User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 11

gracias por guardar y mejorar mi 1era coletilla en W.nary...Un abrazo Arapaima 08:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

wishy-washy : gracias por tu apoyo. Otro dia de calor nos espera, ay que no estoy en Corcubion ! Un abrazo Arapaima 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came across some Korean entries where I worry that KYPark was included false cognates (as you brought up before). They all have a line with "compare ..." where he compares the Korean term to a European term. Would you be able to check these or know who could? Thanks. --Bequw → τ 04:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

All of the "compare ..." lines need to be deleted. They were an attempt to prove that Korean is an Indo-European language, a favorite theory of Mr. Park. No need to evaluate the lines, just delete on sight. —Stephen 05:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you Stephen for that concise reply. --EncycloPetey 05:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Removed. --Bequw → τ 18:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey, you said: <<All translations tables must be placed within a Translations subsection. Please refer to the entries for parrot and listen to see what this looks like.>> I assume this refers to Zwinglian. So the adjective and noun translation tables must be moved together at the foot of the page? In ictu oculi 04:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A new page by an anonip, this seems to be right up your alley. Would you mind having a look?​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it would be acceptable and useful to include a usage note here about how the first syllable is scanned short in works by some later writers? Caladon 08:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but placing that information in the entry is difficult. It's pronunciation information, but it pertains to the placement of macrons as well. We've never had an agreed upon format for "Pronunciation notes". --EncycloPetey

• Google:
• Google books:
• Google scholar:

Just because you don't know it doesn't mean it is a protologism or that I invented it!

76.66.192.55 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Typographical errors are not words, and Google searches are not evidence. Did you check the actual sources you found? Some of them are not English, some of them display no content, and some are scanning errors. --EncycloPetey 22:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If it's a typographic error, it shows up in quite a few books and news articles, so shouldn't it use a template:misspelling of instead of being deleted? 76.66.192.55 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only if it's considered a common mispelling, and we've no evidence for that. As I pointed out, your Google returns include numerous false positives. --EncycloPetey 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It also contains may valid hits, which are not scanning errors. 76.66.192.55 22:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

How many? Which ones are verifiably not errors? (I could only find two I could verify in the first couple of pages returned from b.g.c.) And how does that number compare to "correct" spellings? If it's a tiny fraction, then we don't consider it a "common" misspelling. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey,

I've been absent from Wiktionary for a while, but I've got a question for you. Is it just me, or is /æ/ realized as /æ̃/ in words such as ban, jam, Alabama, and pajamas? I first thought that it's /æ̃/ by fault of assimilation to a nasal, but I don't notice the same sort of change in words like gem, Jim or basically any vowel other than /æ/. What's your explanation? ThePhonetician 01:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It varies a bit by dialect, but is neither consistent nor phonemic. In my own pronunciation, I don't nasalize that vowel. I usually don't mark such things in English, except in the extreme case of borrowed French pronunciations. In Latin, I'll sometimes include a phonetic pronunciation along with the phonemic one for these final nasals, because Classical Latin seems to have been more consistent about this. --EncycloPetey 00:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you know some of the possible realizations for some common US dialects? I wasn't thinking about altering any of the wiktionary entries. I was just wondering if there are any documented ideas about the actual IPA transcriptions that could be used to show this odd change. Hmm... after reading a bit of wikipedia, is this æ tensing? ThePhonetician 00:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I haven't studied US dialects to the degree that I'd need to for answering your question. --EncycloPetey 03:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, yes. I believe it is æ tensing. Supposedly it varies depending on region what æ actually becomes, but it appears that most of the time it's a diphthong similar to /eə/. Just some food for thought :) ThePhonetician 19:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would have been helpful for the undoing editor to put that in the edit summary. I think it's fair to say that when my edits are undone without explanation, redoing them is not out of the question.

Regardless, "Sinhalese" does not refer to Sri Lanka. Over 20% of the population is Tamil, and referring to them as "Sinhalese" would be both incorrect and offensive. That's not even considering the Sri Lankan Moors. There has to be some better way to define it than giving the definition for "Sri Lankan". If you have any recommendations, please bring them up, but I don't see that using the noun "Sinhalese" in the definition of the adjective "Sinhalese" is a reciprocal definition, and saying it refers to Sri Lanka is incorrect. Compare Tamil#Adjective, which states "Of or pertaining to the Tamil people, culture, or language." If it can use the noun Tamil, why can't the definition of the adjective Sinhalese use the noun Sinhalese? Saying "Sinhalese" refers to the people of Sri Lanka would be equivalent to saying "Tamil" refers to the people of Sri Lanka, and I don't see you doing that. 75.154.109.247

The Tamils in Sri Lanka are Sinhalese inasmuch as the Catalans in North East Spain are Spaniards. Where is the contradiction for someone being simultaniously Catalan and Spaniard or Tamil and Sinhalese? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

@Bogorm: You are mistaken. There is some etymological basis for taking Sinhalese to mean "Sri Lankan", but in point of fact, that is not what people mean by it. There may be some English usage in that sense, but if so, it should be indicated in a separate sense and tagged {{obsolete}} (not to mention {{rfv-sense}}). In current usage, Sinhalese relates to the ethnic group. —Ruakh_TALK 19:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That does not deal with the original problem. You cannot define the adjective Sinhalese using the adjective Sinhalese. You must base the definition on some other wording to avoid circularity. --EncycloPetey 06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Got your comment regarding one of my changes to the "sterile" entry. Thanks for providing the lower limit for my writing style interpretation (accuracy vs need for in-line quote); in the future, short phrases will also get the re-wording you suggested. I trust the correction just saved is satisfactory. I appreciate your review effort.

Hello again Petey:

In working with other Wiktionary definitions, there are quite a few that have also used wording and phrases directly from another on-line dictionary like the American Heritage Dictionary via Wordnik (try "autoclave" for one). Would it be helpful on my part to adjust (re-phrase) those entries as well, as I run into them? Or would that cause you folks more headache? Thanks again for your time and attention.

--EdCorr 21:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is better if they are reworded. If you can do this yourself, that's great. If you need help, there are several folks here trained in biology and science, including myself and SemperBlotto. Most of the time one of us is around, although I'm currently in the process of moving to a new residence. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Petey:

Here is a quick ref. to EtO sterilization of food products (http://www.croll.com/_website/ca/casefood1.asp), but, after thinking about it some more, I agree that it's probably too rare to include as an example. I'll be happy to make the change if you haven't already.

Regarding the removal of spores, my experience has been with the medical vs microbiology documentation. Folks at CDC and WHO (World Health Organization) have used "microorganisms" as a catch-all term in several documents. However, like you, I want to be as clear as possible in the chosen wording. I'll defer to your experience and re-include the spores.

I'm sure we'll talk again!

--EdCorr 05:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have archived the web pages in question at webcitation.org, which is considered to be a durable archive. If not there, they are at the Internet Archive, also considered to be a durable archive. --Ceyockey 15:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Butting in, I don't think that we can accept durable archiving done at one person's initiative as meeting our requirements. It is wholly analogous to vanity publishing. The role of a publisher, peer-review and similar editorial functions is important. We accept usenet in part because those communicating are using words or expressions for that purpose, not to simply document the word. DCDuring TALK 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Vanity publishing would imply that I am archiving my own web pages; that is not the case. The use of webcitation.org is sufficiently analogous to the use of the Internet Archive in this instance that there has been discussion between the two groups about feeding webcitation.org into the Archive. The webcitation.org site was originally constructed to provide a method for small publishers of scientific journals to have a permanent archive of their publications available online. I think that there are two questions here which need separation: 1) are the things being archived by me of sufficient value / quality that they would merit use as the basis for reference if they were permanent via another medium; 2) is unrelated 3rd party archiving of material by a wiktionary contributor substantially different from the unrelated 3rd party archiving conducted by the Internet Archive. The former is a matter of material value, the latter one of trusting that conflict-of-interest does not contaminate wiktionary. --Ceyockey 03:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Accepting the mechanism in one case requires that it be acceptable in general. That is a matter of policy or practice-accepted-by-consensus. I suggest that you bring the discussion to the Beer Parlor. If you are lucky it won't be deemed to require a vote. DCDuring TALK 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a good idea, to bring it to the Beer Parlour. I've done so → Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Inquiry - Archive.org versus webcitation.org. Before starting this, I did searches against the Beer Parlour archive and did not find prior discussions which touched on this or related topics. --Ceyockey 03:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I thought slashes in IPA were for phonemic representation ? Am I wrong ? 216.252.89.120 16:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I too was first perplexed by this when I arrived at wiktionary. You'll find that many of the conventions of wiktionary aren't exactly the same as linguistics in general. For example, here, brackets denote a more precise phonetic transcription, such as the difference between light and dark /l/. Most of the IPA transcriptions here tend to be more general.ThePhonetician 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

right on. I shall fix it. It took me awhile to figure out the difference between the two words. Someone messed it up here. Metallurgist 04:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you check my edit to the pronunciation at pinochle please? ~ Logodaedalist | Talk ~ 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Corrected. Vowel length is not phonemic in the US, so we do not mark it in US-specific pronunciations. Also, you forgot to mark the final syllable as such. I've also added the secondary stress marker to the SAMPA. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

and hamburger? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between ɚ and ɝ ? I seem to have confused them. ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 12:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The difference is very difficult to explain in words. I recommend examining the Wikpedia articles on those symbols. Among US speakers of English the first symbol is pronounced more in the throat, while the latter is pronounced more in the mouth. The latter sound is heard mostly in certain dialects, and only in a few mainstream words properly. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay. I did look at wikipedia's things and it didn't seem very clear. So basically you're saying that ɚ should be used pretty much everywhere? ~ lexicógrafo | háblame ~ 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a first approximation, yes. Its r-less form is no longer considered to occur in standard UK English, and the r-form only appears in a few US English words consistently. My personal pronunciation of (deprecated template usage) bird is one place it appears, but I can't say with complete certainty that the "norm" for the standard US dialect does so. Phonologists in the UK seem to have changed their opinion on the matter in recent years (now saying that the phoneme is rare or nonexistent, whereas it used to be considered standard), so the various pronouncing dictioaries I own are of no help in this issue. --EncycloPetey 22:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm tentatively setting this as WOTD for the 21st, but only if a third (independent) quote is added to the entry. Right now, two quotes are from the same author. --EncycloPetey 04:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've cited a 1597 use by John Hoskyns; is that OK? There are some more available from google books:+cacuminous, if need be. (deprecated template usage) Cacuminous seems to refer to mountains as often as it does to trees, so the OED's contag "of a tree" would appear to be unfounded. Moreover, its gloss of cacūmen as "tree-top" is not supported by what our entry says; does (deprecated template usage) cacūmen ever mean, specifically, the top of a tree?

Please respond on my talk page, rather than here. Thanks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:37, 17 July 2010 (

Hello EncycloPetey, Do you mean that the tag « colloquial » is to be suppressed – or that colloquial words must not be edited in Wiktionnary ? The colloquial french words I edit exist in our every-day dictionary « Petit Larousse 2008 » & are of very common use in french. BTW , if the tag « colloquial » is inappropriate, what is the way to warn the reader that a word is vulgar ? Urbanely yours , Arapaima 06:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mean that "pêche (colloquial)" is not a word in any language. Please use "pêche (colloquial)" in a sentence, if it does exist. The French do not use "pêche (colloquial)" as a word, but rather use "pêche" The "(colloquial)" should never be included as part of a link because it is not part of the word. Only Wikipedia uses parenthetical tags in page names. Wiktionary never does. --EncycloPetey 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was going by what seemed most likely given the enPR (which didn't give any stress), I didn't notice the stress on the ad-hoc pronunciation (they're so rarely a useful guide to anything I don't pay them much attention). Do change it if it is wrong though. Thryduulf (talk)

Hi EncycloPetey,

Since valeo is intransitive, what would it mean in the passive voice? Specifically, what would be a gloss definition for valeor? —AugPi 00:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I looked up valeor, valeris, valetur, valemur, valemini, & valentur in http://www.linguistic-networks.net and found zero occurrences for each one of them, whereas valeo has 1079 occurrences and vales has 520 occurrences. Could this signal a problem? —AugPi 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are the results for all words in the table:

valeo		1079
vales		520
valet		7742
valemus	1337
valetis	202
valent	1879

valebo	23
valebis	128
valebit	603
valebimus	123
valebitis	50
valebunt	135

valebam	39
valebas	5
valebat	703
valebamus	 8
valebatis	3
valebant	476

valui		204
valuisti	22
valuit		1600
valuimus	171
valuistis	8
valuerunt	412

valuero	36
valueris	54
valuerit	338
valuerimus	 36
valueritis	18
valuerint	131

valueram	1
valueras	1
valuerat	18
valueramus  0
valueratis	0
valuerant	11

(pass)
valeor	0
valeris	0
valetur	0
valemur	0
valemini	0
valentur	0

(pass)
valebor	0
valeberis	0
valebetur	0
valebemur	0
valebemini	0
valebuntur	0

(pass)
valebar	0
valebaris	0
valebatur	0
valebamur	 0
valebamini	 0
valebantur	 0

valeam	613
valeas	868
valeat	6743
valeamus	1902
valeatis	670
valeant	3323

valerem	136
valeres	42
valeret	1305
valeremus  82
valeretis	12
valerent	581

valuerim	7
valueris	54
valuerit	338
valuerimus	 36
valueritis	18
valuerint	131

valuissem	28
valuisses	8
valuisset	186
valuissemus  16
valuissetis	2
valuissent	64

(pass)
valear	0
valearis	0
valeatur	0
valeamur	0
valeamini	4
valeantur	0

(pass)
valerer	0
valereris	0
valeretur	0
valeremur	0
valeremini	0
valerentur	0

vale	2097
valeto	10
valete	1443
valetote	0
valento	0

(pass)
valere (+)	1969
valetor	0
valemini (+)	0
valentor	0



valere	1969
valuisse	165

(pass)
valeri		15  (but POS: NE, ADJ; not V; proper noun "Valeri", form of "Valerius")
valitum	1

valens	1077
valiturus	 1

(pass)
valitus	0
valendus	0

Four hits for valeamini so it looks like valeo did/does have passives after all (but all the rest are zeroes, except valitum: 1). —AugPi 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The reason I posted all this data is because I have been wondering if I should delete all the passive forms of valeo which I have recently created. Since there are four hits for valeamini and Linguistic Networks gives this information for it:

Word: valeamini
Occurrence: 4
Occurrence class: 956 (i.e. et is approx. 2^956 more frequent than valeamini)
Lemma: ualeo
POS: V

then it looks like I should not do that (i.e. delete). —AugPi 02:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

More passive forms:

valendus  0
valenda  1
valendum  0
valendi  4
valendae  0
valendo  36
valendam  0
valende  0
valendorum  0
valendarum  0
valendis  1
valendos  0
valendas  0

(which have only valeo as lemma) so I'll go ahead and populate the table for valendus. —AugPi 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Data for valitus and its inflected forms:

valitus  0
valita  0
valitum  1  (but lemma: Valitum, example sentence: "Certe supinum est Valitum , unde Valiturus Livio , libro XXXV , ne quod aliud per somnium nobis objiciant."  so it is not a form of "valitus")
valiti  0
valitae  0
valitam  0
valito  0
valite  0
valitorum  0
valitarum  0
valitis  0
valitos  0
valitas  0

This is not enough evidence that valitus exists, so I will not populate its inflection table. —AugPi 02:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is it certain that the classical pronunciation of the word palpebra was /ˈpal.pe.bra/ (accordingly: palpebro /ˈpal.pe.broː/)? Doesn't this occurence contradict the accentuation rule "in Latin, the second-to-last syllable is accented, unless that syllable is short (syllables are long by position if their vowel sound is placed before two consonant sounds including doubled consonants")? --Omnipaedista 00:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

A stop plus a liquid (such as br) counts as a single consonant for that purpose. I'd quote support from Wheelock's, but that's one of the Latin references I haven't yet found since I moved. It ought to appear in the introductory material on pronunciation, before chapter one. --EncycloPetey 04:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I was unaware of that detail about Latin syllable weight. --Omnipaedista 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What does "prop." stand for in the etymology? Proper? Thanks. Nadando 07:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In the context, I think "properly" is a better use. I've adjusted the etymology. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. That's cool. I am okay with the change. Mēos was there before my edit, so I left it, but got rid of Old High German mios because it was more noteworthy (IMO) to mention the English version. Mēos and mios are "cousins" of Old English mōs (and I still feel it necessary to mention the distant forms because mēos was actually the word for "moss", where mōs only rarely meant "moss"; and the words may have crossed; mēos and mōs are not the same word.). Sometimes, though, I must show Old English cognates because they are the only ones to speak of, as in the Etym for bad and pry. Sometimes I show it for reference, as in bless. Otherwise I can forlet the practise if I have to, deferring instead to a simple See <word> or More at <word>, but I think this is a disservice and we lose a lot of interesting perspective. It would certainly cut down on the cognates though. Leasnam 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that "cognate" necessarily refers to words in a different language and not to words in an older version of the same langauge. It may be possible to mention other words in Old English, in some instances, but they shouldn't be called "cognates". That's not what "cognate" means. --EncycloPetey 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the difference is the terminology: how most people use the term cognate vs. what cognate literally means (in its purest sense). If given the words: ModE wise and OE witan ("to know"), I would call them cognates because they share the same origin (co- gnatus). You say that normally it refers to words in another language, but not to related words in the same language. I can understand this, and I would agree that most lay people think of cognates in this way. For their sake I can change. Can I return to using the term akin, as outlined in Wiktionary:Etymology? The reason I no longer use it is due to having been asked by one of the Administrators to only use cognate. Is this acceptable? Leasnam 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think "related" would be a more widely understood term. The word akin is a bit archaic. --EncycloPetey 21:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just updating you on some issues:

1. Please could you check out the discussion at regarding some new templates and give your opinions on improvements and usage, etc.
2. For albō I originally only included the pronunciation for the inflected form (hence why there's duplication) because the verb seemed a bit late for Classical Latin; what should be done here?
3. For trahō, you originally removed an anonymous' addition of macrons to the third principal part ((deprecated template usage) traxī for (deprecated template usage) trāxī), but this has since been changed back and verb forms have been populated for the one with both macrons; do you still think there should only be one macron? I'm also asking because I added the derived verbs for (deprecated template usage) traho using (deprecated template usage) traxī and I will have to update all of these if we've now decided on the two macron variant.
4. There's also an issue for the fourth part of spondeō; a number of sources seem to think there's a macron for the fourth principal part, and some derived terms like (deprecated template usage) sponsus have been created with this macron. Presumably all this confusion is due to the double consonants of "nd" and "ks" of "x"; another problem lies with verbs with have "xi" as their third principal part, for example: lūceō, īnstruō and derivatives of struō (the struo verbs have the same problem with the 4th principal part as well), etc.
5. On the entry for obsideō, what was your reasoning for obsidō being a derived term?
6. For derived terms of phrasal verbs, shouldn't the division of syllables stay the same, i.e. the preposition remain distinct from the verb in the pronunciation. An example of this would be exerceō — unfortunately there has been a change of vowel to an 'e', but I don't know if this affects it — and one of its derived terms like (deprecated template usage) exercitium.
7. What are we supposed to do with these? Are we still changing these into participles only? I always thought using {{by extension}} was an easy way to fit these into the definitions like in inveterātus, but of course there are the known problems with this template that you raised in discussions elsewhere; how are you dealing with these?

This list is only half of the questions I have, but these are more important (and sorry for the amount of time this diverts you from other things). Thanks in advance. Caladon 08:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

1. I'll comment if I see something that requires it. The 3rd-person-only passive templates for Latin verbs are ones that I've been meaning to create, but which I just haven't gotten around to doing. I'm glad to see a start on them.
2. The verb is a bit late, but does seem marginally attested to Classical Latin. A single pronunciation section should suffice.
3. I wouldn't expect a macron on the third principal part, but my sources are divided on the issue. Feyerabend gives no macron, but Wheelock's does. I'd say either is possible.
4. The fourth pincipal part of spondeō should be spōnsum, with macron. There is a long owel, but this doesn't appear in the first principal part, since a long vowel never precedes -nd-. I'm less certain about long vowels before x since, as with trahō, traxī (trāxī), the scholarship seems to be divided on the issue.
5. Including obsidō was an error. I have corrected that error.
6. The division of syllables doesn't always stay the same. Some good dictionaries mark the preposition as a separate syllable in the headword form when the syallabification remains as separate parts, but when these dictionaries do not so mark a syllable break then the syllabification follows standard rules, as if the preposition were simply an extension on the word and not a separate particle. The verb exerceō is so marked in both Feyerabend and in Lewis & Short, as ex·erceō, so the preposition is pronounced as a separate syllable.
7. Participle only for the part of speech, yes, as that's how the Romans saw them. I only use (by extension) when the meaning has been extended, as that is what the context template implies. It may very well translate into English as a non-participial adjective, but that's not relevant. The Navajo word for year is a verb, even though it translates into English as a noun. We need not worry when the parts of speech do not pair up neatly.

Always glad to interact with you, as you stimulate good discussions and are doing incredibly helpful work in Latin entries. --EncycloPetey 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I created {{Late Latin}} and {{Medieval Latin}} after I noticed Leasnam using {{etyl}} on a definition line (grossus). Are there any others that should be created? Nadando 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, if we're going to have them, then {{Vulgar Latin}} and {{Ecclesiastical Latin}} are contexts I've used in the past. However, Leasnam's use on (deprecated template usage) grossus was incorrect. It shouldn't be used in the definition to indicate when a word appeared. It should only be used when a particular definition of that word is restricted to one period. The word (deprecated template usage) grossus did not possess some other meaning at a different time or in a different variant of Latin, so no template should be used. It's meaning has been consistent since the word's inception. The fact that the word is post-Classical need only be mentioned in the etymology. --EncycloPetey 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm requesting your input, please.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had found out that cloak and clock both derive from Medieval Latin clocca. If this is not so, or it's not a strong etymological connection, then my mistake. Leif Runenritzer 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Medieval Latin has clocca (“bell”) and cloca (“cloak”). These are not the same word in Latin. --EncycloPetey 03:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm bothering you for a personal translation request:) My friend's going to get a tattoo and he asked me of which language he should have it. Can you please tell me what "she exists as long as her presence is felt" means in Latin? I don't want it to sound stupid as he'll have it forever; so if you have a better idea to translate with a similar meaning, I'd appreciate that :) Something like "She exists for I feel her" could be I think. Thank you so much in advance! Sinek 17:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, using numbers of definitions as references to a particular meaning of a word is a common practice in each and every dictionary I've ever seen, including other language versions of Wiktionary. It is short and clear for a reader and easy for an editor. It's also not a problem in an editable dictionary, as new meanings can be added below, without changing the order of the older definitions. This is how it functions in the Polish Wiktionary.

If you want English Wiktionary to be "original" instead of usable, I will of course comply with the rules. However, I'd really appreciate a little guidance on how to do that, because frankly speaking I don't see any other reasonable way to include such "meaning references" than with numbers. --Marac 14:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm really glad you used an example of the word king, because it perfectly shows problems with your approach. This is a description of the other image: "A king piece in shogi. Sometimes just 王.". No keywords, no shortened definition.

The average user (user, not editor - a person who looks into a dictionary because he doesn't know) would have no idea which meaning this image illustrates. Numbers are always clear and straightforward - you just introduce one rule, which is much simpler to follow than constructing these "glosses" - we add definitions below. Period. And Polish Wiktionary is one of the biggest with more than 150 000 words. I've never heard of any problems in this regard and it is no suprise, 'cause it's a very simple rule. On the contrary, with your "glosses" you introduce (as the king example clearly shows) ambiguity and disarray. Maybe you as a native just don't feel it, but for a person that learns English it is cumbersome and unclear.

But enough about this. Let's return to our malleus. While a reference to tripus can be easily changed according to your rules, I really don't see good replacements for image descriptions. Let's consider the first image: "Location of the malleus". Using a keyword would be ambiguous: "Location of the malleus (anatomy)" - what if someone adds another anatomical meaning? - "anatomy" is too general. So maybe a shortened description: "Location of the malleus (bone in the ear)"? This time a definition would be difficult to find, as the main word - "ear" - is at the end of the definition. Exactly the same problems we meet with the second picture: "zoology" too general, "mastax of rotifers" at the end, hard to notice.

For me both solutions are wrong and I don't see the third good one. Any ideas? --Marac 09:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The solution currently in place is to use a short gloss. If you wish to begin a discussion to change Wiktionary practice, that should happen in the Beer Parlour. I do not see the problems you mention in the process, only in specific misapplications of current standard practice or failure to use currently accepted format. --EncycloPetey 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you check the conjugations of these please. According to verbix they should have the same pattern - but the second parameter is different in our conjugations (t/v). Cheers SemperBlotto 10:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The conjugation given for distō is wrong. That verb has an incomplete conjugation with no perfective forms. We do not yet have a template for its conjugation pattern. Many of your bot-loaded entries for that verb will need to be deleted. Please always check the conjugation pattern before generating entries. --EncycloPetey 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please also note that your conjugational forms of fundō do not indicate which verb fundo they come from. Latin has two verbs with that lemma, but with differing conjugations. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would reply in more detail, but the air conditioning in my apartment is out, and temperatures today exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit. I am not especially comfortable, and sweat keeps dripping into my eyes. All the better since the AC is out at my job site too. --EncycloPetey 04:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - thanks. I'll try not to make you too hot under the collar! I have deleted the bad (deprecated template usage) disto entries and left an "attention" template in the verb. I have been doing simple checks (hence my asking for a check in the first place). I'll ignore verbs where there are any irregularities or strangenesses (e.g. (deprecated template usage) frico (not in verbix)). I am also not adding participles or supine - trying to keep it simple. SemperBlotto 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Could you check the conjugation of this one please. Other -sono verbs would suggest that the second parameter might be obsonu rather than obsonav SemperBlotto 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll check on this by the weekend. This week has proven busy, and I'm away from my reference materials right now. I do note that there are two separate verbs in that entry. It is possuble that the expected -sonui forms were lost from the second verb on the page, and the more standard set of endings developed around the first verb as a consequence of avoiding confusion while both forms existed. This is just speculation off the top of my head, though. I'll have to look it up properly. --EncycloPetey 15:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this deponent verb be at quietor? SemperBlotto 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes and no. Lewis & Short list both quieto and quietor, but include them under a single lemma. The verb is marked as "deponent", but the first two principal parts exist. This make require some additional research for me to figure out. --EncycloPetey 03:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should the two senses in this kind of entry be separated into different Etymology sections? —AugPi 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Similar question for dicor, where the inflection lines are different (but the lemmas are the same, without counting pedagogical macrons). —AugPi 16:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Something in my mind keeps complaining, claiming that "it is obvious" that, if two senses of a verb form belong to entirely different verbs, then those two senses have different etymologies, and if the two definitions have such different etymologies, then they must be placed in different etymology sections... so I'm going ahead and separating these different senses into different Etymology sections... —AugPi 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's the way I would do it, with separate etymology sections. Some people prefer to limit etymologies to lemmata, but there are plenty of situations where the etymolgy of forms cannot be adequately handled this way, such as for the forms of Romance verbs that can be traced to distinct forms in Latin. --EncycloPetey 15:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should say more elaborately about capitalization of latin adjectives to make it clear. There are many of capitalized latin adjectives related to country names such as Anglicus, Germanicus, Britannicus, Parthicus, Romanicus, Thailandicus and Iudaeicus. So what is the problem with Cretanus and Creticus, I did not understand. If these are wrong, then all of these should be renamed to lower-cases. --Amit6 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

All Latin adjectives should be lower case. The ones from country names are not capitalized in Latin, and neither are their derivatives in modern Romance languages. As I said, capitalization of those adjectives only happens in editions printed in English-speaking countries. --EncycloPetey 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I have moved all those capitalized adjectives. --Amit6 06:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

I note that you advise (strongly) against using bare ISO templates, as in {{la}}, and (for language name listing, such as in cognates) one should instead use {{etyl}}, as in {{etyl|la|-}}.

You’re expert on ISO templates, so I’ve listed this injunction at Wiktionary:Etymology#Etymology language templates, but I was wondering what the technical reason is? ({{la}} is rather shorter to write and read…) Thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two reasons I can think of righht away. (1) The ISO templates were originally created and continue to exist primarily for the purpose of "subst"ing them with the English name of the language. That way, editors from other languages can use the ISO code when they are not sure of the English name for a language. These templates are now also used in conjunction with the {{etyl}} template, but should never appear in the main namespace. They should be subst'ed wherever they are used. (2) When writing etymologies, the {{etyl}} template should be used to name a language, so that it will explicitly indicate whether or not the page should be categorized by derivation. Without the {{etyl}}, it will be unclear whether the named language should be used for categorization. --EncycloPetey 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks – and yeah, good point that {la} is too easily a mistake for {etyl|la}, while {etyl|la|-} makes it quite explicit.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Curious as to the reason for the reversion of the definition of Aerotrekking?

The concept (and term) Aerotrekking was coined by John McAfee in the creation of the Sky Gypsies, his foray into light sport aviation. He flew weight shift control light sport aircraft and the maneuverability of these aircraft allow low level flying with a relative amount of safety. Fixed wing aircraft or other small light planes do not have the maneuverability to fly at low levels and get out of the way of obstacles. In fact the FAA regulations (19.119) on minimum altitudes specifically exempts weight shift control aircraft. Fixed wing and other aircraft have a 500 ft minimum while weight shift do not. I would suggest reverting the definition back to weight shift control in keeping with the FAA regulations

BAlvarius 15:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

As stated in the revert edit comment, your additions belong in an encyclopedia entry, not in a dictionary. The FAA regulations apply only in the US, and not to all other countries where English is spoken, and are details not relevant to an understanding of the word. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Templates {{la-decl-5th-VOW}} and {{la-decl-5th-CONS}} seem to be identical to me. Template {{la-decl-5th}} redirects to -CONS. Should -CONS be moved to the base entry and all occurrences of -VOW be changed to the base entry? (There are very few). SemperBlotto 09:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

They are not identical, but the difference is minor and subtle. Compare the endings on the genitive and dative singular between the templates. There is a difference in macrons, and hence in pronunciation length of that vowel. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In this template, the three genitive plurals link to -um but display -ium. Which is correct? SemperBlotto 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The -ium ending is correct for standard 3rd declension 3-ending adjectives. Thanks for spotting that. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I was considering adding superficies (a type 5 noun) but we don't seem to have any templates for this type of noun. I have no idea how many there are - so is it worth creating some? SemperBlotto 09:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "type 5". Latin nouns are not grouped by "type", but by declension. If it's a fifth-declension noun, then we already have templates for that. See species and dies as examples. If it's not fifth declension (I don't have a source handy to check), then I can tell from the genitive singular what declension it belongs to, if you provide that. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - I've found the templates now (probably bad eyesight). SemperBlotto 18:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just readded the initialism IETF which you previously deleted (though I correctly formatted it as an initialism rather than an acronym). It's a common term, often used without expansion in technical material. Do you still have objections to it? RJFJR 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a specific organization (i.e. proper noun initialism). I'm not sure how we regulate inclusion of those anymore, but I'd feel better if it were cited per our attestation criteria. --EncycloPetey 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sounds fair. I'll see about dig up some references tomorrow. RJFJR 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trickier than I thought. I just checked the CFI. The name section says we don't need Internet Engineering Task Force, and I agree with that. But the word we're discussing defining is IETF, and it's very hard to go from the initialism to what it stands for. I suppose I could have checked the Wikipedia to confirm what it it stands for, but that seems the job of a dictionary. The problem is: the CFI doesn't have a section on when an initialism or acronym should be included. RJFJR 01:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been wondering if the CFI needs to have a section added concerning initialisms and acronyms for names that themselves do not meet the CFI. There is nothing in the name section but if you search Wt:CFI for 'initialism' the example about inclusion is NBA. (And that entry expands the initialism but doesn't define the expansion.) Is this enough to justify IETF but not Internet Engineering Task Force or do we need to start a discussion about adding an initialism sub-section to the names section to either include or exclude? (I'm sorry about making this so complicated.) RJFJR 14:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think we really ought to have some stated policy about what we include along these lines, and how we deal with those entries. Unfortunately, my life offline has been very busy of late, so I've not been involved in community discussion much for a while now. I don't see that likely to change anytime soon. --EncycloPetey 15:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I notice that terms such as septimus have an inflected headword but no inflection table. It seems to me that they need one, but there's nothing in "About Latin" to guide me, and there are no obvious templates. What would be your advice? SemperBlotto 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I haven't started working on the non-cardinal "numbers" in Latin yet. Part of the problem is that the ordinals seem to be adjectives for all grammatical purposes. If I can find an explicit statement to that effect, then they would simply use the 1st/2nd inflection tables, and no new inflection templates will be needed. However, I wanted to reach a decision on what part of speech to give them before starting. From what I've seen in the grammars, I favor "Adjective" with an {{ordinal}} tag on the definition line. If Caladon agrees, and if I can find an explicit statement to that effect, then I plan to roll through the lot of them, providing them all with pronunciation files and citations (at least for the lemmata), in the same way that I did for the Latin cardinals.

The other groups of Latin "numeric" words have similar issues to be resolved, but may not be so easy to settle. "Adverb" is a pretty nebulous term, so do "Adverbial numerals" fit into that group or are they "Numerals"?

So, you might ask Caladon (I have to step away to dinner soon, and may not remember this when I return) to chime in on the issue of Latin ordinals. And if you haven't heard more from me by Friday, then pass me a reminder on Saturday morning. I expect to have a little time this weekend, and the Latin ordinal format would be a productive issue to have finalized. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - I'm off on a wikibreak soon, so will leave these alone. SemperBlotto 07:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, could you help me out with these questions? :) Thanks in advance 81.68.255.36 05:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to code the inflection table for this (these two) verb(s). There doesn't seem to be a perfect tense. SemperBlotto 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Verbs in "-esco" are inchoative, and thus describe inherently ongoing action. As a consequence, they lack a perfect tense. See albesco as a model for how I've been handling inchoative verb entries thus far. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you again. Lewis and Short has three entries for this. I had better leave it for you to expand. SemperBlotto 08:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am coming across these all the time and have been ignoring them. But now I am ignoring more words than I am adding, so I have been bold and added absentisque - I have no idea how to properly define it. SemperBlotto 10:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It can't be defined as a word, because it's not really a word in Latin; it's two words. The -que particle means "and" and is a separate word despite being attached to other words. It's a bit like (deprecated template usage) n' in combinations like "guns n'stuff" (which I have seen on store signs locally). Just as we wouldn't have an English entry for "n'stuff", we shouldn't have a Latin entry for "X-que". --EncycloPetey 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are probably right - it just means that I am stuck with red links that I shall have to ignore. I have deleted a couple more that I added (being too bold). I assume that there are some valid terms (such as (deprecated template usage) atque) that we can include. I shall only add words that I can find in Lewis & Short or similar. SemperBlotto 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do Americans really pronounce the "l" in facepalm??? 81.142.107.230 10:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

In many US regions, yes. In some (such as parts of the northeast), no. There has been a shift towards pronouncing the "l" in "-alm-" words in the United States over the past few decades. --EncycloPetey 18:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

palm should be similarly updated then, I assume. 81.142.107.230 13:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey -- I'm truly glad you see this my way, EP, but I really, really wasn't trying to start an edit war. (Note to self: Stay in mainspace.) -- Ghost of WikiPedant 05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand. Discussion is on-going, and I've discussed some of my rationale on Ruakh's talk page. Note also that Wiktionary:Quotations is explicitly a "Think Tank", which means that the recommendations given there have never been voted in as policy, so the presence of the "no links" point is not a binding policy issue at this time. --EncycloPetey 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, you might be wondering where I'm getting these words. I have scraped an online copy of Caesar's "De bello Gallico" and extracted all the words that we haven't got (lots and lots). The a's are in my sandbox. He has "adeundi tempus definiunt, cum meridies esse videatur" - something like "they time their attack by looking at the position of the sun" (but it's difficult for an la-1).

Anyway, I digress - (deprecated template usage) adeundi looks like a passive future participle of (deprecated template usage) adeo - but our inflection table has these blank. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 09:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

It could be a gerund/gerundive form (see (deprecated template usage) amandum, e.g.). Caesar did not always use standard Latin grammar, and his writings are used in introductory Latin course mostly because his sentence structure and grammar are often less complicated than the "great" Classical writers and orators. So, there is always a possibility of a misuse of standard language or a "typo" in Caesar. However, a gerund would make grammatical sense here. --EncycloPetey 15:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK. I'm not getting into gerundives yet so I'll pass on this one. When I've finished with Caesar (next year) I plan to move on to the Vulgate (a different can of worms). SemperBlotto 15:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you are getting all these words from a single source, would you consider adding their context in the form of a quotation? I don't know if either of you would find Latin quotations without translation worthwhile to readers, so feel free to refute this. Nadando 17:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are some good copyright-free translations of Caesar, so adding translations would not be as difficult as it would be for some poetic works (where the translators often try to preserve meter more than meaning). There is also a quotation template {{RQ:Caesar Bello Gallico}} available. The Vulgate isn't too bad (except that it's post-Classical and contains passages not included in modern Bibles). I've added quite a few Vulgate quotations / translations already. There is a template for that as well. --EncycloPetey 19:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

My Latin is not nearly good enough to provide decent English translations of Latin texts. Also, it is too much work! (I still have lots of Italian to do). SemperBlotto 21:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

But, if you can include the particular quotation from which you found the word that prompted the entry, and include the location data, someone else can easily come along after you and add an English translation.

Also, in case you hadn't realized, the gerundive is the future passive participle. This is one reason there are so few entries for future passive participles. Most dictionaries don't discuss whether a particular instance exists, so they'd be theoretical until identifiable quotations can be added. This is complicated by the fact that some forms of the gerundive are identical in form and function to gerunds, and it takes a good deal of grammar knowledge (and time) to determine which is more likely present in a particular quotation. --EncycloPetey 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What someone could do (not me) is to start at the beginning (with "Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris, quarum unam incolunt Belgae, aliam Aquitani, tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae, nostra Galli appellantur."), and translate each sentence (something like "All of Gaul is divided into three parts, of which one is occupied by Belgians, another by Aquitanians, the third by those called Celts in their own language, Gauls in ours.").

Then this text couplet could be used for each of the words used (Gallia est omnis divisa in partis tris quarum unam incolunt Belgae alium Aquitani tertiam qui ipsorum lingua Celtae nostra Galli appellantur)

Some words have multiple translations e.g. omnis, divisa, in, alium, qui, ipsorum, lingua, nostra - you would need to figure out which one applied in each case.

Feel free to have a go. SemperBlotto 08:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

These should be under the language header. We frown on having any item placed between the part-of-speech header and the inflection line template. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? I guess I'm not privy to the general consensus, I just like the place I put it much better. It's right near the definition, which is what it expands upon, you read the defintion and if you want more you can go to wikipedia. At the top of the page it's out of the way and hard to get at. - dougher 05:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Immediately after the part of speech header looks best to me, and that's where I always put it. To me it is just the same as use of color/colour in a definition - whoever gets to add it chooses which to use, and other editors shouldn't change it. SemperBlotto 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That location interferes with some of the inflection line templates, which is why it should never go there. It isn't simply a matter of preference, but of display problems for certain template options. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm...... is there some other project where those links might be appropriate? I found it an interesting exercise looking for examples of "Schadenfreude" used in an English-language text, and was looking for somewhere to record it.

Ruzulo 03:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. Wikiquote maybe, but I don't know much about what they consider worthwhile. Topical pages might be suitable there. --EncycloPetey 04:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should it be in category: English words prefixed with ichthyo- ? WilliamKF 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably not. I suspect it's "ichthyology" + "-ist". However, I haven't checked an authoritative dictionary to be certain. --EncycloPetey 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What about ichthyosaur and ichthyological? WilliamKF 04:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You've already corrected ichthyosaur (I believe) and I've corrected ichthyological. --EncycloPetey 04:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have created {{la-decl-superlative}}, and used it at amplissimus. Could you check it please, before I botify the inflected forms. SemperBlotto 09:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

p.s. Unsure what to do with the headword.

There's no need for a new inflection template; just use {{la-decl-1&2}}. See albior for an example of what I did for comparatives. I won't have time until this evening to set up or edit new templates for a superlative. --EncycloPetey 18:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK - template deleted (none other needed). Will do as you suggest. SemperBlotto 18:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

One other point: The LAtin superlative means more than the English counterpart. A superlative can mean "most X" or "X-est", but can also mean "very X" or "extremely X". That is, it does not always involve external comparison, but can refer to degree of a particular quality in its own right. --EncycloPetey 18:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you please tell me why your page Citations:numeral contains the following bold words? "um, "dois", "hund", "hundred", "þūsend" and "number". I would expect only "numeral" and "numerals" to be highlighted by boldface. --Daniel. 05:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because they were bolded in the source material. Citations should preserve the original formatting wherever possible. --EncycloPetey 05:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then, interestingly, you and I have different approaches for editing citations. I have been following the guideline "If a word or phrase appears boldfaced in the original text, then do not replicate the styling since boldface is used to highlight only the headword." from WT:Quotations#Stylized text. --Daniel. 05:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm sorry if I unintentionally collide with the local normatives, I've simply hadn't find that prescription you've just noticed me. :S I'm currntly working on Category:Quechua language (Southern Q. mor properlly), which as a polysynthetic language you may know its affixes are as productive as Indoeuropean words, so I just followed common nomenclature for Quechua when editing. Anyway, ¿should I deduce only derivative suffixes are allowed as entries on this proyect? Please introduce me wider on this issue. --Huhsunqu 06:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The choice is not decided here. But we call "derivative suffixes" only "Suffixes". We do this for Latin (see Category:Latin suffixes) where the suffixes are numerous and productive. All Latin suffixes go into the one category. The function of a suffix is explained in the entry for the suffix, and we usually give examples of the formation process rather than examples sentences, since (as you know) the meaning of the suffix is not always obvious in the English. See -arius for an Example of how this can be done. --EncycloPetey 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for correcting that. I wasn't sure if we used the 1st person form for ML forms as well. In your edit, the "to thicken" became "thicken". Did you intend to do that, or was that accidentally taken up by the edit? If you didn't I will add it back. Leasnam 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

ok, well I've added it back. If it's not the way you want, just undo it. Leasnam 19:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

The verb engrosso actually means "I thicken", but we generally avoid adding the pronoun to etymology glosses unless it affects understanding, such as recognition of the part of speech. The verb engrosso doesn't mean "to thicken", since that is an infinitive meaning. Some Latin verbs have no infinitive, so I much prefer (and as a standard do) use the meaning of the lemma form for the verb, whatever that might be. --EncycloPetey 20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is this verb inchoative? i.e. do I use la-conj-3rd-no234? SemperBlotto 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. The verb noscō and its derivatives have a full (third) conjugation. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the case, nothing was communicated because Semperblotto didn't add any sort of edit summary so if anyone ought to receive a comment of advise here, it's not me but him. 66.175.204.189 04:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stop making excuses for him. If one is too lazy to make an edit summary to avoid an edit conflict, then they ought not to be making revisions. It's not conducive to a civil, drama-free environment when you have users making changes without communicating why. Rather than make excuses for a fellow friend, perhaps you should give him some constructive criticism. End of discussion! 66.175.204.189 06:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read Help:Interacting with humans#Newcomers. --EncycloPetey 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Our template gives -euntō as the 3rd person plural active infinitive. But verbix gives it as -untō. Which is correct? (I'm about to botify these verb forms) SemperBlotto 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not at home at the moment, but what I seem to recall is that both are correct. One is a relic spelling from Old Latin, and the other was a more contemporary form. Both were in use in the Classical period, though, IIRC. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, I think you meant to say imperative, not infinitive. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

According to Verbix the following verbs are conjugated the same way (and have passive forms). I have indicated our inflection template usage (where we have a verb). There doesn't seem much consistency here and some seem just plain wrong. Any thoughts? SemperBlotto 15:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

• antesto {la-conj-1st-nopass|antest|antestit}
• antisto
• circumsto
• consto {la-conj-1st|cōnst|cōnstit|cōnstāt|11=const|22=constit|33=constat}
• disto {la-conj-1st|dist|distāv|distāt|11=dist|22=distav|33=distat}
• exsto
• insto
• obsto {la-conj-1st|obst|obstīt|obstāt|11=obst|22=obstit|33=obstat}
• persto
• praesto {la-conj-1st|praest|praestit|praestit}
• resto
• sto {la-conj-1st-nopass|st|stet|stat|ppp=yes} (ppp= not described in template doc)
• supersto (I was about to add this - that's why I'm asking)

Verbix appears to be mistaken, then. The listed template information is correct for consto, obsto, and sto. It is sort-of correct for praesto, which has two participle forms: praestitus and praestātus. The verb resto conjugates like obsto. It is incorrect for disto, which has no perfect or participle forms. Note that sto and most of its derivatives have no attested passive forms other than the third person, and in some of them only the third-person singular. Hence the "no passive" template is sometimes used. We probably need a set of templates for third-person-only-passive verbs, or something to accomodate them, but I haven't made that a priority. The verb supersto conjugates like sto (with a third principal part of superstetī). --EncycloPetey 02:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have done the following. Feel free to change anything that you disagree with.

• I have added a second (alternate) conjugation table to praesto.
• Added table to exsto (with a note, same as disto)
• Added table to insto (based on obsto)
• Added Latin entry to resto (table based on obsto)
• Added persto (table based on obsto)
• Added supersto
• Added circumsto
• Added antisto

I propose to use the bot to add only those forms that I am certain of - i.e. no passive ones, only active ones based on the first template parameter. SemperBlotto 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do not remove standard format form Etymology sections. They should begin with "From" (in almost all situations) and end with a period. This is standard house style for the English Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is it documented otherwise? http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wiktionary:Etymology#Regular_formations -- dougher 03:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is not "documented". Did you read the header at the top of that page, and have you noticed that (as a result of being a draft) the page does contain some minor inconsistencies in recommendations? Most sections explcitly use "From...". --EncycloPetey 06:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

So are you saying I have to browse around and count how many I find of each form and then use the one that shows up most frequently? What if I end up finding pages that disagree with your suggestion? Just doesn't make any sense to me, why publish the documentation page if it's not right? I'd like it if you'd fix the documentation because it makes more sense to look there rather than browse around looking for what's most common. --dougher 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, I've told you what accepted current style is, so you don't have to browse around for it. It is a documented fact that most Wiktionary practices are not documented. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess we'll never agree. I think the documentation should be correct, and the page you just pointed me at points indirectly to the documentation I was following, which you say is wrong. Why not just fix the documentation so you don't have to argue with people like me who like to read and follow the documentation? -- dougher 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey -- Re this edit, I've never quite grasped the point of listing syns which are already in the defn. Why bother? I'm sure you've got a considered reason; I just haven't picked up on it. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 04:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The definition may later change to be made synonym independent. --EncycloPetey 04:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hm, I suppose. A bit overly precautious for my taste. Like wearing a belt and suspenders. If editors were to rigorously follow this principle, they could redundantly lard up synonyms sections with duplicates of every single-word definiens already given in every defn line of every entry. That would be several bridges too far, wouldn't it? -- Ghost of WikiPedant 04:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

A definition line that is merely or largely a list of synonyms seems to me to be something that belongs on a clean-up list. I think we have agreement that such definitions are not desirable. Such lists here are often unedited relics of Websters 1913. Making a home for the synonyms and copying them there is the first step. Writing good definitions is time-consuming, requiring research often and focus always. Perhaps it would help if each sense that had the list-of-synonyms definitions was marked, possibly by a non-displaying, but categorizing template. {{synsdef}} would be an adequate shortcut name, but a more descriptive template name might help. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree, mostly. We also have the problem that some of our users are non-native English speakers. They may not be able to determine easily when a definition is a list of descriptive words and which are lists of synonyms. To invent an example here: If a bloubuss is defined as "a cold, wet, heavy blanket", and a palouma is "a dove, pigeon", then how is a user not native to English to interpret these? Will they immediately realize the first is a description and the latter is a pair of synonyms? Better to explicitly list synonyms than to rely on having them in the definition. That's why we have a Synonyms header, after all. --EncycloPetey 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree that definition lines should not be overloaded with single-word terms, but such terms are often perfectly appropriate for rounding out a definition line, when a sense covers a range of usages (as senses so often do). Every reputable dictionary, even the OED, has lots of entries in which the definition line is fleshed out by single-word terms or consists largely of such terms. I'd go so far as to say that sometimes there's just no better way to write a definition. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, what happens when all of a group of synonyms are defined by lists of the other synonyms? Are you saying that these words can't be defined except by direct mention of each other, i.e. circularity? If so, then I don't agree at all. --EncycloPetey 16:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

True, true, Petey, the situation you describe in your first sentence would indeed be undesirable and it's a reason why we need more than just syns. As for circularity, it's thorny problem: we philosophers sometimes like to point out that, in the last analysis, all dictionaries are circular. Exactly how language ever manages to make contact with reality is a deep mystery. -- Ghost of WikiPedant 16:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd bet that we would all agree on a large number of the individual cases, possibly the overwhelming majority. Sometimes the problem is that the most common synonym is a sense of a highly polysemous word. Our inability to reliably direct a user to a specific sense makes such synonyms more problematic than in those dictionaries that have stable numbered senses.

The extra labor involved in doing "true" definitions rather than synonyms is a major consideration, anyway. To say that all definitions of a certain type "should" be more than synonym lists is a "Counsel of perfection". If the synonym lists were not also often based on dated (even obsolete) senses of the synonyms, being often left over from Websters 1913, it would not be a good use of time to treat them as clean-up candidates. Such definitions usually have only incomplete, dated, literary citations to support them, as well.

AFAICT the only reason not to make them clean-up items is that the task can be too large. The good, but still incomplete, revision of head that Visviva undertook consumed a lot of time, constituting a "project" in itself. Widsith's work, mostly on words derived from Old English, is also a large effort. Ruakh has been doing a lot on words being RfVed. GofWP has been doing similar work on items of his choosing. Few have the skills for this.

I don't know what we can do ease the task of the most skilled definers. Lists of entries with problematic definitions are not very helpful, though more so than mere rfc lists. Does providing citations make the job easier? Do {{obsolete}} and {{archaic}} tags focus efforts better? Would it help to count the number of sense-level definition-problem tags and add that to a list of entries with definition problems ? DCDuring TALK 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

     Perhaps thesauri are circular, but IMO for dictionaries there is a bootstrapping effect where more complicated words tend to get defined in terms of simpler words. As for the simplest words: the native-speaking users of the dictionary already know what they mean: the definitions just help sort out the different meanings (i.e., mark boundaries between different meanings, or surround each meaning with a boundary, the etymological origin of "define"), only occasionally might the user come across a less-used unfamiliar meaning for a familiar word. —AugPi 02:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

     Just because aardvark is defined as a type of mammal does not mean that categorizing it under Category:Mammals is thus redundant (on the contrary: it makes it necessary, not redundant); likewise, though perhaps less obvious, the Semantic network aspect of Wiktionary should be independent of the definition-furnishing aspects... (so, e.g., including mammal as as Hypernym of aardvark should not be considered redundant, even though it is already suggested by both the definition and the category.) —AugPi 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to display words with macrons while using this template in Latin etymologies? For instance, one would præfer internosco#Etymology to look like From inter- + nōscō instead of current From inter- + nosco. Is that feasible (without desisting from using the template) and if so, by means of what parameter? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yair rand has fixed it. I noticed that there is no Category:Latin words prefixed with inter-, Category:Latin words prefixed with ex- etc. Do you consider them useful? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Those aren't prefixes, so no. The words inter and ex are prepositions. That makes these compound words. It's a bit like the phrasal verbs we have in English; in Latin, the preposition could be joined to the following word, or could be (ocassionally) written separately. These entries have the wrong template. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That explains why the two categories were empty. In my (Bulgarian) Latin grammar those verbs are in very sooth described as composita. Ipso facto, that template turns out to be improper. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 07:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"True" (inseparable) prefixes are rare in Latin. There are a few, but in Latin most apparent prefixes are actually prepended words. --EncycloPetey 18:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

But at least -ve is a good example for a suffix (as in neve), since it cannot be used on its own, is it not? Also -vis (as in quivis, ubivis, regardless of the noun vis). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 10:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The element ve is an enclitic, not a suffix. We wouldn't call possessive 's a suffix, but a particle. And your vis example derives from a meaning of the noun. It isn't a suffix either. --EncycloPetey 03:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

In this case, could you please shape the etymology of neve à votre gré, according to your understanding, so that I beware of the way to handle similar enclitics. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

Wernescu will not comply to your demands, because (1) he never listens to anyone, and (2) he doesn't seem to know English.

He's more than welcome to prove me wrong, but I just thought I would give you the heads up.

Best Regards, --Robbie SWE 19:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever considered that you're not always right? If so, how long ago was it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please don't start another round of personal attacks. Stick to issues. --EncycloPetey 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The issue is you're unreasonable. If you're just gonna assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, why should I answer the points you bring up? Next time you ask me a question on my talk page I'm just gonna revert on the grounds no matter what I say, you won't take it into account. You give me no reason to answer your questions. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who here is not responding to questions? I asked you to stick to issues, not make personal attacks, which is a reasonable request. You proceeded to make another personal attack and say you'll revert anything on your talk page I post on the basis of your own prejudice. Who here is being unreasonable? --EncycloPetey 22:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, you don't negociate with people no matter how reasonable they are. That's not your issue. The original question stands. And the second point. Stop changing the issue to wriggle out of answering. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, the answer to your original question is "about 12 minutes ago when I made a typo and corrected it with an edit summary saying 'typo'." I have thus disproven your thesis by admitting to a mistake. You may also wish to watch the negotiation I am currently having with GoWP. We are raising issues and implications of our differing viewpoints in order to explore the issue. This disproves your latest assertion. So, please stop the personal attacks, and stick to the issues. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are no personal attacks going on; I am making you accountable for your actions. I will not communicate with people who simply brush off other people's opinions because they (the people and the opinions) are inferior. I've already banned one user from commenting on my talk page for this reason, please do not be the second one. User:Actarus Prince d'Euphor, you and he are very similar. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What actions, specifically, are you trying to have me be "accountable" for? You've made sweeping, vague, hyperbolic accusations that have been disproved. --EncycloPetey 22:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not gonna dignify that with an answer. Let's just say it's easy to cry 'personal attack' to avoid having to answer some difficult questions about your behavior. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So, who's wriggling out of answering? I answered your question, now you sidestep mine.

Personal attacks made: "you're unreasonable", "you're just gonna assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong", "you won't take it into account", "you don't negociate with people no matter how reasonable they are". These were made with no preface or context. Even the opening sentences of this thread are written as a snide attack. Your warning that I may be banned from your talk page also came from nowhere, as I have only posted one thread that I recall on your talk page in the past several months, and that discussion seemed amicable enough to me.

So, you're apparently going to accuse me of various vague injustices and refuse to answer me when I ask you to clarify that remark. I interpret this action to mean you are more interested in making your attack than in resolving any actual problem. --EncycloPetey 22:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I find you react well to the sort of language that you yourself use. So using harsh, blunt language works. Please don't ask questions you already know the answer to. Please read all of Special:Contributions/EncycloPetey if you have to. Choose your own damn examples. If you think "you're unreasonable" is a personal attack, please avoid the real world; you'd be in for a big surprise. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't ask a question. Again, if there is some specific issue you wish to resolve, please present it. "Choose your own damn examples" does not identify a specific issue, nor does it lend any validity to your assertions. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll use one of your answers: "I'm too busy building a dictionary to answer". But luckily, you're not evasive, so that must be a valid answer. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't find that quotation in a search of Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Put it this way; in all the time you've spent replying to my questions, have you reverted and valid edits? No? Well therefore I've served a purpose. Sadly, this is how you operate. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another vague implication and unfounded accusation. I have made some reversions during this discussion; I have not reverted valid edits because valid edits shouldn't be reverted. You're asking the "do you beat your wife" question in a thinly-veiled form. You're spending your time venting, and if that helps you let off steam, then I suppose your posting here does serve a purpose. --EncycloPetey 00:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I suppose your block of OG (talk • contribs) for flouting an 'undefined, as yet unknown' policy, I've also made that up, possibly using a sock-puppet right? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Neither undefined nor unknown. House style starts etymologies with "From" and ends them with a full stop. See the numerous examples in Wiktionary:Etymology, which was achieved from considerable discussion of the issue. --EncycloPetey 00:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, when you blocked Flibjib8 (talk • contribs) for what edits was it? If you don't name every single one, I'll consider it a 'vague implication' Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The reasons are given on User_talk:Flibjib8, by myself as well as by several other editors. --EncycloPetey 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tell me, which part of "every single one" didn't you understand? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you will explain why I must list every single one, but you have listed only two (refuted) examples. Why should other people listen to advice that you yourself will not follow? You should first list every single example you believe is a problem, if you are to take your own advice. Otherwise, I must assume that your demand is facetiousness on your part. Please keep in mind that I have made no such request of you; I asked for any specific examples rather than vagaries, so that a reply is possible. A discussion over generalizations, without specifics, will usually lead nowhere. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So in other words, I should give every single example, but you don't have to. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is what you asked me to do, yes. You have paraphrased yourself well. --EncycloPetey 00:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, in a deliberate attempt to show you what you were arguing. What I see is it's one rule for you, another rule for everyone else. What you have against all of us is we are not you. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please support your argument with the quote where I asked you to do that. I argued no such thing. Rather it is you who posted that ridiculous request, then falsely accused me of the action, then made an unfounded generalization from your own imagined slight. I begin to see a pattern here. --EncycloPetey 00:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What you're really trying to do is make me waste time going through you're contributions finding example of autocratic behavior. So I'll turn it round; show me evidence that I'm not right. And I mean specific examples, not 'vague' ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Rather it is you who posted that ridiculous request, then falsely accused me of the action, then made an unfounded generalization from your own imagined slight." Go on, prove it. Should be fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, here you demanded that I "name every single one". Here you falsely accused me of making the request. And here you made the unfounded generalization. --EncycloPetey 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: "What you're really trying to do is make me waste time going through you're contributions finding example of autocratic behavior". Interesting that you think this search would be a waste of time. I assume because the search would not be fruitful. --EncycloPetey 00:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Who here is not responding to questions?" I don't see any evidence of that. It's an unfounded accusation. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I asked this question, to whoch you responded here, " not gonna dignify that with an answer". --EncycloPetey 00:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not durably archived. Still need three citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"I asked you to stick to issues?" I don't see any evidence of that. It's an unfounded accusation. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Imposted that request here. Your immediate reply ended with this statement that "Next time you ask me a question on my talk page I'm just gonna revert on the grounds no matter what I say, you won't take it into account. You give me no reason to answer your questions.", which is not part of the issue nor relevant to anything that came before. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not durably archived. Still need three citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"You proceeded to make another personal attack and say you'll revert anything on your talk page I post on the basis of your own prejudice?" I don't see any evidence of that. It's an unfounded accusation. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

"You've made sweeping, vague, hyperbolic accusations that have been disproved" I don't see any evidence of that. It's an unfounded accusation. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I refute those examples. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The point I'm making it, stop avoiding the question as having 'no basis' and answer them. I have my bases, whether you know what they are. If not, here's one. Support every sentence on this talk page and its archives with three citations. Otherwise I will accuse you of being 'vague'. Stop messing about playing games and answer the questions. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever considered that what I'm saying is simply my opinion? Perhaps an opinion on a talk page doesn't need three durably archived citations. If you have no answer, do something other than changing the subject - how about an honest answer, any chance of this? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have considered it nothing but your opinon. It clearly has no basis in fact. I have given many honest answers above. If you believe some of them to be false, please explain why. --EncycloPetey 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Opinions don't need a basis in fact. In this sort of case, anything that I think is inappropriate, you can simply say 'no it isn't'. Facts are irrelevant. We might as well argue about whether the Beatles are better than Elvis. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, if facts are irrelevant, and this is all your personal opinon, then why can't my opinon be equally valid? --EncycloPetey 01:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is. I just disagree with it. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Then why not say "I disagree with you, but I respect your right to differ", and leave it at that? --EncycloPetey 01:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, what about OG (talk • contribs) or indeed any user who makes an edit which isn't vandalism. You may think they're wrong, but why revert? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't answer my question about what you've said. I disagree with you, remember? And it's OK for me to have a different opinion from you. If you believe my opinion can be valid, then why are you confronting it? --EncycloPetey 01:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see no reason why I can't believeconfront something when I think it's valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That still doesn't address my question. I didn't say you couldn't believe something; I asked why not say "I disagree with you, but I respect your right to differ", and leave it at that? --EncycloPetey 01:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been debating this sort of thing for way more than half my life, so I to be honest I could do this all day and not stop. Well quite simply, people aren't like that. Per the OG example, you didn't. And I don't either. When I see something I disagree with, I tend to say so. In the simplest form I can put it "because I don't want to". Mglovesfun (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

So then, you wish to express your opinion without stopping, even though you concede that it is valid for me to hold a differing position? If I interpret events differently from you, that does not mean that I am wrong. --EncycloPetey 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree entirely. And with that, good night. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Inspired by this discussion, I browsed through about 1,500 of your latest edits. I think it's important that somebody does the kind of patrolling you do. --Hekaheka 15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, though my patrolling is not as significant as Semper's (and probably never will be). --EncycloPetey 15:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

L&S give this as "incrēmentum". I would have guessed at "incremēntum". I'll wait for your opinion before adding it. SemperBlotto 18:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

L&S are correct. Your guess isn't feasible, since long vowels never precede "-nt-" or "-nd" (nasal + stop) in Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course we are not. Nevertheless, there is one more meaning of the term besides the two already given. I believe you can't argue that. Due to your action though, I realised that the term project is a bit too worldly to describe this concept, so I used conglomerate instead. Biblbroks 19:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Would you add inflection information to rabio? I'd be grateful.

SemperBlotto said: "Well, it's a third-conjugation verb, but it doesn't seem to have a perfect tense - EncycloPetey might be the person to ask. SemperBlotto 10:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)"

--Dan Polansky 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, technically it's not a 3rd-conjugation, it's a 3rd IO-variation, or what some texts call "mixed" conjugation. The "-io" ending is a dead giveaway for that. We don't yet have a template for "mixed" conjugation verbs that lack the perfect and participle forms, so I'll have to make one. If I haven't done so by Thursday, bug me with a reminder. I have Thursday and Friday off work, so I'll have sufficient time then to tackle making the template. --EncycloPetey 04:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I think that effarcio falls into this category as well (though 4th-conjugation). I won't populate the verb forms till I'm certain. SemperBlotto 08:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  I'm unsure about this one. The root verb has a complete conjugation, but the derivative verb effarcio seems to be missing its perfect forms (although I do find a perfect passive participle for it). This one will take more research. --EncycloPetey 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Also ferio seems to lack perfect tenses. (in this case, I think that there is a second meaning (with 1st conjugation), related to the noun feria). SemperBlotto 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi EnclopePetey, I noticed you protected the surly article after I had reverted it with a source. In discussing the issue on the talkpage, you merely reply with "Your source does not support your edit" without communicating to me why you feel it doesn't. It obviously supports the edit because the source states threatening and I reworded it as forbidding. Anyways, I chose to make out a much needed complaint about your behavior along with Semperblotto's here and your feedback is more than welcome. Way to much misuse of your admin tools and poor communication practices between you and Semperblotto. 66.175.204.107 04:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you would like to show us what good communication in edits looks like, you are welcome to do so. Your own edit summaries and communication consist of demands for communication, without any understanding that this is not what an edit summary is for. If you have to justify a change in an edit summary, then you're not doing it right. An edit summary is a description of the change, not a justification. Your change was unsupported by evidence on the entry's talk page, as the link you provided did not support "forbidding" (a polysemic word) as part of the definition. If you wish to make such a change, the responsibility of justification lies with you providing evidence that supports it, not with anyone else pointing out why your evidence is lacking. You need to be convincing, not convinced. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you probably never read Latin written documents of the Middle Ages, where the name Aubrée, Aubrey is regularly translated as Albereda. Morover, the phonetical evolution from Albereda > Aubrée is regular in French. I think it is not even a subject to discuss in France, that is well known among the specialists. It is not the same name as Alberic, that gave Aubry (today patronymic). Bye Nortmannus 12:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are incorrect in your assumption. I have read (and own) many, many copies of medieval Latin manuscripts. Most of these were purchased because they contain examples of personal names, because onomastics is a major hobby of mine. I have medieval Latin documents from all over Europe, as well as numerous books on the origins of names in various European cultures. The problem with your edit was two-fold: (1) it added etymological information to a definition of a term in a poorly formatted and irrelevant way, and (2) it is at odds with what expert published sources like Reaney & Wilson's English Surnames say about the name. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Onomastics is also a major hobby of mine and especially Germanic. You are may be right about the English name Aubrey, but the French name Aubrée comes from Albereda, Alberada, that is obvious and the Norman surname Aubrey too. 1) Just read a medieval document, for exemple a genealogy and you will read it (I read for example : Hugh d'Ivry had a daughter, Albereda (Aubree), who married Robert Miles d'Ivry..., etc., or in French Rouleaux des morts du XIe au XVe siècle : Alberada. Aubrée, fille de Raoul Taisson, etc.). I am not blind. 2) The phonetical evolution is clear in French 3) the -ry names are never female's name in French, so Alberic > Aubry (Aubri in some old documents) remains a male's name with no possible confusion in French with Aubrée. The pronunciation is clearly different for French people Aubri and Aubrée . I think it is so obvious, that it is not a subject to discuss. Good luck.

The pronunciation in modern French is clearly different, but not so for Old French. This is compounded by the fact that in Anglo-Norman French, the spelling differed often from the expected modern French. So, a conclusion about the etymology cannot be determined solely from modern spelling and pronunciation, nor solely from a northern French perspective. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

One question about sancio has arisen. Your input at Talk:sancio would be appreciated. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

What are the correct macra for dubitatio? –(deprecated template usage) Dubitātio or (deprecated template usage) dubitātiō? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The latter is correct. The noun suffix -ātiō has standard macrons for all appearances. There may be one or two exceptions, but I can't recall any offhand. --EncycloPetey 16:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's good to know. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Syllepsis seems to have a botanical sense that we lack ()- are you able to add it? Nadando 20:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think so. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I recently added some data to jackaroo, which you have deleted. I agree. I was in the process of undoing it all as you acted. What I entered has ended up in the talk page for jackaroo. As you are an experienced editor, can you give me some advice please? Jack Greenmaven 01:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Our etymologies should be short and concise, not lengthy and full of discourse. However, the research could be useful to someone, so I preserved it on the talk page. --EncycloPetey 02:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I would have expected this to be at hendecasyllabus - though L&S agrees with you this time. SemperBlotto 12:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The word is inherently plural (lit. "eleven syllables"), and has no attested singular form. Nouns and Determiners that have no singular form use the nominative plural as the lemma, as with complures. --EncycloPetey 19:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

But it is now. It okei. Radu Gherasim 19:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why is LFN not permitted for inclusion?

When will the decision be made to allow it and by whom?

Carlo

I realize that you caught my scent today, but if you could answer my question in between being a dictatorial hall monitor, I would appreciate it. Carlo

Please see your talk page. I've already answered your question twice. Please do not abuse me or other users here, or you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC) You would be a good person to follow his own advice. CarloReply

So, who can call for a vote? Carlo

You can read the WT:VOTE policies. Anyone can begin a vote, but it's usually a good idea to run a discussion in the WT:BP first. This raises awareness of the issue, and can gauge the community feeling before the weeks-long process of a vote. --EncycloPetey 21:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

There already was a discussion in the Beer Parlor (or whatever) and considering that the category was made, and an ISO number issued, and several other changes made under LFN, I was under the impression that it was open to changes. Carlo

Our policy page on items acceptable for inclusion explicitly states that LFN has "not yet been approved for inclusion". So, rather than rely on impressions, it's better to be sure before undertaking so much wsted effort. Klingon also has an ISO code, but it has been explicitly limited to an Appendix. Several other constructed languages with ISO codes are likewise excluded from Wiktionary's main namespace. An ISO code is merely a starting point for us, not the deciding factor for what we include. --EncycloPetey 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As a way to integrate my two rebuttals to your responses to my posts about your posts: Instead of posting on users discussion pages after they have made changes, why not post a "warning" or "message" on the front page of the category (which came from somewhere, and is wasn't me)? Basically, why not be proactive to prohibiting the things that aren't allowed rather than completely reactionary? Just a thought. Carlo

Uh... which category? And is there any guarantee that a person editing in that language will ever visit the category? The only way to be reasonably sure a user will see a notice is if it is placed on that user's talk page. Even then, we have some contributors who cannot read English or who ignore any posted warnings. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:Flemish idioms has not an incorrect title. Your deletion is in violation of Wiktionary:Sysop deleted. The only correct action should have been waiting for the outcome of the Rfd for Category:Flemish language.--ShedCorner 23:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the correct title is Category:Dutch idioms, which already exists. The entry is tagged as "Dutch", and that's where it's already categorized. Your creation of a new category does not change that. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, was not aware of this policy, had recognized etymology entries on a lot of pages and have found some lacking them before which aren't verbs so figured it might have been the case. Do you know if this is just a policy for Latin, or should all verb pages only have etymology information if they are in the unconjugated form? Would it maybe be appropriate in lieu of copying the etymology to have an etymology subsection saying something like 'see etymology of X' X being the unconjugated form of which it is a tense of, or we basically just assume people will check out the base form of the word if they are interested in figuring it out?

Is this maybe also a policy that could apply to non-verbs as well? Like say with adjectives like fast/faster/fastest you would only do fast... or also with nouns like cat/cats I would only do cats? I am wondering in cases with irregular pluralization (goose/geese) if they would be an exception where if we ever figure out the origin of the irregular change in spelling we could introduce it? How those differences come about seems pretty interesting and mysterious. Dictabeard 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

could tell me whether the phrase "rex: dominos ante omnes" is correct? If so, why is dominus in the accusative? Thank you 81.68.255.36 12:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Nevermind xD ante#Latin. Sorry to bother you 81.68.255.36 12:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Could you have a look at... whatever this is?? I'm really not sure about this Nemzag (talk • contribs) person.... — opiaterein — 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if this is an area of your expertise, however I have a followup on your comments at my talk page, if you'd be willing to share more of your opinions. Otherwise it might be a topic better brought to another discussion page with participants that are more interested in the specific area. --Tokek 12:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply