you yourself have pointed out style errors, his response is "well, my source had it that way, so I'm copying my source". As I say though, if a number of the other folks who have complained on Flibjib8's talk page assent to your proposal, then I would agree as well. --EncycloPetey 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would assent, as the editor certainly is adding some good information, and I find it rather unfortunate that he is utterly unwilling to make any attempt at meeting our conventions. However, as a demonstration that you're willing to do this, I suggest working on some of his previous work. The guy's prolific. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If your going to add incorrect spellings to wiktionary, albiet in use, please label them as such.

Your making a "Russel's teapot" argument. Claiming it is in mainstream use without evidence, then claiming i have to disprove a word thats not even important or misspelled enough to be in style guides is obviously of this type. I can add an number of mispellings that aren't in style guides that don't belong in wiktionary. If you can find a credible source showing "scotfree" is in mainstream use then perhaps it can stay.

EncycloPetey, what's the current convention for /tr/ and /dr/ in GenAm English's IPA on Wiktionary? I've noticed that a VERY large number of entries have words like "controversy" transcribed as /ˈkɑntɹəˌvɝsi/. I'm not sure where you're from, but I'm pretty sure that anyone who spoke like that would get lots of strange looks in the States. /tr/ and /dr/, as far as I know, always affricate to and . Should I just include an extra pronunciation? ThePhonetician 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've responded at user talk:Msh210#.D7.A4.D7.A1.D7.97; please reply there, too (if anywhere).​—msh210℠ 16:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for using the ASCII apostrophe. I somehow believed the IPA templates automatically rendered it as ˈ, and also the colon as ː and g as ɡ. I've just fixed all the remaining instances I could find where I'd written the wrong characters. Splibubay 17:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to w:Vulgar Latin#The loss of the noun case system and everything else I've read, most Romance nouns derive from the Latin accusative forms. --wikitiki89 19:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's at odds with what I've read, then. The stem is the same, but the ablative forms are the ones that show up in the Medieval records, and which have the -o (etc.) endings characteristic of modern Romance languages, at least in the singular. I suspect reality is more complicated than simply replacing one case with another. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm.. I'm beginning to wonder if the case itself makes a difference. Most of the sources I've learned this pattern from are following first and second declension words (onomastics sources mostly). The accusative makes more sense for the third declension. I'll need to do more research. --EncycloPetey 20:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here is my understanding of this: The final m in the accusative endings in Latin is barely pronounced or is a nasalization of the preceding vowel and is completely dropped in Vulgar Latin. Additionally, the short u of the second declension's singular accusative changes phonetically to o. Thus, in the first declension -am > -a and -ās > -as, in the second declension -um > -o and -ōs > -os, in the third declension -em > -e and -ēs > -es, in the fourth declension -um > -o but (I have not read this so this is only my assumption) the plural -ūs was restructured to match the second declension -os, and the fifth declension is exactly like the third.

This theory makes a lot of sense since all of these sound changes are regular Romance sound changes that are not unique to noun endings. It seems to me that the ablative would have needed much more irregular change to fit the Romance noun endings.

Having said that, I would like to admit that I am not a linguist and I have absolutely no formal education in linguistics (in fact I have never even studied Latin) so everything I do know about linguistics I read purely because of interest on Wikipedia and various other internet sources, but I hope that does not lessen your regard for my opinion. --wikitiki89 21:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey, I thank you for informing me about the way that must been written the regional IPAs, and thank you too for editing "capu", I modified also "glutinu". Have a great day! Best regards. :-) --Sarvaturi 03:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP. What are the Latin names of the æsc and œthel?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do not know. The Romans didn't consider them to be separate letters, and weren't used by all printers. They show up primarily in works printed in the UK, as far as I have been able to determine, and are an optional orthographic choice when they show up. --EncycloPetey 15:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. Did they have names for any of their letters? I find that their being largely a thing of British printers rather surprising. What about in France, where they have Œ, œ, or in Denmark and Iceland, where they have Æ, æ? Is there any difference in the conventions of those countries?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, my personal collection of Latin texts printed in foreign countries is limited only to a few countries, so I can't look at any French or Danish texts. I have not come across a source that "named" the letters, but have come across occassional statements which imply that a text doing so might exist (although not necessarily in Classical Latin). --EncycloPetey 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would seem strange to me if they didn't, given that most of Ancient Greek's letters have names, and those that don't have a trailing vowel, be it (deprecated template usage) i, (deprecated template usage) u, or (deprecated template usage) o. What kind of occasional statements do you mean? The names of the Claudian letters make me guess that C was called (deprecated template usage) sigma whereas F was called (deprecated template usage) digamma, though Σ and Ϝ cast doubt on that.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mean that I occasionally run across claims to the name of a particular Latin letter, but (unfortunately) have not come across an instance with a citation or referenced support. Nor have I ever seen a comprehensive list that I can recall. Besides dictionaries, I've tended to purchase textbooks, books that are grammars, and books that contain phonology discussions. These sorts of books don't seem to cover the issue of letter names... at least, not that I've noticed, but I can't claim to have read every page of every Latin reference book I own. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see. What names of particular letters have you come across? If I have them, that may be a good place to start in conducting my own research into this.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again EncycloPetey,

I've run across more rhoticity questions. I don't want to put any pronunciations that I don't feel sure conform to your conventions here. So, could you tell me how you would suggest transcribing these rhotic sounds in GenAm English?

1. Ear 2. Air 3. Are 4. Tour

And we've already discussed the conventions for /ɔɹ/ and /ɚ/. ThePhonetician 20:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd use:

• (deprecated template usage) ear - /ɪɹ/ (although my own pronunciation sometimes tends towards /iɹ/)
• (deprecated template usage) air - /ɛɹ/, /eɪɹ/ invalid IPA characters (//) (my own pronunciation varies on this)
• (deprecated template usage) are - /ɑɹ/ (when stressed)
• (deprecated template usage) tour - /tʊɹ/, /tuɚ/ invalid IPA characters (//) (my own pronunciation tends towards the latter)

--EncycloPetey 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm.....in every case except the third, the first suggestion seems distinctly incorrect, while the latter appears correct. EP, I wonder if you might want to start conforming your pronunciation sections to your pronunciation more. If I heard /tʊɹ/, I'm almost sure I'd interpret it as "tar", not "tour". Likewise, if I heard /ɛɹ/, I think I'd interpret "err". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do agree that, when I pronounce air on its own as a demonstration, I say /eɪɹ/. however, when pronounced in speech, within a phrase such as "walk in the open air", it comes out more like /ɛɹ/. Similar statements can be made about the others; I've noticed that a number of simple words often have a different sound when spoken separately. This is true in Dutch as well, where final nasals are dropped in speech, but not when pronouncing an individual word in isolation. --EncycloPetey 23:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. When I say that sentence, I am producing something very much like /ɛɹ/. However, I wonder if our pronunciation sections should focus on a word's pronunciation in isolation, as its pronunciation in context can vary greatly, depending on what precedes and follows it, whether it's emphasized or not, etc. When I say the same sentence in response to a hypothetical "You like to walk in the open fair?", what comes out is /eɪɹ/ (the emphasis being on "air" now). However, it would certainly be interesting, and maybe even useful, to have an appendix which outlines English phonology rules which explain how a word's pronunciation shifts based on context. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is a subject that can (and does) fill many volumes, and on which many doctoral dissertations have been written. We do note contextual pronunciation differences for certain words where the difference is particularly obvious, such as stressed / unstressed (deprecated template usage) of. The entry for that word points out the two pronunciations, and a number of other such pages do as well (e.g. (deprecated template usage) the, (deprecated template usage) from). For most other English words, the changes that occur in pronunciation aren't perceived as changes by native speakers, and so aren't exactly phonemic. It thus becomes more difficult to explain and accurately describe those changes. --EncycloPetey 00:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't know about everyone else, but "air" and "err" are homophones in my idiolect. :)Either way, since I put all my IPA transcriptions as possible pronunciations in GenAm English, I try not to worry about what's standard, as I speak almost completely standard GAE. Like Petey said, there's always an understood variance out there. ThePhonetician 20:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I rarely add new Spanish verbs, but today, I added desorganizar, and I used the information on the RAE to get the right conjugation, however, I would just like you to look it over really quick to make sure that I did it right. I know how to do inflections, it is just that I'd like a second opinion. Could you do this for me please? Thanks, Razorflame 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The conjugation looks fine. However, synonyms and antonyms should be keyed to a particular {{sense}}. This is done even when an entry has only one sense, because additional senses may later be added. --EncycloPetey 23:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll see what I can do. Thank you for taking the time to check the conjugation. It was one of my first ones I've ever made. I am glad that it was rightly made :) Razorflame 23:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there EncycloPetey. After I ask this of you, I'm going to bring it up at the Beer Parlour, but I was wondeing if we could try a probationary period with my bot. If it makes any mistakes, it can be reblocked, and this time for good. I know that I need to get the approval of the communtiy first to have it regain the bot flag, but I was wondering what you thought of this plan before I brought it to the attention of the community? Thanks, Razorflame 23:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given recent events and concerns, I do not think the community is likely to approve your use of a bot at this time. --EncycloPetey 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Thank you for your input into the matter. Razorflame 00:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Which article are you claiming is a protologism? It appears you've deleted most of my new articles. --81.153.28.111 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Most of them were protologisms. Please see the requirements given by WT:CFI for including items as entries. --EncycloPetey 20:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again. I've read the CFI. It says I can cite Usenet. The terms I made that you deleted can all really easily be cited on Usenet, please restore them, and tell me how 2 cite them. --81.153.28.111 22:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I made 3 new entries for extremely common txt abbreviations: spk, tlk, wnt. b4 deleting them, plz tell me y they are different than other entries in Category:Text messaging. --81.153.28.111 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the msg article, which lists msg as an abbreviation, but others are listed as Noun/Verb etc. Which way is right? --81.153.28.111 22:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The part of speech is a problem. Most of these are labelled as "abbreviation", and that's the way that I think most should be labelled. However, texting has almost become a language of its own, and we are not well equipped to handle that. One reason I would call these abbreviations rather than verbs is that they do not have a past tense form or participles in common use.

We also haven't decided where the line lies between "accepted abbreviation", "text shorthand", and "misspelling". It would probably be worth starting a WT:BP discussion as to what sorts of things the community considers worth including from this set of items. In general, however, we do require that included entries be supportable with durably archived citations. The entry for m8 has now had citations added to show what this looks like. Note that usenet is considered acceptable for citing, but that most sorts of hits on Google from the web are not considered acceptable for this purpose. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added one cite to spk. Is this one OK to use? It seems tedious to add 3 cites to every entry, but I can understand that it prevents ppl adding non-words. --81.153.28.111 23:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another question. What is a good search engine to search Usenet. Google Groups? --81.153.28.111 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The cite looks OK to me, but (1) it's odd that only one word in the message is abbreviated, and (2) the word being cited should be in bold. I can't answer your search question, since I don't usually look on usenet for citations. Most of my work is in English jargon or in Latin, and usenet is not the best place to look for those. :) You might ask the person who aded the citations to m8 for suggestions. --EncycloPetey 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Does this Latin word have any macrons above any of the letters? Thanks, Razorflame 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, why do you ask? You've promsied to edit only in the five languages on your user page. --EncycloPetey 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I asked because of the use of the word in cuchillo, and coltello, which are in the etymology sections. I had no intentions of making the page. Razorflame 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply