User talk:JohnC5

Archive – 2014

-phyte

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

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

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

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

list moved down the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

list moved down the page

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

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

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

This nomenclature supposely derives from:

• Frederic Edwards Clements, “A System of Nomenclature for Phytogeography” (29th August 1902) in Beiblatt [№ 70] zu den Botanischen Jahrbüchern XXXI, № 4/5

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

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

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

unattestable, probably

actophyte

aigiaphyte

aiphyllophyte

aithalophyte

alsophyte

amathophyte

ammochthophyte

ancophyte

axonophyte

bathyphyte

benthopheustophyte

coryphophyte

drimyphyte

dyssophyte

ektophyte

ergasialipophyte

ergasiapophyte

ergasiphyte

europhyte

haematophyte/hematophyte

hemiasaprophyte

kenapophyte

leimonapophyte

melangiophyte

mycoheterophyte

plotophyte

spiladophyte

tenontophyte

trichomaphyte

zyphyte

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

attestable, maybe

nanophyte

neurophyte

oxyphyte

phytophyte

prophyte

pseudophyte

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

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

labundus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parabolare

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

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

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

automation initiated

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

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

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

semicomplete

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

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

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

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

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

extra space

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

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

Format of syncopated forms

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

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

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

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

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

Citing the NLW

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

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

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

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

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

That's how use of template:taxlink works

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

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

conoideus

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

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

putidissime Shavius and παραβάλανευς

Hi John. Re this edit of yours:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That citation, expanded, seems to be:

• Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, tomus alter: Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen primum: Acta Graeca, pars prima: Epistularum Collectiones [Actio Prima^?] (1933), folium 179

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:R:du Cange

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

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

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

cheopis

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

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

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

Module Errors

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

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

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

Template:R:Smith's DGRG

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

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

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

Source for descendants of specific epithets

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

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

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

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

pedophilia etymology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User subpages

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

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

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

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

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

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

*sweh2dus

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

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

Admin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-a#Latin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-06/User:JohnC5 for admin

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

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

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

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

σκύφος

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

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

Congratulations!

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

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

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

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

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

American

itsUS[orumentCHILE??1.163.101.49 10:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Hi Abusive permanent Block

HiTo JohnC5 : Youħɛnnë / ΙΩΗΝΝΕΣ / יוחנן חנן / ܝܘܚܢܢ / يوحنا حنن, I have been permanently blocked by Vahagn Petrosyan for stupid reason, just because I added some comparing terms... Can you help me please ??? He even reverted Tjetër that Stephen allowed me to add...

• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=ruoj&oldid=prev&diff=33173526
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=keq&oldid=prev&diff=33173535
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%CF%83%CF%8D%CE%BD&oldid=prev&diff=33173533
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=der%C3%AB&oldid=prev&diff=33173546
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=tjet%C3%ABr&oldid=prev&diff=33173544
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80&oldid=prev&diff=33173550
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=pavarur&type=revision&diff=33173554&oldid=33088964
• https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mir%C3%ABmbr%C3%ABma&type=revision&diff=33173555&oldid=33088797

All of them were sourced... And for tjetër I asked Stephen...

He say that a talk on my page about nonsense/gibberish, well I explain how the Semitic / Latin / Qrêgu language is composed and it is some explanation of my research. It is the revelation that I had by studying the faith and this is my synthetisation, I plan to make my own database for Gheg & about this, all web page are already done I just need to find a way to MySQL & PHP, because I don't know nothing about...

This guy have a problem with me I think, I don't know why he act like that... I think it is because he is Armenian, and he hate the Ottomans because they were in war with them, so he don't like me because I'm an Albanian muslims... Also he erase all comparing and cognating vord from the Greek... But he keep Latin (Armanian = Rman Roman), why he doesn't like the Greeks ?

Thank, you can reach me at my email address that you can surely find in profile or contact me at FaceBook Pro‑file that you have surely, or here, help me please... I even blocked my capacity to write PM to others admins than him and to edit my talk page, at least allow me to write PM to you thank and to talk in Talk Page (I have the right to explain my theory about languages and freedom of religion, though & expression is a Human Right Article 18 & 19), and allow me to edit for my Albanian languages, he erase all content from me, he is not fair (even those with source, what is this political ???)...

I have made donation to wiki in the past, so I have the right to contribute, as well for my Gheg Albanian languages (even vords from antique, medieval & Ottoman era), even if some racists discriminators doesn't like that and want to erase our culture by using theories of the Russian Vladimir Orel (still for Shqipe he also erased the Etymology from the book of Vladimir, so I don't who he is to decide what are Albanian)... If wiki doesn't want to allow the truth about origin of my peoples, it is very bad & sad. Blocking me is useless because I can edit hidden, but it is ridiculous because the time I spend here should be known & my vorks registered for the history... I'm going to contact the U.S & Albanian and Turkish Human Right administration & government for the way of abusive censuring of this administrator & for not allowing my Gheg languages to exist in Alternative Forms (and I have the source), also Gheg is recognized by U.S.A with the code ALN...

And I plan to deposit a complaint against him to the tribunal of the Albanian, Turkish and European authorities.... Mangêzd (talk) 10:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Pinging @Vahagn Petrosyan, Stephen G. Brown for reference). Nemzag, you've placed me in a very interesting position. I haven't been responding much lately because I have been out of the country, but I have become increasingly alarmed by the linguistic theories on your talk page. I am very much reminded of the beliefs of Edo Nyland (who thinks all languages are a code made of Basque and executed by the Catholic Church) and of Time Cube. While I initially enjoyed reading your strange ideas, I had become increasingly worried that the incorrectness of your ideas might start escaping into the mainspace. It saddens me to say this, but for the past few days I had been looking for an excuse to ban you because I was worried about the damage you might do to Ancient Greek entries (among others). It's hard enough to get people to believe Proto-Indo-European theory without people spreading incorrect information. I'm sorry that I was trying to ban you, but you did provide some bad edits that were excuse enough. Some of the edits you showed above were plausible, I guess, but I can say with great certainty that overall your linguistic ideas are too far from the truth to be allowed.

Your deep belief that you are being persecuted by outside oppressors worries me. We are not trying to oppress you nor limit your free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want (this is true), but you do not have the right to any medium you want. I can spout my belief system till the cows come home, but I do not innately possess the right to talk on the nightly news. I implore you: please do not go around editing anonymously. This will just result in increasingly complex blocks that might affect other users too. Feel free to do whatever you wish, but do not try it on Wiktionary because you are impeding this project more than you are helping it. I apologize for the time you have used here, but I must insist that you stop flooding us with your false, sometime racist belief system.

I feel very bad about having written such a harsh response, but my patience wore out about 3 weeks ago. —JohnC5 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to persuade User:Nemzag to accept suggestions that would make it easier to communicate with him and work with him. He wants to add valid information, but there are many problems with his edits, and he does not work well with others. I cannot bring myself to suffer through his annoying hyphenation habit to try to explain anything to him. Besides, he would only ignore any suggestions that I would offer. Now, in his most recent posts protesting his ban, he concludes with threats to complain to the U.S., Albanian, and Turkish Human Rights Administrations and Governments, as well as the tribunals of the Albanian, Turkish, and European authorities. WikiMedia takes a dim view of this, as described in w:Wikipedia:No legal threats. As a result, I don’t feel that I should get involved in this ban. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my decision. It may be true that a certain percentage of his contributions may have been correct, but we cannot (and should not have to) rake through his manure to find usable bits. He was given a chance to change his behaviour 7 times, so an indefinite block was the only thing left to do. Nothing personal, I don't have any feelings about Albanians. --Vahag (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I Stephen & JohnC5 thank for re‑sponse, the link that you give Στέφαν‧ος, say to talk with ad‑mini‑strators first, but Vahagn even blocked my ability to PM or to Talk in my User Page, so, by this action, I don't have any other choice than using the U.N, Evropean, Albanians (Human Rights) & Turkish (I‑slamic) Laws and to con‑tact the Magi‑Strators (& the Magni‑Strator and to Hakimi Qadi), for more com‑petent peoples to de‑cide of this case, I will also con‑tact the US government for the action of Vahagn about not re‑specting the right of the man, and be‑cause he e‑rase alter‑nate forms of Gheg and Co‑gnating terms (this is really un‑just)... I'm sorry Stephen, you have done no‑thing to me and I really re‑spect you be‑cause you are a nice & patient guy and you al‑ways taken time to speak and ex‑plain to me things), but still I will use the hyph‑en be‑cause I don't want to vrite like others do, with in‑com‑plet‑ness & negative (dewil) spelling. Stephen, you ad‑d "he don't vork well with other" ??? Why do you say that, I al‑ways dis‑cussed with others editors and re‑spected their choices & opinions, if you speak about Etimo, then I'm not going to agree with his pre‑Ottoman era view of Albanians languages (also he use Cyrillic character for Albanians term and he ad‑d de‑finition that even don't ex‑ist and who are not authentic like in Darkë). We were only three Albanians con‑tributors, I think we can do our job al‑one, why should we vork with other when I can be in‑de‑pend‧ant ? I never done any vandalism or con‑tent e‑rasing, I al‑ways re‑spect others con‑tributions. I only added some Albanian vords & terms or hypo‑thetical vét‧umo‑logy.

JohnC5, I'm very sadden by your saying about finding a reason to find a fake/false reason to ban me.

About the time spended here, my family said to me that it was ridi‑culous and that I was stupid to spend my time here on wiki, ad‑ding for free, with‑out any re‑ward and only re‑probations by peoples using vet‧umo‑logical mani‑pulations from a Super‑Power (Russia) to in‑doctrinate and con‑trol our land, while I could in‑stead vrite a book & a win money with it. (In the beginning I come to wiki be‑cause I needed some terms for linking them to my own web‑page (to help those who read it to be), but be‑cause Wiki was very in‑com‑plete, I ad‑d to make some edit by my own, also wiktionary :

• have no date of ap‑parition of the term,
• no photo (archaeo‑logy) & scan of the book were the term was used (like in Lebailly for Qrêgu for ex‑ample),
• wiki use miniscule for Ancient‑Qrêgu (true‑one) while it was vritten originally in CAPITAL, and never used ac‑cent at that time, minus‑cule shoud be used only for modern‑Greek (false‑one), the two are dif‑ferent alpha‑bêθa with totally dif‑ferent phonetic walues, also you use tonos for acute ac‑cent again a falsi‑fication politic...
• missing variant in foreign languages {some term have them like in Saoa,
• no automatic translation like in Ishraêli Babylone)
• Bad spelling de‑tection in search button, when we use for ex‑ample a Qrêgu term, we need to use ac‑cent, while, Wiki should auto‑matically re‑co‑gnize a vords even with‑out the ac‑cent (tonos, spirit) and show re‑sult, searching for ac‑cent variant in "Character Map" take time and spend my little hour here...

I don't think that Albanians & Arbanians are going to do job here any‑more in the future, when we see your con‑duct line (using theory of foreign land than those of Albanian Science In‑stitute), by e‑rasing the alter‑nate or co‑gnating vord be‑cause they are politic & historic ad‑versay (Persian, Turk) of origin state of these re‑versers, these users or Vahagni are doing a Ethno‑cide. And I will not let him do this... That is all. JohnC5 you speak that you are worried about my future edit in Shallê‑nique (ϷΑΛΑΣ = ϷΑΛΙΟΣ) or about my edit in Qrêgu (& SYN) I don't see what is the pro‑blem, these are two only I made because I Qrêgu is a term that I needed in my Web‑page, and these are sourced, and for the co‑gnating term Crack [qrag] can be com‑pared & Regs Regis and Legs Legis to Qôrona Qanona, it is an opinion, he can re‑vert no need to ban for that, but no Vahag choose to be totalitarian and by doing so I will use the laws of Evropean, Turks & Albanians... I will not ac‑cept that. In pre‑vious discussion, Mglovesfun said "I don't think it's ever been our policy to "only add sourced material". Users are allowed to use their own brains and even sourced etymo‑logies are speculative. If you want to re‑move dubious etymo‑logies, fine, but I don't think we'er going to start re‑moving every etymo‑logy that doesn't have a source.", so I have the right to give my theory & opinion, but even I had source (and gain ac‑cord from Stephansos) Vahag re‑vert in‑formation, so no this is dictator‑ship...

• Also I made an error by giving you a part of the Codex of the Crown of Qovrana Shupmus Shoprana, ancient Thracian Macedonian Walégs‑Vandr‧os re‑ligions, that the Arabs & Shêmite, Turks and Shalved (slave salvated) share (faith who is the base of their rules and laws in their Kingdoms & Dominions) but you can't com‑pre‑hend it be‑cause of phonetic variation, may‑be you JohnC5 don't merit to be an Eternal Buddha prince who breaked the bad fate (ΜΟΡΟΣ) of Mortality & Death, by entering in to the Nir‑Vana Varana and being uni‑fied with the uni‑verse... Keep using the false Latin Greek Tosk Cath‑olic ܩܬܘܠ Ortʰo‑dox vari‧anθ for the public, and I will keep the true Qrêgu Laθin Gʰeg (Giga Titan) Vorθo‑Dox tʰaqo‑wolic, Al‑Isholima אלישעלים / ܐܠܝܫܠܝܡܐ per‑fêqθ qoshmic vari‧anθ for me and those who be‑lieve in my book (spirit), every‑body can't be the Vêtsharêng‑Ħêaqan‑king of the Otshalvarabmanians (Albanian, Arbanian, Orbian, Ottoman, Aramaian, Shvrian (Syrian), Aryan Avrian), if I have the keys & the codex there is a reason for...

Good day, I'm going to trip in Maqedonia & in Albania tomorrow and for some‑time, so I will see what I can do there with our justice against the wiki politic about the Gheg (ΤΙΤΑΝ‑ΓΙΓΑ) Albanian mu‑isholims faith & languages (by using anta‑gonist Vladimir or Bardhyl con‑tra‑dictory theories)...

I don't under‑stand why do you say "false, some‑time racist be‑lief sy‑stem.", when this be‑lief is multi‑cultural and his totally humanist & uni‑fying be‑cause all faith are fusionned in only one the Isholima (Per‑fect Peace from the God & Vang'êls). And I love all races & nations who are peace‑full in the aeon‑ionic‑melêktric‑en‑lightenment. But I don't like the URô → UaR → WaR WoR‑shipper & venerator of Agun Ignis Ogon Agni Vahagn.

Thank any‑way... I was en‑joying NemzaGazmen to helping you on this pro‑ject... And I'm re‑con‑naissant toward Wikipedia and his creator be‑cause I learned many thing there... But some ad‑minus are not good and go beyond & over‑steps my Uni‑versal Human rights... And no I will not ac‑cept that... Good day, take care. — This unsigned comment was added by 87.66.223.10 (talk) at 13:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC). (later edited by 81.242.158.145 (talk))

Hi, @JohnC5, Stephen G. Brown can you at least allow me as an logged user to be able to edit the Talk Page, Pro‑File and to be able to PM to users & ad‑mini‑strators ??? Please... Thank, good day. Nice to met & known you. (Mangêzd (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I want to say that I'm not happy that someone erased my profile page, this is not fair, since my contributions here are at 90% correct and that cognating term I added is not wrong... By doing this suppression and trying to dissimulate my work, you truly force me to report my case to the Evropean & Albanian justice. (Mangêzd (talk) 4:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do. —CodeCat 17:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Latin: Fio

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

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

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

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

Testing transliteration modules

South Picene inscription

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template “Leidenisation”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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