User talk:ObsequiousNewt/1
I am also on IRC! If I am there it is a faster way to contact me!
Hello
I noticed that you've been doing some nice work on Ancient Greek, especially on some of the early verb entries that I never got around to cleaning up, and I just wanted to say nicely done and let me know if I can do anything for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm not a very active contributor, but I like to help out anywhere when I see something that needs fixing. Frankly, if you know of accurate resources on Ancient Greek—I'm aiming to get a dictionary, but until then, I'd like to verify my edits, as well as learn more about the language.ObsequiousNewt (talk) 03:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Most people use Perseus' online LSJ9. If you look at the references section of most Ancient Greek entries, such as my most recent creation κατοικέω (katoikéō), you'll find a link to it. To my knowledge, it's the best Ancient Greek dictionary available. I also downloaded a pdf LSJ8, which I use for creating entries, as it's out of copyright, while the LSJ9's status is......fuzzy. I use Smyth's grammar for a lot of my template work, and I believe it's posted online somewhere. My BDAG is useful for Koine, but I suspect you'll have difficulty getting access to it without ponying up the money. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure you knew that {{R:LSJ}} can now autodetect the title and convert it to beta code. There is the odd occasion where you have to add it manually, when Perseus has a bizarre or misspelled title, or some other oddity, but for most entries simply calling the template with no parameters should work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Will do. ObsequiousNewt (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it's generally safe to infer a future passive from an aorist passive. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I read Smyth for a bit after that and was going to add it, but didn't have the time. Also, there are a couple other questions I have:
- 1. What is the vowel length in ἀρτύνω, διψάω, κηρύσσω, etc.? LSJ doesn't specify it as long, short, or unsure... is there a phonotactical rule prohibiting long vowels followed by consonant clusters?
- 2. I read the section on future perfect, and I've considered modifying the template, however: Smyth states that only two verbs actually attest non-periphrastic active forms (ἑστήξω and τεθνήξω); should we include them in the template for all verbs? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Honestly, I've never gotten a solid handle on vowel length. There are rules about consonant clusters, but I feel like they mostly apply to syllable length, and not vowel length, a distinction I'm only recently internalizing. Quite frankly, I suspect that vowel length is probably ambiguous on a lot of words, as it was only meaningful in Classical Greek (and maybe some early Koine?), and there are a fairly limited set of ways to determine it then. Add to that the fact that some words seem to have vowels that have differing lengths depending on the author. In short, I would say that ambiguous vowel length is an inevitability on a lot of our entries.
- 2. I seem to recall that I created a future perfect template when I was doing my original set of conjugation templates, but haven't used it much since. Simply put, it doesn't seem to come up much. I don't know if it's a tense which fell into disuse or what. If it's only attested in a small number of words, then we probably shouldn't have the template used in most of our entries. I would prefer to only show paradigms which have at least some attestation for a word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- 1. So how do we reflect this in IPA? /a(:)/? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well....right now the template treats ambiguous vowels identically to short vowels. I suppose we could change this to fit your suggestion. I don't really have a strong opinion. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- 1. So how do we reflect this in IPA? /a(:)/? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please check your edits before saving
What's the point of adding a pronunciation section if all it contains is a module error (see diff)? Chuck Entz (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops! I usually do check my edits, must have missed that one... lemme see if I can't fix it at the source, though. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 14:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You Signature
Howdy! I was informed recently by Keφr that signature templates are not allowed according to WT:SIG. In truth, I got the idea from seeing you doing it and thinking what a wonderful idea it was, but apparently not. I do not mean to pester you, but it seems we should change over to normal signatures now. :( Thank you for all the great edits, and I hope to work with you on future entries! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 18:47, 03 October 2014 (UTC)
- I know, right? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 19:00, 03 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clean-up. Unfortunately, nothing came of the discussion, so this sort of thing is still necessary. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'd been doing it like that in anticipation of someone eventually making that change, as the consensus seemed to be to do so (but we lacked a moderator. That's what it looked like to me, at any rate.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Well, I've asked Atelaes to make the change; if he's unavailable, perhaps we could ask flyax. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @I'm so meta even this acronym I've asked User:Angr to make the change. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've done it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Angr: Thank you very much. At last, it is done! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination for administratorship
As we discussed in User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym#ἀμφίβραχυς, I have nominated you for administratorship. If you indeed accept the nomination, please go to Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2014-11/User:ObsequiousNewt for admin to indicate your acceptance (before midnight today, if at all possible). Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Strike before midnight yesterday, since that's passed. I've extended the vote-closure time by twenty-four hours, so anytime before midnight today (≤ 23:59, 25 November 2014 ) for your acceptance is fine. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Accepted. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 00:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good-oh. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your vote has passed, you are an Admin. Please add your name to WT:Admin. Also, see Help:Sysop tools. —Stephen (Talk) 00:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Congrats. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the mop. I'll try not to misplace it. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Request for an edit to be made to Module:languages/data2
Hello, ObsequiousNewt. May I ask you to make use of the administratorial tools that were recently bestowed upon you? It would be useful if diaereses (like macra and breves) were stripped from Latin links (see, for example, Nō̆rēïa and, particularly, its declension table). Of course, only those vowels that can form parts of diphthongs need diaeresis-stripping; Latin's diphthongs are ⟨ae⟩, ⟨au⟩, ⟨ei⟩, ⟨eu⟩, and ⟨oe⟩, so only ⟨ë⟩, ⟨ï⟩, and ⟨ü⟩ need diaeresis-stripping (see w:Latin spelling and pronunciation#Diphthongs). The diaeresis has already been stripped from ⟨ë⟩ in Latin links for I don't know how long; AFAICT, for diaereses to be stripped from ⟨ï⟩ and ⟨ü⟩, all that is necessary is for the following part of Module:languages/data2 to be changed from this:
- m = {
- names = {"Latin"},
⋮
entry_name = {- from = {"", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "Ȳ", "ȳ", MACRON, BREVE, DIAER},
to = {"A", "a", "E", "e", "I", "i", "O", "o", "U", "u", "Y", "y"}},
- from = {"", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "Ȳ", "ȳ", MACRON, BREVE, DIAER},
- names = {"Latin"},
to this:
- m = {
- names = {"Latin"},
⋮
entry_name = {- from = {"", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "Ȳ", "ȳ", MACRON, BREVE, DIAER},
to = {"A", "a", "E", "e", "I", "i", "O", "o", "U", "u", "Y", "y"}},
- from = {"", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "Ȳ", "ȳ", MACRON, BREVE, DIAER},
- names = {"Latin"},
A month and a day ago, Wikitiki89 edited Module:languages/data2 to strip, amongst other things, the combining diaeresis (⟨ ¨ ⟩: U+0308 COMBINING DIAERESIS). I assume that he intended by that to strip all diaereses, so my request would seem to be simply a realisation of Wikitiki's intent (@Wikitiki89 If I've misinterpreted your edit and/or you disagree with this proposed change of mine, please opine herein.). Lastly, you can examine the circumstance which brought this request about at Talk:-uleius. Sorry about the long posting; thanks for your time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you; it's much appreciated. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello from Βικιθήκη
Hi, I have a question for you at Βικιθήκη: el:s:Συζήτηση χρήστη:ObsequiousNewt#Please check.... --FocalPoint (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Blocks
Hi Newt. I hope you're having a nice day. This message is all about the recent blocks I've been subjected to, especially the ones where you have given the reason "Unauthorized bot". So you know, I'm not using the bot anymore, and am giving the code to User:BuchmeierBot, so he can run it. If you see me creating lots of Spanish entries over the next few hours/days etc, please know that it is not a bot, but semi-automatic accelerated entries - see User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js/documentation for more information. I will ask for the flood flag so as not to clog up RecentChanges. I hope in the future there will be no more misunderstanding between us. Regards --Type56op9 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- You know what? I'm leaving this alone. I don't want it to be my problem anymore. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 14:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym Take a look at this. Do we think this really would be an example of {{grc-adecl-3rd-ups-prx}} or do we think it is {{grc-adecl-1&3-ups-prx}} like βραχύς but the feminine forms are not attested? If it is the former, could you create this template? :) —JohnC5 04:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Is this "adjective" attested modifying any noun other than πούς (poús)? Because, if not, it won't be attested in anything other than masculine forms. If that's the case, then I think it best that we define it as a noun. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @I'm so meta even this acronym I still think we should include the adjective as a derivative of βραχύς and with a
{{grc-adecl-1&3-ups-prx}}declension. Even if it is an elliptical form, it clearly was an adjective before. —JohnC5 06:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @I'm so meta even this acronym I still think we should include the adjective as a derivative of βραχύς and with a
- @JohnC5: What evidence do you have for that supposition? (BTW, shouldn't we perhaps move this conversation off ObsequiousNewt’s talk page?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Quotation templates
I realised that I don't know how the quotation templates are working now, and what's in modules and what's in templates. (This is what happens when you're not active enough, I guess.) Are the templates in Category:Latin quotation templates meant to be subst:ed, or are they orphaned because nobody's using them? I suspect the latter, but I want to make sure so that if so they can be deleted, and moreover I simply want to cite Latin authors with templates rather than prose and currently am not sure how. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge: The current standard for citing is with
{{Q}}, which references Module:Quotations, which does not appear to subst those Latin templates. Accordingly, I will start deleting them. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)- I've deleted all of the templates save
{{RQ:Cicero Catiline}}and{{RQ:Vulgate}}, which are still in use on more pages than I have interest in reformatting right now. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)- Thank you very much. I'll look into dealing with those two, if I've time. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- So I started trying to convert those, and I quickly realised that I am somehow misusing them, although I haven't the faintest how. This diff shows the problems when I try to convert them. Where am I erring? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- They appear to be missing numbers (book, line, etc.) I should probably see if I can fix Module:Quotations to be a little more direct in that case. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- The documentation for
{{Q}}does not seem to specify that those are not optional correctly, or at least without the necessary explanations; moreover, I don't see why they aren't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)- Alright, it's fixed so you can omit the numbers now (although I'd discourage it, just for the sake of clarity.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
- The documentation for
- They appear to be missing numbers (book, line, etc.) I should probably see if I can fix Module:Quotations to be a little more direct in that case. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 23:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've deleted all of the templates save
Blizzard Etymology
If this is the wrong place for this discussion please inform me.
Please review the changes I contributed to the etymology theories of Blizzard. Note, there is no definitive etymology of Blizzard. Also your reversion has returned content that is obviously totally inadequate. I totally disagree with your reason. Specifically that it was uncited. Nearly the entire contribution was cited. Anything that wasn't was probably my own words. Further more it would have been far more productive to add any citations or flag the content needing citation. The possible etymology of blizzard is extremely complex. The known history of only 145 years is convoluted let alone the possible 800-1400 years preceding it. I reiterate, please review my contribution, clearly something that was not done initially. Reubends 8:45, 19 Feb 2015 (UTC)
- Eh. I removed it because there was way too much content there. Frankly, though, I'd defer the issue to someone more qualified. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do so, normally the etymology section of a word is quite short, however blizzard has no etymology, it does have many theories. Perhaps that fact needs to be pointed out. Reubends 9:12, 19 Feb 2015 (UTC)
As an addition, I am attempting to reduce wordiness and improving ease of reading for my content. Reubends 9:40, 19 Feb 2015 (UTC)
Theosophy
I see that you reverted my edits of theosophy; I also read both pages you suggested (WT:WINW and WT:WFW). I do not understand the reversion.
- All contemporary dictionaries define at least two senses of the word "theosophy" – your reversion imposes a limit of one sense.
- Understandable, but your definitions are much too wordy, and quite encyclopædic in tone. If you can rewrite them for brevity's sake, I will not dispute their inclusion.
- A link to the archaic spelling is, in my opinion, dictionary type information – your revert removed the association.
- Fixed. Apologies, I wasn't being very meticulous and I missed a couple things that should have been kept.
- The information I added to the Etymology section greatly improved information about the historic sense of the word.
- While this is true, Wiktionary standards prefer brief etymologies. Information about dates and places of attestation do not belong in the etymology.
- The English IPA that I added to the Pronunciation section improved the usage of the word, also the order I used was per WT:MOS – your revert not.
- Fixed.
- I moved "Theosophical" from the Related terms section to the Derived terms section since that is what it is – this part of your revert does not make sense.
- Fixed.
- All content I added is fully cited and attribution was given.
- The quotes I added were the actual usage of the word "theosophy" – your revision stripped most of those out.
As this is my first wiktionary article, I closely read the diff from your reversion but still do not see the reason. Please explain the revert to me so that I can again improve the article. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Long lists of quotations belong in the appropriate citations page. I was in the process of moving them there, which move has now been completed. I'd appreciate it if you could check the formatting of those quotations, as well as cut down on the size of some of them (context is desirable, but we probably don't need more than the sentence that uses the word.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleting Categories
When you delete a category, you should always empty it first. Please go through the redlinked "Ancient Greek entries missing..." categories in Special:WantedCategories and empty them- there are already too many redlinks that just sit on that page forever (for good reason), as it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see I missed some. Thanks for pointing that out, I believe I've taken care of all of them. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
ᾍδης and grc-IPA
The {{grc-IPA}} seems to have trouble auto-generating the pronunciation for ᾍδης, I assume, because of an error created when trying to make ᾍ lowercase. —JohnC5 04:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
=mw.ustring.lower("ΑΆἈἌἎἉἍἏᾼᾈᾌᾎᾉᾍᾏ")- αάἀἄἆἁἅἇᾼᾈᾌᾎᾉᾍᾏ
- =mw.ustring.upper("αάἀἄἆἁἅἇᾳᾀᾄᾆᾁᾅᾇ")
ΑΆἈἌἎἉἍἏᾼᾈᾌᾎᾉᾍᾏ- So, yeah. The problem lies deeper than that. I'll look into it. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 15:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Did we ever figure this out? —JohnC5 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do you know, I thought I had submitted a bug report... but no. Well, here's one. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 00:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- Did we ever figure this out? —JohnC5 20:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Your revert of θεό-
You reverted my move of Ancient Greek section. Why. It is a Combining form of θεός (theós), there is a template for this type of word. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thinking it over, I admit that was wrong. I guess I just wanted to discourage people treating it like a prefix (the way I have seen e.g. -λογία treated as a suffix when it's really just a compound of λόγος and -ία.) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- The terms that get Latinized stay as a combining form also. The references were specific to the combining form. The combining form does get used in as prefix in languages that borrow from Ancient Greek, that is a fact, it is reasonable to show a surface etymology that way because it conveys more meaning to the user and categorizes so the user can see broader use by clicking a link. I'm also going to create an entry for Ancient Greek σοφ- (soph-) as a combining form of
{{term|σοφός||||lang=grc}}and -σοφ (-soph) as a combining form of{{term|σοφός||||lang=grc}}(one to show a functional prefix and the other to show a functional suffix) and will add links to those entries in a usage section. I see exactly what you are saying about λόγος (lógos) but a user who does not read the Greek alphabet benefits greatly from the handholding that a separate page that states "this is a combining form" and provides references to English sources about the combining form. I think it is beneficial to have separate entries for the English Wiktionary that clarify the distinction of a combining form, those entries are in reality the stem or base gets that gets borrowed (for example σοφός (sophós) from Proto-Indo-European *sap- according to its reconstructed etymology).—BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)- Please don't create -σοφ; that's not even a suffix; that's like making an entry for the wis- in wisdom. Just etymologize θεοσοφία as θεός (theós) + σοφία (sophía). Having θεο- is useful, yes, and having -λογία is probably even useful, as it only appears in compounds (but this is not universally the case; compare σοφία). But please keep in mind that they are not prefixes and suffixes as theo- and -sophy are in English. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think they are the Ancient Greek compounding forms that were Latinized. For example θεοσοφία becomes Latin theo- + soph- + -ia and theo- + soph- + -us and eventually English theosoph and theosophe. So θεο- (theo-), i.e. the combining form of normative word, show up in surface analysis of the english words. Wiktionary is not paper and having combining forms on a separate page with separate references and explicitly showing that many English words that originated as Ancient Greek were Latinized and then borrowed into English sometimes through French or Middle French – so having σοφ- is, I think, good. Although they are not prefix and suffix in Ancient Greek, but I think it is better than saying that σοφ is a compounding form without the hint that the "-" provides. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) modified 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- As Atelaes said: "If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound." For example, -λογία, and -δοτός, respectively. But σοφ- does not merit a separate entry (and θεο- should be hard-redirected to θεός in my honest opinion), any more than intima- (intimate, intimacy) would be a separate entry in English. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The redirect is not a good idea and, from what I was reading, is not the English Wiktionary preferred way. I think Atelaes is mistaken – capitalized forms have separate pages since they convey additional meaning through capitalization, as do combining forms since they convey addition meaning by explicitly stating that they are combining forms – but like Atelaes, I think the simplex form is the lemma. The combing form does not even contain the same amount of characters so just from that point it is not the identical. Do contemporary Greek dictionaries include combining forms as separate entries like many other languages? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, the combining form isn't identical graphically, but if it's identical in meaning (i.e. usually) then it doesn't get a separate entry. And no, no Greek dictionariesd that I know include combining forms as separate entries. I have seen no dictionary of any language that does. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 02:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- The redirect is not a good idea and, from what I was reading, is not the English Wiktionary preferred way. I think Atelaes is mistaken – capitalized forms have separate pages since they convey additional meaning through capitalization, as do combining forms since they convey addition meaning by explicitly stating that they are combining forms – but like Atelaes, I think the simplex form is the lemma. The combing form does not even contain the same amount of characters so just from that point it is not the identical. Do contemporary Greek dictionaries include combining forms as separate entries like many other languages? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- As Atelaes said: "If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound." For example, -λογία, and -δοτός, respectively. But σοφ- does not merit a separate entry (and θεο- should be hard-redirected to θεός in my honest opinion), any more than intima- (intimate, intimacy) would be a separate entry in English. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think they are the Ancient Greek compounding forms that were Latinized. For example θεοσοφία becomes Latin theo- + soph- + -ia and theo- + soph- + -us and eventually English theosoph and theosophe. So θεο- (theo-), i.e. the combining form of normative word, show up in surface analysis of the english words. Wiktionary is not paper and having combining forms on a separate page with separate references and explicitly showing that many English words that originated as Ancient Greek were Latinized and then borrowed into English sometimes through French or Middle French – so having σοφ- is, I think, good. Although they are not prefix and suffix in Ancient Greek, but I think it is better than saying that σοφ is a compounding form without the hint that the "-" provides. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC) modified 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please don't create -σοφ; that's not even a suffix; that's like making an entry for the wis- in wisdom. Just etymologize θεοσοφία as θεός (theós) + σοφία (sophía). Having θεο- is useful, yes, and having -λογία is probably even useful, as it only appears in compounds (but this is not universally the case; compare σοφία). But please keep in mind that they are not prefixes and suffixes as theo- and -sophy are in English. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- The terms that get Latinized stay as a combining form also. The references were specific to the combining form. The combining form does get used in as prefix in languages that borrow from Ancient Greek, that is a fact, it is reasonable to show a surface etymology that way because it conveys more meaning to the user and categorizes so the user can see broader use by clicking a link. I'm also going to create an entry for Ancient Greek σοφ- (soph-) as a combining form of
For examples, see “theo-, comb. form”, in OED Online 
, Oxford: Oxford University Press, launched 2000., “-logy, comb. form”, in OED Online , Oxford: Oxford University Press, launched 2000., “-theism, comb. form”, in OED Online , Oxford: Oxford University Press, launched 2000., and throughout; see θεό- in Dictionary of Standard Modern Greek. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- And that falls under the first exception, because English doesn't have a standalone form of theo- or -sophy. But Ancient Greek does, so it doesn't need separate pages. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Both theo- and θεό- are not the standalone forms but the combining forms – they are listed as separate entries in above example links in English and in Greek. The 2010 comment (found here Talk:Wander-) clearly shows the confusion between the way an entry is nested and the semantics about what type of thing it is; since it is nested as a prefix, i.e., contained within the prefix category instead of the combining form category (which does not exist in wiktionary but does exist in contemporary reference dictionaries). The comment "Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon" is ironic since many words are found in dictionaries and that is the purpose of a dictionary. I see from the discussion you quoted:
- "I've walked up and down several Wanderwegs in Switzerland - is that a reasonable use of the prefix?" —SemperBlotto
- "Wanderweg is a compound word. I don't think that you call the first part in a compound a prefix. But I am not an expert in grammar. Maybe someone should decide this, who knows the exact definition of prefix" —Zeitlupe
- "No, not as a noun, but as a verb, 'wander' is the word stem of wandern. You can build a compound word starting with a verb too. " —Zeitlupe
- "Delete If part of a compound is simply a word, which means the same thing in the compound as it does alone, then we should not have an affix entry for it. Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon. We should only have affix entries when the part of a compound does not have a standalone counterpart, or means something different when its used as a compound." Atelaes
- "'Wander' is the root. German verb forms end in -en or -n, so 'wandern' is the verb formed from that root. Basically, Zeitlupe is right." —S Marshall 18:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- that the logic is about what is a prefix not about what is a combining form. Moreover, the discussion does not mention whether that combining form is found in other dictionaries, in other words was the discussed entry descriptive and showed the combining form used in other dictionaries. It is not descriptive to eliminate combining forms any more than it is to eliminate declination entries. Wiktionary is not paper, and if Atelaes reasoned that "Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon" then combining forms should remain as they are the information bearing unit that crosses language and script boundaries. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- I feel like you're confusing different languages here. theo- is a prefix in English, but it is a combining form in Ancient Greek. "Contemporary dictionaries" of English don't show combining forms of English words, they show prefixes which come from Ancient Greek combining forms. You might find theo-#German in a German dictionary, but you're not going to find Schul- or Arbeits. The former is a prefix, the latter is a combining form. The fact that the former came from a combining form does not make it a combining form in German, and the fact that θεο- became a prefix does not make it a prefix in Ancient Greek.
- Neither are combining forms "the information bearing unit that crosses language and script boundaries"—many if not most loanwords are not simply formed out of "combining forms"—take angel for example; conversely, not all combining forms appear productively in other languages (can you think of a word ending in -phanes? and Aristophanes doesn't count) and some that do change meaning (psycho- originally meant "soul" or "life", not "mind".)
- In the end, the argument comes down to "it'd be useful because people wouldn't be able to recognize them!" versus "it's unnecessary, and they're not separate morphemes". Wiktionary policy seems to be silent on the whole issue—the best I could find is a series of talk page discussions, lacking in consensus—and the more I think about it the less I am sure of either viewpoint, and the more I just really want to get back to editing like usual. I do know that we really should have higher priorities than combining-form entries, especially since they could be bot-generated—but if you're set on it, I'm not going to bother discouraging you. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of including combining forms if they are not identical to any of the inflected forms. They should be included in inflection tables though, and treated as inflected forms. —CodeCat 16:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed... although I think it might be better to put them in the headword line, by virtue of not actually being inflections. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ObsequiousNewt: I am not here to do "higher priorities" and I want to contribute in the way that I want about things that interest me, I want the structures in place so my contribution is not deleted because some at wiktionary reject my entries for being like other contemporary dictionaries. Nevertheless, theo- is an English combining form according to OED and other dictionaries and is listed that way, as is -theism, i.e., as a separate combining form entry and not in the theism entry. An entry for psycho- is a combining form in some dictionaries and a prefix in others. The argument is about whether a combining form is unique (with a separate page that acts as soft redirect while providing unique information) or not unique (without a separate page). Inflections are the same lemma yet they have separate pages to describe how they are different which duplicates the tables. Those discussions, linked above, do not mention if other dictionaries have combining form entries for the deleted words, i.e., could the contributor add references to that entry that are not the same as the nominal form – if there are unique references then they are descriptive of something different than the nominal form regardless of what it is called. @CodeCat: I think combining forms should be included in the Alternative forms section on the nominal form page and as a headword line on the combining form page. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, theo- is an English prefix that deserves a separate English entry, but it's not an Ancient Greek prefix so it's debatable whether it deserves a separate Ancient Greek Entry. The fact that it deserves a separate English entry does not mean that it deserves a separate Ancient Greek entry. Once again, if you think it's necessary to create one, by all means do so. However, I believe it would not fit in the "alternative forms" section, because it is not a lemma; it is closest to an inflected form syntactically. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Alternative forms are forms that can be used interchangeably with the lemma. That clearly doesn't apply to combining forms. —CodeCat 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ObsequiousNewt: I am not here to do "higher priorities" and I want to contribute in the way that I want about things that interest me, I want the structures in place so my contribution is not deleted because some at wiktionary reject my entries for being like other contemporary dictionaries. Nevertheless, theo- is an English combining form according to OED and other dictionaries and is listed that way, as is -theism, i.e., as a separate combining form entry and not in the theism entry. An entry for psycho- is a combining form in some dictionaries and a prefix in others. The argument is about whether a combining form is unique (with a separate page that acts as soft redirect while providing unique information) or not unique (without a separate page). Inflections are the same lemma yet they have separate pages to describe how they are different which duplicates the tables. Those discussions, linked above, do not mention if other dictionaries have combining form entries for the deleted words, i.e., could the contributor add references to that entry that are not the same as the nominal form – if there are unique references then they are descriptive of something different than the nominal form regardless of what it is called. @CodeCat: I think combining forms should be included in the Alternative forms section on the nominal form page and as a headword line on the combining form page. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed... although I think it might be better to put them in the headword line, by virtue of not actually being inflections. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm in favour of including combining forms if they are not identical to any of the inflected forms. They should be included in inflection tables though, and treated as inflected forms. —CodeCat 16:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly. Both theo- and θεό- are not the standalone forms but the combining forms – they are listed as separate entries in above example links in English and in Greek. The 2010 comment (found here Talk:Wander-) clearly shows the confusion between the way an entry is nested and the semantics about what type of thing it is; since it is nested as a prefix, i.e., contained within the prefix category instead of the combining form category (which does not exist in wiktionary but does exist in contemporary reference dictionaries). The comment "Ancient Greek is chock full of this phenomenon" is ironic since many words are found in dictionaries and that is the purpose of a dictionary. I see from the discussion you quoted:
@ObsequiousNewt: I agree with you, "the fact that θεο- became a prefix does not make it a prefix in Ancient Greek" since other sources describe it as a combining form, but there is no combining form "part of speech" heading in wiktionary. The prefix "part of speech" heading is the closest container name.
@CodeCat: Place the link to the combining form into the "derived terms" section on the nominal form page? Create a new "combining forms" section on the nominal form page with documentation included in WT:ELE? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's also not a derived term. It's the same term. —CodeCat 17:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
My Greek sucks, so I know that this must come from some form of κλάω but I'm blasted if I know which one, although I'm sure it'd be obvious if I'd just study Greek for once. Any ideas? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge According to the OED, it is from κλᾰ́σῐς (klásis, “breaking, fracture”), via French -clase (as in euclase). —JohnC5 05:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Want to improve Appendix:Greek_alphabet but cannot
I want to improve Appendix:Greek alphabet with revision as in this but cannot, I get repeatedly "A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: probably vandalism". Please insert it for me from this thanks. — This unsigned comment was added by Editotator (talk • contribs) at 15:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC).
- @Editotator Can you try it line-by-line, to figure out which line is triggering the filter? That way I can figure out why the filter isn't working properly. Thanks. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I succeeded - filter was triggered by:
- #ffffff
- Editotator (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the problem. Let's see if I can't do something about that... ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Filter showed several times, but after below ten tries gave up. Editotator (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it gave up, I think I just fixed it. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think we are done now. Editotator (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it gave up, I think I just fixed it. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 18:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Filter showed several times, but after below ten tries gave up. Editotator (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see the problem. Let's see if I can't do something about that... ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Brachea/makra
You do realise that adding to each and every syllable (in Greek words) such marks renders them inter alia unbearable, unreadable? Right?!? ;-) Thanatos666 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I realise that, but it's policy, and it's valuable information to have. If you think the policy should be changed, feel free to bring it up at the Beer parlour. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please point me to this policy? Cause though I rarely edit wiktionary articles, I often link to them from wikipedia and I seldolmy recall such a ubiquitous use of breves/macra on Greek stuff. Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- From Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Diacritics and accentuation: "Vowel length marks (i.e. the macron and breve) should be used everywhere except for the page title, including on vowels with other diacritics. In Wiktionary, an unmarked vowel should be considered ambiguous, and a macron/breve should be used to indicate a long/short vowel." To be honest, although I had supported that policy in the first place, I think it might be better to limit it to pronunciation, headword, and inflection. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanx. I guess I would have to lodge a official complaint/opposition/protest somewhere....
PS. Thank Zeus this is hardly enforced...:)
PS1. Just out of curiosity and ignoring for the moment accent/spirit-less vowels: on vowels having accents and moreover so in vowels having accents and spirits, are you really able to make out what the text is supposed to read?!? (no cheating please, i.e. already knowing, therefore it's this or that...)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 11:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)- Technically yes, but not at a glance. If you want to change policy, I'd start a discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Trying to make sense of "but not at a glance" seems futile... :-"
PS. Trying to make sense of your signature also seems futile... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)- Well. You can tell I set that a long time ago, because neither of those are words (I evidently meant to say ἔβαξα and ἐτέλεσα.) ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Trying to make sense of "but not at a glance" seems futile... :-"
- Technically yes, but not at a glance. If you want to change policy, I'd start a discussion at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanx. I guess I would have to lodge a official complaint/opposition/protest somewhere....
- From Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek#Diacritics and accentuation: "Vowel length marks (i.e. the macron and breve) should be used everywhere except for the page title, including on vowels with other diacritics. In Wiktionary, an unmarked vowel should be considered ambiguous, and a macron/breve should be used to indicate a long/short vowel." To be honest, although I had supported that policy in the first place, I think it might be better to limit it to pronunciation, headword, and inflection. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 19:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could you please point me to this policy? Cause though I rarely edit wiktionary articles, I often link to them from wikipedia and I seldolmy recall such a ubiquitous use of breves/macra on Greek stuff. Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Could you check this entry, in particular the declension type? I stumbled upon it while patrolling. Initially it had no header and contained the erroneous template grc-verb, whilst the translation inferred that this is an adjective. However, I have difficulty picking the correct template for the Ancient Greek adjective out of the available ones (since I do not know Ancient Greek). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was actually in the middle of fixing it up when you asked. I should have it done by tomorrow. :-) ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Another Greek project
This one you and John may be interested in, although if you're not, I'll likely get around to it eventually. This one consists of going through Category:English terms derived from Greek and fixing all the etymologies that are actually meaning to point to Ancient Greek. They're often badly formatted or poorly made in some other way, so it's a good way to find English entries that need some Greek-related fixes. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'll look at it when I'm done with Luacizing the declension tables. Or possibly while. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I went through all of them, there were surprisingly few there that needed fixing. The only one I wasn't sure about is alikreukel, which would seem to come from a grc **ἁλικοχλιον or ἁλικοχλιας, but neither are attested, and the lack of <h> in the English term suggests it's Modern. @Saltmarsh can you cite? ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I cannot be helpful - I can't find any spellings in my el:dictionaries, and I don't have a decent grc:one — being fanciful, Greek migrants to S.Africa may have generated the term from el:κοχύλι from grc:κογχύλιον/κογχύλη with "helical" prefix — but such speculations don't have a place here! — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, although I think there are still more that need work; e.g., I just fixed diadochi/Diadochi, hopefully correctly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I skipped some because they looked obviously Modern... I guess looks can be deceiving. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry all.I was out of town or I would have helped more. As it is, I only got to fix a couple. As to the alikreukel question, the OED etymology for ollycrock reads thus:
- “< Afrikaans alikruik, alikreukel < Dutch alikruik periwinkle, winkle (1634); further etymology uncertain: with the second element perhaps compare Dutch kruik (see crouke n.).”
- So the OED doesn't think this is from Greek at all. I don't know whence this initial Greek etymology came. —JohnC5 04:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- The entry creator hasn't posted here for eight years and the citation is a dead link. I think we can safely replace the etymology. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry all.I was out of town or I would have helped more. As it is, I only got to fix a couple. As to the alikreukel question, the OED etymology for ollycrock reads thus:
- Ah, I skipped some because they looked obviously Modern... I guess looks can be deceiving. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- I went through all of them, there were surprisingly few there that needed fixing. The only one I wasn't sure about is alikreukel, which would seem to come from a grc **ἁλικοχλιον or ἁλικοχλιας, but neither are attested, and the lack of <h> in the English term suggests it's Modern. @Saltmarsh can you cite? ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Given the abysmal level of etymological ignorance among those who coin phobia names and other pseudo-technical terms, I'm not sure there really is an answer as to why tegestology is spelled the way it is. My personal guess is that someone found teges in a dictionary, added -ology, then decided it would sound better with a "t" in it- I really doubt that the coiner of the term knew an oblique case from a pillowcase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
We have too many entries in Category:Pages with module errors as it is. Please either fix this, or move it to your user space. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Uh, I was under the impression that this counts as my user space. If not, I'm not sure how I can make it my user space without removing functionality. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Check out my three Sandboxes (1, 2, & 3). I think this is what Chuck is espousing. —JohnC5 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize you could transclude without a Template: prefix. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. Anyway, the main difference in the present case is that user-space module errors show up in a different category and don't clutter up this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realize you could transclude without a Template: prefix. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Check out my three Sandboxes (1, 2, & 3). I think this is what Chuck is espousing. —JohnC5 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please check Category:Pages with module errors, which currently includes κάμνω (kámnō) and στέλλω (stéllō), and your edits to the module are the only thing that's changed since they weren't included in it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, those were typos in the pages—the parameters had accent marks on them when they shouldn't have, although I'm not entirely sure what I did to grc-accent to cause that (well, I know what I did, but I don't know how that had the effect—but I'm going to go ahead and say "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" given that it helped me root out those typos.) Thanks for bringing that to my attention. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Normalisation of entries
Re your various votes, you may want to cast one in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-05/Normalization of entries, too. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks, I missed that one. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 01:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, thank you, thank you! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto -εῖος (-eîos) and -εῖον (-eîon). :-) A couple of issues, though: The declension tables are linking to forms without initial hyphens (e.g., the one in -εῖον includes a red link to εῖον). Also, are you sure that declension tables for nominal suffixes should include articles? Thanks again. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- @I'm so meta even this acronym: Both fixed. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you doubly. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Java revert
Hey, you reverted my change where I wrote that Java comes from Dutch Java itself from Yava which is a typical translating of dutch borrowings. A book such as this one https://books.google.be/books?id=jeeGAAAAQBAJ suggest it originates from the Dutch version, which is also quite supported by the Dutch relation to Java. --Eliot (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- @3liot: Well, I'm afraid I can't check the reliability of your source, but either way, you'll need to fix it—you had Sanskrit deriving from Dutch. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I just re-checked my change, I don't see it mentioning that Sanskrit derived from Dutch as it said "via Dutch". Though it occurs to me it can be read that way due its order; which is a order many articles on here tend to do. --Eliot (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleting
When you delete something with content that shouldn't be immortalized in the logs, please blank out the text that gets filled in by the system in the "Other/additional reason:" field. After all, if you're deleting an entry that says something libelous, you don't want the deletion log to say "Content was" followed by the libelous content. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Allright, I'll make sure I do that. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 01:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
ἐπάνηκα
So, apologies for taking an unannounced sabbatical, but I'm hopefully back in business now. However, I have no idea what I missed, and I've forgotten some of the things I hadn't yet addressed before I left. JohnC5, Acronym, what do I need to take care of? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ooo, you've been missing a doozy of a debate about macrons! Any help you can offer would be terrific, especially since I'm trying to keep myself from being too vitriolic in my responses. —JohnC5 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Welcome back, ObsequiousNewt! Yeah, Dan's a bit of a dog with a bone vis-à-vis this issue, for some reason. Apart from that, I've also noticed a few errors generated by
{{grc-decl}}, viz. in Ἄραψ (Áraps), Μουσεῖον (Mouseîon), μουσεῖον (mouseîon), and τυπογράφος (tupográphos); any idea what's up with them? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I went and commented on it, for better or for worse. The problems with grc-decl are now fixed (Ἄραψ was a scope error, the others were me failing to account for paroxytones.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lovely, thanks. It's good to have you back. :-) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments in any situation. I will admit the brachiae make me very uncomfortable, and I sometimes regret pushing for their use. As for the macra, I still espouse their use, and there is an extent to which Dan's buttinsky argument style is really what gets my goat.
- Also, I'm not sure you've fixed this entry yet. I am very glad to have you back, in any case! —JohnC5 03:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oop, that one was on you. One too many acutes ;-) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 03:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- …What is the AG equivalent of touché? —JohnC5 03:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Surprisingly easy, because it's a participle. νυγείς (nugeís) should do the trick. Ἐν εὐφυλάκτῳ! —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 04:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, O.Newt. I've found another problem, this time with ἁβρός (habrós); am I doing something wrong with the code {{grc-adecl|ἁβρός|ἁβρόν}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fixed (the entire "two-part oxytone" declension type was missing entirely from the module; I'm not entirely sure why.) I do feel like there could be a better solution to the adjectives that vary between being two-part and three-part, though. Perhaps put something like "ἁβρός/ἁβρᾱ́" in the 'feminine' column? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Whatever you decide, really; I'm sure you can come up with a good solution. It's the double headword line that looks bad, IMO. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Another problem: Παγασαί (Pagasaí); any reason {{grc-decl|form=F-plur|Πᾰγᾰσαί|Πᾰγᾰσῶν}} shouldn't work? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- John fixed it. I see my error now. Thanks, John. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello O.Newt. Would you mind checking ὑπολαμβάνω for accuracy please? I'm not very confident with Ancient Greek verbs. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto κανονίζω, please. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Probably my biggest recommendation would be to not directly copy the LSJ definitions. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I take the recommendation, but what should I do differently? You seem to prefer less sub-sensing; is that what I need to change? In what way are the LSJ's definitions unsuitable for Wiktionary? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Less sub-sensing, more simplification, and I wouldn't treat things like "of plants" etc. as a separate defintion—I don't think LSJ intended to treat them that way either. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I'll try to follow that advice. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I found a thing that doesn't work
See ῥῠ́γχος (rhúnkhos). Apparently {{grc-decl}} deal with this word.
| Case / # | Singular | Dual | Plural | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominative | τὸ ῥῠ́γχος tò rhúnkhos |
τὼ ῥῠ́γχεε tṑ rhúnkhee |
τᾰ̀ ῥῠ́γχεᾰ tà rhúnkhea | ||||||||||
| Genitive | τοῦ ῥῠ́γχεος toû rhúnkheos |
τοῖν ῥῠγχέοιν toîn rhunkhéoin |
τῶν ῥῠγχέων tôn rhunkhéōn | ||||||||||
| Dative | τῷ ῥῠ́γχεῐ̈ tôi rhúnkheï |
τοῖν ῥῠγχέοιν toîn rhunkhéoin |
τοῖς ῥῠ́γχεσῐ / ῥῠ́γχεσῐν toîs rhúnkhesi(n) | ||||||||||
| Accusative | τὸ ῥῠ́γχος tò rhúnkhos |
τὼ ῥῠ́γχεε tṑ rhúnkhee |
τᾰ̀ ῥῠ́γχεᾰ tà rhúnkhea | ||||||||||
| Vocative | ῥῠ́γχος rhúnkhos |
ῥῠ́γχεε rhúnkhee |
ῥῠ́γχεᾰ rhúnkhea | ||||||||||
| Notes: |
| ||||||||||||
:( —JohnC5 05:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @I'm so meta even this acronym PS, I've removed all the usages of
{{grc-noun-con}}and added|gen2=and|g2=parameters to{{grc-noun}}and{{grc-proper noun}}. Should I ask people whether to delete{{grc-noun-con}}or just do it? —JohnC5 05:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)- @JohnC5: Totally fine with with me. I've always thought that it's a bit weird that I had to use a separate template for these nouns (which are very common) that have both a contracted and an uncontracted declension. The function of
{{grc-noun}}and{{grc-proper noun}}is now more in line with{{la-noun}}and{{la-proper noun}}; I'm generally in favour of such standardisation across the treatment of the two Classical languages wherever it is both practicable and practical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @JohnC5: Totally fine with with me. I've always thought that it's a bit weird that I had to use a separate template for these nouns (which are very common) that have both a contracted and an uncontracted declension. The function of
- Just do it. Language-specific templates don't really need to go through RFDO if the people who use it are on board with the change. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Roger roger. —JohnC5 06:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The stem is -εσ, not -ε. It may be possible to add an alias, though. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The syntax for using the template is to enter the nom.sg. and gen.sg., correct? —JohnC5 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I found the bug. There was a regex that was missing a dollar sign. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! —JohnC5 16:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I found the bug. There was a regex that was missing a dollar sign. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The syntax for using the template is to enter the nom.sg. and gen.sg., correct? —JohnC5 14:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- The stem is -εσ, not -ε. It may be possible to add an alias, though. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Roger roger. —JohnC5 06:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Weee!
Lua error in Module:grc-decl/decl/data at line 713: Stem does not end in a consonant: βο
—JohnC5 07:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- βοῦς is an irregular noun (or, at least, there's no other noun that declines similarly); it's less work to just put it as
{{grc-decl|irreg|...}}. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 14:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)