User talk:Atelaes

Archived discussions for 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009, 2010, 2011

Ancient Greek letter names

Hi Jesse. It's great to see that you're adding entries for the Ancient Greek names for the letters of its own alphabet. Your additions are valued. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Genitive of ὄον?

Thanks for stopping by my talk page. I took a 10-week course on Classical Etymology at UCLA a quarter-century ago, which doesn't make me an expert, but at least has exposed me to the concepts. Right now, I've run into a bit of a brick wall: Liddell & Scott's article on ὄα, a fruit tree, mentions that its fruit is called the ὄον. In trying to create the article for "ὄον", I was unable to find any information on the genitive form. Paradigms of the 2nd declension neuter aren't much help, because one would expect vowel contraction might play a role. I was able to find ῥόον, which Perseus' word study tool says has ῥόου as the genitive, but I'm not sure enough that it would be the same, and omitting the genitive causes grc-noun to incorrectly mark it as indeclinable. I have a feeling there may not enough information for a perfect solution, so I would appreciate advice on the best imperfect solution if that turns out to be true. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I share your expectation that vowel contraction would occur, however I think that we can reasonably assume that, at least in some cases, it doesn't, as evidenced by the nominative, which should contract to οὖν or something. So, I think we could expect the genitive to be ὄου. I think it'd be within good sense to put that in the headline, and simply use {{grc-decl-2nd-pax|ὄ}} for the inflection. Another option, seeing as the word is rare, and we don't have evidence of a lot of the inflections, is to put a question mark as the second parameter for {{grc-noun}}. Do either of those feel satisfactory to you? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I had considered the question mark option, but didn't know if it was acceptable practice. I've now created the entry. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Admin Referral

Can I please ask why you have removed my Admin request from the POV Page? I am simply asking for an independent opinion on an article which I feel is unfairly biased. I have tried to insert a politically neutral statement but other editors keep overruling it with partisan statements. I would simply like an independent view on the situation. Thank You Christian58 (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the page you edited is inactive, and clearly marked as such. It's not supposed to be edited. Secondly, SemperBlotto was not POV pushing, he was common Wiktionary standards pushing. You started by removing a valid example sentence on Tories, which he reinstated (something any administrator here would do, because we like having example sentences). You then replaced the example sentence with an invalid example sentence (example sentences are not supposed to define the word, also they are supposed to use proper English). SemperBlotto has since gone out of his way to satisfy the needs of the project while acquiescing to your valid complaint that the example sentence was not really ideal, by replacing it with a more neutral quotation from actual text. As I see it, there is nothing left to be resolved. You should probably leave SB a note of thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Macrons in Ancient Greek

First of all, thanks for letting me know about the adjective form issue. I've been doing that for noun forms, and wondered if I should do the same for adjectives. Now I know. Never feel self-conscious about pointing such things out. I would much prefer a polite "word to the wise" to finding out I've been doing things wrong thousands of times. Now for my question: what do I do about Ancient Greek entries with macrons, such as πολῑτικός? Judging by a note on WT:GRC TR, the macron is only rarely indicated, and I don't have a source for inflected forms that shows them, as far as I can tell. That means that the inflected forms won't match the lemma, and could give the false impression that only the lemma has the long vowel. I'm tempted to move the lemma to the form without the macron, but one can never be sure there's not a good reason for something to be there, unless one asks. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2012

I'm curently on my phone, which doesn't show polytonic characters, so I'm seeing a blank space between the lambda and the tau, which I'm ag to be an iota with a macron. If I make any odd-sounding comments, it might because I'm not seeing the character properly. What we're doing with vowel length markers is similar, though slightly different, to Latin. Essentially, they're not part of the entry title, not in the transliteration, and not really anywhere outside of the entry itself. There are three places within the entry page itself where they can be noted. {{grc-iparows}} takes a double a, i, or u, and tbis is reflected in the resulting IPA. Most (all?) of the headline templates take a 'head' parameter, which can have vowel le gth markingsand will display them in the headline. Finallyy, the markers can be inputted into the inflection table templates. Each parameter has a display counterpart. The display parameter is simply the sequence number followed by a lowercase v. So if the first parameter has a marker, input it like normal, and then do '1v=marked form'. The resulting table will link to unmarked forms, but display marked forms. That's probably rather confusing, so ill try and ddo an example when I have access to a real computer. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I just tried to move the page and discovered that there's already a page for πολιτικός, containing the Greek (el) entry.Chuck Entz (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's all sorted. πολῑτικός has been merged with πολιτικός (which is a little messy, but it works. Going through the revisions one by one in order is surreal :-)). I have also noted the long iota in the three places I mentioned previously: the pronunciation section, the head line, and the inflection table (check the links on the inflection table). Hopefully it'll be a little easier to understand by seeing than by reading my wordy (and utterly and embarrassingly misspelled) explanation. Let me know if you have any questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been and believe we ought to be adding macra to the transliterations as well, as I did to πολιτικός. Is there a specific reason why we shouldn't? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The first reason you shouldn't, and why you should undo your most recent edit to πολιτικός, is because that is simply the standard, one which has been reached by ongoing discussion between Ancient Greek editors and other interested parties. For a deeper reason, you have to stop and think about what the purpose of a transliteration is. A transliteration is meant to allow people unacquainted with Greek characters and without the time to look at the IPA pronunciation on the entry page, to get a rough grasp on the pronunciation of a word. By its very character, it is rough and sloppy. In general, anything beyond Latin characters is going to be meaningless to the average English speaker (which is the target audience of our transliterations, mind you). Quite frankly, I would be totally ok with getting rid of the macrons on the e's and o's, and transliterating ε and η, ο and ω identically because I don't think most of our audience is getting anything meaningful from those characters, or at least nothing accurate. I'm also ok with keeping them, as at least some English speakers might accurately grasp that they're similar, but different sounds, as they've been taught long and short vowels (which are typically indicated by macrons) like the different between 'hat' (short a) and 'hate' (long a). However, vowel length is such a minuscule irrelevant phonological difference that I flatly refuse to further complicate our transliterations for them, especially when we would then have macrons meaning two completely different things, depending on what vowel they were over. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK; by your request, I removed the macron. I still think it should be there, because: 1) transliterations of Ancient Greek already use macra for eta and omega, so why not long alpha, iota, and upsilon? 2) such treatment leads to interlinguistic consistency with Latin, and 3) it is an interesting datum whether vowel length is preserved for a given word from Ancient Greek into Latin and further into English (the long iota became (deprecated template usage) ī in Latin, but was reduced to (deprecated template usage) ĭ in English). Still, I shan't press the issue. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's oneinterpretation I've seen of transliteration, and Stephen seems to be using it when working with Arabic transliterations. However, I've always understood transliteration to exist quite apart from any considerations of pronunciation. Transliteration is meant to transcribe the character sequence in a consistent and reproducible way for readers unfamiliar with foreign script, or for computer entry in QWERTY or ASCII based datasets. This often coincides with pronunciation, but not always. The Library of Congress system for w:Romanization of Russian is an example of my viewpoint. Each Cyrillic character has a Romanized counterpart, irrespective of the pronunciation held by that character in context. The advantage is that the Romanization process is reversible to recover the Cyrillic. -EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We've been using a pronunciation-based approach for Hebrew transliteration as well, since it's hard to imagine the reader who would benefit from our listing a heavily-diacriticked spelling-based transliteration right next to the Hebrew. I mean, look at [[פריימריז]]. Would you find pryymryz to be more useful? —Ruakh_TALK 20:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@EP: Yes, there are two common uses of transliteration. One is to give a rough pronunciation to those unfamiliar with the script, and one is to precisely represent the script when the actual script is unavailable, for example in ASCI-only environments. However, Wiktionary does not qualify for the latter. On Wiktionary, every single time a transliteration is presented, it is on the same line as the real script. There might be a few cases of extremely esoteric languages, where Unicode does not cover their script, and in those cases I would support a more complicated, unintelligible, and precise transliteration method. Ancient Greek is most certainly not one of those cases, so your argument seems moot. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:grc-verb

1. Is the first parameter for {{grc-verb}} always equal to an entry name? {1} = {PAGENAME}? Or is it something different? 2. Grc-verb is an old conjugation template [1] and was created years ago when we didn't have conjugation tables. Now, when we have full conjugation tables, these forms in the headword line are unneccesary, aren't they? So we don't need them there? Should we keep them only if there is no conjugation table, right? Maro 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The first parameter is usually equal to the PAGENAME, but not always. (deprecated template usage) ὁράω (horáō) and (deprecated template usage) εἶπον (eîpon) are two counterexamples. You may want to read Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Ancient_Greek_headline, where I explain the situation in detail. But, in short, yes, {{grc-verb}} is indeed an old template, and was constructed before we had full verbal inflection tables. Once I get the display format for the inflection tables settled, then yes, we could start removing that information from the headline. However, I have not yet settled it, so I don't think we want to start removing that information just yet. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be so abrupt as to simply revert your edits, but please, could we just wait on this? For starters, the new version shouldn't have spots for all the principle parts. That's the whole point. Second, as you've got it set up, it states the present twice, which just looks silly. I appreciate your efforts in this, but we're simply not ready for that step yet. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so tell me how the present form should display? For example for ὁράω. If the first parameter is different than PAGENAME, it will be visible as on ὁράω, if not, it won't be visible. Is this a good solution? Maro 12:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize this may sound somewhat disheartening, but I don't think we're ready for a new version of {{grc-verb}} just now. There are simply too many things in flux. Once the inflection table format is figured out, a bot will need to be written to extract the headline information and create inflection tables from it, and change the headline parameters. Once all that is sorted, we'll be ready to institute a new version of {{grc-verb}}. Anything before that would be jumping the gun, I think. I am truly sorry if I previously gave any incorrect impressions on this, and thus wasted the time you spent crafting an admirable new template. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand you. The new version of the template changes NOTHING instead of adding two new parameters (tr= and sort=), and removing words "unknown" from the entries if some parameters are not given.

Please look for πλεονάζω.

All old parameters (1-7) are kept in the new version, so all entries look the same. It can be also used for new entries, like for example instead of {{head|grc|verb|tr=kleō|sc=polytonic|sort=κλεω}} one can use {{grc-verb|tr=kleō|sort=κλεω}}.

Please check the template and tell me what else is wrong. Just edit some page, copy and paste the inflection line to a new line and replace {{grc-verb}} with {{User:Maro/grc-verb}} and use Preview.

ἔραμαι:

• Atelaes present: ἔραμαι, ἐράω future: ἐρασθήσομαι aorist: ἠρασάμην perfect m/p: ἤρασμαι aorist passive: ἠράσθην Maro 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that really is a distinct improvement, and will serve us well through the transition to the new format. I'm still not sold on the need for the 'lacking transliteration' category, but I can't see how it will hurt anything, in any case. I apologize for my obstinance earlier. You caught me just as I was going to bed, and my brain wasn't in the thinking mood. Please go ahead and insert the new code. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Maro 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

λαγώς

I was surprised to find this entry marked for attention. Obviously it seemed okay at the time I created it, but I want to make sure I'm not missing anything. I haven't asked Metaknowledge why it needs attention, because that might be perceived as defensive/confrontational.

I took it from the Perseus version of LSJ [2], using the first form, but ignoring the breve. The word study tool there does make it look like λαγῶς would be the main entry [3]. Should I create the latter entry and mark this as a variant? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Absent-mindedness strikes again: I was so concerned about getting the Greek wrong that I didn't even notice that I had left out the definitions! Never mind Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note: I would not take that as being confrontational. Honestly. I don't bite. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

ἔλαιον

Would you mind cleaning this one up? Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've given it some love. Let me know if there's anything else you think it needs. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

block

i responded on my talk page, this place confuses meLucifer (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Again this is a wiki and what you said to be is ridiculous. This is not a project some people that have been here longer own and I really dislike and reject your tone. I don't add any questionable terms and I cite nearly everything.Lucifer (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

mentions of Ancient Greek words

De facto, we currently include some Ancient Greek terms which are only ever mentioned, like θεπτάνων; de jure, as far as I can tell, only uses are allowed... there's discussion at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2012-04/Languages with limited documentation#Extinct_languages_and_mention about whether or not to formally allow mentions. There's also discussion at #inappropriate_as_a_sole_source about whether or not to require the creators of any new entry in an extinct language like Ancient Greek to supply at least one citation of use at the time they create the entry. Care to express an opinion on either issue? - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I need to do a lot of background reading to participate in that discussion. Rest assured I will do so when I'm a bit less hung over, but it might take some time. In any case, my very sincere thanks for cluing me in to the discussion. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate the follow-up to the discussion. You make excellent points. Unfortunately, however, I've decided to drop extinct languages for the current vote. There is a lot of potential controversy already, and I am concerned that including extinct languages would result in a no pass. If the current vote passes, I would like to consider adding language that allows mentions for extinct languages. I hope we can broaden the criteria in a way that makes Wiktionary better! In the meantime, I hope you will vote on the current proposal when the voting begins :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I have every intention to vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Byzantine v Medieval Greek

Do you know if Wiktionary has a preferred usage for these terms. We seem to have an unpopulated Category:Byzantine Greek language. I was just editing κοντούρα and moved the existing entry to grc. Before creating a context template (similar to {{katharevousa}}) for Byzantine (if the word IS Byzantine) I thought I ought to seek opinion. — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 06:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A regular google search places Medieval as more common, but a scholarly search favors Byzantine. The Wikipedia article is titled Medieval. I guess I have a slight preference for Medieval, though I'd be hard pressed to justify it. Perhaps Flyax has an opinion? In any case, I certainly agree that we need to standardize. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My main question is about time limits. After N.Andriotis, the medieval period ends in 1453, but Kriaras' "Dictionary of Medieval Vulgar Greek Literature (1100-1669)" goes up to 1669 and Bambiniotis in the preface of his dictionary considers this period lasting untill 1821! So the terms Medieval and Byzantine do not necessarily coincide. I think that "medieval" is preferable when we want to speak about the evolution of the ancient Koine to modern Demotic, whereas "Byzantine" fits the period from 330 to 1453 but covers both the learned and vulgar literature. --flyax (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh. I guess I thought the two were perfectly synonymous. I have to admit I don't really have a good sense about which would work better. It seems to me that an ideal division point would be a point where the language either largely disappears, or undergoes some relatively rapid change. Alexander's conquests fit this rather well, as he produces, in an instant so to speak, an entire empire of Greek-speakers, where there wasn't one before, which unsurprisingly produces some radical changes in the language. Does the fall of Constantinople fit any of these criteria? Are there any other events/time periods which do? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only listen to those better qualified to pass comment - thanks! Much written Greek was then written archaistically and most wasn't written down at all. — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 15:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

κύμη

Hi Jesse. Is (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē) (a by-form of (deprecated template usage) κῦμα‎ (kûma‎)) a feminine first-declension noun? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē) in any of my sources. May I ask where you're getting it from? In any case, if it exists, I strongly suspect it's a feminine first declension noun. I can't recall seeing anything ending in an eta which isn't. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The etymology of (deprecated template usage) Κύμη (Kúmē) and inference from the secondary declension of its descendant, the Latin (deprecated template usage) cȳma. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like (deprecated template usage) Κύμα (Kúma) is a Doric variant of (deprecated template usage) Κύμη (Kúmē), too. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I don't have any good sources on this, but let me state my suspicions (mind you, these are just that, and not based on any hard evidence). I suspect that (deprecated template usage) Κύμη (Kúmē)/(deprecated template usage) Κύμα (Kúma) is a substrate word, and not in any way related to (deprecated template usage) κῦμα‎ (kûma‎). I also suspect that (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē) is not a real word. At the moment, Vahagn has access to better sources than I, and so I'm going to see if he has anything which could shed some light on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

κύμη isn't in any of my sources either. I don't think it exists. As for a relation between (deprecated template usage) Κύμη (Kúmē) and (deprecated template usage) κῦμα‎ (kûma‎), Beekes, quoting Kretschmer, finds it possible with a question mark. Here, I made a screenshot. --Vahag (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. So, that etymology is incorrect, yes? I went poking around b.g.c. looking for what would be (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē)'s dual and plural inflexions; I found this instance of (deprecated template usage) κυμαί (kumaí) (as ϰυμαί, nominative or vocative plural) and this one of (deprecated template usage) κυμῶν (kumôn) (as Κυμῶν, genitive plural). I have no idea what those words mean in those texts — mine was just a brute search for forms; I bring them hereto for your learned analysis. Do either of those support the existence of (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The second one is clearly the proper noun. The first one is rather more tricky. As near as I can tell, it might well be (deprecated template usage) κύμη (kúmē), however, even if it is, I would dismiss it as a textual error. I don't know where the author got the manuscript, or who he got to transcribe it, but it is borked. There were a number of orthography irregularities, and the text departed from all the manuscripts I have access to in some dramatic ways. Unfortunately, the author did not provide any chapter or verse notations, so I can't track where he is in Jeremiah, otherwise I would compare what other manuscripts have at that point. I'm certainly not going to read the whole damned thing. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not; however, having looked into it, I think the part quoted is Jeremiah 5:22, which in English is “Fear ye not me? saith the Lord: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?” What do you reckon? As for (deprecated template usage) Κυμῶν (Kumôn), how can a proper noun be in the genitive plural? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I managed to find it by doing some text searches on the Greek wikisource. Turns out it's Jeremiah 26.7 in the Septuagint, which equates to 46.7 in the Masoretic text and Christian Bible (I don't really recall why the ordering is so different between the two).

• 300 BCE – 200 BCE, Septuagint, Jeremiah 26.7:

  τίς οὗτος ὡς ποταμὸς ἀναβήσεται καὶ ὡς ποταμοὶ κυμαίνουσιν ὕδωρ

  tís hoûtos hōs potamòs anabḗsetai kaì hōs potamoì kumaínousin húdōr

  Who is this that is like a river as it rises, as rivers seething with water

The word in question is (deprecated template usage) κυμαίνουσιν (kumaínousin), present active indicative third plural (I think) of (deprecated template usage) κυμαίνω (kumaínō). The manuscript you linked to earlier had the second part of the word on the next line (I told you it was borked). As to your second question, in Greek, city names are usually in plural, for some odd reason. See (deprecated template usage) Ἀθῆναι (Athênai) for example. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into it. Hmm. I guess that pretty conclusively shows that the first-declension inflexion was novel to Latin, and had no Greek precedent. I'll note that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Definite article in declension templates

Hey Atelaes. I was considering editing all the grc declension templates that don't include the definite article for all cases and numbers (except vocative, I guess). However, I figured that you might have a reason for the seeming chaos or might have some plans for the templates. If not, I guess I'll go through and add them while hoping that you catch my mistakes.

• Example entry with the definite article: ἀνήρ
• Example entry without definite article: κῦμα

Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gilgamesh was the one who set those up. I really don't like them myself, and was planning on eventually getting rid of all of them. I think they add more noise than useful information. Additionally, the definite article is not a necessary component of any word, and so I think it slightly misleading. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting rid of the templates or getting rid of the definite articles? Personally, I like both. I can understand how they seem annoying to someone who knows grc, but my knowledge is so basic that I usually have trouble figuring out what case a noun is in without the article. I guess I'll leave them alone, then, and let you do what you want with them. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

κυμινοπριστοκαρδαμογλύφος

Hi Jesse. Thanks for creating (deprecated template usage) κυμινοπριστοκαρδαμογλύφος (kuminopristokardamoglúphos) (and (deprecated template usage) ἔμβρυον (émbruon), for that matter). I have a question about it: Why have you created it as an adjective? It seems to be defined as a noun. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The LSJ does the same thing, and I mirrored it without thinking. It's been fixed; thanks for catching it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

‛Sall good! :-)  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

{{el-decl-noun}}

Please comment at Template talk:el-decl-noun#Changing the format if you have any views — Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 05:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambig?

I got that spelling by copying it off this Wikipedia article which misuses that accented Latin i instead of iota: Wikipedia:The_Four_Loves#Philia_.E2.80.93_friendship. TBH visually I'm looking at them and having trouble telling them apart, but can see they're different by using 'find' and them not showing one another. It seems to be properly spelled the correct way on Greek words for love though. Since they look so similar, do you think it might be good to redirect the improper spelling to the proper one, since it might be common since that mistake's been on Wikipedia so long? Might show up elsewhere. Etym (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. We don't normally do redirects here on Wiktionary, but seeing as this is a mix of character sets, it will almost certainly never be a proper word, so I've made it a redirect. I've also changed the spelling on The Four Loves 'pedia page. And yes, the difference is incredibly difficult to spot visually. I was terribly confused when I saw that you had created the page, as I was sure we would already have an entry for such a basic word. However, I noticed that searching for the word with my Greek keyboard pulled up a previously created entry, and I noticed a very slight kerning difference between the two. Someone clued me into this page awhile back, and so I used that to figure out what was going on. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I know it was a long time ago

Could you please explain this edit? I have tried participating here only infrequently. I thought this was a valid edit, and your edit summary gives no clue why you disagreed. Could you leave your explanation on User talk:Geo Swan?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently we already discussed your reversion in 2008. You stuck to your guns, and told me to take the issue to the Tea Room, which I did today. Geo Swan (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A little help with abacterial

When I look at this word's etymology section, I can see it needing improvement by explaining what the a- and the bacterial portions mean, rather than referring to the stated pages. Is that proper? or should I leave it as links. (I have seen it both ways on Wiktionary.) Speednat (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you just changed it as I was getting ready to.

Look at this

opinion?

Thx Speednat (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The use of compound is probably better than {{prefix}}, as -al is a component worth noting. However, your gloss for bacteria is wrong. It doesn't mean "rod, stick"; its etymon did. I think that leaving bacteria without a gloss would be best, but if one had to be put, it would be something like "microbial organism". -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like it better without the gloss. I will change it. Thanks Speednat (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Διονυσοκόλακες

Hi there. Thanks for creating Διονυσοκόλακες. As you can see in the quote at Citations:Dionysiokolax, there is the confusion as to whether Dionysus or Dionysius is meant; I don't know whether that's Nietzsche's mistake or Hollingdale's. This book explains the pun, which was apparently Epicurus's (found in fragment 93, according to this source) and which hinges on one iota's spelling difference. Do you have access to the 93rd fragment of Epicurus? And do Diogenes Laërtius and Athenaeus use Διονυσοκόλακες (and not Διονυσιοκόλακες) to mean "flatterers of Dionysius"? By the way, thanks too for pointing me in the direction of WT:" on Ruakh's talk page. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like Athenaeus, at least, uses both spellings to mean "flatterer of Dionysius". In verse 249f he omits the iota, and in verse 405f he includes it. I am uncertain why such an alternation of spelling would occur. Sadly, I don't have access to any of Epicurus' fragments. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of them was simply an error; would you say that's plausible? In the light of verse 405f, do you agree with this edit of mine? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It's conceivable that it's an error. I wouldn't know where to find any of the original manuscripts, so I really couldn't say for certain. Your edit seems reasonable. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you say that the evidence supports a note about the iota? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Possessive Adjectives

Just a heads-up, in case you aren't watching the page: I posted a query on Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek re: which POS header to use for possessive adjectives. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) incinerate

Hey, could you fix up the Greek part of the etymology here? Thanks. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 03:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Greek really had no business in that ety, but I've fixed it up, as well as its etymon, which ultimately leads to a properly formatted grc cognate. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, fair enough. Just said I'd get someone to fixx it since I know obviously Greek has its own script. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Inflected forms in Ancient Greek

You clearly have technical knowledge and make lots of grc entries, so why are there so few grc inflected forms? This seems like it could make Wiktionary's grc entries far more useful to editors like me who sometimes can't immediately figure out the nominative singular forms of certain words. I'd like to work with you to create a bot that would populate the myriad inflected forms for everything declined or conjugated regularly. Does this sound like a project you'd be interested in? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, the reason I've never put much of any effort into creating inflected forms is that I assumed that, sooner or later, someone (possibly me) would create a bot to do them. So, yes, I'd be interested in working on such a bot. I've never done any wiki bots before, but I do have a basic competency in python, so I could do some of the coding, but probably not all (at least not quickly and easily all; I am capable of learning). Inflection is probably my strong suit, so I think that I have the requisite technical knowledge of Ancient Greek to handle that aspect as well. In fact, I have a python script (never quite finished) that parses inflected forms, which may (or may not) be of use in such a bot. There is one basic requirement that I've always had in my mind for such a bot that I feel I should divulge right off the bat. As a highly inflected dead language, a lot of the forms listed in the inflection tables will not be attested. I've always felt that any grc inflection bot should do corpus searches and only create entries for forms that it can actually find. We have a reasonably sized corpus on the Greek Wiktionary, and so I suspect we could find a great many forms to work with. Latin, of course, did not choose this route, but it is not as highly inflected as Ancient Greek, and I believe that a great many of its forms will have to be deleted one day, something I'd prefer to avoid. There is some infrastructure that should be created for inflected forms, as they currently have none. While {{head}} and {{inflection of}} are ok in a pinch, I think that a grc specific set of templates could be made rather more superior. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if you could adapt some of the MewBot code I made to make an inflection bot for Ancient Greek? If you like, I could add it to MewBot as well. —CodeCat 12:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to go with the former option, which would be incredibly helpful. I'm not entirely sure what Metaknowledge's background with bots is, but the primary thing that has kept me from doing this already is my complete lack of experience with wiki bots. Having the code to a functional one would be awesome. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, I have little experience with pywikipediabots, but I am greedy for knowledge of them and have been learning, mainly because I have a private wiki that is quickly becoming hell to manage only by using templates! To respond to your other points, I'm glad that you know some Python, because I'm not intending to learn it (I want to gain higher proficiency in JS first). I completely agree with you that it needs a corpus search (although I disagree about such a need for Latin, but it's too late there anyway). However, aren't there more complete sources than el.wikt? I think that you're probably right about a new template, but what exactly are you picturing for it? Here's the bad news: I leave for Asia in two weeks, and I'll be there for a month with my internet access likely being spotty. So, I'd like to try to get rolling as fast as possible! Thanks --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, when I said Greek Wiktionary, I meant Greek Wikisource. I've recently become rather intimately familiar with their collection as a result of my work with {{grc-cite}}. They have most of the important Ancient Greek works, and most of what is missing could be relatively quickly and easily shored up. Truth be told, I'm not really sure what the template infrastructure should do that would be different from the existing language-indifferent setup; I'll have to think on it for a bit. I think what I'll start off by doing is looking at MewBot's code, and start working out how this bot would likely be coded, and I'll start pondering a name, as "the bot" is quickly becoming a tiresome referential. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Greek Wikisource? I'll have to trust your judgment on that, because the only good-sized corpus I've ever explored is the one that Perseus has. As for templates, I would be perfectly happy with how Latin inflected forms look, and how they are coded - we just need to modify that to take arguments that it's never had to take before, like aorist, for example. As for the name, I couldn't think of anything witty like FitBot - perhaps ΤίθημιΒοτ? I don't exactly know what share of the labor I can take, because I don't know what this entails, but I really want to take as equal a share as I can. I've got the software and I'm beginning to ask questions in the GP. If there's a job you can assign me, I'd be glad to take it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For names, we could just use a Greek letter, as in Alphabot or Rhobot, or we could go the literal, so-ugly-it's-almost-cute route with GrinflBot Chuck Entz (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Betabot or AlphaBota might do, in the kind-of-quirky category. Or... what's the grc equivalent of amo amas amat? Maybe we could play off of that. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been working on a text file with all possible permutations of standard polytonic Greek letters and the Beta code that Perseus uses for their LSJ system. I was hoping we could create an LSJ ref template that could work directly off of the pagename and/or an optional Greek text parameter without editors having to come up with the beta code themselves for the {{R:LSJ}} template.

There are some cases where they have numbers appended in order to separate homographic entries, and sometimes the entries are coded with things like macrons and breves that wouldn't be in the original Greek text, but we would have a second optional parameter for beta code to override the automatic version.

Some of their beta code coincides with reserved characters in template code, but I've worked out the encoding (circumflex is =, which encodes to %3D, and iota-subscript uses the pipe, |, which encodes to %7C, etc), and will have a single accented Greek letter on each line, a delimiter, then the beta code string for that character (example: "ᾆ|)a%7C%3D") Chuck Entz (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately such a template couldn't take PAGENAME. The reason is that Mediawiki has no string functions, and consequently has no way to separate characters, which it would need to do in order to accomplish the noted task. You could use characters as parameters, the way {{grc-ipa-rows}} does, and then it would be fairly easy to convert unicode Greek characters into beta code. Of course, at that point, you're not saving the editor a lot of work. An alternative approach that you might consider is to write a JS snippet which would do the conversion for you. That way, the template code could remain as is, and every time you edit a grc entry, it would simply create the beta code you need to insert. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

more etymology clean up

The (pretty much identical) etymologies in English, Dutch an French at (deprecated template usage) damassé need some help. :) There is Ancient Greek and Arabic written in Latin script so that needs to be fixed. I figure maybe you don't have Arabic knowledge but perhaps you can inform someone who does. 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - most of the info was inappropriate for that page or just plain incorrect, so I removed the grc and ar. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Extinct languages

The Well Documented Languages vote is just about over and it looks like it will pass, so User:Metaknowledge has drafted a proposal concerning allowing words in extinct languages based on one mention. We are in slight disagreement over the wording, and he has asked me to solicit your opinion. Can you take a look at User:BenjaminBarrett12/scratch2 and tell me what you think? Metaknowledge's version is at [[4]]. --BB12 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, please note that I want to hear your perspective in terms of the fact that some Ancient Greek writers produced a fair pile of mentions (Herodotus and others of his ilk). Should these be kept? --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know quite where I should best respond to the proposals, so I'll just do so here. Please feel free to suggest a better location, or simply move the comments and let me know where they are. For starters, I feel like I should note my comments here, which well articulate my thoughts on the matter in general. I'm not sure if I've interpreted your respective proposals correctly, but what I'm gathering is as follows: Benjamin's proposal follows his general preference for giving poorly documented languages a large bit of leeway to make decisions on a case by case basis. Essentially his proposal states that any documentation suffices, as long as the community for the specific language agrees that it does. Metaknowledge's proposal more or less agrees with Benjamin's, except that it makes a number of exceptions with languages that are deemed well documented enough to be held to higher standards. Well documented dead languages, including Ancient Greek, would not be allowed to slide by on a single mention. I'm kind of pressed for time at the moment, so I didn't read the two as thoroughly as I perhaps should have. If I have misinterpreted anything, please correct me and accept my apologies in advance for the error. I disagree with Ancient Greek being denied the right to write entries for words which are documented solely with a single mention, and I think that my linked comment addresses why rather well. In short, my reasoning is that the primary aim of any proposal is (or at least should be) to include as many words as are in any kind of widespread use in a language, and exclude those that aren't. In a dead language, we will serve that aim better by casting as wide a net as possible. I am all for including any warnings or provisos needed to let the reader know exactly how much evidence we have for the existence of the word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind response and the link! --BB12 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you as well. I'll withdraw my exclusion list, and I hope you'll vote when we take this to WT:V. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Until I'm done coding my bots, I won't be on-wiki as much, so I'd appreciate a link when it's live. If I become aware of said vote, one way or another, I will certainly vote. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully appreciate it. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

once again senseids

Hi just posted my updates here to discuss it: User_talk:Yair_rand#sensidv2_and_trans-topv2_1261 . SebastianHellmann (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

διάβολος

When you have a chance, could you check if this was a good change or not? I can't tell (but I spotted it while patrolling). - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's good, yes. A correction of a mistake I made some years ago now, actually. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Extinct languages

Hi Atelaes. We have a new vote to allow words into English Wiktionary if they are found in extinct languages in "mentions" rather than actual uses. I hope you will consider voting: Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Extinct_Languages_-_Criteria_for_Inclusion. --BB12 (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

τσιγγάνος, Αθίγγανος

Does Greek capitalise ethnonyms? The first of those entries is currently lowercase, the second in capitalised. Should one of them be moved? (Note that each is linked-to from a couple of places.) - -sche (discuss) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, I don't know. My understanding of modern Greek is just this side of nothing. I suggest asking Saltmarsh or Flyax. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

{{grc-decl-2nd-prx-aio}}

Could you take a look at this when you have a chance? (Just to address basic questions like — should this template exist? Is it accurate?)

Thanks in advance!
—Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely got some problems. It may be useful with some modifications, but I'd need some more context to be sure one way or the other. I'll contact the creator directly and try to figure this out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/Ancient Greek dish

Sorry to bother you in your Wiktionary retirement, but I'd like to set this word as the Foreign Word of the Day for next April Fools'. Could you tell me which declension paradigm/template it would use? Something neuter 3rd declension, maybe? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's hard to say for sure, as the grammar of an Ancient Greek word can't be determined with any certainty from its constituents. If I had to guess, I would say it's probably using the declension of πτέρυξ, and its currently cited form is genitive plural. However, there are some other possibilities. It could be a third declension dental, using an inflection similar to the participial setup (Template:grc-decl-participle-ων). There are a few other, more exotic and unlikely, possibilities. If the word is preceded by an article, that could clarify things for us. I don't have a handy copy of the source text, however. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Assemblywomen, Line 1169. The original text runs thus:

τάχα γὰρ ἔπεισι λοπαδοτεμαχοσελαχογαλεοκρανιολειψανοδριμυποτριμματοσιλφιοτυρομελιτοκατακεχυμενοκιχλεπικοσσυφοφαττοπεριστεραλεκτρυονοπτεκεφαλλιοκιγκλοπελειολαγῳοσιραιοβαφητραγανοπτερυγών: σὺ δὲ ταῦτ᾽ ἀκροασάμενος ταχὺ καὶ ταχέως λαβὲ τρύβλιον: εἶτα λαβὼν κόνισαι λέκιθον, ἵν᾽ ἐπιδειπνῇς: ἀλλὰ λαιμάττουσί που.

No article, but can you glean anything more from context? I thought of 3rd decl, but I figured that nonce words usually follow an easier 1st or 2nd decl setup (like how new verbs coined in Spanish are almost always in the simplistic and regular 1st/-ar conjugation). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot glean anything. I know this probably isn't what you want to hear, but I think we should leave the entry without declension information unless we can find a reputable source which states something and gives some reasoning. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, an interjection like βρεκεκεκέξ (also from Aristophanes) wouldn't have a declension problem. Just saying. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Atelaes: Ah well. Thanks all the same.
@EP: True, but I'm aiming for something truly ridiculous in scope for April Fools'. We can always revert to the native Thai ceremonial name of Bangkok if all else fails. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The additional issue with the Greek dish is that the text of its name doesn't wrap, and so it will more likely just screw up the Main Page formatting rather than provide the intended humor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No it won't. I'll set the alt parameter of {{FWOTD}} with a carefully measured series of non-breaking spaces in the word so it won't exceed its bounds. If that doesn't work, I'll hardcode it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-breaking spaces, or soft hyphens? - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, whatever ;) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you still online?

I've replied at Wiktionary:Grease pit/2013/April#Bot request for Ancient Greek edits. —Ruakh_TALK 00:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Online. Will complete changes to template shortly. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

κυκλῶν

This is obviously wrong, but I'm not sure where to go with it. I rfved it for lack of any better idea, but it could probably be converted to a participle entry + an "inflection of" section for the genitive plural of (deprecated template usage) κύκλος (kúklos). Or something. As always, your advice would be appreciated. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the rfv on the term, which caused me to research the term a bit myself. As it stands, I think your assessment is correct, as well as your approach. Once the rfv fails, we can convert it as you suggest. My advice is that your own is plenty sufficient. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

κράσπεδα

Hi Atelaes. Thanks for creating κράσπεδον. I went ahead and created an entry for its nom., acc., and voc. plural form, κράσπεδα (kráspeda); could you look it over to make sure I've got everything in the entry, especially the pronunciation, right please? Thanks. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated topic, ἄπειρος#Etymology 2 has a noun POS header, but is defined as an adjective; I know substantivisation blurs the boundary somewhat, but surely the definition and presentation should be consistent. Which is it, a noun or an adjective, properly speaking? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Κράσπεδα (Kráspeda) looks good. The correct POS on (deprecated template usage) ἄπειρος (ápeiros) is adjective, and I have made the change. Thanks for catching it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

IFYPFY. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Need some help on Wikisource

Atelaes, A fellow editor on wikisource is transcribing the latters of Jonathan Swift, but in them is a Greek proverb or quotation that makes use of unusual orthography. You can see the page here. I suspect that the first word is και, and that the first unusual character is some sort of ligature. Likewise I suspect one of the other odd characters is a combined αυ, but my Greek isn't practiced enough to say this with certainty. And there remains one other character I can't figure out at all. I've done what I can with the passage, but am appealing for a little more help, if you can provide it. If you do, please also check my diacriticals, especially the breathing marks. They're rather small. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A Google search on the part of the text that's not in question turns up this (Cap. XXI, at the end). It seems to match exactly. Hope this helps. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think one of the characters is a ligature of omicron with upsilon on top of it, so the second word may be (deprecated template usage) οὐδέν (oudén). —CodeCat 16:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

καὶ οὐδὲν οὐδέποτε οὔτε ταπεινὸν ἐνθυμηθήσῃ οὔτε ἄγαν ἐπιθυμήσεις τινός. See this at Perseus. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks like it's right, so I've gone ahaed and used the text Chuck provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want the specific characters used, ϗ is καί, ȣ is the ου ligature, and ϑ is the variant theta in ἔπιϑυμήσεις. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

didômi

Hello,

As you were mentioned in the discussion, could you give your opinion on this? --Fsojic (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of the three words mentioned, although ἵημι needs a bunch of manual work, as none of the templates will handle its alternative aorist properly and I don't have the ambition to do it by hand at the moment. Thanks for catching this, and please feel free to let me know if you see any other problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand, this is much work. Actually, I think none of these highly irregular verbs should be handled by template, there are too many parameters to take into account. The aorist indicative plural of (deprecated template usage) δίδωμι (dídōmi) should be (deprecated template usage) ἔδομεν (édomen), (deprecated template usage) ἔδοτε (édote), (deprecated template usage) ἔδοσαν (édosan) (the forms with kappa for the plural apparently exist, but are less frequent, and in any case limited to the indicative mood). Same goes for (deprecated template usage) τίθημι (títhēmi): (deprecated template usage) ἔθεμεν (éthemen), (deprecated template usage) ἔθετε (éthete), (deprecated template usage) ἔθεσαν (éthesan). Verbal morphology is such a pain in the... :) --Fsojic (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that is tricky. It's always been my belief that all inflections that are attested should be shown, and yet I haven't shown a good way to distinguish rare vs. common forms, or when two different paradigms are merged in typical use (i.e. when most Greek authors use the indicative of one paradigm, and the other moods from another). I am open to suggestions on this. The best approach that I've come up with thus far is prose notes in the inflection section, indicating what happens. I have added such a note to δίδωμι. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In cases like first and second aorist where there are two more-or-less regular paradigms, I like the idea of combining them, with a double row corresponding to each row of the normal inflection table: one of paradigm 1, and one of paradigm 2 directly under it. They could be graphically distinguished by something like font color, so it's obvious which is which, with the header having the name of the first, then its principal parts, followed by "or" and the name of the second, with its principal parts, each matching their paradigm by color or whatever:

Aorist 1: ἔδωκα, ἐδωκάμην or Aorist 2: ἔδων,ἐδόμην, ἐδόθην
number			singular			dual		plural
aorist			first	second	third	second	third	first	second	third
active	indicative	1	ἔδωκα	ἔδωκας	ἔδωκε	ἐδώκατον	ἐδωκάτην	ἐδώκαμεν	ἐδώκατε	ἔδωκαν
		2	ἔδων	?	?	ἔδοτον	ἐδότην	ἔδομεν	ἔδοτε	ἔδοσαν
	subjunctive	1	δώκω	δώκῃς	δώκῃ	δώκητον	δώκητον	δώκωμεν	δώκητε	δώκωσι(ν)
		2	δῶ	δῷς	δῷ	δῶτον	δῶτον	δῶμεν	δῶτε	δῶσι(ν)

I don't know if it would be practical from a template-coding standpoint, and maybe the color-coding is overdoing it (or uses the wrong colors), but at least you get the basic idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

imho it's the best way to present usual versus less usual forms, and it's how grammars do it. --Fsojic (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

ξοᾰνον

Could you create the entry for ξοᾰνον? The English word xoanon is derived from it, and will be WotD on the 10th of this month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, at (deprecated template usage) ξόανον (xóanon). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the different orthography? I thought I had followed Liddell & Scott correctly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Greek entry titles include accents, but not vowel length markers, such as macrons and breves. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Piped rlformat links

I was trying to duplicate Template:RQ:Augustinus Confessiones with the quotation module to do something link [[s:la.rlTitle|Liber .ref1]] but I couldn't figure out how- is this possible? DTLHS (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be. Gimme a few; I'll try and take a whack at it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how's that? The Latin number names should really be module level data, instead of author-level, as I imagine a number of works could make use of them, but at the moment the code doesn't support that. I'll try and fix it soon. But, it works, in any case. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. DTLHS (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Greek dialects

Are you sure it is a good name? The usual practice is to put dialectal categories into [[Category:Regional XX]], as in Category:Regional Greek and Category:Regional Armenian, with Category:Regionalisms as a parent. I am not saying your choice is worse. But if we're choosing the [[Category:XX dialects]] format, we should do it for all languages. --Vahag (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I was considering that, but truth be told, many of the Ancient Greek dialects aren't regional (such as post-classical), and the ones that are (Doric, for example) are only sort of regionalish. "Regional Ancient Greek" might make sense under "Ancient Greek dialects", but not above it. I'm all for standardizing across languages, but not at the expense of good sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

So you're not going to change other languages and will use a different scheme for Ancient Greek? --Vahag (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of changing the category structures of any other languages, though I might just argue for such a thing if someone asked my opinion. I imagine a great many languages have dialects which aren't strictly spatial in nature. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite a few. Dialects can be based on socioeconomic, religious and ethnic divisions as well as geographical ones. AAVE is one example that immediately comes to mind. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That was the first English example that came to my mind as well.  :-) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

About Greek

I have asked a question at Wiktionary talk:About Greek#Passive verb entries which you might like to comment on. Saltmarsh (talk) 11:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue with rlformat

See Suetonius in Module:Quotations/la/data. Thanks to the wildly inconsistent wikisource formatting the anchor needs to have a period to work- any easy way to escape the period or should I just let it go and forget about linking to the exact chapter?

Does that work? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 05:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been working on something to apply consistent formatting to the year fields- Module:User:DTLHS ( for example)- would you mind if I added it to the module? DTLHS (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Please do. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek

Hi! I have a couple Ancient Greek questions. If the term for a haver/doer of a particular occupation is grammatically masculine (e.g. γενεαλόγος), is a feminine form used when referring to a female haver of that occupation, or is the grammatically masculine form used even then? And if it is common to use feminine forms, what is the feminine form of γενεαλόγος? (If no term is attested, can one be hypothesized based on other pairs of m./f. words?) - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that Ancient Greek nouns in -os can sometimes be feminine as well. I know adjectives can be. So maybe the noun really has two genders, I don't know. —CodeCat 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Codecat is right here, that a female genealogist would be Template:term/t. However, if there was a grammatically feminine counterpart, it would likely be Template:term/t. I have to admit, however, that I don't know for sure. I can't think of any concrete examples off the top of my head. May I ask the reason for your interest? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, thanks for the information. I asked because I'm translating a little something into Ancient Greek. (It's hard to explain why, lol.) Perhaps I'll just rephrase and say "[she] γενεᾱλογεῖς / γενεᾱλογέεις". On that note, I've seen it written that the Bible used contract(ed) rather than uncontracted verb forms. Did Homeric Greek use uncontracted verb forms at all? If not, who did? - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The best general rule that I was able to find is that Attic contracts more and Ionic contracts less. Homeric Greek is Ionic, it's own rather unique form, but Ionic nonetheless, and so tends to not contract, although contraction is not entirely absent. Koine Greek, the form used in the Bible, was based on Attic, and inherits its contracting propensities. I don't have enough personal experience with different dialects to offer much else. Sorry. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

χρυσός

The etymology of χρυσός from Babiniotis differs from that shown under AG by vowels - I know nothing of Hebrew, but presumably just a difference in the "diacritics". I can do little more! Saltmarsh (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

γρύψ

Could you please create this entry? I especially want to see its declension, because I'm having trouble figuring out how to show all the attested Latin forms, and it seems that Latin authors have been historically confused over how to decline it (or maybe they were just unsure how much to copy the Greek paradigm). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Luacizing {{grc-alt}}

I would like to create {{hy-alt}} to handle 50+ Armenian dialects. Since we have Lua now, can we a create a common module for displaying dialectal forms and share it? And by that I mean will you create it? --Vahag (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I can probably do that. I'll start working on the central portion, and the grc data. I'll let you know when it's up and running and ready for the Armenian data. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, take a look at {{alter}}, Module:Alternative forms, and Module:grc:Dialects. I haven't done extensive testing, but it appears to work. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It does work but there are some features without which it won't be very useful for Armenian.

• Can the module be made to use {{l}} to take advantage of its capabilities, namely automatic transliteration and auto-stripping of certain characters, such as the stress mark?
• 'dial', 'dial2', 'dial3', 'dial4' are not enough for Armenian. A given form may be present in 10–20 dialects.
• Can I specify aliases in Module:grc:Dialects as in Module:labels/data or Module:Quotations/grc/data? A given dialect may have many names, abbreviations, etc. I can't remember 50+ codes. --Vahag (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The first two are fairly easy. It already does use {{l}}, or at least its core. I had suppressed the transliteration, as it makes it look very messy to have two parentheticals afterwards, but I can reinstate it and see what I can do to make it look less messy. Adding some more parameters shouldn't be too hard, although at 10-20, having all those named parameters sounds like a pain in the ass. Perhaps we should switch them to unnamed, and simply have parameters 3... be the dialects; I was never completely satisfied with dial, dial2.... As to aliases, I'm sure we can, but I'm not immediately sure what the best approach would be. I'll study the language module and see how they do it. I'll try and get some work done on all this tonight. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We may use square brackets for the second one to make it less messy: παλλαμβάνω (pallambánō) [Cretan] --Z 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should invent new formats. In Wiktionary standard formatting using the regular templates the alternative forms would look like this or this. I imagine the role of {{alter}} in providing the same output with a standardized name of a dialect and a Wikipedia link. --Vahag (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to limit ourselves to what the existing templates produce. If the template can produce a cleaner, more intelligible format, then it should do so. That being said, I think we should make something which jives with the overall look and feel of the site. The square brackets are completely novel, and to my eyes rather jarring, so I may just go with Vahagn's suggestion for now. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have started using the module. Do you like the hyphen a lot? How about removing it and italicizing the dialect name? Qualifiers are usually italicized in Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I made a solemn oath to my dead mother that I would only ever use the hyphen in this module. Sorry, but my hands are tied. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

:) --Vahag (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:grc-adecl-1&3-ντ

Hi, someone at WT:FEEDBACK pointed out that the masculine and neuter genitive plural forms of πᾶς are incorrectly given as παντῶν instead of πάντων. The incorrect forms are being generated automatically by {{grc-adecl-1&3-ντ}} and I don't know how to fix it. Do you? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'm in the middle of something at the moment, but I'll try and get to it within the next few hours. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sorry about the mistake. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for fixing it! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

stuff

Hi,

Thanks for the encouragements (but my work isn't worth yours! and I'm always afraid to leave mistakes behind). I think the entry you are referring to is Template:term/t. About the Latin terminology, I'm all for the reader instruction, but don't you think we should create entries such as genitivus rei, accusativus personae to be sure they understand (as it happens, I myself don't have a glossary of these grammatical terms). What's the English grammatical tradition about this? In French we never use it (I've never heard them, anyway), and stick with translations accusatif de la personne, etc. --Fsojic (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not advocating using the Latin in our entries. I much prefer the use of plain English, like you did in Template:term/t, which was the entry I was thinking of. What I was saying is that the LSJ uses Latin, and I don't alway feel confident translating their abbreviated Latin into English. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding. So if you encounter an obscure abbreviation, you can ask me and I'll try to answer you as best I can. --Fsojic (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ἐάω

Hi,

I created ἐάω, believing it wasn't there yet, but I've just found this: ἐῶ. Which should be the lemma? --Fsojic (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe ἐάω is the better place. Athang was a rather problematic editor. I'm not sure why I didn't move it when I first saw it, but I have now rectified the situation. Sorry about that. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, and thanks for your answer. I've found a mistake in the conjugation table of Template:term/t and Template:term/t. The aorist imperative accent is irregular: Template:term/t and Template:term/t (alongside with Template:term/t, Template:term/t and Template:term/t). --Fsojic (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh, so it is. Since this only applies to a few words, I don't think a change to the template is appropriate. What we can do is do point substitutions in the entries themselves. Each form has its own parameter, which is the acronym for its full form, e.g. the active indicative 1st person singular form is accessed with AI1S. However, imperatives use C (think "command"), as "I" was already taken by indicative. So, if you add "AC2S=form" to the template code, it should put that instead. I have made the changes to Template:term/t, let me know if you have any more questions. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I added notes in the relevant entries (only the ones that had already a conjugation table). Are they fine?

Besides, I did this, but I don't know if I was right. I don't like to have duplicates in Category:Ancient Greek verbs, so since γινώσκω is only a variant of γιγνώσκω I removed it. What do you think? --Fsojic (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's funny you should say that, as I just did the opposite on παραγίνομαι....although I sat and pondered it for moment. Honestly, I'm not really satisfied with treating such instances the same as inflected forms, but I'm not really satisfied giving them the full status of a lemma either. However, I don't really have any bright ideas on what format would make me happy. In any case, I'm certainly not going to fight you on this. Do as you think is best. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's when I saw παραγίνομαι that I thought of asking you :) I wasn't really happy either with my edit, because it's not really an inflected form (well, even lemmas are inflected forms, but you get my meaning). Couldn't we recreate Category:Ancient Greek alternative forms, which was deleted a few days ago? Then we could put contracted forms as ἐῶ into it too. --Fsojic (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Question about Module:Quotations

What does the last line do in the following code?
data['Lycurgus of Athens'] = {}
data['Lycurgus of Athens'].aLink = 'Lycurgus of Athens'
data['Lycurgus of Athens'].year = '396–323 BC'
data['Lycurgus of Athens'].works = {['Collected Works'] = {}}
data['Lycurgus of Athens'].aliases = {[false] = 'Collected Works'}


Is the work supposed to default to "Collected Works" if nothing is specified? If not, is there such a functionality? --Vahag (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed what it does. If you look at the first author section in the module, you'll notice that this also works for absent authors. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

But it doesn't work. Look. --Vahag (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It does work, see. The trick is that the work parameter has to be empty, not nonexistent. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see, thanks. --Vahag (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

R:LSJ and Beta Code

Would you be willing to expand {{R:LSJ}} using Lua to automatically produce Beta Code from the page name? That would be cool. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I discussed doing this some time ago, but I don't think I'll ever get around to doing it myself. I had developed a plain-text file with Greek/Beta Code combinations, which is now User:Chuck Entz/LSJ beta code. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard. I'll work on it when I have some time. No promises on when that might be. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was easier than I thought. Thanks Chuck for the beta code. Five or six search and replaces, and copying and pasting from another module I was writing, and the template is now Luacized. Let me know if anyone finds any problems with it. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be able to help. The template does need an optional disambiguation-string parameter for the "1", "2", etc. that they put at the end of the entry-name in cases of multiple lemmas with the same spelling.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The template does take a manual entry as parameter one, just like the old one did. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But I was thinking more of a suffix rather than a replacement for the whole thing. We should definitely keep the first parameter for backward compatibility as well as an override for the unexpected, but we should also have the ability to tack on a "1","2","3", etc. at the end, so that we don't have to copypaste the whole thing in order to deal with a very predictable 1-character difference. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, it's such a rare thing that I'm not going to bother. A full copy-paste on maybe 1 in 50 entries is a pretty mild bug. If anyone else wants to, they're welcome to. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

The template does not seem to work with "αἴθων". In Module:R:LSJ, search for "ἴ" finds the following items:

• ['ἴ']='i)/'
• ['ἴ']='i(/'
• ['Ἴ']=')*i/'

The second one seems incorrect; should it be removed? (I could do the removal myself, but I am double-checking with you as an Ancient Greek expert.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I did a rough review of the vowels and their various diacritics, but there are so many combinations, and they look so similar at normal magnifications that there could be other slip-ups like this. Let me know if you run into future problems. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Running uniq on the list of characters found two more duplicates: ᾃ, ὕ. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

How do I report you for disruption?

You don't even read what you delete, edits that are attested and standard, and leave the inaccurate edits. You revert out of spite. Lysdexia (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, all the reverts that Atelaes performed to your edits have improved the entries. So I agree with them. —CodeCat 20:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Explain yours. I shall explain mine: large is the opposite of rare; fast is the opposite of free; great is the opposite of small; whether or not defeats word order (whether A; whether A or not; not not A); there was no "way" indicated and there is no opposite construction; my edit links the cognate. Lysdexia (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lysdexia, but I'm tired of arguing with you. I've done it a number of times before, and it goes nowhere. You can report me wherever you like, and the result will be the same, namely, the community will side with me. Essentially, you have two options: 1. You give up your absurd crusade to return the English on Wiktionary to some archaic purity, focus on adding useful content (something which you are more than capable of), and you become a productive and appreciated member of our community. 2. You persist in your crusade, persist in complaining about the reversions of your edits, and you get blocked, for successfully longer periods of time (the last block was a week, if I recall, which puts your next one at 2 weeks to 1 month). That's it. It might well be immoral, or unjust, or whatever else, but critically it is. Make your decision. I've seen people with similar MOs follow choice 1, and so I'm holding out hope that you do too, but I've seen far more choose 2, so I'm not holding my breath. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

0: Is it customary in informal decisions to not justify one's beliefs but to go with the crowd by what "feels" or "sounds" good?

1: What makes content "useful"? I believe all you want me to do is copy and paste public domain sources. Beside that, the ignorant userbase will not let me edit by this standard.

2: periods of time -> lengths. What should the block reason be? It must be something fabricated, like "the community doesn't like how lysdexia edits". Lysdexia (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)