Wiktionary:Information desk/2016/November

Basque linguists tend to use the letters ś and r̄ for Proto-Basque. It's a bit jarring to have both, wouldn't it be better to generalise it to s̄ and r̄ or ś and ŕ? UtherPendrogn (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you asked any Basque linguists if maybe there's a reason why they use those letters? Or should we just unilaterally tell them they're doing it wrong? --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add Futhorc forms of Old English lemmate? A bit like how Gothic script entries often have a transliteration into the Latin alphabet, here it would be into Futhorc. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As long as they are attested. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's just a script though. Why would they need to be attested when the latin alphabet version is attested? Futhorc was dead by the time of Harold Godwineson, but his name is clearly hægl/āc/rād/ōs/lagu/dæg. UtherPendrogn (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it's useless, in fact, worse than that, it's misleading to add terms in a script they've never used. Attestation is key, in determining meaning, we start with how the word is used. How the word is used should not be an afterthought. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We would be doing runologists a disservice if we started including unattested Futhorc forms. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Plantagenet is clearly ᚱᛁᚲᚺᚨᚱᛞ ᛈᛚᚨᚾᛏᚨᚷᛖᚾᛖᛏ, and David ben Gurion is clearly ᛞᚨᛒᛁᛞ ᛒᛖᚾ ᚷᚢᚱᛁᛟᚾ. So what? --Catsidhe ^{(verba, facta)} 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've said everytime it came up, as far as I know, Gothic has only ever been published in the Latin script. Latin is the script Gothic and many other ancient languages is published in. I don't see how using a script for words from texts that were not originally written in or ever published in that script is comparable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Transliteration into Latin or Roman script is a service used today for those who use that script. Who would benefit from taking Old English words written in Latin script transliterated into Futhorc ? Leasnam (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

So, back in January, I asked you guys how to classify 'aktie'. It was suggested I use 'superseded', because a lot of people still use it. A lot words that were deprecated in 1996 are, however, barely used at all these days. You might find them on some old material that has been left unchanged for 20 years, but that's it. Should I classify works like akademies (no one spells it like this anymore) as superseded or obsolete? I find it kind of hard to know where to draw the line. Thanks! NINTENPUG (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer obsolete. It sounds right to say that daß is an obsolete spelling of dass. It does not sound right to me to say that it is a superseded spelling of dass. —Stephen ^(Talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

But this is a prescriptive notion. The official standard has changed the spelling, rendering the older standard obsolete. But everyone is free to use whatever they like. —CodeCat 16:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Our definition at WT:Obsolete and archaic terms is "Virtually no one would currently use the word or meaning, and very, very few would understand the word or meaning if it were used in speech or text." That certainly doesn't apply to daß, and probably doesn't apply to the Dutch words NINTENPUG is asking about. Daß is still actually widely used in handwritten and otherwise unedited/unproofread German. Indeed, for spellings (as opposed to meanings or whole terms) the second clause of our definition probably doesn't apply at all. Consider the following from the opening of The Faerie Queene: holinesse, foule, errour, defeate, hypocrisie, entrappe, entreate. All of those are obsolete in the sense of the first clause of our definition, but everyone understands them. So maybe we need to say that obsolete spellings are those that virtually no one would currently use, even if they are easily understood. But even the first clause doesn't apply to pre-1996 German spellings like daß, so they really can't be called obsolete. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

How about "formerly standard spelling"? —CodeCat 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess that could work, but supersede means to "displace in favour of another", which I feel like is exactly what's happened to spellings like daß. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In the case of aktie, it was formerly allowed alongside actie. In the spelling reform, the former was scrapped, leaving only the latter. So it's not really superseded in the strictest sense. —CodeCat 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not? It's been displaced in favor of actie. That doesn't imply that actie was formerly deprecated. Which reminds me, {{deprecated spelling of}} is another possible name for forms like this. It's currently a redirect to {{superseded spelling of}}, but maybe some people would prefer its wording. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everyone. I'm probably going to stick to obsolete for now, but as soon as there is more clarity or a different way to describe the status of these words, I'll make sure to change it, if necessary. NINTENPUG (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@NINTENPUG, @CodeCat, @Angr: I don't know about Dutch, but in German ß as in daß is still in use. After 2006 (rather than 1996 or 2004) it became rarer, but anyway it's still in use. Thus it's not obsolete (Appendix:Glossary: "No longer in use ") - even though some users, prescriptionist or POV pushers use that incorrect label.
There is also no proof for labeling it nonstandard ("accepted by the majority of its speakers"). The German reform was and is not very popular and the only persons complaining about spellings like daß should be teachers, civil servants and 'grammar nazis'. Many normal people, especially older ones, don't have a problem with ß spellings. But even if it would be nonstandard nowadays, the label "nonstandard" (instead of "nonstandard nowadays") would be misleading and incorrect as it was standard earlier.
Also, while ß as in daß became rarer, many reform changes were undone in 2006 or 2011 or the traditional spelling remains common anyway. Examples:

• The reform spells the word einbleuen as einbläuen because they incorrectly connect it with blau. The FAZ (German newspaper) for example still spells it einbleuen even though it's not a correct reform spelling.
• In 1996 the reform changed eislaufen into Eis laufen, that is like an intransitive verb having the object Eis with it. In 2006 this was undone.
• In 1996 the reform introduced the spelling Myrre besides Myrrhe. But in 2011 the reform spelling was removed.

Examples like Eis laufen and Myrre show that some reform spellings were nonstandard, so the equations traditional spelling = nonstandard nowadays and reformed spelling = standard are not correct.
superseded could fit, but there are also "supersedings" like eislaufen → 1996: Eis laufen → 2006: eislaufen (eislaufen being superseded by Eislaufen which was superseded by eislaufen) and daß/dass etc. → 1902: daß → 1996: dass (the spellings daß/dass etc. were unified to daß in 1902 thus all spellings except daß were superseded by daß, which then in 1996 was superseded by dass). So it might make more sense to add or use names or dates. That's more complicated, but it's more informative and more correct. Examples:

• Orthografie was superseded by Orthographie in 1902 and reintroduced as an alternative form in 1996 - it's not just a superseded spelling or just an alternative form, it's both.
• Myrre was a reform spelling from 1996 till 2011 - it's a superseded spelling and a reform spelling. So it's both {{U:de:new spelling|1996}} ("prescribed" in the sense of "allowed as an alternative form", not as the only form) and {{U:de:deprecated spelling|2011}}.

BTW: For German one could differ between:

• "Old spellings" from 1500 till 1902.
  Some old spellings were superseded in 1902 and some of the superseded spellings were reintroduced in 1996, for example:   before 1902: Orthographie, sometimes also Orthografie or Ortografie or Orthographi → 1902: Orthographie → 1996: Orthographie or Orthografie.
  • Maybe some old spellings were "de jure" superseded in 1902 according to the spelling rules even though they were "de facto" obsolete since some time. Orthographi for example could have been "de facto" uncommon or obsolete since ca. 1800, but "de jure" superseded in 1902. "Regeln für die deutsche Rechtschreibung nebst Wörterverzeichnis. Herausgegeben im Auftrage des Königlich Preußischen Ministeriums der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten. Neue Bearbeitung" (Berlin, 1908) in the Wörterverzeichnis on p.42 just has "Orthographie", i.e. other forms were superseded by this.
  • Maybe some spellings can be connected to famous authors and poets (Opitz, Zesen, Goethe/Göthe, Schiller, etc.) or more likely grammarians (Schottel, Gottsched, Adelung, Heyse, Grimm). Sometimes grammarians proscribed a spelling and sometimes it became uncommon some time after that, or they prescribed a spelling and other spellings became uncommon some time after that. But well, such connections are most likely just guessings, i.e. it would be something like "maybe or possibly because the grammiarian <name here> prescribed or proscribed something".
• Regional official rules before 1902:
  • Official rules of Prussia before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnus für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch in den preußischen Schulen. Herausgegeben im Auftrage des Königlichen Ministeriums der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinal-Angelegenheiten." (2nd new print, Berlin, 1883)
  • Official rules of Württemberg before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichniß für die deutsche Rechtschreibung, zum Gebrauch in den württembergischen Schulanstalten amtlich festgestellt" (Stuttgart, 1861)
  • Official rules of Saxony before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch in den sächsischen Schulen. Im Auftrage des Königl. Ministeriums des Kultus und öffentlichen Unterrichts herausgegeben. (Generalverordnung vom 8. Oktober 1880.)" (Dresden, 1880)
  • Maybe: Official rules of Bavaria before 1902 (since some time in the 19th century), like "Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch an den bayerischen Schulen. Im amtlichen Auftrage bearbeitet" (München, 1879?)
  • Maybe other official rules
• Official rules from 1902 till 1996, following the II. Orthographische Konferenz from 1901.
  (Well, it could be that there were some minor changes in that time, compare Duden-Monopol from 1955 till 1996.)
• Official rules of the spelling reform from 1996, (a) as of 1996, (b) as of 2004, (c) as of 2006 and (d) as of 2011.
  (It could be that there will be some new changes as of 2017. For example, in it's report for 2011 till 2016 the Rat für die deutsche Rechtschreibung proposes to allow capital ß (ẞ) like STRAẞE for STRASZE or STRASSE. Quote from the report, where / represents a line break: "2. Zulassung des Großbuchstabens <ẞ> / 2.1. Vorschlag / / 2.2. Begründung / ".)
  • It could be that Austria or Swiss have own official rules which could be slightly different. (Compare Österreichisches Wörterbuch and maybe Austria's laws as well as Swiss' lack of ß since some time and SOK.)

-84.161.19.62 12:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, it's me again. Just a small question this time. I was wondering if what I did a couple of months ago in akties is correct. I used {{nl-noun form of|pl|aktie}}, and then {{superseded spelling of|acties|lang=nl}} after a semicolon. The latter of the templates also starts with a capital letter, and I've never seen any other page that had this, so should I remove {{superseded spelling of|acties|lang=nl}}? Thanks! NINTENPUG (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You can use the parameter |nocap=1 to put it in lower case. You can also use the parameter |nodot=1 to remove the period/full stop, if you want to do that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the desirability of giving every form of a lemma two definitions like that. Imagine if we had one Latin verb that was an alternative form of another, would we want to define each inflection of the second form as "alternative form" as well as "(...) form of"? —CodeCat 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I do this all the time for Irish outdated spellings of nonlemma forms. I think it's very helpful for users to know both the corresponding lemma form, which is also an outdated spelling, and the current spelling. Maybe it would be beneficial to allow templates like {{superseded spelling of}} and {{obsolete form of}} to generate outputs like "superseded spelling of the plural of actie". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

While it's nice to know the superseded singular of a superseded plural form, I suspect most users will want the information found at the lemma of the current spellings, and many will resent having to click twice to get to it. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't parse this sentence in Fielding's Tom Jones (1749), in particular what the word "than" relates to. Context: Sophia's father has just discovered that Sophia and Jones are lovers; he is angry, because he wanted her to marry somebody of higher social status. "To say the truth, I believe the youth himself would, from some prudent considerations, have preferred another place of abode at this time, had his terror on Sophia's account given him liberty to reflect a moment on what any otherways concerned himself, than as his love made him partake whatever affected her." Equinox ◑ 22:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

…the youth … would … have preferred another place … than … whatever affected her. That is, the speaker believes Jones would have left (if he'd been able to think about his own interests) but remains for fear for and love of Sophia. The fear may be contextual, and may be fear for the status of his relationship with Sophia. An Amgine Explication™. - Amgine/ ^t·e 22:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it might be "another place rather than", but then I thought "partake (of)" ought to be the verb whose object was "place" — but it has a following object of "whatever affected her"! ...unless "as his love made him partake" is a sort of parenthetical clause. Ah, maybe that's it. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like "as his love made him partake" is a parenthetical clause of the sort the author might have set off with commas if he hadn't used up all his commas earlier in the sentence. - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is this in the Beer Parlour? Could someone please move this to the Tea Room? --WikiTiki89 23:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not about a specific word. Maybe I should have used "translation requests"? Equinox ◑ 23:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it really an info desk thing? I watch that page, but it hasn't been very active lately. Most of us should watch it, IMO. It might be a way to recruit contributors. This would be an above-average question for that page, but it could use some content-quality improvement. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In many languages, adjectives can stand alone without anything to modify, and take on the force of a noun. In Dutch for example, grote is an adjective form, but it can be used by itself to mean "the big one" as well. However, the word usually remains an adjective in form, and inflects like an adjective rather than like a noun. Therefore, morphologically, they are adjectives, even if they are syntactically more like nouns. What is the best way to deal with these? Should they be called nouns, adjectives, or something else? —CodeCat 20:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As long as their meaning does not deviate from the adjective, there is no need for a separate noun entry. If a substantivized adjective has deviated in meaning, it should be handled as a noun with an adjectival declension. --WikiTiki89 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother making separate entries for substantivized adjectives unless they have some lexicalized meanings distinct from "a/the X one/thing/man/woman" or unless (as in German) they're spelled differently when they're substantivized. Note that we don't have entries for substantivized adjectives like "hungry" and "rich" in "He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he hath sent empty away." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Surely English does this too: "he offered me two cakes, and I took the larger". Equinox ◑ 21:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: I have come to think one should create noun entries, but only when the substantivised adjectives have taken on peculiar meanings which are more specific than the underlying adjectives. An example in Latin would be granatus, which, in addition to our adjective definition, is also a pomegranate. L&S has about 1500 of these, and I find the practice of burying them within the adjective definition with a subst. tag somewhat annoying. Isomorphyc (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: re entries for this phenomenon in English: we are inconsistent; we don't have rich#Noun but do have poor#Noun, Irish+Talk:Irish and deaf+Talk:deaf. - -sche (discuss) 08:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: Besides meaning and spelling, declension is another thing to consider. Latin serpēns as participle has genitive plural -ium, as a substantive it has -ium like the participle but also just -um like e.g. nōmen (stem nōmin-). In English adjecives do not inflect, but substantivated adjectives can have an -s in the plural like two Russian persons = two Russians.
BTW: As for German I first was thinking that substantivated adjectives decline like adjectives. But then I wasn't so sure about that. Usually it's correct that substantivated adjectives decline like adjectives, though there could be one exception: substantivated adjectives could miss the endingless forms. For example, one can say "unser täglich Brot" (besides "unser tägliches Brot") - and this form is still used these days -, and substantivated one could have "das Tägliche"/"Tägliches", but could one also have "das Täglich" or "Täglich"? Even in the times were copating (syncope, apocope) was more common, these endingless substantivated forms could be non-existent.

@Equinox: That could be an ellipsis to avoid the repetition of cake, a short form for "he offered me two cakes, and I took the larger cake". In German one could spell it like "er bot mir zwei Kuchen an und ich nahm den größeren", i.e. "größeren" instead of "Größeren". That's different from "Ein Unbekannter klaute meine Tasche" ("an unknown stole my bag"), where there is no substantive which the adjective unbekannt could modify. But English also has such substantivations.

@Isomorphyc: More over, it's somewhat misleading/incorrect to place substantives in adjectives entries and that practice could lead to partly redundant entries like an entry in ...us (for the adjective which also covers the neuter substantive) and one in ...um (for the neuter substantive). -84.161.19.62 13:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The inflection is what made me ask the question, though. grote in Dutch has adjective inflection in the form of the -e, though it can pluralise to -en which does not happen with real adjectives. In Zulu, adjectives completely retain their adjectival inflection even when used as nouns. Moreover, nouns can be derived from possessive forms as well. The noun owesifazane (“woman”) is derived from the possessive form wesifazane (“female”) of the noun isifazane (“womenfolk”). The initial o- of owesifazane does not occur with normal nouns; it exclusively occurs with adjectives and other words that have been substantivised. So the non-noun origin of the word is still very recognisable for substantivised words. —CodeCat 16:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm still getting acquainted with Wiktionary. I often see pages such as tegat that act as placeholders for words that result from declining a word and thus contain links to that certain word. Are these pages made manually or through bots? Will I have to make my own for new entries in Latin? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of them are made manually and some are made by bots. For Latin and a few other languages, we have a bot that can make them. For other languages, you have to make them either manually or through ACCEL links (the green links that you may or may not see sometimes in the main entry). --WikiTiki89 20:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Wikitiki89:, thanks for clarifying! How do I use this bot? Icebob99 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe User:SemperBlotto runs such a bot, he should be able to help you. --WikiTiki89 21:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Used to. They don't work anymore after a Wiki software change to use https instead of http. It was just too much hassle anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: Do you know if anyone else currently runs such a bot? --WikiTiki89 14:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent Changes (with show bots, show minor edits, hide anonymous and registered users) shows RobokoBot (talk • contribs), Whymbot (talk • contribs), UT-interwiki-Bot (talk • contribs). There are more, I'm sure. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you point me to some diffs? I can't find any evidence that these bots create inflected form entries. --WikiTiki89 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, no - they do other things. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wikitiki89: I sort-of volunteered to do this back in September (User talk:OrphicBot/Res Agenda), but it didn't seem terribly urgent. Sorting out some of the formatting details and disagreements surrounding them as discussed in the entries below this one particularly has kept me from this task. Does anyone consider it an especially high priority? Isomorphyc (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. Taking your time and doing it right will save us all time later. --WikiTiki89 14:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you or have you got a place for say like three letters and the words they might make. I think that would help people find words faster and help people who play word games like I do and need a full word that contain those letters.

That would be anagrams. We have anagrams listed in some entries, but no central page that lists them all. —CodeCat 23:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be a superset of anagrams, since e.g. the letters QNX can "make" EQUINOX (depending on what else you have). If our search box supports regular expressions, that's one way to go — but tricky for non-technical users. Equinox ◑ 03:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across the entry for the Latin word nebula, where the word is first defined ("fog, cloud, vapor"), and then followed by no less than two different {{inflection of}} elements listing case forms identical to the base form. Is this good practice? Personally I think seems both confusing and redundant. —Pinnerup (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be used that way. However, there are cases where the spelling is the same but the pronunciation is not, like in the ablative, so we should still allow for this. I would not format it the way it is done on nebula though; I'd put the ablative in its own {{nonlemma}} etymology section, below everything else. —CodeCat 15:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I prefer having the ablative the way it is, rather than creating a whole separate etymology section for it, but I would delete the vocative singular line from nebula. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Having multiple headword lines for one entry is generally discouraged, though, especially one that "floats" in the middle without a part of speech. —CodeCat 20:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've never edited a template before and I actually don't know how to do so. Is there a general tutorial or guide that I could look at? My main question is that of the wikilinks in the result of the {{la-verb-form}} template. See subederunt; it has a wikilink to the glossary for all the terms except "perfect". The same is for pluperfect and future perfect words. Could somebody add that link? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The tags of {{inflection of}} are controlled by Module:form of/data. —CodeCat 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Unfortunately, templates and modules are basically the most complicated thing you will interact with as an editor but I'm glad that you're interested. There is documentation on MediaWiki at our sister site, mw:. Have you seen any of that yet? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: looking through mw:Help:Templates right now. I confess that this is all new to me but I'm understanding it. Hope I can dive in without too much difficulty. Icebob99 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: The good news is that even if you mess up something, it can be reverted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, you can tell I'm a newbie based on the number of questions I'm asking, right? I've been creating pages for the declined forms of subedo (it has been quite the slog!), and I've gotten to the perfect passive forms. I can't find any page for this kind of verb for the relatively common Latin verbs, so I'm assuming that we generally don't create those pages, but I'd like to doublecheck. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Icebob99: Thank you for your recent Latin contributions; they are much appreciated! I've rather enjoyed seeing some of your amusing words such as flagritriba. In general, we don't have entries for the compound verb forms (amatus sum, amatus est, amatus erat, etc.), but we do have an entry for the participle which forms them. I suppose the reason could be that at some point it becomes the work of syntax rather than the lexicon, but I don't know why we draw the line where we do other than word boundaries. Also, I would point out that in general almost all of our oblique form entries are made by robots, almost entirely, indeed, by User:SemperBlottoBot. Isomorphyc (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Isomorphyc:, I think SemperBlotto mentioned that his bot doesn't work anymore after the MediaWiki switch from http to https. Is it still in operation? Could the accelerated links template be added to the Latin verb form templates and make this easier? Icebob99 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Icebob99: I'm not really familiar with the accelerated templates. Do you need the links soon for some reason? I assume accelerated link creation is still a lot of clicking for you, and probably won't merge information correctly onto target pages (multiple stems with overlapping forms, forms overlapping with lemmas, one stem with overlapping or overlapping-within-quantity forms), so someone will have to parse and fix the pages anyway. If you need them for something specific (you want to wikilink Seneca, for example), I can try to do them sooner, however. Isomorphyc (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Isomorphyc: no, I was just asking out of curiosity, trying to figure out where accelerated links couldn't be used. What do you mean by wikilink Seneca? Icebob99 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: What I mean is that you could do something like this: User:OrphicBot/Sandbox/Aeneis1; but obviously it does not work so well if Wiktionary is lacking entries for the inflected forms of all the hard words. Isomorphyc (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@OrphicBot: that makes sense, kind of like Perseus. No, I'm not planning to do something like that, and if I do, I probably will just do the parsing and fixing myself to learn how it all works. Icebob99 (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list of words that end in -baby (as opposed to terms made of two or more words, the last of which is baby). I tried searching for *baby and there is no entry for -baby. Thanks in advance. --Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

yes--Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, is it commonly agreed upon that the heading of the section that lists the declined or conjugated forms of a noun or verb be titled "inflection" rather than "declension" or "conjugation"? Icebob99 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Usually it's titled "declension". --WikiTiki89 15:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I use "Inflection" exclusively. You're free to choose whichever you want, for entries you create. —CodeCat 20:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: I use "Declension" for adjectives and nouns and "Conjugation" for verbs, exclusively. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm attempting to affix conjugation of subedo by adding the subst: tool before the template la-conj-3rd, because I want to add in the extra present active infinitive. I get, however, this error message, which I put in my userspace. I looked through the module code and couldn't figure out where the error was coming from; the template la-conj-3rd seems to provide all the necessary parameters. Help? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Most templates on Wiktionary can't be substed, and generally shouldn't anyway. We only include raw tables in entries in the rarest and most exceptional of cases. What is the extra form you are trying to add? —CodeCat 19:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat: good to know. I'm trying to add subēsse to the present active infinitive slot in the lang-conj-3rd template table on subedo, to be placed next to subedere. It's already included in the principal parts. Icebob99 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You should probably take this up with one of the editors of Module:la-verb then. You can click on the history when viewing the module, to see who else has edited it. Presumably, the editors that have edited it a lot will know how to add this feature or explain how to use it if it's already present. The documentation of {{la-conj-3rd}} should probably be updated by one of these people too. @Isomorphyc? —CodeCat 20:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Try this:

{{la-conj-3rd|subed|subēd|subēs|pres_actv_inf=], ]}}

. If you look in the module: Module:la-verb, you will see the codes for the tenses; they mostly have three or four parts. Isomorphyc (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Isomorphyc: worked well! Icebob99 (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've been creating some citation pages for various entries, and I've noticed that even a lot of common English words don't have citation pages, such as sandwich, and that a word like drink only has one instead of the three ascribed by attestation policy. Is this something in the project that hasn't yet been completed or is it falling out of use? Should I go on a "citation crusade" with Quiet Quentin?Icebob99 (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Excellent question. I don't think we have much of a consensus: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2016/September#Let.27s_get_rid_of_the_.22Quotations.22_header. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting to read. It looks like the citation page itself should be used copiously, though, so I'll be sure to include citations wherever possible. Icebob99 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically, there should be three citations for every sense in well-documented languages such as English. In practice, though, there are better uses of everybody's time and resources than documenting the kinds of things that people would presumably already know if they're able to read the entries in the first place. Our WT:CFI has an exception for terms that are in clear widespread use, to keep us from having to cite common senses of the, one, dog, he, be, run, slowly, of, etc. whenever someone wants to waste our time.

The sheer volume of uncited senses is too great for any kind of systematic effort to make much of a dent, so the best area of concentration is whatever you happen to like working with- that way you can keep the volume up without getting tired of it. It's great that you're willing to help with the more boring work of filling in the holes rather than breaking new ground, but just about anything you do will be helpful, so there's no need to limit yourself. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Following Chuck, there is definitely still plenty of work to be done, some of it very menial. And I am personally fine with a handful of citations even for common words, such as first recorded usages or a few usages across centuries and continents that show some continuity but those are definitely better for a separate citations page than cluttering up the main entry for a or set or who. Thanks again for being so enthusiastic--a lot of the work here is more straight-forward or systematic than on some other WMF projects, so it may seem less appealing or fun but we've compiled a really great resource here and one that is useful for millions of readers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: A citation crusade sounds fantastic. Deus vult! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no reason to use citation pages unless you plan on adding many (> 5) citations, or if you're adding citations for a sense that hasn't been added to the entry yet. Otherwise just put them under the definition lines. DTLHS (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, does Wiktionary contain epithets? Such as Sospita, an epithet for Juno? Icebob99 (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• We aim to include "all words in all languages". If Sospita is a "word" in "Latin" then we would welcome its addition. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - we are also missing the lower-case form sospita though we do have sospes from which these terms are derived. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please turn off edit protection, so I can improve the page -- 65.94.171.217 07:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I've turned off edit protection. You have quite a few edits. You should consider registering a username. Then you would not have this problem. The protection only excluded anons. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for turning it off -- 65.94.171.217 06:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I've recently created the Latin word suspectio from a redlink in soupçon. The redlink contained a long ō at the end to form suspectiō, but the Lewis and Short entry does not have that long mark at the end. Should I stand by the redlink based on Latin precedent for -ionis 3rd declension words or the dictionary? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about L & S not showing a macron there: a spot check of related words shows the same pattern of no macron for words that have a macron in the wiktionary entry. Compare, for instance, spectiō in L&S vs. in Elementary Lewis. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Icebob99: Both L&S and Gaffiot do not place the macra or breves on final syllable. The Oxford Latin Dictionary does, but you should follow the inflectional systems you see elsewhere on Wiktionary. A rule of thumb for Latin is that the only short vowels in which a native Latin word can end are effectively e and a. On a side note, all vowels followed by ns or nf in Latin are marked as long on Wiktionary. —JohnC5 22:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

: @Icebob99: L&S routinely omits macra from word-terminal vowels (except in adverbs); it should not be inferred from this that those vowels are short. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)