User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 6

Ok sorry, i didnt know. I figured wiki would just want the original pronunciation. Sorry, just trying to help.

It wasnt a new word. The word was buff, and the adverb is buffly. Its like saying Help, and helpfully. Do you expect then to be on different pages? Thanks

Hmmm....ok, i didnt get an email from you. Maybe you would like to email me again? Or at least unblock me so i can message you without having to do this. :( Pretty please??

You are already communicating; there is no need for e-mail. Your edits to buffly altered the example sentence to add a reference to Mr. Potato Head while removing the word buffly, which is what the example sentence is supposed to show. Your changes were promotional, disruptive, and bordered on vandalism and were a repeat of an earlier similar edit. For the repeated disruption of the page, a block was placed on the entry. At least, I assume it was you who made the edits; I have no way to be certain because all your edits were made anonymously without logging in to any account. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

You reverted my edits to lol. I would like to discuss this. Thanks. Gaiacarra 07:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No one has reverted your edit to that page. Look at the edit history; you were the last one to edit the page. --EncycloPetey 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry, my mistake: I wasn't signed in when I made the edits in question. I'm referring to the edits made by 86.70.151.70, namely this one. Anyway, please see what I said in the page's discussion page.

Thanks for your advice. I must admit I was curious as to the difference between Related terms and See also. Should boli be in a Related terms section then? Dally Horton 02:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dear EncycloPetey,

I am sorry that I didn't cite my references when I edited the Jack Ketch page. Just so you know, Ketch was employed by Charles II of England, as well as his brother James II. My reference is the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Thank you for your time. JCurley 01 05:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there actually a "more hinder" or "most hinder" form? That seems counterintuitive given the word's etymology. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think it's OK, that happens quite often - the etymology gets forgotten. The most famous example is near, which etymologically is "more nigh", but nearer still exists. I mean I haven't really checked or anything. Widsith 20:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

But even for hind, the superlative is hindmost rather than "most hind". Same for rear (rearmost). --EncycloPetey 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, you might be right. I'll have a look on Google books but it's not an easy form to pick out. Widsith 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why not? You can do an exact phrase search. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but most matches are for the verb. Widsith 20:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Hi EP, thanks for the fixes on the noun section. In re the above, I can find no support for "most hinder" or "more hinder" -- see and , which yield only spurious hits. So I would vote to toss these forms out, absent further discoveries... On the other hand, hindermost is well-attested, and hindermore seems to fall just short of CFI. HTH. Cheers, -- Visviva 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks. Will you do the honors? --EncycloPetey 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm a user at both Wikipedia and several Wikia sites, so I'm not really new in a sense ;). Anyways, I'll help out the best I can with this game I have called Balderdash, which is based on obscure words in the English language. Again, thanks for the welcome!Giant Squid 02:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay. Can you tell me if the article I just created is, well, in correct format?—Giant Squid 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks for correcting me. I look forward to editing this site.—Giant Squid_Talk 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Citations:hinder? Robert Ullmann 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No one has yet made the migration, adjusted the necessary templates, etc. So I am following the old method until all that is taken care of magically by the people who know how to make the changeover. --EncycloPetey 05:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get that idea? I've fixed the templates, WT:PREFS tab, etc. Since we got the NS. If I missed something, tell me. (Note that things like {{seeCites}} are magic, they work either way.) Robert Ullmann 14:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the corrections. 213.140.22.65 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help. Lacrymocéphale

Could you please remove the comma that seems to be out of place in the code, or unprotect it so that I can do it? I left the remark on the talk page a while ago.. See e.g. etymologies of krava for the concrete examples, where it doesn't mimic {term}'s usual behaviour. Thanks --Ivan Štambuk 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You'll need to ask someone who can read the template coding better than I can. There are several commas within the coding, and I'm not such which one(s) would need to be removed. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I think that is the word I was looking for. I would have never guessed the correct spelling!

Just noticed (while checking a foundation-l discussion) that these code templates, als and aln, were interchanged, and fixed them. FYI Robert Ullmann 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. Was this for a particular discussion somewhere? Is there some reason you chose to break from usable formats? Whatevre the discussion, please roll it back now. --Connel MacKenzie 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see that this format is not "usable". Please explain how you would format the page given the curretn information.

In this particular situation the format is temporary, but required. I need to find out whether there is one or two etymologies here. If there are two separate etymologies, then the problem is solved. If there is a single etymology, I will need to do some additional work. --EncycloPetey 01:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering how to categorise the Japanese demonstratives (kono, ano, dore..)? --BiT 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean, and don't know Japanese grammar well. If they function like demonstratives in European languages, then I would classify them as determiners, and mark them as (demonstrative) either on the definition line or (and?) with Usage notes. If they differ from English, Latin, etc. in how they function as demonstratives, then I can't offer advice since (as I say) I'm not familiar with Japanese grammar. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

They work just like demonstratives, and are categorised as so on the wikipedia page. "kono hon" means "this book"; "kore wa Pikachu..desu" means "this is Pikachu"... But when ever I put "demonstrative" in the header it says that it's not correct. Do you know any wiktionary user which works most on Japanese entries? --BiT 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's because "demonstrative" is not one of the accepted standard headers (see WT:POS). You can use Determiner or Demonstrative determiner, but not just demonstrative. Important Japanese contributors I know of are User:Izumi5 and User:Tohru (who is also an admin). --EncycloPetey 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks. I'm sorry I've been away so long, but I just don't have a knack for moderation, nor time management, and I really have to put passing my classes above Wiktionary. I'll probably just be poking my head in for a bit til classes start up again next week. January's words are done, but there really wasn't that much to do, as a lot of them were repeats (and I started halfway through them). If there's anything especially useful I can do, please feel free to let me know. Oh, congrats on your 'pedia adminship......traitor. Atelaes 23:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I figured you were just getting lazy and making use of the "once per year" rule. But, as I think about it, it's more than a year waiting period before a repeat, isn't it? I'll get to work on the list. Atelaes 23:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've got the etymology for comedy up and running (etymons are on their way). For the Greek and Ancient Greek, perhaps δάσκαλος and διδάσκαλος? Does that work? Atelaes 05:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It should. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where is the previous discussion of Typhoo ? Kappa 14:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

When the keyword is odd enough, you can find items with a good Google search: Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/Archives/2007/06#Typhoo. There was another related discussion at the time, but I can't locate it since it doesn't seem to have mentioned Typhoo directly. --EncycloPetey 18:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey, I've been using the hyphenation template you created and it's making the work so much easier. I've found an interesting article on the Hungarian wikipedia about hyphenation and suddenly I feel that I'm no longer sure what hyphenation means in Wiktionary. Is it indicating the syllables or the way a word can be separated in printed text at the end of the line if there is not enough room? In Hungarian, these two can be different. Each vowel is a syllable, but there are rules how to separate a word. For example, the word "apa" (father) has two syllables, but in printed text we would not separate it as a-pa. The rule says if the syllable is only a single vowel at the beginning and end of the word, it should not be separated. So what do we indicate with hyphenation in Wiktionary? Not mentioned in ELE. Thanks. --Panda10 10:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The {{hyphenation}} indicates how a word is separated in printed text, not the spoken breaks (syllabification). These two kinds of breaks often do not occur in the same place for the written and spoken forms of a word. --EncycloPetey 23:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. I looked at the hyphenation template page, it says "If the word has more than 8 syllables, you’ll have to adapt this template." Not sure what this means. The template cannot be used for more than 8 syllables? Another thing: would it be useful to create a hyphenation page for each language and change the hyphenation template so the Hyphenation label itself would link to the appropriate page, similar to the IPA label? --Panda10 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hyphenation is seldom used for any language other than English at this point, so that would be opening up a new area. You might be better off asking someone in the Grease Pit for technical help with those questions. --EncycloPetey 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is afoot at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek#Mycenaean.......Greek? Redux. You have been invited because you participated in a previous discussion, I thought you might have a particular insight or interest in the discussion, or simply because I wanted to spam your page and irritate you. Check it out. Atelaes 09:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

As I'm sure you've noticed, etymologies frequently link to Latin present active infinitives. For those of us who don't know Latin well enough to fix this, what should we do? Add {{la-attention}}?

Thanks in advance!

—Ruakh_TALK 00:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I would expect that template to be used for Latin entries that need attention. I think {{rfe}} with a note about what is needed would be a more appropriate template. Or, if it turns out that someone is willing to tag a lot of these, we could create a new sub-template and category specific to this sort of situation. --EncycloPetey 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I lost my password to User:Ionas68224. Sorry. --Ionas 68.224.117.152 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, no I didn't. Special:Contributions/Ionas68224 shows an edit that I don't even remember making. I just said the above after finding the name "Ionas68224" in the username field when I tried to create an account. -Ionas 68.224.117.152 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that my account was registered by me and cracked? Or registered to impersonate me? --Ionas Freeman Ionas Freeman 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert everything I did? Granted some might have been redundant, but some was useful. Seemed like you were too lazy to actually look it through so you reverted the lot. Unless I'm wrong, in which case I'll withdraw my previous statement, that doesn't seem like something a good editor as yourself should have done. --BiT 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No I read through it. You confused descendants with cognates, added unsubstantiated intermediate forms, added a non-standard section name, and in short made all the same lazy careless edits you usually make. I get tired of cleaning up after you, and it's usually much easier to revert than to fix the countless errors you spread throughout pages. You should try to become a good editor instead of making the same mistakes over and over. Understand though, that it's not all of your edits I mean. Many edits you make a fine or great, but sometimes in English or Latin entries you add some very strange content or formatting. --EncycloPetey 01:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I actually try to do the best I can, and I thought I was doing decently. "All the same lazy careless edits I usually make", gee didn't know I was that horrible.. well maybe instead of just reverting and letting me continue in the false believe that I'm making good articles you could give me a list of things that I'm doing wrong? --BiT 02:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll try to remember to do that. For some new editors, I do it routinely until they get their footing and don't need regular help anymore. As I say though, it's some of your edits that are problematic. Most of your edits are fine, but from time to time you do things that look alien. --EncycloPetey 02:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm in Japan now, maybe that has something to do with it? It has a certain vibe which makes people ..alien. Anyhow, I have a sort of compulsion every once in a while to make some page perfect, and that means looking in every book I have (which are actually none now, I didn't bring any with me) and every page to see something new to add. Maybe it went a little out of hand back there- I'll try to be more on the watch in the future. =) --BiT 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the recordings cancel the necessity of the "arch" they should, by extension, cancel written pronunciation altogether. However, due to the fact that written pronunciation is nice to have, it makes sense for the IPA to be as accurate as possible. Furthermore, the recordings are not usable on many machines, the only ones at my school that are able to handle them are the ones on which I've installed Winamp. X Parasite

Re: http://en.wiktionary.orghttps://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?curid=341097&diff=3625743&oldid=3624701

Um, actually, I think you are mistaken.

I was running through {{catred}}'s earlier today bot-correcting them as per the target of the catreds. However, Robert stopped me partway into it, as I obviously was converting them in the wrong direction. (FWIW, most categories were about 50/50 when I started.)

The "numeral" nonsense was rejected. The treatment of "cardinal numbers" as non-POS was intertwined with that same rejected initiative.

All that aside, just looking at what it should look like, I'm inclined to believe Robert's version of ELE/POS before accepting the revision you made above. Has this been voted on recently?

--Connel MacKenzie 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, there has been no vote in the past year. And, no, the non-POS categories were not intertwined with the previous vote. The previous vote was about the POS header to be used (Numeral versus Number or Cardinal number or Ordinal numeral, etc.)

The use of a non-POS category exists because not all members of the category will have Cardinal number as a part of speech. That is, there are mathematical cardinal numbers that do not function grammatically as cardinal numbers/numerals. The solution is to have an overarching grammatical category (e.g. either Category:French numerals or Category:French numbers) inside which are the non-POS categories Category:fr:Cardinal numbers and Category:fr:Ordinal numbers. These subcategories will include abbreviations and symbolic forms, as well as words, so they are not POS categories. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only workable solution that was ever devised was to split those up with definition line qualifiers! Those, indeed, categorize separately. But there is no point in having crazy templates in headings that consequently contain equal signs. In headings! Every XML dump, I find another routine, program or snippet of mine, broken by this stuff. No one else has come even close to parsing Wiktionary entries. Why? The inherent complexity. The most recent people to try were Hippietrail and Conrad.Irwin - both have made it about 1/4 of the way (from what I can see) and are unhappy with preliminary results. To clarify my position: Jakey's choice of using nonstandard headings broke more than just the entries themselves. But without any doubt, his headings make future attempts at entry parsing in other derivative projects nigh impossible. Meanwhile, he did use the definition-line qualifiers as well. The handful of examples you are talking about are already handled separately on definition lines. There is no need to introduce bizarre syntax into the headings. The name of the headings themselves was discussed and "numeral" was too nonstandard for almost everyone (not to mention, all other English dictionaries.)

One side example: Conrad's parser has made it a lot farther than Hippietrail's, so far. One ancillary benefit is that people can see the damage they cause. Go to WT:PREFs and turn on Conrad's "Paper view" option. Then visit פ-ח-ד and select "Toggle sections" view - how the entry looks when parsed, by the second or third-most advanced parser for en.wiktionary.org.

Now, by the Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2006-10/Number versus Numeral, there was pretty clear opposition to the "numeral" terminology. I myself ended up abstaining, as I had only a clue of the implications. Now, having seen entries that are in-and-of-themselves harmful, my opposition to such a change would be vehement. If I can't parse it, how is something like ninjawords supposed to? How is the google image translator supposed to?

In the context of that vote, the headings do correspond logically to "POS categories." The exceptions are where definition line qualifiers add an additional non-POS category. Since those categories are only added from definition lines (not the heading) there's no chance of them getting into the wrong "POS category" to begin with. Well, actually - the one way that could be possible, is if a term uses the nonstandard heading template, with conflicting definition line qualifiers.

If you want exotic categories for some things - fine. If you end up with a parent category somewhere that has both POS categories and non-POS categories as sub-categories - fine. But don't suggest that POS categories should be renamed out of the POS nomenclature. That just doesn't make sense. And it obviously (from the previous vote where I abstained) doesn't have support.

I'd appreciate some help convert the {{catred}}s back the way they should go for the POS number templates. Having them corrected in advance, means I'm less likely to make a goofy error when bot-fixing them. For example, Category:fr:Cardinal numbers needs to catred to Category:French cardinal numbers, not the other way around. --Connel MacKenzie 05:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made the articles polyspaston and πολυσπαστον. Please can you check the formatting and accent markings are right? Harris Morgan 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

For Ancient Greek, you'll need to ask Atelaes. I've looked over and corrected minor issues in the Latin entry. Things that I changed are:

• Use of the {{term}} template for words cited in the etymology.
• Linking key words in the definition
• Dating a quotation
• Placing Related terms before Descendants (see ELE level 4 header sequence)
• Identifying the language of the Descendant term.

But mostly it looked very good. --EncycloPetey 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gratias multas tibi ago! Harris Morgan 11:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

Hi! I have two questions: I would like to make several templates which include the locative (and don't, therefore, need a singular/plural distinction at the top). How would I go about doing that? Also is there a template to show a word is a diminutive? Indeed is there an appendix for the Latin diminutive on wiktionary? Harris Morgan 01:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

We have {{la-location}} as a specialized form of {{la-noun}} for the inflection line of Latin names of places. We don't yet have an inflection table template specifically for locative forms, but you could create one by copying an existing such template. There is (I think) such a template for Ancient Greek locative nouns, but I don't remember what it's called. Atelaes might know.

There is not standard agreed upon way to indicate the diminutive either. Dutch, Spanish, and Latin all commonly have diminutives but how they are listed varies from entry to entry. Personally, I just list them under Derived terms. --EncycloPetey 01:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'll get on with that tomorrow. On the pages of the diminuted nouns, shall I just state that they are a diminutive form in the ety? Harris Morgan 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

That's what I usually do. --EncycloPetey 01:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Concerning your proposed L4, would this go immediately under pronunciation (i.e. before POS) or after POS with the rest of the L4's. Atelaes 19:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

See the vote. It specifically says "for the Pronunciation section" in the first sentence (which is intended to summarize the proposal). --EncycloPetey 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have been unable to come to a conclusion about the vote because I am having some trouble understanding who the target user for the pronunciation section is. It can't be very often used by native speakers. Some folks would find that they don't have the right software for the audio files. Do most ESLers using Wiktionary learn one of the phonetic alphabets? The vocabulary sometimes used (e.g., "rhotic") would discourage "normal" users. Is the section aimed more at the language community for whom these things are not barriers to help them learn and teach? I would think that homophones, ordinary-alphabet rhymes, and hyphenation would be the limit for most of the "ordinary" Wiktionary-using ESL users I posit. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned at WT:AES that if a verb + prep is followed by another verb it deserves it's own entry (like in English). I think that's fine, but I was nerdily interested as to why. Any references you can point me to? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure whether I can point you to a Spanish resource that would cover this. My reasoning is that a preposition normally takes a noun (or other substantive) as an object. But, when a verb follows the "preposition" that is often an indication that the prep. is part of a verb phrase and lacks a normal object. My copy of A Student Grammar of Spanish by Ronald E. Batchelor gives special attention to such constructions, with their own definitions in the Prepositions chapters (e.g. p217-218). My experience is that other Spanish textbooks do the same. --EncycloPetey 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I was originally wondering if this was a pan-language enwikt policy (why do we do it for English entries also?), but it looks like it's not, just a guiding influence. I'll try and follow that. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you take a look at this? First, I want to make sure I did the formatting (and macrons) correctly. Second, I just created a new template for etymon languages (per Wiktionary:Grease_pit#Wiktionary:Etymology.2Flanguage_templates), and was wondering what your thoughts were on it. Thanks. Atelaes 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks fine to me, though it's missing the Descendants section. I'll add that now. --EncycloPetey 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I didn't find any rules or guidelines in Wiktionary:Redirections about the infinitives of English verbs. However, infinitives are verbs forms that people are likely to type when they want to learn about a specific verb. By the way, with certain online dictionaries, you can type as well the basic form as the infinitve form ("dance" or "to dance") to find its definition. And with some others, you can't, like Merriam-Webster and Wiktionary. That's too bad because these redirects are harmless, don't you think? And as you probably know, it's the same for German and Dutch infinitives. So why not including all these redirects into Wiktionary with a bot? 16@r 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you double-check the etymology on concupiscent. Some of the Latin was a bit over my head, and I just wanted to make sure I didn't screw it up. Thanks. Atelaes 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. The participle was in the singular, and for translations in etymologies, I generally prefer to leave out the presonal pronoun subject from verbs (though I include them in the definition on the lemma page. --EncycloPetey 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The audio missing on 2/1/2008's WOTD broke the RSS feed. I think I've fixed it...but please be more careful to get to the audio files if no one else does. --Connel MacKenzie 01:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I thought Dvortygirl was going to handle this. --EncycloPetey 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My audio is fixed, and hopefully staying that way. It was a setting that must have come unclicked. I think somebody has done audio for each of the words on the list from my user page. Personally, I think 'concupiscent' or 'osculation' would be a good choice for Feb. 14, but I'll leave that part to you. --Dvortygirl 04:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd find gelid more appropriate myself. Atelaes 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I've shuffled 2/3 to 2/6 to add a more Super Bowl Sunday-friendly WOTD for Feb 3rd. Do I need to fill in 2/7-2/29 or did you finish compiling your list already? --Connel MacKenzie 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, I finished compiling the list and will have them in shortly. --EncycloPetey 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello EncycloPetey, thanks for your welcome. Regards.--Jatrobat 03:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday a conversation took place concerning pronunciation on Wiktionary. If you'd like to read it, it's stored here, but bear in mind, it's long, roundabout, and convoluted (and involves a lot of argument over whether IPA is something we should have at Wiktionary). To sum it up, there was discussion about a script which would automagically convert between IPA, SAMPA, and enPR. Whilst there were a number of concerns raised about a script going back and forth between IPA and enPR, the big thing is that enPR is missing some requisite symbols. I imagine you'll be at least skeptical of (if not outright hostile towards) the idea, but regardless, I thought you should know of what's being thrown around. While a number of people were involved, I think that User:Conrad.Irwin is the best POC for this, as he's the one working on the script, and probably the one who best understands its limitations. PS, Feb WOtD etymologies are done. Atelaes 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The one argument I didn't notice anyine making is that enPR applies specifically to English; the point of IPA is that it is designed to be adapted to many languages, even ones that haven't yet been discovered. IPA has internationality as one great strength over enPR. The strength enPR has is that it is relative, and so is less tied to any one dialect. It's less precise as a result, but requires fewer symbols and spans more dialects with the same sequence of symbols in many cases. While a code to convert from one system to another would be challenging, I can imagine that a reasonably reliable code could be written. There will be cases where the conversion won't work, but careful preparation of the code should minimize problems. And of course IPA to SAMPA ought to be relatively straightforward.

The possible snags I can think of:

1. Non-English IPA includes some symbols (such as tone marks) that would have to be accounted for.
2. Some editors like to use less common markings, such as arches and other optional connectors that the code would have to be ready for.
3. We have a few anon editors who regularly add IPA but don't speak English as a primary language. I know of one in particular whom Widsith and I have reverted on multiple occasions because of bad English pronunciation edits.
4. Some older IPA pronunciations use incorrect characters, such as the colon and apostrophe in place of the lengthening and primary stress. These need to be fixed.
5. Some {{IPA}} templates include more than one pronunciation separated by a pipe (or a comma), and again the code would have to be prepared for this case.

--EncycloPetey 04:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

Per your comment w:User talk:Nbarth#Chinese on 說曹操，曹操到 and 说曹操，曹操到, I've now discovered Wiktionary:About Chinese, and modified the entries accordingly.

Nbarth 23:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the welcome. Connell66 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, actually muris (pronounced mūris) is the genitive singular form of mus and murus, since the Latin for "mouse" is declined in the third class and the Latin for "wall" is declined in the second class. But it is not the genitive plural of any Latin noun, as far as I know. (In addition, muris (pronounced mūrīs) is the dative and ablative plural of murus.) -- Frous 13:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. My bad. I just checked it better and noticed that, with the Latin second-class nouns, the genitive singular ends with -i, not -is. :) -- Frous 22:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Umm..what? ;) I haven't put them there as descendants, I have just fixed the header. To be honest, I also wondered what they we're doing there, since it sounds quite unlikely that the North Germanic words for "mouse" would stem from Latin. They stem from Old Norse, don't they? -- Frous 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you put the hyphenation after the IPA pronunciation at musta lista. As far as I've learned from here, those should be in the reverse order. Has that policy changed? -- Frous 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

EDIT: I've also understood that the IPA codes can be used instead of the "audio files in any relevant dialects". -- Frous 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha sorry, I just noticed that I wrote "Icelandic" in the header of quid ni instead of "Latin". =P I guess I'm just eiting like a zombie here. =) --BiT 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you get a sec, would be willing to look into this suffix for patrimony. Check out its talk page and the new Tea Room discussion on it. Thanks. Atelaes 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I notice that the section on this in WT:ALA in still in progress so ɪ just thought I'd ask you if this is encouraged? I'm currently using as my source. Should I be adding just classical pronunciation or also Ecclesiastical? How should I know where to put the ˈ? I made Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Classical" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. is it done properly? Should it be called Classical Latin rather than just classical? Sorry for the bombardment - if you can answer any of these I will be grateful, Harris Morgan 12:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

I've not settled even in my mind how to go about doing some of this, which is why I haven't added this information to WT:ALA yet. There is a potential problem with using Lua error in Module:parameters at line 376: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "Classical" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E., however, since many languages have a "Classical" period and might want to use the same accent header for a pronunciation line. This might be an issue for the WT:GP; someone there might be able to code this so that the language can be specified as an argument.

As to the larger question: any pronunciation you can give would be good to have, but it is best to explicitly state which kind of pronunciation is being given. I've only recently come to feel this way, so you won't find many existing pronunciations marked this way yet. One additional problem, though: I've held off adding IPA pronunciations to Latin because I can't find a consensus anywhere on how the Classical Latin vowels were pronounced. There seem to be two schools of thought, but neither group is ever clear or explicit. One school seems to think that long and short vowels differed only in duration, with the same base IPA symbol applying to both long and short vowel sounds. A competing school of thought maintains that some of the short vowels actually were articulated differently, and so we would want a different IPA symbol for those (i and o, specifically). However, as I said, I can't find any publications that are explicit about the actual sounds. If you know of something, could you please drop me a citation. I have access to a linguistics library that is reasonably close, and may drop in there Monday to see if I can find anything. --EncycloPetey 23:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

People have told me Allen's Vox Latina (preview) is pretty good for pronunciation, probably the closest thing to an official handbook. It's no good for me though - I get lost in the jargon. Harris Morgan 00:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Yes, I realize that, but it is nice to be able to quickly see what's been done and what hasn't. In previous rounds, I'd sort of lose track and a lot of it wouldn't get addressed. Atelaes 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS, concerning albus, take a look at ἡγέομαι for an example of the format I've been using. I believe it's correct, but I'm admittedly not positive (the format, not the etymology itself). Atelaes 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried the link at Wiktionary:IRC channel? That's how I always get in. Atelaes 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You need to get in touch with User:Ivan Štambuk. He's been doing amazing work with PIE/proto-Slavic/Gothic/Mycenaean Greek/Old Persian/all that cool stuff. Atelaes 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know which to use. Elementary Lewis uses the macron, while L&S doesn't. We have consulto, which endorses the macron and condemnare which doesn't. Do you know which is the right one? Harris Morgan 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

I meant within the page - thanks for the advice! Harris Morgan 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Surely "con-" is pronounced like "coffee" and "cōn-" like "cone", the macron indicating a long vowel (as, according to well-known lexicographer J. R. R. Tolkien, does a circumflex)? That's my understanding anyway... Korax1214 19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not according to continental Latin scholars. Latin pronunciation as taught in English schools differs significantly from what other scholars believe. --EncycloPetey 23:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

What did I do wrong with Top Brass? 88.107.15.164 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

edit. I mean top brass sorry. 88.107.15.164 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

oh just the synonyms bit was wrong not the noun template thing as well? The entry I copied that bit from didn't have synonyms so I guessed. Thanks for the link to the entry layout thing. Is there a way you could make that more obvious to new wiktionary people? 88.107.15.164 01:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the replies. I might create an account in future - I'm not on my own computer at the moment so I don't want to do it now. I'm sure I've seen "top brasses" and a google search finds over 1000 hits - can you point me in the direction of where it tells me what I need to know about citations as I didn't spot an obvious link on the welcome template. I'm in the UK so I'm going to bed now but I'll look in again when I can. Thanks 88.107.15.164 02:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the feedback, regarding arouse, would such things as curiosity and interest be considered feelings? I would categorize these as thoughts. Differentiating between the passionate and the intellectual seems worthy of a single word addition.

I would regard those as having an emotional component, specifically a desire or "spark". The term "thoughts" is too broad a term in this situation. Most "thoughts" are not the result of arousal. --EncycloPetey 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. /ˈriˈkɑn/ is straight out of the NOAD, but I know their IPA has some quirks. /ˈri.kɑːn/ seems fine to me too. I'll add the verb sense plus pronunciation in a few minutes, so have a look back. Regards. —Mzajac 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Will do. :) --334a 02:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yup, all third declension neuter nouns ending in -e, -ar, or -al are i-stems. --334a 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's easy to forget that rule when trying to remember it along with the other rules (the parisyllabics like auris and civis and bases ending in two consonants like arx and urbs) --334a 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes I noticed that, but I figured I'd use B2C and PAR for their own respective words. But I've also seen Template:ladecl3par be used in places where Template:ladecl3:b2c should be used, which is unquestionably wrong.

That reminds me: why do they have those separate declension templates usually placed above the table anyway? Think there could be a way to incorporate them into the declension templates themselves (e.g. merging Template:ladecl3par to the top of Template:la-decl-3rd-PAR, Template:ladecl3:b2c to Template:la-decl-3rd-B2C, Template:ladecl3 to Template:la-decl-1st, etc.)? That way, you would get two templates which always coincide with each other merged into one.

--334a 05:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Didn't you notice? You ought to just ban him and tell him to get a new username. --74.86.240.106 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I try to be patient. Some folks do learn after a while and are constructive. --EncycloPetey 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for being lazy, I've not been making these scaled down versions for infinitives because it's likely Keene can make a Latin inflection bot for verbs (see user talk:Keene#Inflection bot). That is why I have been trying frantically to get all the Latin verbs into the right templates etc. Harris Morgan 18:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Yeah. I figured I'd give him the 8 different conjugation templates (4 normal, 4 deponent) in such batches. The really weird stuff (sum, fio, fero etc.) will naturally have to be done manually. Harris Morgan 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Thanks - I'll use that in the future (I just had a 'what the hell' moment and wikified it anyway). Harris Morgan 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Have checked the definition the Merriam-Webster definition, still not seeing support for the "Of or relating to something that is in question as to its value or intent." definition.

Thanks for your time. -85.91.40.15 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That would be the second definition, also given as "controversial". I'll look to see whether the OED has quotations that clarify the issue, but won't be able to do so until I get home. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

...Hello i am going to try with this one "Disputatious" 'Dis'- a paossible reference for distance. 'Put'- to do with 'tatious'-can be devided as just 'tious'- possible meaning as continuance and or a still thought wich may have a return wich then makes it a distant value type, the begining of the full terming is however represented with a disput and may have concerns with an e at the end of it such as dispute or disputed wich then may represent a continuance and or again meaning some-sort of reference, for example to extend the end terming and by clarifying it as a disputation may have a reference this perhaps means the tatious wich carries in old times such as mutation or even when did the start of 'tion' come to use. Standard agreement most literature, termings,and or words were set for useage. For an example the theory now at hand or thought is how long could an example of such sort go on for before it was a usage of more. Posibly meaning a form of relaxation or culture of usage and then some may even not be in currious with it though another form of speaking to be used. This is to find interesting, and if there's no connection of anysort concerning the usage and of perhaps yearage specy, then i shall delete my knowledge to a better understanding that, to must be worth something. And start over when then to set example with ease and or better clarifying.

I am not sure if specy is spell't correctly sorry.

To make effort here my topic in constant research is Art Economics History, my research only consists of Literature.11:49 P.M. E.S.T. USERTALKPAGE is D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass. This is by David George DeLancey.

I am replying now to EncyloPetey. I was visiting DCduring and thought to read some of your interesting stuff. Realising i need much more experience i shall comduct differently.

Hi! We seem to have clashing ideas on how a latin present active infinitive page should be made. You prefer use just text with bold and italic as in

 ''present active infinitive of'' ''']'''

whereas Atelaes and I have been writing

 {{inflection of|porto|portō|present|active|infinitive}}

I presumed that using a template would be OK. I don't have to go on another round of the -āres do I? Harris Morgan 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Using the template is fine. I create my pages for inflected verb verbs using cut-and-paste from existing entries. The intention was to eventually have a generic verb template {{conjugation of}} that would accept shorter codes for common arguments, the way {{inflection of}} does for nouns and adjectives, but I've never gotten around to making the template. Perhaps this weekend... It's one of the items I'd like to see in place before we generate the verb form pages by bot, anyway. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Harris Morgan 17:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC).Reply

Huh? Dictionary.com lists "unctuously flattering" and/or "effusively earnest" - I've never heard our definition for smarmy before. --Connel MacKenzie 01:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The definitions are close, but that doesn't mean ours can't be improved. This is a word I've rarely heard, and don't have a good feel for the definition from either prior context or the uses I went hunting for. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey, I saw your remarks in the tea room on the Dutch version of gun. I fully agree with the voiced guttural (I'm afraid it's my mother tongue..). Regarding the vowel however this might interest you. Sorry it's in Dutch, basically what it says is that the short u as in put,gun etc. in Dutch has always been a problem to render in IPA. Some write ʏ, but that is more the short ü in german, others write œ which is the eu is french peur. Both french and german ears are offended if we substitute a dutch uh though (I know, been there done that..). So what they did was take the official recordings by the IPA people of how ʏ,œ,ɶ, ɵ etc. are defined and let Dutch listeners pick which one came closest. The outcome was surprisingly ɵ. I don't know how accepted this is in phoneticsland but I have been using the symbol on nl:. Jcwf 23:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I took Dutch for only one semester while in college; the vowels were the hardest sounds to get right (although sch can be difficult for an American too). --EncycloPetey 02:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nah.. just say: als een schitterend geschenk schoot een schelle schicht schichtig uit de hoge ;-)

Jcwf 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Haha, but I thought the Dutch u was most resembled in the American pronunciation of Habsburg, being something like Hapsberg. In that case the e sounds like the Dutch u as in putten (golfing). Mallerd 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for the list. Can I very humbly make one minor request. While the list is immensely useful, it would be more helpful for me if it was sorted by date instead of alphabetically. That way I can shoot out the first few ones, and not have to do any last minute rushing. I realize this is somewhat petty, and I apologize. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be of service. I hope I didn't screw up any of your dating schemes or anything. Do you have any of the immediately upcoming WotD's picked out? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

March words as listed on my page are done. I think intercalary would have been a good choice for Feb. 29, but too late now, I suppose. I didn't do naissant because I didn't know how to say it confidently. --Dvortygirl 07:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I notice that several of the entries are the "alternative spelling of" type and that naissant lacks the English definition. --Dvortygirl 07:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't seem to be able to make this entry correctly. When you get a chance, could you tidy it up please? Thx -- Algrif 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the {{es-adj}} template can't handle plurale tantum situations. I've substituted the {{infl}} template. --EncycloPetey 17:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://wildfireness.wikispaces.com/ join if ya like --Yukongold 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you take a look at viscosus when you get a sec? I wasn't sure which templates were the standard. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. The Inflection tables for adjectives accept macron forms as optional additional arguments. --EncycloPetey 00:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that. Where do you find those on the character map? Black Velvet 01:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Maybe in mythology:

"Nor!" dixit deus Rhenus. "Et tu, amice?" respondit Oceanus

Or have the dictionaries all been swum? Or is this just paradigms gone wild? Jcwf 03:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Pardon my very stale LatinReply

Sorry, but your original request looked to be doubting the verb nō itself. After you posted on WT:RFV, I understood you were doubting only the supine forms, which is valid as I commented there. I have corrected the entry. The page is one of the older ones that had not been updated, and like many of the early Latin contributions was initiated by an individual not well schooled in Latin grammar, and without checking against major sources.

Something seems to have gone wrong with the no-passive template

Jcwf 03:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gratias agio tibi.

Jcwf 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Compare {{nob}} (which I just created) and {{nno}} which you and Robert created some time ago. Clearly they should use the same format. My first instinct is to switch nob to just Bokmål, but, at the same time, I think there might be some merit in noting that they're Norwegian. Your thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just to make sure, all entries marked as Slovenian should be switched to Slovene, correct? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where was this discussed? Because both ISO and Ethnologue use Slovenian (for the language) and I've always thought Slovene was the demonym, not the adjective. Harris Morgan 23:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

This was decided long ago. There has been extensive discussion on this issue on Wikipedia as well. The short of it is that both names are technically legitimate. I have three books on the language and all use "Slovene" for the name of the language, but others have found equally valid sources for "Slovenian" as the name of the language. In fact, both names are used on Wikipedia for the language. Here, however, we want consistency and call each language by exactly one name, even if mutliple names and spellings are permissible in the English language. All our categories and templates use "Slovene", so we want the headers and Translation tables to match. --EncycloPetey 02:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just created Template:la-decl-irreg for nouns which completely stray from normal declension rules. I have used it at deus and I imagine it can be used at bos too. I'm not the most technically apt so it is quite a simple template but requires a lot of manual work on the page. Is there a more elegant way of doing inflection for these type of nouns? Harris Morgan 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

There is a Template:grc-decl-blank-sing which we may be able to use as a basis? Harris Morgan 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

The template you set up looks fine to me. --EncycloPetey 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if it was bothering you.Kitty53 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talk page. Thryduulf 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

So, I've been continuing your work of sorting and organizing the Austronesian languages, and I created Category:Eastern Malayo-Polynesian languages, but later noticed that you had already created Category:Oceanic languages. I guess it seems to me that Eastern Malayo-Polynesian is a bit more appropriate for our purposes based on this family tree, but I thought I'd get your input. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't try to recognize every possible grouping or level. For most languages, the most recognizable level, or the most practical, or the one most likely to appear in a linguistics text was what I created. So, for example, I created Category:Bantu languages but not Category:Bantoid languages. If we do ever end up with a huge number of Bantoid languages (that aren't in the Bantu group), then the intervening level can always be created later. My choices depended also on how many languages we had in the group (or were likely to have) and how large the category might become as a result. --EncycloPetey 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we certainly don't need to have a cat for every language group (can you imagine trying to maintain such a set of categories as linguists constantly waffle? :)) However, Eastern Malayo-Polynesian is just one level up from Oceanic, so it'll get all the Oceanic as well as "South Halmahera-West New Guinea" languages. On top of that, it compares with Category:Central Malayo-Polynesian languages a little better. I'm not that concerned either way, I just want to come to a decision so we have somewhere to put these. I don't think we have any "South Halmahera-West New Guinea" languages yet, so we could use either one exactly the same. Pick a horse. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to pick the horse. Both names have plusses and minuses in this case. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Central Malayo-Polynesian it is. Now, I don't want to hear any temper tantrums about it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for notifying me of that. I'll make sure to link the term in the future. Psychless 03:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EP - could you tell me what was on the deleted page permît? My bot tried creating the page, but it seems to have a problem with recently-deleted pages. I don't think it was a Keenebot entry, because I hadn't got that far. --Keene 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was an anonymous contribution, and the full and complete text was "permitting"... that's all. --EncycloPetey 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you have not yet commented on Wiktionary:Beer parlour#CFI for languages, I was wondering if you had seen it. I figured you would have some useful comments. If you've already noticed it and simply have nothing to add, I apologize for bugging you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The points I might have raised have been (for the most part) raised by others already. I have been out of town and then sick for the past five days, so have limited my wiki-activity. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, as long as you were aware of it. On a slightly related note, may I ask how "Slovenian" --> "Slovene" is coming? I managed to knock out all or most (I guess we'll see when the next dump happens) of "Biblical Hebrew" last night, so I think we've got a shot at finishing Robert's list the next time around. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a means to search for items that specifically use ==Slovenian== as a header, so I have to wait for Robert's updates to find and correct them. I've been doing this for the past dozen or more updates. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've asked him to whip up a list so we can tackle them all (I really want to get it taken care of this time :-)). Btw, he also added a new column to User:Robert Ullmann/L2/valid, so we can go through the language categories, making sure they're properly sorted (and in existence). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed. I assume you've seen the list I started as well, which also lists the unused version-2 codes and links to the corresponding Wikipedia article as well? --EncycloPetey 05:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't noticed that, no. Link? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a personal project off my User page: User:EncycloPetey/Languages. I expect to expand it again next week, but I run many, many checks and do cleanup as I go, so it's not just a list. --EncycloPetey 05:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Man, and I thought I was going to get the jump on those Slovenian words, as I saw the update almost immediately after Robert made it. You really didn't leave much for me. -Atelaes ;;;;;;λάλει ἐμοί 17:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, was this 'Slovene vs. Slovenian' naming issue resolved by discussion/consensus somewhere, or the L2 'Slovene' was retained by pure inertia? If not, I'd like to raise it somewhere, for I have reasons to believe that 'Slovenian' is more proper ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 18:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This was discussed over a year ago. There was a lengthy, heated debate on Wikipedia before we ever started on the issue here. Their conclusion was that both names are equally legitimate and equally proper. Wikipedia continues to use and permit both names. We chose to stick with the version of the name we had started with when the category was first created in 2005, a year before "Slovenian" began to be used by Drago. The Wikipedia article on the language is called w:Slovene language, so our use also matches that of our sister project. Although Ethnologue uses Slovenian as the headerr name, its includes Slovene as an acceptable alternate name . Both names are used and proper in English, although certain specific organizations tend to prefer one or the other. Since both names are used in English, and have been for over a century, there is no reason to think one is more proper than the other. --EncycloPetey 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you point me to that discussion here on WT? All I can find are some sporadic comments Thanks. --Ivan Štambuk 11:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I can't recall. It was so long ago and was never a heated debate here. We took the approach of going along with what Wikipedia decided (which was that both were OK), and then went with the older category name per Stephen. With no serious debate here, I don't know that we have comments located in just one place. --EncycloPetey 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had been attempting to save Wiki bandwidth. 24.29.228.33 05:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there an agreed upon format somewhere? I was just going by the way I used to do it, hadn't realized there was a normalized format. I have added a bunch, wish I had known we had guidelines a few weeks ago :) - DaveRoss 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have made argentifodina and argenti fodina, L&S listing the two-word version as an alternative spelling and I used wiktionary:Alternative spellings as a guide. Am I allowed to decline a two-word term in an inflection section? Harris Morgan 01:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Yes, though in most cases it is difficult to do and not necessary unless the combination does not follow the usual rules. There are some cases where the declined forms of a two word entry do not follow the expected pattern, and in those cases the inflection should be given. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent! Thanks for the message, Harris Morgan 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

transfer coments to Template_talk:la-verb

Just to double check this, {{latinverb}} is deprecated, and all entries which use it should be switched to {{la-verb}}, correct? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the pages that use it are the same ones that have the old blocky conjugation tables, so they're being cleaned up up as I work through the templates. The syntax of the arguments is different, since {{latinverb}} has only four arguments, whereas {{la-verb}} has eight. --EncycloPetey 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure there are no 1st conjugation semi-deponents. I just managed to find one tiny little gender mistake. Good job orphaning all the old templates. Harris Morgan 16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. I'll be doing the same for 3rd and 4th conjugation templates over the next two weeks. Of course, that still leaves the lemma/non-lemma problem for many entries, but at least the templates should all be right. I just have the annoying habit of finding situations for which we don't have templates. :P --EncycloPetey 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMHO implying that we have translations at all is a disservice to a much greater number of users. Circeus 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Blimey! I'm no good with templates. I know this would need an "if" tag, but I don't know how to do them. Can you help please? Harris Morgan 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

I copied it straight from {{en-intj}}. Harris Morgan 17:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

We don't include actual rhymes in the pronunciation section, just a link to the page, correct? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correct. We put the rhymes list in a separate namespace, since all the terms are mutual rhymes anyway. I've corrected the entry. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Salve! I was wondering if we should make a template for the Latin compound verbs ending in -sum? Victionarium has one and I'm sure it'll save a lot of time from if we were to do it manually - there are about 10 of these verbs in the whole language, I think. What should it be called? {{la-conj-esse compound}}? Harris Morgan 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Since sum is the lemma, why not {{la-conj-sum-comp}} ? There's no reason to have to spell out the word compound, is there? If it's only going to get used 10 times or so, them it's not as if we need an easy-to-remember name, I suppose. --EncycloPetey 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

True. I'll make that template later then. Please can you have a look at gratias ago? I have no idea how to format it. Harris Morgan 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC).Reply

Phrasal verbs are tricky. We don't even have a firmly established policy on how to handle them in English. I've done some formatting, but it could still use more work and more information. One idea floating around is that we never bother with a full inflection line or conjugation table for phrasal verbs. While this does make entry formatting easier, it does mean that the user has to look elsewhere for that information. So there are people who tend to each side. The problem of conjugation is of course much worse in Latin, so we might just side (in Latin) with those who advocate not including conjugated forms on phrasal verb entries. --EncycloPetey 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yet both sections that currently exist only deal with Latin and Ancient Greek (and as a tangential note, it doesn't exist, but regardless). I don't see what's wrong with getting rid of the link right now; if needed later, it can be added in again, can't it? Blast 03:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could I please point you in the direction of Wiktionary talk:About Latin#absens? Cheers, Thryduulf 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if you might have something useful to add to the conversation here. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not really. All the major points have been raised. I ccan't predict which way the community would choose in this situation. Personally, I always use /t/, even though I know it doesn't show the true pronunciation used in American English, because that is what we've always used and because of the previous community policy on /r/. With the change in policy, the community might decide to do the same with /t/. --EncycloPetey 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

...10:35 P.M. E.S.T. Cape Cod Massachusetts. Hello my usertalk:name is D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass. I thought i could do something with Wikipedia, and i'm still going to try, though it is for sure i have alot to learn when comeing to certain things perhaps all the Major; as of those two markings after major and some spelling and also the degree's in what i may understand as Pernounciations and that typed word went without checking on how you spell't it, I'll check now oops Pronunciations without looking twice oop's.

Anyway starting a new Paregraph like this one would be an effort to. So to avoud youe busyness. I shall limit my standard non patience degree and perhaps stay tunes with Wikipedia and maybe some usertalk page catergories. We all need to express somehow and i understand the limitatations within a Program.

I am the type of person that has many researchable ideas, i can research something and find the hidin truth,may i say things that may be possible. For insteance i thought years ago that a Dinasour was related to the bird just by the three winged and three clawed sections about them scales within the ostrage and scales within the large grounded dinosour just from remembering something on The radio or t.v., Perhaps while sitting at the truck stop taking a break as in the 1980's and just viewing odds and ends.

Now just to note something or sit and talk about it well that is a different story, then years later while watching it on t.v. as the discovery channel and or the History channel well thats something.

Meanwhile days later wondering what that person is doing when then remembering wow there was once someone whom had discused this with me. For now i wonder what this last sentance starting with meanwhile might represent, I mean is there a word for that. As i am in quickness right now the word i think of is dalema, so for me a carrector like that might be worthy for an example of a word, which would or could then be or become a sentance.

Or maybe now yes i am in a Delema, spell check well till next time Thank You.

10:54 P.M. E.S.T. usertalkpageD.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass. ----David George DeLancey 3-24-2008

I beg of you to stop removing valid content. View this webpage, which is compiled by data taken from EXPERT sources... sources which originally are books written by people that actually have a life based on the information I'm showing you (also known as Experts), but to which you (you, who has no practical experience in the field let alone a lifetime of it) is "revealed" to be instantly false due to apparent bias, and ignorance.

Also, please try your best to realize the statement:

"As a language name, first recorded as L. theodice, 786 C.E. in correspondence between Charles the Great's court and the Pope, in reference to a synodical conference in Mercia; thus it refers to Old English. "

refers to a letter in which Charles the Great's Court was conversing with the Pope about the current situation in Britain, and it's (at the time) inhabitants (Anglo-Saxons) whom spoke Old English."

when paraphrased, the statement means "Theodice is an old Latin word used by Charles the Great's court for Old English."

So all in all, you did not have a reason to revert the edits, other than to further your personal bias against the facts of the content of the article.

No, I reverted because you butchered the information from the article, thereby misrepresenting its content and misleading our users. We've been through this before. You have a personal bias and agenda in pushing a point of view that is not supported by your sources. Please do not push your viewpoint here. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well then i'd be happy to show you that you are wrong and all the information was anything but from my personal bias, and you also are using a 100% inaccurate term in regards to the article being "butchered" as you call the process of adding information:

Please don't post the content here. I read it; I've deleted it. I do not need to see it again. Go post on Wikipedia, since your content is encyclopedic, not lexical. --EncycloPetey 03:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you look at the history log? I'm sure you will understand the problem I'm having. Thanks Mallerd 18:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some quick research suggests that it is indeed archaic, not obsolete. I can find uses in 20th century literature on Wikisource with about the same frequency as in earlier sources. --EncycloPetey 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you. I shall edit the obsolete section of that page then. Mallerd 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have finally unearthed my Liddel and Scott and my Bennet's Latin grammar. And I've ordered Botanical Latin. This should facilitate an improved level of my contribution to Latin, Greek and Translingual! Less tidyng for you. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I recommend Langenscheidt's Latin-English / English-Latin Dictionary as well. It's very good and very cheap (about $10). →ISBN. I got mine at B&N. --EncycloPetey 20:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

Thank you for your welcome message... I've been active on en.wiki and it.wiki for some time, but I am new to wiktionaries...

However, I noticed that the -0 templates are actually being used here... see

And they have a use. I can't read or write esperanto, for example, but I know a small bit of it and some words, enough to do some edits. That's the reason for me to have the eo-0 babelfish in other wiki projects... and that's why I wanted to create the relevant template (until I read your msg to me).

Did I convince you? ;-)

--Lou Crazy 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is true that a number of those templates have been imported, but you'll find that only a very few are ever placed on aynone's user page. Most have no pages linking to them. The only user I can recall ever using them is User:Opiaterein. They're not forbidden, just not used by anyone who sticks around, which is why you got a redlink. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any objections to me creating the eo-0 template and category?

--Lou Crazy 01:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. --EncycloPetey 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Lou Crazy 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I notice that we use the same way of answering, by keeping BOTH sides of the discussion in both talk pages. I find it the only sensible way to discuss ;-)

That practice varies here, by user and by specific conversation. Unlike Wikipedia, we have a small regular community, and it's possible to see everyone currently editing in the "Recent Changes" listings, because we tend to have fewer edits per minute than Wikipedia. Conversations can therefore happen quickly sometimes. --EncycloPetey 01:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am starting to like this community more ;-) --Lou Crazy 01:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

One more thing: You may find it useful to know about User:SemperBlotto, who is responsible for most of our Italian entries. He can help you with templates, formatting, and questions about standard practices. We do have a Wiktionary:About Italian style guide, but it includes only a little information right now, since we haven't had a lot of other contributors in Italian. I focus on English, Latin, and (sometimes) Spanish. --EncycloPetey 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the pointer. I'll keep it in mind! I might even do something for latin ;-)

--Lou Crazy 02:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your welcome, and for your comments on the above page; I've replied to your comments.

Incidentally, perhaps it would be useful to set up Magic Cube and Rubik's Cube as redirects to magic cube? -- Korax1214 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep. There are some interesting things still missing. I uploaded a couple of photos of pockets the other day for TheDaveRoss, at his request.

It's almost time for next month's WOTD audio. The way my weeks have been going, I think it would help a whole lot to have the list this weekend with enough time left for me to do something about it before Monday, if we can. --Dvortygirl 15:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I may be able to rearrange things to do that in the next couple of days. --EncycloPetey 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please leave my bot userpage alone. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is not a registered bot (see WT:BOT); therefore it does not have a userpage. You are currently hogging three separate accounts, and have no permission to run a bot here. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

See continuing discussions at User_talk:Cool Cat. Conrad.Irwin 21:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have proposed the word/term "musclebike" for inclusion in Wiktionary. I have identified three citations from printed material, and plan on adding more with time. One thing I'm not entirely clear on is whether I can cite uses of the word from commercial enterprises who use it to describe their product.

Thank you Mr Flamewerks

We prefer non-commercial citations, so I think I'd need to see the particular citations you've given. As long as the citations are used to support the word, and the word is not the name of a particular product, I think we can work with them. --EncycloPetey 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that is per an OTRS communication, I plan to keep an eye on it and block/delete if the "suggestions" I made aren't followed. - DaveRoss 21:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned at Wiktionary:Votes/2008-03/Keenebot2 to auto-add foreign-language verb forms that wikilinkless pages won't show up in WT:STATS. Could you please explain why, or point me to the relevant WT page on the matter? -Keene2 18:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pages that do not contain explicit wikilinks are not counted as "good articles" by the software. (Links included by virtue of transcluded templates don't count.) This discussion has happened over and over, and I'm not sure that there's just one place to point you to. If you can visit the IRC, you can ask if someone there understands the techincal process better, but the stats are done through MW and are counted this way for all projects. --EncycloPetey 19:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It was misspelled, badly capitalized, not in English and not particularly well written, in short I wasn't going to keep any of it and was rewriting when a restored version moved in on top ;). Usually I just nuke and start over when there is nothing I will keep in the original. - DaveRoss 04:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The GFDL requires that we attribute work to the author, if we don't keep the work and don't use the work...it doesn't exist as far as we are concerned. Do what you like of course, but I don't see the use in keeping revisions which contain no content which we use. - DaveRoss 04:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, refering to User_talk:Mutante#Templates, i put some uncategorized Latin words into Category:Latin words needing attention by using {{la-attention}} as you requested. By now i have also compiled this though: Wiktionary:Categorizing#Latin. So if you feel like getting into those, would be nice. Greets, Mutante 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have started doing some of those, but am already involved in the massive cleanup of the verb conjugation tables. They may not be done quickly, but they will be done bit by bit. I like to cleanup and expand the whole page, rather than make a minimal fix. --EncycloPetey 14:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know if you had this on your watchlist or not, and I just wanted to make sure you saw the comment posted here. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I noted that you were involved in moving to all intents and purposes to for all intents and purposes. b.g.c. shows "to" outnumbering "for" about 2:1. Does the evidence from other sources out weigh that? I have deleted the redirect, but didn't complete the switch I intended pending your response. I may revert myself. DCDuring TALK 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, I have never heard the version with "to"; I am honestly surprised by the Google responses. I suspect this may be a regional variation between two forms. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd chime in here to say that my experience mirrors that of EP's. I have never heard "to all intents and purposes." Perhaps it is a UK/US thing? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/July_2007#for all intensive purposes. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

News shows much more "for" than "to", b.g.c. shows a modest trend toward parity between "for" and "to". My own experience would have favored "for" as well. I suppose the entry could stay as it is. Is it worth having an "alternative form" entry? DCDuring TALK 16:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it's common, then it should be included somehow. However, we don't seem to have a consensus on when to use a redirect for such phrases, and when to have an "Alternative form" entry. --EncycloPetey 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you talk a look at my replies to SemperBlotto - these explain my edit. If you're OK with me continuing with this contribution, could you re-instate my edit so that I can continue? 82.46.24.62 17:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. I don't want to create a use account just in order to edit this one piece of content. All I want to do is to ensure that all of the phyto- words in the list are represented and defined in Wiktionary. I appreciate that the phyto- page will be a little messed up while I'm doing this, but when I've finished, it'll hopefully look like it should look. I'd really appreciate it if you'd hold off from treading on my toes while I do this. Can you reinstate my edit so that I can continue working? 82.46.24.62 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Content is now in the sandbox please feel free to use that for temporary stuff. Conrad.Irwin 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation re: Wiktionary culture. Apologies for not taking the time to research that beforehand. This piece of transwiking work is hopefully a one-off, so if you can bear with my lack of knowledge of protocol here while I continue with the task, it would really be appreciated. Completing phyto- should only take a few minutes if I can do it without interruptions. I'll still have -phyte to do, which is bigger, plus the smaller zoo-, -mycete etc. but I'll work on one page at a time to attempt to minimise disruption, if that will help. Are you OK with that? 82.46.24.62 18:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. User:Conrad.Irwin wasn't happy with the approach, unfortunately, so I haven't been able to get very far. However, User:Keene has suggested a compromise, which Conrad.Irwin supports. Keene has made the necessary change at phyto- - would you be happy with this approach being adopted for the other pages? 82.46.24.62 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

So I just have to remove those redirect pages? I've redirected those so-called Finnish "prefixes" to the pages of the base forms of the Finnish nouns, because most of them are NOT prefixes, but parts of compounds. Some Finnish words, such as nyky-, perus-, seka- etc. are not used alone, but as prefixes instead. E.g. auringon is the genitive singular form of aurinko, and, yes, you could consider it a "prefix", but it is used as a part of compound that signifies "solar". I've explained that usage by putting the text As a former part of compound signifies bla blaa... as one line to the translations of the base form, see for example aurinko: (1) sun (2) As a former part of compound (in nominative or genitive singular) signifies solar. Please, let me know if you didn't get my point. ;) ~~ ----

Yeah, I did that at first, but then people started saying that I didn't need to cite references- citations were preferable. I'll add it back in to the template for place names, and thanks for the tweak. J Milburn 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, it's added back now. I've also started expanding 'a place name' to something a little more substantial- see Myerscough, for instance. Also, while I'm here, could you please check I've followed standard protocol with Cater? It was originally a redirect to cater, but it is an Old English given name. Should there be some kind of 'see also' message? J Milburn 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused by this edit, which replaces the precise RP pronunciation with another marked with the general, less specific "UK". --EncycloPetey 15:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's supposed to be more helpful, given that noone uses RP whereas the pronunciation given is based on a standard "southern England" accent used used across much of the country, as well as on the BBC etc. After all, "US" isn't that specific either! ;) There was some discussion of this at Wiktionary talk:Pronunciation....although I know nod ecision was ever reached on it.. Widsith 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the historical dimension you worry about and yes I think what we are now doing at nl: takes care of that. All it needs is to write f/m for words that were historically feminine but may be regarded as masculine (as they are in the North)

Jcwf 21:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Just asking: is there that kind of policy, because those languages outside the "top 40" are rare and the linking is supposed to make them generally known? -- Frous 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry. I forgot about that. I probably made several similar edits when I added "plural of" or "xxx of" templates. I can go back looking at "my contributions" list and correct them. --Panda10 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hate to be a bother, and I feel sort of guilty even saying this (as I certainly haven't done anything to contribute to this project lately), but did you realize that the WotD templates haven't been updated past the 21st (today's the 21st, according to Wiki time). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

"inorganic compound" is not a context; it is a category. The context is chemistry. --EncycloPetey 03:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Template:inorganic compound is a context label. So is template:organic compound. Should these context labels be deleted then? 70.55.89.211 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a mistake then; or at least the context should say "chemistry" rather than "inorganic compound" etc.. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

It does say "(inorganic chemistry)", but it categorizes under "category:Inorganic compounds". 70.55.89.211 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

But are CO and NO only discussed in inorganic contexts? If they appear as part of organic chemistry or biochemistry, then the label of "inorganic chemistry" is incorrect. Note also that CO is organic, since it contains carbon. --EncycloPetey 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

CO and NO are both used as neurotransmitters, so no, they are not solely involved in inorganic context, but they are inorganic compounds. Not all carbon compounds are organic. I've always seen CO2 and CO described as non-organic. Cyanide (CN) is also not organic. I can add template:biochemistry as context, on top of template:inorganic compound. 70.55.89.211 04:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

FWIW w:Template:Inorganic compounds of carbon 70.55.89.211 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

But read the article w:Carbon dioxide. The article makes it clear that although it can be produced inorganically, it is not exclusively inorganic. CO is also a product of some organic reactions. --EncycloPetey 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for letting me know. J Milburn 13:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edit. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC) (21:26 CST)Reply

Would you be willing to double check the etymology on this one? My source says that the Greek came from Latin. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

All I have is what Lewis & Short say, which is that they are "=". If your source says the transfer went the other way, then we should make that correction. --EncycloPetey 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, now that I look more closely, my source is a bit ambiguous as well (take a look at βωλίτης, if you like). I'll ask Ivan. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

but as i saw you won't grant bot flags for interwiki purposes.is that so?--Tanhabot 00:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correct. Unless you get permission here, you cannot run the bot here. --EncycloPetey 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yay! A new Hungarian editor! The entry is valid, except it should not start with a capital letter, so I moved it and added a wikilink. Thanks for your note about it. --Panda10 11:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talk page - further input would be appreciated as I'm still not really understanding what you think won't work. Conrad.Irwin 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so I won't redirect entries anymore. And if I found an entry redirecting to an alternative spelling, then I will create the page. 16@r 14:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since participles have been on and off your mind for some time, I thought I'd throw this format at you for your critique and amusement. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's along the lines I've been considering for Latin, but it doesn't really make me happy yet. The problem with participles is that they're not quite adjectives (since they have tense) and not quite verbs (since they have gender). I also can't decide which participle form (if any) should be considered the "lemma". --EncycloPetey 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I feel absolutely no guilt in using "Participle" as the POS, because....well.....that's what they are. Participles can be used in nominal, verbal, and adjectival senses (in grc at least). Using anything other than participle is, in my opinion, misleading. While some may have and undoubtedly will again argue that the average reader will be confused by "participle," that ignores the fact that the average user will misled by anything else. Perhaps once I write Appendix:Ancient Greek participles (as part of my grand (read naïvely optimistic) scheme of creating and populating Category:Ancient Greek grammar appendices) it will soften their criticisms. Also, I see no reason to deviate from the standard of masculine nominative singular as the lemma. In any case, I'm glad the format does not strike you as odious, at least. Also, if you have some time, would you be willing to give the la terms listed on Appendix:Proto-Indo-European *h₃ed- a bit of help? I'm trying to con Ivan into cleaning it up, and I think it might be more worthwhile for him to do so if there are some nice daughter words in need of a more wholesome mother. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but which masculine nominative singular should be the lemma? The passive perfect, present active, or future active? Or do I make all three lemmata? Most major dictionaries seem to list the present active and passive perfect as headwords, and if we use both then what connection should be given between the two forms? It's a headache I haven't quite wrapped my brain around (eww...).

I've already been thinking the same thing about Ivan and PIE. I've started doing some of the core substantive nouns (arbor, avis, bos, equus, etc.), and started thinking about how to get more PIE into these. The catch at the moment is that I'm already stretched thin doing WOTD, categorizing, verb cleanup, etc. I may only be able to do one quality entry every 1-3 days off the PIE appendix, at least until the verb cleanup and categorizing are completed. (...and then Conrad is eager to get the noun templates redone...sigh) --EncycloPetey 01:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there simply are not enough hours in the day. Although, perhaps you should be counting your lucky stars. If I ever get a bot figured out for the import of L&S, as I intend to this summer, I'll be jumping down your throat to get every template and formatting policy for all of Latin into pristine condition.  :-) As for active vs middle vs passive vs medio-passive vs.....I haven't given that too much thought, but I think it would be best to treat each one separately. Perhaps {{grc-part}} (once created) could take parameters for the other voices, so they're consistently linked to each other. So you'd get something like:

ὄζων m, ὄζουσα f, ὄζον n, (middle/passive: ὀζόμενος)

Eh? Whaddya think? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

But that would preclude having the feminine and neuter nominative on the inflection line, wouldn't it? Anyhoo, I've done ōdī and a bit on odor. You would pick a defective irregular verb for me to start with, wouldn't you? :P --EncycloPetey 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ummm.....why would the feminine and neuter need to be in the inflection line? They're in the inflection, stupid (i.e. just like a standard adjective/pronoun inflection). And did you really think I'd give you an easy verb? :P -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the standard ajective inflection line gives the feminine and neuter. That's the problem: the inflection line is vastly different for adjectives and verbs, so a participle has to blenderize the two very different approaches. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Well, would it be pushing it too far to have all four? I mean, grc verbs have six forms in their inflection line. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The problem is more that the various forms are not parallel. One set are the gender inflections of the current entry, the other set are the tense forms of the current entry. It's not like other inflection lines where there's variation in just one dimension. It makes the whole thing icky. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm....well the alternative voice forms would be set in parentheses, setting them apart a bit. But yeah, I see your point. Well, I guess I'll keep this rolling in the back of my head for awhile. It's not like grc has that many participles floating around just yet (don't really know about Latin), so it's not terribly urgent. By the way, would you object to me copying this convo to Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek? It seems like something like this should be archived there. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

That'd be fine. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to keep bugging you tonight, but I had another thought (not related at all to this thread, but too lazy to start a new L2). If you want to support Ivan in his project of doing PIE properly, you may want to keep an eye out on Wiktionary:Requested articles:Ancient Greek and see which words he's giving me. Most of them will be linked to by one of the appendices or another, and you can check and see if some Latin needs to be done there. Also, if you're working on a Latin PIE descendant and you notice that its grc counterpart is missing, please feel free to put it on the request page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice welcome, thanks. --Ascánder 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In translating the phrase "is the", do they write it as a contraction, è'il, or two separate words è il. Any guidelines? -- Thisis0 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I do not know modern Italian. Latin had no articles, so I can't even make a guess. SemperBlotto is our Italian expert; you might ask him. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But you have to catch him when he's sober? ;) Alastair Haines 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey thanks so much for your help! -- Thisis0 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know what source you're getting your info from but I'm putting up stuff from Lewis and Short. I'll take a dim view if you revert it. For all I know you know better than they do, but I can't presume that, sorry.

Cheerio. 124.184.219.219 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Signed in now :) Alastair Haines 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your view must be pretty dim if you've confused sense IIA and IIE in Lewis & Short. The young woman sense comes prior to the pure sense. --EncycloPetey 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see the problem: (1) This is one of those cases where L&S aren't just giving the definition, but are dancing all around it indirectly. (2) You've altered the definition without moving the quote to follow. --EncycloPetey 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Assume good faith. Stop edit warring. Don't disparage other editors.

I'm reproducing L&S with no personal interpretation.

If L&S say I Literal, it's pretty clear I would think.

Doesn't matter really, you and I could debate interpretations of L&S forever.

I'm just going to give the reader precisely what L&S say.

Then the reader can decide for herself.

If you're right, they'll mostly see it your way.

Personally I doubt that, but it's beside the point.

Reproducing L&S is all we can do.

Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your point. I'm clumsy with the syntax here and taking small steps. Gimme half an hour and then let me know what you think. Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are you griping about? We can do much better than L&S; please do not imply that they are the end-all and be-all of Latin. Their dictionary is replete with errors. --EncycloPetey 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

By all means do better than L&S. Just gimme half an hour to get them up. We can argue about relative merits of sources later. None are quoted atm. Alastair Haines 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Save yourself time and leave me a link to the conventions. Reformat the entry at will and I'll learn from that. I am free Sunday morning, but preoccupied with a major writing project. I don't trust myself to show up. In any case, have a good rest and see you, no doubt, in the future. Alastair Haines 03:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS I found the L&S entry somewhat untidy myself, but the underlying logic seems fair, and it's a standard source ... better a devil that's known as they say. Cheers again Alastair Haines 03:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If I owned a copy of the OLD I'd see what they say, but it's the one major Latin dictionary I don't yet have. I do own Calepinus and Facciolati, so I can sometimes find words not in L&S. Likewise with Souter and with Feyerabend. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

With books my eyes are always bigger than my wallet. I think I understand. I'm keen to learn the ropes, at least so far as they apply to this entry. I mainly work at Wikipedia, but sometimes Wiktionary is a natural supporting resource. My heart is in words and Wiktionary maybe should be the place for me to work, perhaps classical Hebrew. But, at this stage, one step at a time. I appreciate your welcoming approach. I'm with you to work virgo up to standard, according to your conventions. Pace. Alastair Haines 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Got your message. Thanks heaps. Will observe your examples and copy as closely as possible. Cheers. Alastair Haines 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS pic at cornu looks great. (Trivia: Hebrew for horn is qeren, with many similar idiomatic extentions to cornu, which some have speculated may have interacted with Indo European at some point.)

Thanks once again, both for the links, and for the insight into this community. :) Alastair Haines 02:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please tell me the page on english wiktionary, where I could request status for my bot? --uk:user:A1

The best place to ask is in the Beer Parlour, the general discussion page. You need to say where the code is located and explain what you want it to do. --EncycloPetey 19:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you don't understand it, why do you shoot first and ask questions later? I had made two other changes, which I need to redo whatever the correctness of the macron matter. I'm perfectly happy to clean up my errors when I make them. My Cassell's does not support macrons for these words, except over the "i". If I could have gotten connected to Perseus, I would have confirmed there. (I still can't connect to them.) It appeared as if someone didn't have the right conjugation for scrībo, which is 3rd, and inserted macrons over the "o", as well as over almost ever vowel. In some cases the macrons were inserted where Cassell's has a "short" marking. DCDuring TALK 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The someone is me. The macrons match those given in Wheelock's, Feyerabend, Oxford, and the several conjugation guides I have. Cassell's and L&S are not as reliable when it comes to current scholarship on macron placement. I don't trust them. --EncycloPetey 10:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you have Cassell's you need to read the "Advice to the User" at the start of the volume, especially the section on "Quantity". It explicitly notes that vowels in final syllables are not marked long or short when they follow the regular declension pattern. In other words, Cassell's never marks the long o at the end of verb entries. The user is expected to know that it is long. --EncycloPetey 10:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been comparing Bennett's (which seems to agree with your sources) with Cassell's. I got your pointer in edit conflict. Access to Perseus, which seems to fail me often on weekends, would have prevented this, also reading the front notes. DCDuring TALK 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I categorized the entries and left a note on Mutante's talk page. --Panda10 20:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd drop you a note about {{attention}}. Specifically, if you come across grc words which might require attention in your travels, please feel free to drop this baby on them. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I was about to make some sort of entry for this (as we havent got one yet) But I am now confused as to the best way, having just read in vacuum usage notes: in the sense of in a vacuum; in free space the Latin in vacuo is used. So I thought it might be a good idea to consult with your good self first. Also, having looked at the mess in in vitro hoping for some enlightenment, I feel even more at a loss. Thx in advance. Algrif 09:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think I would call in vacuo a "Latin" entry, because I doubt it's ever been a set phrase in Latin. If it deserves an entry, then it should be either English or Translingual. You might ask in the Beer Parlour whether our non-English editors have come across the phrase in texts for other languages to make that call. --EncycloPetey 13:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok. -- Frous 14:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, wait a second. Why did you changed the header Verb to Participle? It is a verb form, although it is declined in gender (in limited occasions), in cases and in number, so why not use the header Verb? At least here there are no rules on using any other header than Verb for lemma forms (e.g. abalieno) or other (conjugated) forms (e.g. abalienans, abalienare, abalienavi). -- Frous 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because it has gender, and because the major Latin and Ancient Greek grammars consider Participle to be a separate part of speech that is neither wholly verb nor wholly adjective. It has tense (which adjectives do not) and has gender (which verbs do not), and has a few other oddities. The reason WT:ALA doesn't have rules for Participles yet is because I haven't written them. I've been trying to deal with the Adjectives, Adverbs, and Verbs mostly. The Nouns need lots of work as well. I was going to hold off on dealing with Participles, but based on conversations with Medellia and Atelaes was going to have Participle as a Latin POS. Since you are eager to work on Participles, I am setting up an inflection line template for present participles. --EncycloPetey 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Umm, actually I haven't. Thank you, looks like there's something to work on there for a while. :) -- Frous 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I might check that. Although Swedish isn't one of my top priorities, thanks anyway for that, too. :) -- Frous 13:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please, reconsider your interpretation and reverts, thank you in advance — User talk:67.165.253.170 04:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your notice.--Dingar 04:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing that out to me. :) --334a 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok mate, it's written down :) 16@r 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edits? We don't pronounce it "fah-luhs". It's "fah-lous". Nwspel 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

We who? None of the major English dictionaries agree with you. The Cambridge Pronouncing Dictionary uses a schwa. --EncycloPetey 00:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

None of them agreed with what was there either. The "ʊ" was closer to a "ə" sound than was the "ʌ" that was there, so my correction was not so wrong. And anyway, the vowel is technically a reduced form of "ʊ", which is often transcribed as the schwa, but the real pronunciation is somewhat between the two, since this use of the schwa is not vowel-specific. Nwspel 15:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"The schwa is not vowel specific"? The schwa in IPA represents a single specific sound, and typically is used to represent a range of sound around that value. What you mean is that the vowel symbol used to write the word containing the schwa is not specific. The schwa itself is quite specific. It is also true that liguists and phoneticists do not use the ʊ to represent any vowel in English; it appears only in the combination aʊ in most dictionarties or pronunciation guides (although I think I remember seeing əʊ in some British pronunciations). And you haven't answered my question: "We who?" --EncycloPetey 17:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, that is incorrect. The schwa is not just used to represent a certain type of "whole" vowel, but is also used by linguists to refer to several forms of ambiguous reduced vowels. Technically, the schwa is dividable further, but the differences in sound are far from distinguishable in common speech, so one symbol is used to represent the "vowels". And by we, I mean speakers of my dialect. Nwspel 21:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But not in an IPA transcription. In IPA, the schwa symbol represents the mid-central vowel. The dictionaries I refer to above are ones using IPA, and not other systems where the schwa is ambiguously used. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"It is also true that liguists and phoneticists do not use the ʊ to represent any vowel in English" Really? *cough*good*cough* Nwspel 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, brainfart on that one. I must have written this originally to discuss IPA symbols representing sounds of specific vowels (written letter), and somehow slipped into writing about IPA symbols representing specific vowels (spoken sound). --EncycloPetey 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't woz ;) Nwspel 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Instead of chiding me for my mistake, why not provide a link to the relevant 'help' page for new users? Or do you prefer that casual users not edit this Wiki?

We don't have a help page explaining how not to delete content. That falls under "common sense". --EncycloPetey 01:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But I don't even know what 'interwiki links' are. It seems like you'd rather be an asshole than help a new user. I guess that tells me most of what I need to know.

If you need to know the meaning of a word look it up. This is a dictionary, and we have definitions for words like interwiki, with links to additional resources on the subject. You seem more concerned with editing a single page, then proceding to troll. Enjoy your block. --EncycloPetey 01:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanx for the heads up. i hadn't seen a separate pronunciation section that's why i put them there. CuteHappyBrute 21:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://books.google.com/books?q=jesuses —msh210℠ 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 21:47 UTC

There is no entry for the singular. If there is a plural common noun, there must be an entry for the singular common noun. What is the definition? --EncycloPetey 21:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it the plural of the proper noun, then? I'll change the heading if so. Or (less likely imo) is Jesus also a common noun?—msh210℠ 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 21:58 UTC

No, I won't change the heading, actually, as I see you've deleted the entry again, and I'm not about to re-create it. But my questions, immediately above, remain.—msh210℠ 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 22:00 UTC

It is the hypothetical plural, which all proper nouns can have. You can say "There were two Julius Caesars, a public Julius Caesar and a private Julius Caesar." When you do this, you "split" the proper noun into two common noun aspects. This means that you are no longer using a proper noun, so the grammar of a proper noun is gone. Normally, a proper noun like Julius Caesar cannot take an article like (deprecated template usage) a, but you can see in the hypothetical situation above, the indefinite article is used. This phenomenon applies to all proper nouns (except those that have an inherently plural form like Alps). Including these should not be allowed any more than the possessive forms, which we specifically voted to exclude. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. But shouldn't they be as allowable as common nouns' plurals?—msh210℠ 2008-05-14 (9 Iyar 5768) 22:27 UTC

Do you really think we should have a common noun sense added to every English proper noun? That would mean definitions like this: Rome - Any hypothetical aspect of the city of Rome, whether regional, historical, or cultural. Do you really think the commmunity would want to add a whole section under a Noun header to each and every English Proper noun in the language? --EncycloPetey 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not at all. But we can have Romes without having a common-noun section s.v. Rome. Just need to figure out how to word the definition (and, perhaps, what POS to put it under).—msh210℠ 2008-05-15 (10 Iyar 5768) 16:17 UTC

Oh, I see there's discussion on RFD now. You can ignore the question I just posted here, and I'll follow the discussion there instead (and maybe post the same question there).—msh210℠ 2008-05-15 (10 Iyar 5768) 16:19 UTC

Thanks.Now I can see how to do that better. Dlohcierekim 02:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as I'm relatively inept when it comes to pronunciation, I thought I'd have someone wiser than I check on the recent changes to this page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The only potential issue I can spot in the IPA is the use of ʍ for which. Most English accents don't make the distinction between this sound and w, so some sort of footnote is in order to explain. --EncycloPetey 13:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't try to intimidate me. You could have been helpful and told me why pron isn't an alternate spellng of pr0n instead of mimicking my response, but admins probably are just there to piss people off and not be helpful. 69.255.170.118 22:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Logically, the default assumption is that it isn't an alternative spelling. Proof is required to say that it is. Logical proof can only demonstrate the positive; the negative cannot be logically proven, and so is taken as the null hypothesis. The burden of proof was therefore on you. But, I see another admin has already blocked you as a troll, so I expect you won't see this. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm back and I saw this. I will stay away from the main pron page until I acquire concrete proof. Sorry about the insults. (this is still the same guy) 69.255.170.118 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Greetings EncycloPetey, I recently added radio to fill the blank at radians. As you are infinitely more experienced when it comes to these entries, I thought I'd play safe and check with you that these are done correctly. I was a bit confused by the fact that it seemed to end in -i, yet acted like 1st conjugation. Yours Conrad.Irwin 10:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not merely copy-pasting the entries; I try to selectively choose the most common and relevant translations. Here is the source if you would like to see: If I still have infringed copyright, I deeply apologize and I will be more than willing to be corrected. Singularity 06:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips! Singularity 08:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Compare Category:Massachusett language, {{wam}}, w:Massachusett language, , and . Your thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's a difficult one. In all the older resources, Massachusett is used for the language and people, while Wampanoag refers only to the people. In more recent literature, both words are used tot refer to the language. I can't find anything that suggests why either name might be preferred, since both come from Amerind root words. (Massachusett means "from the big hill", while Eampanoag alludes to "strings of white shells"). --EncycloPetey 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

... you're now number 10 ;)

(Y) well done.

Nwspel 14:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's difficult to tell, since the list is only updated about once every two months, and is currently more than a month old. As a result, I only update that item on my user page occasionally. But, thanks for saying so. --EncycloPetey 15:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Petey Mallerd 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

What should we do with this page? It seems improperly formatted and I can't find uses of the word. --Neskaya ^talk 23:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The uses I could find seem to be typos. I'd either let it sit for a day or two to see what becomes of the new entry, or else take a more proactive approach and list it in an appropriate forum for discussion. --EncycloPetey 23:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

is turning into a circus — This unsigned comment was added by 88.191.57.15 (talk).

What should it be turned into? 86.152.210.92 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you take a look at Template:abl instead of Ablative it gives Abung. Hakeem.gadi 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is correct. All 3-letter templates are reserved for ISO language codes. The code abl is for the language Abung. --EncycloPetey 13:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Uhh, did you take a look at Citations:sitcom hell? What about the term isn't dictionary material? O_o Plausibly Deniable 05:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I went ahead and added it to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#sitcom hell. I wasn't trying to start trouble as the other administrator seems to have inferred - simply didn't know where else to put it. Anyway, feel free to respond there. :-) Plausibly Deniable 06:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The phrase is a mere sum of parts, for which we do not usually have entries. That is, it is hell for sitcoms, a combination which could be created using any category of items + hell. The definition and any citations should thus be placed as citations for the latter term. --EncycloPetey 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Petey,

You changed the Name appendix for animal pet names. That is fine to me, but the reference is pointing to anything. And that bothers me. Would you please make a good reference point or bring the change back to the former state.

Thank you,

Best regards, Alasdair (Sanne van den Eijnde)

I began the move, but have not had time to complete the effort. I shall be very busy offline for the next few days, so please be patient. --EncycloPetey 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I created a user page for Netrunner because I know him and he doesn't mind. In fact, he wanted me to create a page for him because he is pre-occupied now. I was doing him a favor, and you can't tell me that's bad edicate.

I created a user page for Netrunner because I know him and he doesn't mind. In fact, he wanted me to create a page for him because he is pre-occupied now. I was doing him a favor, and you can't tell me that's bad edicate.PapaSmerf 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (p.s. sorry about my previos message, i can't believe I forgot to sign it.)Reply

I've replied to your message on my talk page. Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

…and again.  :-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Boy, Petey, that was quick. Almost like you were just sitting there with that picture ready to go. Nice. -- WikiPedant 05:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am from Hawaii and so I know a few words in each Polynesian language and some Asian languages (but I speak Japanese pretty fluently), so I try to help where I know a word in a language, but it hasn't been added (Hawaiian and Japanese get added quite a bit in here, so Tongan is usually where you see my edits, if any). Hawaiian and Maori get quite a bit of attention and Tongan is kind of in between those 2 languages, so if you see one looks similar to the other, you can be pretty confident that the Tongan word is close too. Example: "Eye" Hawaiian-Maka, Maori/Tongan-Mata; "Death" Hawaiian-Make, Maori/Tongan-Mate; "Pig" Hawaiian-Pua`a, Maori-Poaka, Tongan-Puaka. Usually a ` (glottal stop) in Hawaiian is a K in the other languages, and a K in the middle of a word becomes a T, but not always. I am guessing though that because parrots were only introduced by white people that there isn't a native word for it (similar to "Pig", they say "puaka" which I think comes from "pork". That said, I will try to find the word for listen, but there are quite a few translations, like "Listen to me!" "I like to listen to music" "Parrots listen to then mimic sounds", so we will see what kind of "listen" I can dig out of my friends.--BillyNair 04: 47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As I expected, Parrot doesnt have it's own word they just use "manu puna" (manu-animal, puna-flying). Listen is kind of generic, like both "Listen to me!" and "I listen to my ipod" etc. is "fanongo" so the "listen to an ipod" is "fanongo ki he ipod" --BillyNair 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I stumbled across per orem and per orum today. They are both readily attestable misconstructions or alternative versions of per os, which I added as an entry. I have some questions:

1. What is the proper language header for well constructed medical Latin, of which I hope per os is an example?
2. I have the impression that at least some medical Latin is a late variant of Latin. Is there a source you recommend?
3. If entries like per orum and per orum don't have an etymology in some form of Latin, are they English (which is how they are now entered), Translingual, Latin?
4. Do these kinds of entries warrant a category, either visible or invisible, to help with bringing them up to some kind of standard ? DCDuring TALK 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Those are a lot of good questions, and this issue is new enough that I don't have a large set of facts, many examples, or a well-structured opinion. I can express my current impressions and opinions, but they could change with additional data. If I added an entry for something like this, I would add it as English. If additional citations show that medical practicioners use these terms in a wide variety of other languages, I'd rewrite the entry as Translingual. As Latin, these are merely sum of parts, so I wouldn't create a Latin entry for them any more than I would for "once daily" or "do not exceed n doses in 24 hours". --EncycloPetey 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info re location of references. I'll clean up the page for 'own' ASAP. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is listed on Appendix:List of protologisms. There is also an AfD discusion here on Wikipedia. Don't know the policies here for this sort of thing, but I suspect Wiktionary is being used promotionally. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 06:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind having a look at this talk page. Idioms are often given without the verbs in English, but sometimes the translations can only be added with verbs. What should be done in that case? --BiT 18:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've responded there. --EncycloPetey 14:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fully agree with you, and those were my next stepping stone in cleaning up the context labels (the last is cross-definition/etymological labels like {{figuratively}} and {{by extension}}, but that is going to be one protracted battle). However, you're practically hijacking the discussion at GP, so please could you leave it aside for the time being? Circeus 21:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Um... why do you consider 5 comments to be "practically hijacking", particularly since one of them was an answer to a question directed at me? Most of the discussion has centered on technical issues between Robert and DAVilla, with my comments (after the first one) being brief. Many discussions I choose never comment on at all, either because I have no useful contribution to make or because someone has (or I expect will) respond better than I could ever do. Topical category structure is one area that comes up so infrequently in discussions here, that I don't know who else is likely to contribute thoughts. As someone who has worked in museums and libraries and therefore has a practical knowledge of cataloging, I have useful knowledge to contribute to this discussion. All in all, it seems counter to the MediaWiki spirit to ask someone not to participate in a discussion. --EncycloPetey 22:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was referring specifically to the subsection I started regarding subdivision of topical labels. I wouldn't want that particular section to divert too much for the time being. I'm trying to at least tackle an issue before starting on another. Circeus 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's understandable. I've had the same problem of being strecthed thin by too many efforts all vying for my attention. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll admit working a bit on guts at time, but could you give some examples? The only one I can think of off-handed is accinge. While {{obsolete}} is not perfect, it certainly seems to be the most accurate term to describe something that was a 19th-century inkhorn term formerly more frequent, and now exceedingly rare (the Simpson quote is probably a historical reference rather than a normal use). The term is at least {{rare}}, bordering on {{archaic}}. It's certainly not very current.

Reviewing my recent edit, I stand by my changes to perforce, and would like to see actual modern uses. I suspect they are likely to be contextualized anyway (certainly sounds like a law term). My search dug up homonymous proper names (a computer program), but little to no adverbial uses. Furthermore, Shakespeare was notorious for nonce words (he coined as many words that did not caught as ones that did). It also seems pretty typical of archaizing translations (Odyssey, Biblical stuff...) Circeus 01:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I might call (deprecated template usage) accinge {{rare}}, but then again so are many English words. I would disagree about (deprecated template usage) perforce, as a quick search on Wikisource turned up a large number of uses clear through to H. G. Wells and Arthur Conan Doyle. Wikisource has few 20th century works, so an absence of such in the search does not give any indication one way or another. It might be appropriate to describe the word as {{archaic}}, in that its use has all but dropped off, but people still understand what it means. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have started a page of Citations:perforce. --EncycloPetey 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping clarify these. I get annoyed at dictionaries (in this case, those we originally drew upon) who fail to mark words like those that are unlikely to be encountered by casual language users. Another beef with older dictionaries is the often ridiculously convoluted expressions used in definitions that end up being less comprehensible than the plain word (which is what most of my cleaning up of the future WOTD was about).

... Dammit, now I'm rambling. Circeus 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

On second thought, after looking at the BYU American National corpus, I think the tags ought to be switched, with "accinge" as archaic and "perforce" as "very rare". The corpus draws no example of accinge, but a hundred of perforce, which definitely legitimates it as not archaic. Circeus 02:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Google books has a 1970 use of accinge. It's not easy to search for that word, since it also occurs in French and Latin. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Next time I want something just a certain way, I hope you'll remember this and cave in just as easily. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm very much in favor of using an ordering that reflects current frequency. It appears to me (after a quick look at Google and Google books) that in contemporary usage, the meaning "suspiciously, skeptically" by far outweight the the literal, positional meaning. "look askance" with that meaning alone appears to represent a large share of that. As to the broken numbering, sorry about that, it appears I did not notice the extra line. Circeus 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Generally I put any context-labelled stuff at the bottom, with the more dated content last, and so far I haven't gotten in an edit war over that, but I'll keep the issue dirmly in mind should I run into a disagreement. Circeus 01:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vote has started at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-06/Plurals of proper nouns, Seeing that you have been active in the discussions and the starting off with several supporting votes, your arguments would be needed to hinder, imo, a big mistake regarding the development in this matter. ~ Dodde 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Really?? I'm sorry, all I know is what I've learned about Latin declension types at Latin lessons at school (second declension: -us -> -orum). :P I can undo my edit, though. -- Frous 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

Thanks for the catch on termite – I was wondering about where to put the etymology while cleaning, and I now agree, the lemma should have the full etymology. I’ve added notes to that effect at Wiktionary:Etymology#Lemma and Wiktionary:Etymology#Back-formations.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey -- This edit puzzles me. Does adding the link have some benefit I don't know about? The documentation on the talk page doesn't show a link and the template works without it. Am I missing something? -- WikiPedant 04:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Petey -- This edit puzzles me. Does adding the link have some benefit I don't know about? The documentation on the talk page doesn't show a link and the template works without it. Am I missing something? -- WikiPedant 04:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually surge is a noun, it's a quantity like pitch, roll, yaw which can be either a noun (e.g. a pitch of 5 degrees per second, a surge of 2 meters per second) or there is a closely associated verb when something pitches or surges.

So the definition I added is kind of wrong, but is helpful nevertheless in understanding the meaning I think.

Maybe there's a better way to write it? Wolfkeeper 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I really wondering what are the current policies - proper noun meaning do belong to that article? Or it should be moved to Scenic? Like with Virgin. TestPilot 04:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the Talibanistan, the description of the meaning state "(informal, idiomatic, offensive)". Should it be like that, with comma, or more like "(transitive) (law)" from record? If it the second case, should there be a space in between? TestPilot 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you be kind to elaborate how is this 1) not autological, 2) not a word and what exactly is meant by "we don't do this for misspellings" ? I opened the talk page for discussion, but you seem to have missed it ^_^ --Ivan Štambuk 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've just received a request to change this to Papiamento, and then I noticed that it had spent much of its life in such a condition, only to be changed to Papiamentu by you. As far as I can see, both names are certainly in use, and I find no evidence that either is more common or better in any way. I was just wondering if there was some rationale behind your change. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Both names are valid, and each also refers to one of the major dialects in the language. My research determined the language is originally a Portuguese creole, and the Dialect that sounds more like Portuguese is called Papiamentu, the Spanish-like dialect is Papiamento. Since the language is believed to be Portuguese-derived, I favored the Portuguese-related name. Further, while both names are used on the principal page at the pap WP, Papiamentu is the name used for this language on their article about writing and the alphabet . --EncycloPetey 04:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to double-check this etymology. All of my sources indicate that it's simply a participle of acuō. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

My sources agree. --EncycloPetey 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't remember what exactly the template was, and figured I'd come back to it. I just hope someone can fill in the proper Greek spelling. I could only locate transliterations. Circeus 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

This'll sound pretty n00bish, but why did you delete that image? Is there some sort of policy against them on Wiktionary? Teh Rote 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, thanks for the info. Teh Rote 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and i just found something. If my help me templates werent useful, then what the hell is this? They banned my help me templates (which were revolutionary), yet they allowed this?!. What the heck is going on around here???

That template is vital to the functioning of many templates. Wiki code does not allow (or misinterprets) piping when it many case when they appear in conditional template statements. That template solves the problem. Your template, rather than solving an existing technical problem, was designed to create a class distinction among users, which is frowned upon by the community. --EncycloPetey 03:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ya, sorry for that, it just took me a while to make the help template. Anyway, i have to be an admin to upload a picture? Why? Respond please on my talk page, thanks.

The2DeadlySins^Pride_Envy

I speak French. I know what most French words mean, thats why ive been adding French to the wiktionary. But i put that it was from Microsoft because what am i supposed to say? Just trust me? Well, i guess i can now that i think about it, but i didnt think of that before. Yep, see this page for exact specifications on just how many languages i know. Chow.

But according to my French dictionary, the word is spelled école, not ecole. That's what everyone else is saying as well in the discussion. Also, the link you provided to demonstrate the languages you know is a red link, pointing nowhere. --EncycloPetey 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, i got the link wrong. Its this page. You forget that i know the wiki, but i do misspell things sometimes. And i didnt know how to make ecole with the little dash on top. How do i do that? The7DeadlySins 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I owe you an apology. I did not realise in my haste that my revert was also taking out your entry as well as putting mine back. This was not my intention in that case. I still think that the two senses were too similar, and think they should go through RFV, which is what I should have done in the first place. Regards, Denis. --Dmol 13:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for demonstrating a willingness to apologize. I accept and appreciate this. --EncycloPetey 16:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking about giving my numbers a face lift. I was looking over your comments at User_talk:Atelaes/2007#Numbers_and_Pronouns. Everything you said here seems reasonable and so I intend to largely follow your suggestions. I was just wondering if your opinion had changed on any of these matters (or if official policy had changed on these matters) since these comments were written. Many thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't come across any new information that would change anything I said in that conversation. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Would you be willing to take a look at δύο, δεύτερος, and δίς and critique? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have a serious problem with putting the adverbial and ordinal forms on the inflection line of a cardinal number entry (and for similar use on the ordinal entry, etc.). The inflection line os for inflected forms only. Consider that in English we have (deprecated template usage) two, (deprecated template usage) twice, and (deprecated template usage) second. Clearly the ordinal is not an inflection of either of the other two, and the grammatical function of the adverbial is completely different from either of the other two.

I've been developing an alternative approach to this, which I finally did the coding on (I already had worked out extensive design on paper). Take a look at (deprecated template usage) novem to see it in action. I haven't written the documentation yet, but the header will allow linking to an appendix or glossary (if one exists), the top portion displays symbolic form of the number, and links to the previous and following numbers (or appears blank if there is no previous / following). The bottom portion links to the ordinal and adverbial, but this section collapses if that information is not used (in case it not exist in the language). And the bottom line links to the article on the appropriate WP. It doesn't have the extra support for display of non-Latin charaters (because I don't know how to do that), and I don't know whether that can be easily incorporated, but a non-Latin script version or script-specific version could be built if needed. --EncycloPetey 22:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've restored it as it's clearly used, though I tried adding a useage note I feel that my communication skills are lacking today. Could you please look at it and check that what I've said makes sense. Thanks, sorry to be a burden. Conrad.Irwin 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

To repeat what I put on my talk page, http://books.google.com/books?q=kelvins shows usage, though I think it is redundant to pluralise this. Conrad.Irwin 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have heard people use Fahrenheits before in sentences but the words is not listed in my dictionary, my newest one. I wouldnt suggest adding it. The7DeadlySins 23:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

See: User talk:Nbarth#Category:Wikisaurus

Hi EncycloPetey,

I removed “Category:Wikisaurus” from the few WS pages that had it, since it seemed to be deprecated, both:

• Because the category itself says that it is deprecated:

  This category has been superceded, since the introduction of the Wikisaurus namespace, by Special:Allpages/Wikisaurus:

• ..and ostensibly, since few WS pages had it.

If in fact it is desired (as you say, its lack clogs up “uncategorized pages”), I’m happy to add it to all the existing WS pages and make a note at Help:Creating a Wikisaurus entry – shall I do so?

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok! I’ve:

• Added ] to {{saurus-head}} in this edit;
• Marked the category as not deprecated in this edit
• Refreshed all the Wikisaurus pages via null edits, as per: meta:Help:Category#Using templates to populate categories, adding {{saurus-head}} or ] if absent.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I’ve raised this discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Category:Wikisaurus, since it seems to be of broader interest.

Nbarth (email) (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi EncycloPetey,

please visit the discussion page of the poltergeist entry. I put forward reasons for making the change that you reverted.

Talk:poltergeist

I found that someone else had made the same change before, which also had been reverted: See diff

Can you tell me a reason for reverting this change? Why would 'spirit' be better there?

Thank you,

Steven

I reverted you. See my talk page. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

EP, there is a little problem. When you started changing the templates, I was also in the middle of revisions. You picked the -ok template which was different than the others. I started using PAGENAME in several cases to fit more and more types of nouns. Please look at the {{hu-decl-ek}} and you will see. If PAGENAME is used, the letters will be tripled. Any idea how to work around this? --Panda10 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Reply