User talk:JohnC5/2015

I see your userpage claims you like suffixes. If that be the case, I have a rather unrewarding task that I've had in the back of my mind for what is probably years now, which is to go through this page's list of derived terms and 1) make sure that all the bluelinks use {{suffix}}, 2) check all the redlinks for attestability and create those that are, and finally replace the big table on the page with {{suffixsee}}. Naturally, this is quite a lot of work and some of it rather mindless, but I felt like telling you just in case somebody else wants to get around to it in case I forget to do so forever. Cheers! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Oh wow, there is nothing I dislike more than a suffix that uses a table and not {{suffixsee}}. I am "in the middle of" (read: taking a break from) adding all the derived terms from -bundus. I will gladly take a look at this. I make not promises, however, that I will finish in a timely manner or ever; though, if I stop, I will tell you. Thanks for asking! —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, nice work with -bundus. If you get to attacking -phyte and then stop midway through the arduous task, please do let me know where, because maybe I'll finish up the rest. Thanks —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge I've done the first column of them in which I've already found that the following only appear in list/dictionaries or in other languages:

list moved down the page

Could you take a look at aletophyte and see if you can find attestation or propose its removal? When we are done, I might leave a full list of unadded ones on the discussion page with a note that they should only be added with attestation. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 10:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Only found one use, so I RFV'd it. That sounds like a good idea; if you wanted a really pointless task, you could check whether any print dictionaries include the unattested words and then add them to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, but I don't think you should bother, because nobody really cares about that appendix anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: FWIW, I care about that appendix; I find a lot of its content interesting, and it would be even more so if it were an exhaustive list, partly because of what it would tell us about the patterns in lexicographers' choices of unattestable inclusions. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I'll leave it up to you to add these if you like. This task is a bit too tiring for me as it is with out that added complexity. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 21:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Happy to. Please post me the list of unattestables when you're done working your way through all the -phyte words. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• @I'm so meta even this acronym: Sorry about assuming that. I guess I've been relatively inactive for a while, because I'd not even talked to John before and I didn't know that appendix was being upkept. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: @Metaknowledge: Here's the unattestables from column 2:

list moved down the page

Also, can we find out what the first element of emophyte is? —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 09:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The closest fit I can find is ἠμύω (ēmúō, “I bow down”, “I sink”), but that seems a little doubtful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, that does seem plausible but doubtful. If we can't find anything, I guess we can mention that. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This nomenclature supposely derives from:

• Frederic Edwards Clements, “A System of Nomenclature for Phytogeography” (29th August 1902) in Beiblatt zu den Botanischen Jahrbüchern XXXI, № 4/5

However, I haven't been able to find an etymon that fits from a quick flick through; there's a good chance I've missed it, though. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: The only thing I can find in this that is close is εἰᾰμενή (eiamenḗ, “riverside pasture”) (p. 6, I, 8), but the meaning is not close enough. May I ask what says that this is the source? —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym:, @Metaknowledge: This project is done from my perspective. ISMETA, here are the unattestable terms:

Metaknowledge, here are the potentially attestable terms if they are not for brand names or fictional names. If you want to try to add these, be my guest.

Perhaps we should put the list of unattestables on the -phyte discussion page for posterity? —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 11:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Just FYI, I've done up to leimonapophyte in the unattestables (see alsophyte, ancophyte, Citations:ergasiapophyte, Citations:ergasiphyte, haematophyte/hematophyte, Citations:hæmatophyte, Citations:kenapophyte, and Citations:leimonapophyte); just melangiophyte to zyphyte to go now. Sorry I've been dragging my heels with this one. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, when I look at labor, I see that its fpp is lābendus instead. Is lābundus kind of the old fpp? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: It is the older form, you can find a reference for it here. It is part of an older stratum of participles in -undus (eundus, secundus, oriundus, rotundus, and -bundus). You can find a note about it at -bundus. The form lābendus is merely auto-generated by the conjugation template. If I could alter it in the template, I would. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 I would like to ask what kind of verbs use -endus and what kind of verbs use -undus? I'll change it later. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: Those are the only ones I can think of. The verbs in -undus are all very old and irregular. Jasanoff, Jay H. "The origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: a new proposal." Harvard Ukrainian Studies (2006): 195-208 argues these few verbs (eundus, secundus, oriundus, rotundus, labundus, and -bundus) gave rise to the gerundive morphology. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Would the fpp of exsequor also be exsecundus? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: Sorry, I misspoke. Only eundus and labundus are the proper fpp of eo and labor respectively. The other ones did not get codified as the proper fpp of the verb but are auxiliary forms. Does that make sense? I didn't explain that super well. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Ok. Then should I also include rotundus as one of the fpp of roto, or should I make no change? I've changed the template to show that the fpp of labor is labundus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: I think you should leave roto as is. I'm not finding dictionaries that list rotundus as the fpp proper, but just as an auxiliary form. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 What about sequor and secundus and sequendus? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: It seems both are attested but sequendus is preferred as "canonical" form. Are you in charge of module:la-verb? —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Yes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: I was wondering recently why we don't include poetic/syncopated forms. I'm sure there was a discussion and a decision, but I was thinking about it because I had to add perfixere recently. Just curious. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Could you provide a source and/or an elaboration? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: These two sections. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Well, those two sections used the aux verbs "can" "could" "may" "might" which express uncertainty. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Kc kennylau: I thought it'd be something like that, though some of those syncopate forms do come up quite frequently. I wonder whether there has been an overt discussion of this in the past? I might start one, if there hasn't. Also, your Kennybot is my savior when it comes to adjective declensions. I've been trying to add all the forms of -bundus, but it is slow going because I try to add all the derived terms to the verb from which each -bundus term stems. As you can see, I'm only up to osculabundus. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 08:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to start one. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Well, which syncopated forms come up frequently? And do you have any source for the attestability of prefixere perfixere? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Well..., though neither of the examples are classical era syncopation. That is the only grammatical parse I could think of for that form unless there is some verb perfixo/perfixeo, but I cannot find any evidence of that. I had actually not looked at those citations until you brought it up just now. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Me neither. Should I keep your prefixere perfixere? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Well there are cites enough for it. We are just unsure as to whether the gloss is correct. Maybe slap a rfv on it? —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 08:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5 Okay, added. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Thank you, thank you! Here are some more sources for that syncopation. I was hoping to find a list of example uses of syncopated forms, but that is not currently forthcoming. As I say though, these forms do show up and currently they seem underrepresented. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Any chance of adding the Latin verb itself? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto In progress as we speak! :) —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Done! —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I finally got to write some codes to create the syncopated verb forms. If you like, please check for errors (although I've been checking them for like 10 times and then debugging them already). --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau Are you talking about the stuff you did for saevio and servio or is there some other stuff for verbs generally? If it is the former, that looks great! If it is the latter, I don't know where to find it. —JohnC5 ^{(Talk | contribs)} 17:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Refer to User:Kennybot my bot's user contribution. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This has a specific meaning in mathematics - e.g. "In this paper we continue the study, started by J. Bang-Jensen (1989), of locally semicomplete digraphs, a generalization of tournaments, to which many well-known tournament results extend.". But I can't figure out precisely what it means. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto interesting. Believe that the obvious meaning (partially complete) is indeed another acceptable definition, but as for this meaning (along with gonihedric) on the WT:WE, I am baffled as to what they should mean. Are there any math buffs who could help us out? —JohnC5 21:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think that I've figured it out - but it could well have other, similar, meanings for other maths objects. There is nothing on "Mathworld". SemperBlotto (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto So the definition of a complete graph is a graph in which every vertex is connected to every other vertex by at least one arc. It seems like intuitively that a semicomplete complete graph is one in which every vertex is connected to every other by at least one path but not necessarily one arc. This, however, is merely idle speculation based on half remembered math classes. As I see it, the current definition is synonymous with complete and thus must mean something different. —JohnC5 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@SemperBlotto Take a look at semi-complete now? —JohnC5 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You mean it didn't make you mad? :-p - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@-sche Now I'm even sadder for having missed such a good opportunity for a pun. Better quit Wiktionary forever I guess. :( —JohnC5 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Those that exist (I'm thinking of entries like nostis and deum) don't have a label like {{lbl|la|poetic}} or something of the kind but instead masquerade as normal inflections. What would be the optimal format for such entries in your opinion? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Hmmm... I tend to do something like {{qual|poetic|syncopated|lang=la}}. I'm loath to use {{lb}} or {{cx}} in non-lemma entries. Does that help? —JohnC5 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. Not sure what the appropriate qualifier would be for the -ēre alternants of -ērunt, but User:Kc kennylau bot-created a whole bunch of those, right? Maybe a qualifier could be bot-added to those ones, at least? (I reckon the rest ought to be done by hand to ensure they're attested.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Well the -ēre ~ -ērunt (and -re ~ -ris) forms tend to be poetic or high prose, so I'd imagine {{qual|poetic|alternative}} might work. I'm not positive about the word alternative, in part because it makes me think those verb forms skip class to go smoke cigarettes on the jungle gym. Can you think of a better word? —JohnC5 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think "alternative" is fine; I'm not too choosy, as long as they're marked in a standard way and that's added to WT:ALA. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello John. I noticed you citing Johann Ramminger’s Neulateinische Wortliste at some point. Accordingly, you may find useful the reference template I just created, {{R:NLW}}. You can see it in action in archicoenobium#References and I've written documentation for the template; let me know if you have any questions to ask or suggestions to make about the template. Cheers. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym You are my favorite! I was wondering why there wasn't a template, but apparently I'm just stupid. :) —JohnC5 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may be excessively self-effacing, but you're not stupid. Thanks for making use of the template already. I've added to the documentation the real examples from dīvidium, haereticō, and parabolō and I've clarified what link numbers look like; is the documentation clearer now? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym Yes, yes. Sorry if I seem like I am always mocking myself. I have always noticed that this is trait of the American South, wherein we tend to apologize and self-deprecate more than is necessary/common. I have been told by my German professors before that I apologize too much. So, know that it is in good fun; though, it does annoy me that whenever I make a mistake, there is a record of it...

That clarification of the template is quite helpful. I was a bit confused after first using the template, but the instructions clear that up nicely. —JohnC5 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you use {{taxlink}} enough for a given taxonomic name I will add the taxonomic name. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring :) —JohnC5 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is more complicated than it looks: Lewis & Short at Perseus has no Classical Latin words ending in -oideus, but it does have words ending in -oides. It looks to me like -oideus may be -oides (the standard Latin spelling of -οειδής and -οειδές, which are really -ο- + -ειδής) with Latin first- and second-declension endings tacked on to make it a regular Latin adjective. That might mean that we're really looking at conus + -oides or -ides + -us. Or maybe conoides + us. Or something. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I suppose I was going off of -oidea when I wrote this. I was under no delusion that -oideus was a classical Latin suffix, certainly. It seems to me that -oideus is a New Latin latinization of -oid, -oïde, or something of the ilk. The OED entry for -oid lists -oideus as Post-Classical. After that, I can't say why it's -oideus over -oidus. —JohnC5 05:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Re this edit of yours:

1. Gaffiot gives παραβάλανευς as the etymon of parabalānī in its entry for părăbalāni; w:Parabalani gives the etymon as παραβαλανεῖς. Perhaps the word is plurale tantum, like πᾰρᾰβολᾶνοι; is the plural form attestable?
2. See Citations:putidissime Shavius.

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think Gaffiot made a mistake, because the accent of *παραβάλανευς violates the usual rules. Παραβαλανεύς would be possible. --Fsojic (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Fsojic: Do you know whether either one of παραβαλανεύς or παραβαλανεῖς exists? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Παραβαλανεῖς seems to. --Fsojic (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym Sorry about that. I wish WT:WE had a more information sometimes (I have a further question on this point). I'm still not fully convinced on either count though:

1. Even if the third declension παραβαλανεῖς exists and has the ending -ᾰνεύς (-aneús), -ᾰνέως (-anéōs), one would expect its latinization to be parabalanēs and not parabalānī. The etymology might be closer to parabolus + -ānus, by analogy to Ancient Greek παραβαλανεῖς. We could add παραβαλανεῖς, but I'd love to see that citation, if someone has access to Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum II, 1, 1, 179.
2. I'm not sure I'd count these as uses. They seem to me to all be humorous mentions. The closest one, I'd say, is the first, and even then it's more allusion than idiom. I dunno. Do whatever you think is correct.

As I mentioned earlier, I was curious about the entries omniae, omniās, omniārum. These all seem to stem from mis-declensions of the omnia as 1st or of *omnius as 1&2. I can find a few citations, but they seem to be from isolated Medieval sources, scannos, or errant modern Latin translations. Is there a particular usage that brought these to your attention? I don't think they should be added unless we have a source supporting them directly. —JohnC5 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

That citation, expanded, seems to be:

• Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, tomus alter: Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen primum: Acta Graeca, pars prima: Epistularum Collectiones (1933), folium 179

I'm not sure about that, however. AFAICT, it has the call number 15.938 (2,1,1) at l’École française d’Athènes, so that citation can be accessed there, if that's any help… :-S  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Please forgive the delayed response (as well as the premature page-save):

1. Re parabalānī, it looks like an alteration of παραβαλανεῖς, dropping the third-declension -εῖς (→ -ēs) in favour of the second-declension -οι (→ -ī), probably under the influence of -ānī. The trouble with the etymology parabolus +‎ -ānī is that the alteration of o → ā is left unexplained.
2. Putidissime Shavius appears to be just a superlative form of the original putide Shavius (which is more common); I'll add them both once I've got round to researching the latter.
3. I agree with your interpretation of those strange omni- forms. I'll dig out the citation where I originally found omniam at some point. I think it's worth recording these Mediaeval and New Latin misdeclined forms (though we should mark them as errant).

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym No sweat on the early submit. As for your points:

1. Sounds good to me.
2. Sounds good to me.
3. Sounds good to me.

Unrelatedly, note the changes I've made recently to remove uses of {{grc-decl-1st-ala-pax}}. All form of this were either -alp-pax or disyllabic -ala-prx, and the aforementioned template should be removed soon. Also, note the super classy {{grc-decl-1st-ια-pax}} for nouns in -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā). Hope all is going well, and congrats on the admin nom! —JohnC5 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. I've created another reference template for Latin; see {{R:du Cange}}. I hope you find it useful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym I was not previously aware of this resource, but I will integrate into future additions! —JohnC5 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Splendid. Happy editing! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is not essential (and possibly not desirable) to have a full entry for a lowercase from of a Latin proper noun. By use of {{epinew}} I direct specific epithets to the lemma in whatever language is appropriate, usually Latin or Translingual, but also various other languages for apparently invariant epithets. For genitive forms of names probably unattested in the nominative (eg, harrisii), it's arguably a different story. I treat the genitive as a Translingual lemma, though some of them appear under Adjective and others under Noun headers. I wouldn't be surprised if some were called proper nouns. I know some are classified as noun forms. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring Makes sense. I believe that this was on WT:WE or someone specifically requested it. I can't imagine why I would have made it otherwise. I remember being very confused about what to put and in what language when I initially created it. Feel free to delete it; though, please move the etymological info to the relevant page. Sorry for the bother. —JohnC5 01:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nothing to apologize for. Not much is written down. I've made a lot of decisions, mostly small, unilaterally and without documentation, because not many were interested. Feel free to challenge any of these. The process of explaining usually helps me and I welcome explicit or implicit (from lurkers) support and explicit disagreement, even if not fully thought out. I always try to save content as best I can. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please always check Category:Pages with module errors whenever you make changes to a module with transclusions. It's got 91 entries from an intractable language-code problem, but there are also 60 or so Ancient Greek ones with gender-syntax problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I'm very sorry. I had no idea this page existed and will certainly check it in the future. I was aware that my changes would probably cause a module error on a (comparative) handful of pages but had intended to update those pages once I inquired how to find them. Rest assured that in the next hour I will alter all those pages with the correct gender format. Again, sorry. Now that I know about Category:Pages with module errors, I will be much quicker about fixing that those problems as soon as they arise. —JohnC5 08:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed, and again sorry for the trouble. —JohnC5 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, John. I've created {{R:Smith's DGRG}}, which cites William Smith’s 1854 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography on Perseus. It might be useful for you if you're ever working on entries for placenames and the like mentioned in Classical sources. Please let me know if the documentation requires elaboration, clarification, or whatever. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym As all the hip youths say nowadays: "Coolio!" This will be very useful. —JohnC5 03:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's good to hear. Cheers! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I had been using mostly WikiSpecies when I added some of these. What do you use? Catalogue of Life? The Plant List? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring, Pengo I asked Pengo to make a script (whose input and output is here) to find all the descendants of a term. Further discussion may be found on Pengo's page, and hopefully Pengo may answer any other questions. —JohnC5 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring Sorry, have been logged out for a bit. Yes, they're all from CoL. Pengo (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I try to take the long view on taxonomic name matters. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Re your revision of pedophilia's etymology, judging from the facts that the two earliest-dated quotations at Citations:pedophilia (1900, 1908) are by or refer to the seminal German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who seems to have coined the term Pädophilia erotica (“paedophilia erotica”), and that the German Pädophilie is cited sixty-five years earlier than the English pedophilia (see Citations:Pädophilie), I think we can quite justifiably state that the English pedophilia derives from an adaptation of the German Pädophilie. What do you think? Shall I make the change to the English entry's etymology? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: That seems good enough for me! I think we should still leave the AG and the English surface analysis, as they are both relevant. Would you agree?

Re Γελλώ, where in this wide, wide project can I find someone good at Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform? I spent a while trying to figure out what to put, but I was too unsure. —JohnC5 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

How's this? I don't know of any cuneiform-able users here, but I've added your request to Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/May#Γελλώ. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: ✓+ —JohnC5 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

BTW, could you create the Aeolic Γέλλω (Géllō), please? That's the lemma for the only form we have that's actually attested (Γέλλως). In point of fact, I think it's pretty weird that LSJ lemmatises Γελλώ (Gellṓ) without a single citation to support that form… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yeah, so I was trying to decide this one. @ObsequiousNewt has been working on a new module of AG dialectal declension, and I was considering waiting until Newt finished so that we could get a hold of the Aeolic declension. I think though that that implementation may still be a little while out; so, I'm unsure how to proceed at the moment. —JohnC5 21:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's fine now that you've added those quotations prompted by the DGE (though those {{Q}} abbreviations need to defined in Module:Quotations/grc/data). Re waiting for Aeolic declension, that's totally fine; feel free to hold off until that's ready. I suppose this is a bit of a nudge to ObsequiousNewt. ;-) (BTW, you don't need to use {{reply to}} or its redirect, {{ping}}, to ping anyone; just liking to a person's user page in the same edit as posting a signature with ~~~~ will ping that person.) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm working as quickly as I can; there's a lot of cross-referencing I have to do to get the dialectical forms in line. Just put a rfinfl tag on it and one of us will remember to take care of it later. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: Please, there's absolutely no need for you to apologise; my winking emoticon was meant to suggest that my pressuring you was in jest. Thank you for all your fine work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @I'm so meta even this acronym: So, in reference to your {{Q}} point, I have often omitted citations because the source was not contained in the module (and I often cross-reference what is in the module). I have in the past had trouble finding a good, compendious list of all the standard AG references, until a few nights ago, when I found this in the DGE. I would start adding them all to the module so that we would not encounter this problem again, but my Greek is not good enough for me to link properly to Greek Wikisource and I am unclear as to the canonical naming convention used to translate the titles in the module already (not to mention the DGE being in Spanish, which I translate by triangulating between French, Latin, and wordreference.com). If someone wanted to help me add them (and also spruce up Module:Quotations/la/data), I'd be very grateful.
As for the continuing pedophilia etymology question, I have often been confused about whether a word constructed from AG roots should be categorized with {{etyl}}. I think it should because, no matter how you look at it, you eventually get back to AG, but I don't know whether etyl is supposed to be limited to only the exact root lemma coming up through time. Also, borrowings confuse me slightly. —JohnC5 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that lista of autores y obras is most useful! I had plans to work on an appendix for the Old, Classical, and Late Latin corpora; I suppose I should link up whatever I do on that with Module:Quotations/la/data. Given that I therefore need to learn what to do with those Quotations//data modules, I'd be happy to learn the ropes by helping with the Byzantine Greek quotations-data module, if you wouldn't mind teaching me.
I hope you weren't offended by my reversion. My thinking is that the Ancient Greek παῖς and φιλέω aren't really "operative" in this etymology; they're redundant to the English affixes. I don't think there's all that much agreement about categorisation of entries vis-à-vis ultimate but indirect etyma, but re your obviously correct and valid point about "eventually get back to AG", that has the consequence of adding almost everything in English to Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European, which I don't think is very desirable. Hence my rather vague regulatory notion of the "operativeness" of etyma. Any thoughts? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd love to help fix the Latin and Greek Q modules. How should we decide on titles and dates? Also, should we write all of our changes into one of our namespaces and then add them all at onces or just steadily add new authors piecemeal?

As for the etyl question: I'm not overly concerned. Until someone gets me embroiled in one of the RfV blood feuds because I disagreed on etymological policy, I think your edit and my general sense of the issue should work. —JohnC5 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Titles: Whatever's the scholarly standard, I guess (there's hoping there is one!). Dates: I am personally not very satisfied that displayed date ranges are currently whatever the author's birth and death dates are; I hope that dates are definable on a per-work basis. I'm pretty clueless about all this, though, and am unfamiliar with Lua, in which Modules are written. @ObsequiousNewt Do you have the time, patience, and inclination to do some hand-holding here? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Once I'm done with the inflection modules, probably, and sure. The first condition will make it a while until then, though. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: That's fine with me; thanks. I'm sure John and I have some preparatory work we could do in the meantime. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym, ObsequiousNewt: I've set up my User:JohnC5/Sandbox3 as a space for adding entries to be added later into the AG module, and I've provided an example template/explanation that may be copied to create entries. ISMETA, shall we start adding authors not in the module? I would start now, but I am currently writing an interminably long PIE article. —JohnC5 03:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the example template, but I'm not exactly clear on how to use it. Could you add one or two author entries to User:JohnC5/Sandbox3, so that I can see it in action, please? (Sorry to disturb your work on the "interminably long PIE article". Is that something for Wikipedia?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @I'm so meta even this acronym: No worries. the article/entry was *gʷʰer- and all its derivatives (just a whole mess of citations). I've added a couple for you to look at. — This unsigned comment was added by JohnC5 (talk • contribs) at 21:37, 7 May 2015.

Thank you. I shall do what I can to help with User:JohnC5/Sandbox3 in times to come. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi John. I finally got round to starting to help with User:JohnC5/Sandbox3. Could you check my maiden contribution, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Looks good to me, though you forgot some commas separating members of lists. Normally the titles of entries are given in English or Latin, but then again, the user never sees them, so I guess using AG is good. As for contra Apionem, I'd say make one entry, and we will jury-rig it to point to two separate wikisources (if such pages are ever created). As for dates, I'm still a little hazy as to how the date module works and what ways will and will not be interpreted correctly. —JohnC5 19:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response, and sorry about the commata. Re "Normally the titles of entries are given in English or Latin, but then again, the user never sees them, so I guess using AG is good.", sorry, what bit does the user see? My intention was that Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, Ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ Πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλία, and Ἰωσήπου Βίος would be the titles visible to the user; did I get the code wrong?

I find some of the DGE’s citations very confusing. See, for example, its entry for Ἀραμαῖοι, which includes the citations "Posidon.280", "Posidon.281a", "I.AI 1.144", "Abyd.8", and "Str.16.4.27". "I.AI 1.144" is unproblematically "T. Flavius Josephus, Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία 1.144" and "Str.16.4.27" is pretty clearly "Strabo, Γεωγραφικά 16.4.27", but the DGE’s entry in its lists of authors and works for Abydenus historicus (Abyd.) includes the date "II d.C." and the rather cryptic text "Jacoby, F., FGH n. 685.", whereas "Posidon." is an abbreviation of "Posidonius" and could refer to a physician, a philosopher, or (presumably) a historian. What does "Abyd." actually cite? And which Posidonius is being cited by "Posidon.280" and "Posidon.281a" in the DGE’s entry for Ἀραμαῖοι (Aramaîoi)?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

"d.C." is "después de Cristo", i.e. AD; FGH is the book Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker which unfortunately does not appear to be available on archive.org. Posidonius here refers (I'm fairly sure) to the historian (if it was the philosopher it'd be citing "in Ti."; if it was the physician ap. Aët ) Abyd., like Posidon., cites one of a collection of fragments which would (ideally) be found in Die Fragmente. LSJ/DGE's citation system (like everything about the dictionaries) is complex, unfortunately, and lacks documentation, but I know most of it; if you need help again ask me. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: Thanks. Yeah, I knew d.C., although I did have to look it up to make sure! I think Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker is still in copyright; it seems to have been published originally in the 1950s or thereabouts. All the copies on Amazon.co.uk are ridiculously expensive — mostly over £100 each — and the only CD-ROM version available is the Network Version, and that's about a grand a copy; i.e., I won't be getting hold of that any time soon. Re the three Posidonii, how can I distinguish them in Lua when they all share the Posidon. abbreviation? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a reroute function available—look at Claudius Aelianus for example. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 20:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: You mean in Module:Quotations/grc/data? All I see is one Ael.; there's also an Ael.Tact., but that wouldn't cause the same conflict, would it? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Look at line 195, or 813. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: So, = { = {='Aristides Quintilianus', ='On Music'}} and = { = {='Aelianus Tacticus', ='On Tactical Arrays of the Greeks'}}, respectively? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah, those are the examples I was looking at. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: Am I even close to correct with these additions? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it. I'd leave off including the physician—he's only quoted in other authors, and we don't have an implementation for apud. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt: Thanks. I think I understand all that. :-S
@JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt Can either of you help clarify the matter in my query above (“Re ‘Normally the titles of entries are given in English or Latin, but then again, the user never sees them, so I guess using AG is good.’, sorry, what bit does the user see? My intention was that Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία, Ἱστορία Ἰουδαϊκοῦ Πολέμου πρὸς Ῥωμαίους βιβλία, and Ἰωσήπου Βίος would be the titles visible to the user; did I get the code wrong?”), please?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hello again, John. Re this, does = denote the Greek Wikisource title? BTW, it seems strange to me that we would give Ancient Greek works' titles in Latin and/or English; AFAIK, we don't do that for works in any other language. What is the basis for this practice? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Howdy! = does indeed refer to the Greek Wikisource page. The behavior of rlFormat is a bit more complicated to explain; though I can, if you'd like. As to why the reference names are that way, I imagine it is because all the sigla are abbreviations of the English or Latin names. Whether this is a good convention or not is beyond me. —JohnC5 06:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry to be a pain, but would you mind explaining the function of rlFormat to me, too, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yes, though it may be a few days before I have internet long enough to type up an explanation. —JohnC5 17:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please, take your time; it can wait. I'm sorry to inconvenience you. I hope you're enjoying your travels. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Re this, you may find using {{Special:Prefixindex/User:JohnC5/}} useful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I'm actually aware of that, but I haven't used it yet because the width of the columns forces the links to appear below the Babel box which leaves an awkward distance between the the links and the rest of the content on the page. Thank you for pointing it out, though! I may wait until there is more filler (like if people added smileys to my list...) before switching over to the prefix method. —JohnC5 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

How’s this? Feel free to revert that if it's not your bag. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym, Dixtosa: Thank you both! My page looks much better now. I see neither of you were inclined to add smileys.

In a tangential note, META, do you really use the phrase to be one's bag legitimately or just humorously? I thought it was antiquated, but it may be common UK practice for all I know. —JohnC5 20:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There you go. Feel free to delete it if you think it's crap (I won't be offended). Yes, to be one’s bag has some currency in the UK, though it's usually restricted to negative constructions and singular possessors; i.e., it’s not my/your/his/her/Brian’s/Mary’s bag. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

This seems very dubious. It's an athematic noun, and those never have the accent on the last syllable in the nominative. I don't think Sanskrit and Greek evidence is strong enough, as both of these could have regularised the accent. —CodeCat 11:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: That seems fair. Feel free to return it to normal. —JohnC5 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey John. Wanna be a sysop? --Type56op9 (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9: I'm fine with that. I've only been here a little while, but if you think it is appropriate and want to nominate me, go for it. —JohnC5 09:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sweet! Accept here please and good luck. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Type56op9: Curses! I was going to suggest the same thing today. You beat me to it, WF… :-) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand what brought about this bought of nomination fury. American election preseason, perhaps? Regardless, thank you, Type!

@I'm so meta even this acronym: thanks as well. In other news, and I think you told me before, but why are you adding so many German medieval titles at the moment? I enjoy researching them a lot because it means I get to read Fraktur and medieval legal Latin, but I'm still curious. —JohnC5 20:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Please excuse the customary delay in my response. In answer to your question, it's just that I find the intricacies of the Holy Roman Empire absolutely fascinating (I was probably reading about the Archduchy of Austria this time round). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Stephen G. Brown: Thanks for the heads-up! —JohnC5 20:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. I worked on the Latin entry on the page -a today; it has two lemmata, so you may find it useful to refer to them in some of the etymologies that you write. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

^٭_٭٭Shiny!٭_٭^٭ That will be useful. —JohnC5 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

:-) Also, this. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fair, though it lacks that “personal touch.” —JohnC5 22:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

:-(  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

D'awww, sorry. :v —JohnC5 22:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Awkward but cute, indeed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re this, n.b. that pinging only works when the links to user pages are created in the same edit as a new ~~~~-generated signature. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: that makes sense. Do we think this worked? If not, I'm too embarrassed to try again anyway. —JohnC5 21:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It didn't, but it's unnecessary regardless. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well thanks anyway! —JohnC5 00:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. We need something like {{la-noun-multidecl}} to handle cases like σκῠ́φος (skúphos), with its two (or three) genitives, two genders, and two declensions. What do you reckon? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 06:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Sooo... I could make a normal template or we could try to make Module:grc-headword like the one User:Kc kennylau‎ is making. I'd really prefer if the normal {{grc-noun}} had all the functionality of a potential -multidecl template as well as the preëxisting {{grc-noun-con}} template. —JohnC5 08:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations for your admin status! --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kc kennylau: Thanks. The number of buttons is overwhelming―I worry that I may accidentally delete the entire French language or something. —JohnC5 20:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations. Now that it’s too late, I’ll let you know that doing admin work is a pain in the ass! — Ungoliant ^(falai) 20:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: :P —JohnC5 20:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I second (or third) kc_kennylau's and Ungoliant's congratulations. You'll be fine! :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

itsUS,"framed":false,"label":"Reply","flags":,"classes":}'>Reply

I am unsure exactly what the above question asks. My guess is “American: it's US, or you meant CHILE??” If this is correct, I'm still unsure to what this is referring. Please clarify if possible. Thanks! —JohnC5 20:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oughtn't the fio entry simply direct to facio?, as does for example odior. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@IOHANNVSVERVS: Howdy! You my be right; though I remember learning them separately in school, and it does in fact possess enough meanings unique to the passive that I like it possessing its own lemma. What do you think, META? —JohnC5 00:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: I didn't get that ping, but yes, I'd support them being two separate lemmata. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Expertos credam IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw your comment here, which said, "Let's see if this baby works!" In the future, if you want to test a transliteration module before deploying it, you can use the {{xlit}} template with the module= parameter. --WikiTiki89 17:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: You're the best; this is quite useful. There are some many useful tools hidden through out this project that I had yet to find.

Also, I'm having a little trouble getting 𐌌𐌄⁚𐌉𐌑𐌍 (me iín)/𐌌𐌄:𐌉𐌑𐌍 (me:iín) to behave correctly (they should produce mefiín). Can you figure out what's wrong? —JohnC5 17:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. The problem was that when gsub is looking up the replacement string in the table, it can only match exact strings and not regular expressions (or, as Lua calls them, "patterns"). --WikiTiki89 17:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Aha! So if I used a loop like I had done before, I could use the regex behavior. Makes sense. Also, I feel stupid for not having thought of that solution. :/

In the same vein, do you have any thoughts about the use of ⁚ vs. : in lemmata? I may want to do a vote or something because I've made a lot of decisions in module:Ital-translit and Appendix:Old Italic script concerning which transliteration should be mapped to what character (especially when I'm using a different transliteration for a character than the canonical transliteration or, in the case of South Picene, bringing in punctuation). I feel like I should get an outside go ahead before moving, say, mefiín to 𐌌𐌄⁚𐌉𐌑𐌍 (me iín)/𐌌𐌄:𐌉𐌑𐌍 (me:iín). Other people who might care about this include but are not limited to @I'm so meta even this acronym, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, EncycloPetey, The Man in Question. —JohnC5 18:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The use of transliteration instead of Italic script for South Picene was discussed in the Beer Parlour. Admittedly, the turnout of the discussion was very low, but you may want to discuss it again before moving things around. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no opinion. If there is an Old Italic script-specific Unicode character, then that would be the right choice, otherwise I don't know. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Wikitiki89: Re ⁚ vs. :, what is it meant to denote? The former is essentially the Ancient Greek full stop, whereas the latter is an ordinary colon; all other things being equal, the former better befits the Old Italic script, but is it used similarly? Re which script to use for South Picene, I'd favour the Old Italic script with non–Old-Italic characters used as temporary augmentations until Unicode catches up and encodes the missing characters. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

My impression, based solely on the module and this discussion, is that the two dots are used as the letter "f" in South Piscene and as some sort of punctuation in the other Old Italic-script languages. --WikiTiki89 19:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: Oh, so it isn't any kind of punctuation. In that case, let's use ⁚ ( ), which can serve as one of the aforementioned "non–Old-Italic characters used as temporary augmentations until Unicode catches up and encodes the missing characters". — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

At least in South Picene it isn't. Here's what it looks like, by the way. --WikiTiki89 20:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wikitiki89: I see ⁚ and ⁝ there, but I don't know what the hell they're supposed to mean… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I'll have a post in the BP soon discussing all these issues, but in South Picene:

• · represents an o (thought to be an alteration of 𐌏)
• ⁚ represents an f (thought to be an alteration of 𐌚)
• ⁝ represents a word-break

You can see an example of this in the quotations for mefiín. —JohnC5 02:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Hmmm. I remember reading somewhere in Unicode's various bits of documentation that glyph variations should be handled by different fonts and that codepoints shouldn't be used in ways for which they were not intended semantically. Consider the alternative and imagine if we codepoint-matched all these Greek glyph variants. How feasible is it to have a specific South Picene font which will make 𐌏 look like · and make 𐌚 look like ⁚? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unit tests, people. — Keφr 17:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Kephir: fair point... —JohnC5 18:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I created the unit tests page with one test. You may want to add more. --WikiTiki89 18:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi John. Re your recent changes to R:L&S and to R:Gaffiot, whilst I appreciate attention being drawn to my recent translation at en:w:Félix Gaffiot, I must confess that I dislike the “Leiden” style of reference template. Its most distinguishing feature, namely the emboldened year in parentheses, gives undue emphasis to a fairly trivial datum (presumably by mistaken analogy with how quotations are currently formatted); for a quotation, the date is probably its most important metadatum, but for a cited authority, what's really important is not when it was written, but how authoritative that source is. In my opinion, the most important bit of information we can add to a reference template is a link to a Wikipedia article that answers the question “Why should I give any credence to this reference work?” That's why I bothered to translate those two Wikipédia articles. However, in deference to Dan P.'s objections, I otherwise try to keep the text of reference templates brief; accordingly, I think it's worth removing the names of the publisher and printing location, since they provide very little benefit to users or to what I believe to be the purpose of a reference template. Do you mind if I revert your changes to {{R:Gaffiot}} and restore {{R:L&S}} to this revision? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Academic references always include the publisher and the place of publication. Why would you remove that information? Something like "Lewis & Short’s Latin Dictionary (1879)" is insufficient for finding the source in real world. And 99% of references will not have a helpful Wikipedia link.

As for the style, I dislike it too, even though personally I have "Leidenized" many of our references. But I did not start the style, I simply try to be uniform. We should probably import w:Module:Citation and follow Wikipedia's citation style. --Vahag (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I did not intend to step on anyone's toes. I do feel that some of our references are distinctly lacking in useful publisher/location information and would be sad to see it gone (A lot of the reference templates look very unofficial and weird, like {{R:Strong's}} for example). As to the Leiden style, I chose that one because it is somewhat standard and because I find it easy to read, even if it does place very undue emphasis on the year of publication. If you choose to change them back, I would request that you keep the publication info and that we then start the exercise in trench warfare of trying to get a standardized method for making reference templates. Sorry to be a bother, but I do find the wild variety and informality of citation styles very annoying. —JohnC5 16:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: I am also starting to think that a proper discussion of how to format reference templates is necessary, but I don't think I have the stomach for, as you say, "the exercise in trench warfare" which that'll involve. :-S

@Vahagn Petrosyan: What would w:Module:Citation make {{R:L&S}} look like?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It will look like this:

Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 250b.

See the formatting here.

I do not find a functionality for specifying a headword, but perhaps we do not need it at all. --Vahag (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Vahagn Petrosyan: That's imperfect, but I shall keep close to that style in the reference templates I create in response to ObsequiousNewt's requests in #Reference templates. Many of the issues here have been discussed in Template talk:R:L&S#Provision of publisher, so I shan't repeat myself, but re "perhaps we do not need at all", you can't be serious — the entry cited and the link to the L&S entry on Perseus is by far the most important thing that reference template generates! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The link to the Perseus entry is of course important and I agree that preferably the headword should be mentioned somewhere, but I am not convinced that putting the headword first is the best solution. When you have a mix of dictionaries and regular books in the references, as in շանթ (šantʻ), the list looks uneven, because some references start with an author, others with a headword. I would put the headword at the end of the reference, perhaps in the format "s.v. headword". IMO, the surname of the author should be listed first and the references should be sorted alphabetically, as in academic publications. When an author is mentioned somewhere in the entry, the reader can easily scan the list and find the reference. --Vahag (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Vahag: The thing is, if we follow The Generic Style Rules for Linguistics (December 2014), we will inevitably have "uneven"-looking lists if we ever cite two or more reference types (from amongst journal articles, books, articles in edited books, and theses) in one entry. Right now, putting cited headwords first is an almost invariable common practice, though I would be open to a Beer Parlour discussion that would reconsider that practice. Also, what would we do for citation templates like {{R:OLD}}? It cites the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which doesn't really have a compiler associated with it (unlike Lewis & Short or Gaffiot), so there'd be little benefit in naming the editorial team that compiled it (and even if we did for consistency's sake, that team comprised nineteen members, so naming them all would take up a huge amount of space). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess you're right. Dictionaries are too different. --Vahag (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Vahag: I appreciate your efforts to bring about some kind of consistency in our referencing templates. Your comments certainly have not fallen on deaf ears. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

How'd you like to do me a solid and create Smyth, Herbert Weir (1920) “No number provided”, in A Greek grammar for colleges, Cambridge: American Book Company, Lua error in Module:R:Smyth at line 59: SmythSection wants input in the first parameter and Template:R:Buck? And maybe Template:R:Pharr while you're at it. I'd do it myself but I figure you know how to cite things better.—ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

When the book is on archive.org it is possible to automatically link to a given page. See the code in Template:R:xcl:AG. --Vahag (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt, Vahagn Petrosyan: I'd like the chance to practise my coding, so if it's OK with y'all, please leave these three to me. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Go for it; though it might aalso be nice to write some Lua to make interfacing with archive.org easy and pretty. —JohnC5 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Isn't that what {{R:xcl:AG}} does with {{#if:{{{page|}}}{{{pages|}}}|, +|}}+30}} {{#if:{{{page|}}}|page|pages}} {{{page|{{{pages}}}}}}]}}? Or did you have something different in mind? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I guess so, but it really is quite ugly. —JohnC5 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. I'll see if I can code something neater. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I was maybe thinking of writing code that would take a page input like "ii-xxv1-390" and turn it into the archive.org page format. —JohnC5 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

What does the "ii-xxv1-" bit in that page input represent? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yeah, I didn't explain that well. I was thinking of a tool where you could specify how many and what value pages were in the front matter (i-xvii) and how many and what value pages in the content (1-384), also specify on what number the archive.org webpage numbering began, and this information would be used to convert something like |page=v or |page=56 into the url. Does that make sense? —JohnC5 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yeah, I understand you now. Leave it with me and I'll see what I can do. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added some information on Korean reading and meaning to this article, my edits were reverted by User:Atitarev without any comments/clarifications. I've asked Atitarev what's wrong (in Russian, politely), he didn't reply. My original thought was that it’s an error of some kind, and I've restored my edit, asking for comments. Atitarev rolled me back and protected the page. What am I missing? You can see that Korean readings are being added to similar articles (樂), but my edit is unacceptable?.. Ле Лой (talk) 08:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ле Лой I'm sorry I haven't replied and locked the entry for now. I've been too busy to address it but your edit is wrong and unacceptable (bad formatting, no definition). A Korean entry needs correct hangeul (not comma separated), as a minimum and entries without definitions are discouraged. You can look at other hanja/hangeul entries or ask for advise at Tea room. I have fixed the entry now with diff and removed the protection. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 08:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Ле Лой (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Atitarev: Thanks for following up on this!

@Ле Лой: I'm sorry that this misunderstanding occurred, and I hope that you will continue editing English Wiktionary. I am a little curious, though, why you appealed to me? I appreciate the gesture, but I neither speak any Asiatic languages nor have interacted with Anatoli before (though, I'd love to do so in the future). I'm just curious how you chose me as the appropriate person with whom to talk. —JohnC5 13:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, you’re the latest appointed administrator, so the chances are you’re still active in this project. In other wikiprojects experienced admins often have an unpleasant tendency to become less active and involved... I’m sorry for the disturbance. Ле Лой (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ле Лой: Don't worry at all. It cost me no time since the problem was already resolved. I was just very curious about the reasoning, and I am glad to get to talk to you. There are so many users on this project with whom I have had no overlap at all. —JohnC5 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wonder, brother, whether the changes you made to Deismus merit paralleling at Pandeismus? Blessings!! Pandeist (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Template:repy to Seems like a reasonable idea to me! —JohnC5 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see that there has been a transition to a shortened version of the Ancient Greek transliterations (the previous long version appearing only if expanded). Some of the edits were by you, so I'm writing on your talk page, because I don't know where the discussion page for this is. What I'd like to say is that I doubt that the new format (reduced to A > Y > Z, without dates) is a good idea. It seems to present all the versions, including the basically modern, 15th century one, as being equally 'ancient Greek', and can even create the impression that what 'counts' is the last form, because it is somehow the 'conclusion', whereas the others are preliminary 'premises', perhaps abstract morphological or phonological representations or God knows what. Not everyone will see the possibility to expand the template, I certainly didn't at first. This is particularly unfortunate, given that there seems to be a growing trend of militantly ignorant attacks by some Greeks and some non-Greek students of Greek against all pre-modern pronunciations as 'invented', 'fake' and 'un-Greek', and Wiktionary could be seen as supporting or accommodating this trend. At least the dates should be displayed in some form, IMO. Best, --79.100.140.227 22:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks for your comments. I'm going to bring in ObsequiousNewt on this one as the person who was behind the change. Part of the reasoning is that we prefer a module to the gigantic stack of templates that make up the backend to {{grc-ipa-rows}}. There are some minor errors in {{grc-IPA}} that need correcting, but the overall functionality of this template is much more robust than the old template. As for the initial discussion concerning the matter, I don't remember where that happened at the moment. —JohnC5 23:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

@ObsequiousNewt Did we ever fix the problems with {{grc-IPA}}? —JohnC5 16:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. For some reason, all the months in Latin have an entry, except Februarius, Ianuarius and Martius. As the resident Latin expert, would you mind creating those articles? --Zo3rWer (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zo3rWer: Hello! You make a very good point about these entries. In truth, there was recently a roaring debate about the capitalization of the Latin month names (found here). Indeed all of those month names do exist but in lower case (februarius, ianuarius and martius). I probably do need to make the uppercase versions too, however. —JohnC5 20:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

These categories are currently added to entries manually, but should really be something that {{la-noun}} and {{la-proper noun}} can figure out automatically. Is there interest in adding this functionality and removing the category links? @I'm so meta even this acronym, CodeCat, Esszet —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I've added that functionality to {{la-proper noun}}. I can't do the same for {{la-noun}} because it has already been migrated to Module:la-headword. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I will work on this when I get home.

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I believe other Meta meant for Category:Latin feminine nouns in the first declension, Category:Latin masculine nouns in the second declension, Category:Latin neuter nouns in the second declension, etc. to be included.

PS, ISMETA: After all that late night coding I did yesterday, I had a dream that you implemented a Lua module for {{la-sandwich}} that would take the English name of a sandwich and produce a list of its ingredients in Latin. Just thought I would mention in case you were interested... —JohnC5 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: John was right; I think they should presumably all be included, and it'll have to be in the module. Oh, and by the way, that is a downright wonderful dream. I've had dreams that I was editing Wiktionary, but nothing nearly as juicy as that! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Please excuse my misunderstanding.

@JohnC5: You know, I could probably code {{la-sandwich}} in wikicode… Would that do?

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: You can program it however you feel most comfortable. At the moment, this is relatively low priority. —JohnC5 13:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

:-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: They are created. —JohnC5 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The next Latin template issue that comes to mind which I am incapable of dealing with is {{la-adv}}; it's a very ungainly template and rather difficult to use, in my opinion; it could probably use an overhaul and migration to the module. I feel a mite uncomfortable making all these requests, though, so feel free to leave this one alone if you guys don't see a need to fix it up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: What did you have in mind for {{la-adv}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Nah, that's cool. I will look into it; though, I may forget, so please remind me often. —JohnC5 04:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, are you ok with the nouns being broken up by masc, fem, neut, com, and unk as they are currently? —JohnC5 04:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it's great; the unknown, of course, make helpful cleanup categories. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Is the "common" category all that desirable? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I had the same thought. I can probably change it to do both masculine and feminine if c is entered. I would just like a consensus. @Esszet, CodeCat, Metaknowledge What do y'all think? Should we allow common as an acceptable gender in Latin? —JohnC5 13:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just think it's rather ambiguous. I would assume "common" to describe, in a Latin context, a form or word that is μονογενής — i.e. masc. + fem. + neut., not just masc. + fem. IMO, mf, mn, fn, and mfn would be preferable abbreviations for whatever's meant. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It depends; is ‘common’ generally used to describe Latin nouns that belong to more than one gender, and if so, what exactly does it mean? Esszet (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, John. Did this ping fail? Just drawing your attention to it in case it did. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you use Module:parameters to handle the parameters, it automatically handles things like empty parameters, and which values to treat as "no" and "yes". There's no documentation for it yet, but you may be able to look at other modules' use of it. —CodeCat 01:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: I have, with many dumb errors along the way, converted Module:la-noun to use Module:parameters. I had a question, however. If I specify a parameter type as a list with the code gen_sg = {list = true}, , once this has been processed and there is now a list in args.gen_sg, how will the values be stored? Are they merely indexed or do they retain the user specified key values? If a user specifies |gen_sg=foo|gen_sg=bar|gen_sg2=baz, will this result in args.gen_sg = {gen_sg = "foo", gen_sg1 = "bar", gen_sg2 = "baz"} or in args.gen_sg = {"foo", "bar", "baz"}?

I'd love to program it such that a user can specify footnotes for the second genitive singular form by typing |gen_sg2=Blah blah, but this would be much easier if the first behavior were the case. —JohnC5 05:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you specify gen_sg=foo and gen_sg3=bar, then by default those will be stored as list items 1 and 2 {"foo", "bar"}, which is like your second proposal (although you specified gen_sg= twice so the second will override the first). The "holes" are removed so that the items are contiguous. This obviously doesn't work when you want multiple parameters to act "in parallel" to each other. The example you gave is one such case, there's also other examples in our existing templates ({{compound}} comes to mind). To work around this, there's the setting allow_holes = true that you can specify on a parameter. When you do this, holes are not removed, so that the former case now ends up with list items 1 and 3, and item 2 will be nil. Lua functions that expect contiguous lists, like # to count items or ipairs to iterate in order, will no longer work in this case. To alleviate this, the list will contain an extra item called maxindex which indicates the highest item number that is present in the list. That way you know in advance how far you need to index to get all the items, and you can skip holes along the way. So the full list will be {"foo", nil, "bar", maxindex = 3}. —CodeCat 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: Thanks so much. My knowledge with Lua is still burgeoning, so it is nice to run through the logic with you. This extra functionality―allowing the user to specify notes per form―is not currently necessary, and as such I won't worry about it.

Also, could I entreat you to use your bot to move the members of {{la-decl-1st-loc}}, {{la-decl-2nd-loc}}, and {{la-decl-2nd-N-loc}} to {{la-decl-1st}}, {{la-decl-2nd}}, and {{la-decl-2nd-N}} respectively with the parameter |loc=1? It would be very dull work for me, and I would love to get rid of these templates. —JohnC5 13:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may need this anyway. Let's say someone specifies gen_sg2= but not gen_sg=, with the idea of leaving the first form as the default one generated by the template. With the default of removing holes, the parameter will end up as the first item in the list. This same problem also exists with the head=, head2= parameters of {{head}}, where you don't want head2= to override the first (default) headword. This is why that template uses the allow_holes option for that parameter (see Module:headword/templates). —CodeCat 13:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @CodeCat: So currently, you can specify "/"-delimited forms in gen_sg= for the purpose. Should the plan going forward be:

1. gen_sg= & gen_sg1= only refer to the first form and then gen_sg2= is the second form (this will require a bot run to fix existing entries), etc.
2. gen_sg= overrides the cell entirely (with currently delimited behavior) and gen_sg1= only overrides the first form, etc.
3. Stick with gen_sg= just overriding the whole cell (with currently delimited behavior)

And one more question on behavior: will |gen_sg1=foo, |gen_sg2=bar with allow_holes = true result in {nil, "foo", "bar", maxindex = 3} or {"foo", "bar", maxindex = 2}?

Another consideration is whether we should change the parameter names to be gen_s=, gen_p=, etc. to match {{inflection of}}, as mentioned in Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/September#Latin_noun_inflection_table_templates which would also require a bot run. —JohnC5 13:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's no gen_sg1= defined currently, so using that parameter should give an error. But if I use gen_sg=foo|gen_sg2=bar instead, the result will be: {"foo", "bar", maxindex = 2}. gen_sg2=bar by itself gives {nil, "bar", maxindex = 2}. —CodeCat 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: Sorry the question was for gen_sg = {list = true}, would |gen_sg1=foo|gen_sg2=bar give {nil, "foo", "bar", maxindex = 3}? —JohnC5 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

With no allow_holes, the result for |gen_sg=foo|gen_sg2=bar will be {"foo", "bar"}. —CodeCat 15:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

But |gen_sg1=foo|gen_sg2=bar with allow_holes is what I want to know about. Sorry for all the questions. —JohnC5 15:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no gen_sg1= parameter. —CodeCat 16:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

After some testing, I have indeed determined that indeed arg_name1= is aliased to/overrides arg_name= (it certainly may be entered without error and takes precedence over arg_name=). Sorry for all the confusion. Also, this module you've created is very helpful, and I will use it a lot in the future.

With this in mind, which of the above 3 behaviors do you recommend using? —JohnC5 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, since they are aliases, option 2 is out of the question. I think option 1 is best as this is how many existing templates like {{head}} work. —CodeCat 18:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The problem that this will create is that the user will no longer be able to override the whole cell (in the case of an unattested form or defective declension). I suppose this is somewhat of a rare occurrence, and I may need to go through and code the irregular declensions like vīs and fās anyway. If we switch over to this gen_sg, gen_sg2 system, I will need a bot. Also, is it possible for you to run through the -loc templates and move them over with your bot? —JohnC5 19:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The common way to specify that there is no form is to provide "-" as a value. So gen_sg=- would be enough. —CodeCat 19:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Except if you have a field with two forms (e.g. the genitive singular of Agyrium: Agyriī, Agyrī), you might want to be able to remove the first form, the second form, or both forms and not leave multiple em-dashes. —JohnC5 19:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That is tricky, but I suppose you can use the gen_sg2=- and such for that, where each parameter removes the corresponding numbered form. You have to be careful to do things in the right order, though. After all, if you remove the first form, the second form is now form 1... so you have to delay renumbering the forms until after you remove those that need to go. —CodeCat 19:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If it interests you, Module:parameters is now documented. —CodeCat 17:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, thank you! This was quite informative. —JohnC5 23:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've given you the flood flag; please remove it when you're done and use it every time you're going to be doing rapid automated edits. If you don't, patrolling becomes a lot harder to do... —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I had never used AWB before and had forgotten about that. Sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for fixing that! —JohnC5 06:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

No worries. I'm not sure it worked, so please check. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: My user rights claim I have it. Are you still getting notifications for me? —JohnC5 06:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it was just a bit slow to work. You can check Special:Recentchanges to see whether your edits show up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Still didn't seem to work. I'll stop for a bit and see if it kicks in. I don't want to make your job harder for you. —JohnC5 06:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Also, don't add in the second argument of {{la-noun}} or {{la-proper noun}} because it does nothing and will (hopefully) be removed soon anyway. —JohnC5 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's quite odd. I didn't add in the second argument, just removed it mindlessly while talking to someone else, and now I'm not sure why I did it. Thanks, anyhow. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welp, this is pretty annoying. If we can't get it to work I suppose you should just flood. But in the mean time you might want to figure out why you gave Artemisia a Lua error. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I think I'll just continue along a few at a time and not hit them all at once. As for the footnote question, I had not actually allowed user-specified footnotes, though now you can. I've also considered adding a way for the user to append to the title text. Thoughts? —JohnC5 07:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: Done. Again, sorry for the hassle. I'll try to figure out this flood business. —JohnC5 08:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Would you happen to have dialectal forms for this one too? I'd also appreciate it for any other of the geminate palatals that were present in Proto-Hellenic. Thank you! —CodeCat 19:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there were any other forms of ἄλλος (and, in general, PIE *-ly- yielded either -ιλ- or -λλ- depending on dialect). Also, whether this palatal was properly geminate is... kind of a moot point by my understanding, as there wasn't any length distinction that I know of. Also also, is there a better way to distinguish dialectical forms in the 'Descendants' section? I know we don't classify dialects as separate languages, but even so, it might be better to display them on separate lines. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in knowing which dialects have which reflexes. I'm going by the table at w:Proto-Greek but I don't think it's complete. —CodeCat 20:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Here are some more: *kʰəřřō, *gʷəňňō, *klépťō, *niďďō, *péťťō, *ōyyón. —CodeCat 20:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@CodeCat: All of the information on this matter on w:Proto-Greek comes from §§195-207:

Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York: Oxford University Press. →ISBN.

He goes into much greater detail there. If you want, I can send you a copy of it. —JohnC5 23:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have it already. —CodeCat 23:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wonderful! —JohnC5 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey John, I think you might've left this one half-baked, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Care to take a look? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge Is it better now? OtherMETA and I were trying to figure out a policy for partially attested irregular borrowings from AG (c.f. poppyzōn) and never really figured out a full solution. —JohnC5 04:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)–Reply

Hmm, I'm not sure what's best either; I just ran into it with, among other things, a random {{l|la|—}} hanging out. I've updated the headword-line per your changes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge, JohnC5: Yes, there's still a fair bit of work that needs to be done on the declension of Latin Greek-type third-declension nouns. In the case of chelys, I strongly feel that all the forms apart from the nominative, accusative, and vocative singulars should be asterisked and unlinked. We need something like an |ast= parameter for that; I don't know Lua, in which these declension tables are now coded, so I don't know how practicable and/or elegant such a solution might be. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Meta’s: #nailedit :P —JohnC5 15:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@JohnC5: Beautiful. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Μετάknowledge, JohnC5: Thanks for that. Unfortunately, whilst the forms are now asterisked, they are not unlinked; the headword line and declension table are now generating links to appendical pages like Appendix:Latin/chelyos. This is surely undesirable. Is there a way to turn off this pesky behaviour? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@User:I'm so meta even this acronym The appendical linking is for reconstructed terms, which surely is what the other unattested forms must represent? I'm not sure that this is such a problem. —JohnC5 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think it is, because it would never be desirable (AFAICS) to have entries for reconstructed non-lemmata, so the (blackened) red links are also undesirable. See *abyssimus, for example; none of those red links (except for the one to the Asturian abismu) should be there. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

’Tis an interesting question. I'm not super concerned about it at the moment. Is your suggestion to have anything with an asterisk not link? —JohnC5 00:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

In inflectional tables and headword lines, yes. (Having {{m}} and {{l}} substitute Appendix:LANGNAME/ for a leading asterisk is, however, desirable behaviour, IMO.) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think CodeCat fixed this problem in a module somewhere, but the Latin tables and headword lines use a different module from the one she fixed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Any idea where Code did it? —JohnC5 01:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

She talked about it in Wiktionary talk:About Latin#Adjective declension template naming conventions; it involved a change to the full_link function of something (whatever that is). I don't know what module she was referring to. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hail JohnC5, thank you for your clarification on plēbs. To certify is *pléh₁-dʰuh₁ formed with *dʰeh₁-? I was thinking, cannot, as plēbs is to pleō, trabs (thus something "put across") be to the supposed verb *trō, from which trāns is its pres. act. part.? And so plēbs and trabs share the same formation? Also can further clarification be made on the connection, if there is one, between trabs, taberna, tabula, tabella? Thank you. GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I know almost nothing about Ancient Greek grammar, but I noticed that after you edited σκῶρ, the genitive singular changed from σκᾰτός to σκᾰ́τος even though the former is still in the template call as well as the headword line. Is something wrong there? Esszet (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Esszet: Thanks for catching that. There are a small set of monosyllabic lemmata which have oxytonic oblique forms. These special cases currently require the use of a obloxy=1 parameter. @ObsequiousNewt, may we fix this? —JohnC5 20:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't even look as though that is a complete fix; the nominative, accusative, and vocative dual and plural still have the acute accent (?) on the penultimate syllable instead of the final syllable. Esszet (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is a complete fix; oxytone accent is only oxytone in the oblique cases. By the way, John, your statement was backwards—obloxy was for words like κύων which have recessive accentuation in the nominative but oxytonic in the oblique cases; however, there don't seem to be any "words like κύων", so I removed the argument. I'm not sure what was causing the σκῶρ bug, but I rewrote the relevant code, so it's fixed now. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I'm interpreting this table correctly, then according to Czech and French Wiktionary (as well as Greek Wiktionary for just the plural), the nominative, accusative, and vocative dual and plural of σκῶρ are all oxytonic. Are they all wrong? Esszet (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are indeed all wrong. I don't know if σκάτα per se is attested, but it's a well-attested pattern for all third-declension nouns, i.e. φλέβες, θῆρες, τρίχες, φῶτα. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 23:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if it means much, but this site has σκατά as the nominative plural, and in Modern Greek, the nominative plural is indeed σκατά. Could σκῶρ have been slightly irregular? Esszet (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The only forms attested are the N/A/V and genitive singular. The form σκάτα does not, AFAICT, actually appear. However, it is reconstructible with near-certainty; every other monosyllabic noun accents the non-oblique cases recessively. See Smyth §252, 256, 267. Modern Greek converted the word to a regular second-declension noun, regularising its accent in the process. The website you linked is unfortunately incorrect. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply