User talk:Andyluciano

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Latin i/j[edit]

I noticed you've moved some latin words like jus and judex changing j to i. I think that's not good. I know "i" is classical, but "j" is always written today (well, in the English speaking world at least) and I think it's best to make "j" the main article. (Ditto u/v.) Unless there's a contrary wiktionary policy I don't know about ... — Kevin Ryde 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, yes. Actually I see "i" is the policy on the latin wikipedia. But I think all the printed Latin-English dictionaries I've seen are "j" (eg. I've got one like that from 1868). Hmm. I suppose it doesn't make much difference. It might make sense to try to get a policy up while there's only a few words affected. — Kevin Ryde 00:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Latinized"[edit]

Hi, I use the term "Latinized Greek" instead of "Latin" if and when the Latin word is a direct borrows from Greek and the formation of the word has not been considerably changed, in order to specify the etymon of this word, which by definition is required in an etymology section.

So the linguistically accurate in such a case is the use of the term "Latinized" instead of "Latin", furthermore because the word "Latin" should be used to declare the true, Latin origin of a word.

For example the Latin word "guberno" is the Latinized form of Greek "kuberno", while the Greek word "maxilarion" is the Hellenized form of Latin "maxilla". Kassios 07:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I just noticed that you have removed the term "Latinized Greek" from my entries, I would appreciate it if you put it back. Thanks, Kassios 07:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, and you are right. Unfortunately most of the dictionaries -except perhaps the Oxford and Collins- don’t go any more back in time than Latin in their etymology sections and they don’t mention (with a few exceptions again) if a word is borrowed from Greek. However there are some excellent etymologic works that someone who is interested in the etymology of Latin, can refer to.

Here are just a few of them, in case you would like to dig deeper in the etymology of the Latin language:

  1. A manual of Latin etymology: As ultimately derived, with but few exceptions, from the Greek language by J. Valpy
  2. Manual De Etimologias Grecolatinas / Manual of Greco-Latin Etymology by Heriberto Camacho
  3. An eymology of Latin and Greek by Charles S Halsey
  4. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies by Robert Maltby
  5. A manual of etymology: Containing Latin & Greek derivatives : with a key, giving the prefix, root, and suffix by A. C Webb
  6. A compendium of analytical etymology and syntax of the Latin language by Thomas J Dill
  7. Etymology of Latin and Greek by Charles Storrs Halsey
  8. Etymological Dictionary of Latin by T.G. Tucker
  9. Etymological Dictionary of the Latin Language by Francis Edward Jackson Valpy


Personally, in my etymology entries, from respect to the science of etymology, I always try to go back to the oldest attested record of the word, in order to be historically accurate.Kassios 13:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

spanish words[edit]

I'm the anom user that has benn commenting entries of Spanish. I'm Spanish and Catalan native speaker and I can help to create entries, should we start doing it?--62.175.97.149 09:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

embarazado[edit]

Hi, Andyluciano. I didn't intend a personal attack in removing "Not used as an adjective" from in embarazado or in my edit summary. I was just reviewing recent changes, saw the grammar note, and imagined readers getting the false impression that "el personaje emarazado" is grammatically incorrect. So, I removed it.

Note that my "rm incorrect sp grammar lesson" comment itself was erroneous, since the ISO abbreviation for Spanish is "es" instead of "sp". Anyway, my intent was to stress that (1) entries for regular words don't need grammar lessons and (2) the information I removed was incorrect. I probably would have understood your grammar note better if I had bothered to read through the full edit history, where you were actually correcting Benítez' mistaken move to "emarazada". Anyway, I appreciate your contributions and will try to be more careful about how I word my summaries. Rod (A. Smith) 01:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

-ón[edit]

Good expansion, but you have removed information about what part of speech this suffix forms. Widsith 17:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish & Arabic[edit]

You've done a good job in improving alcaide's etymology entry. Do you think you might be able to do similar things for some other Spanish words of Arabic origin, such as alcalde, alquiler, azúcar, almohada, etc? It would be nice to have those in the original script, for instance. –Andyluciano 16:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those – interesting ones. I've updated three of them; though I couldn't work out the exact source for alquilerStephen will probably know, if you want to follow it up. Widsith 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Habanero[edit]

I think the Spanish habanero can be adjective and noun, but its definitons are a mix of both. Maybe you (as the specialist) could correct this. Thank you and good luck with adding more Spanish (and better templates).

J(u)an from Belgium —This unsigned comment was added by 212.29.160.170 (talkcontribs) 20 August 2006.

Thanks. Tried to improve it. Maybe such confusion is due to the fact that "inhabitant" (habitante) is both an adjective and a noun in Spanish? –Andyluciano 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

macaca[edit]

I noticed you helped with the entry for macaca. We could use some help in resolving a sense dispute. RFV here Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#macaca.--Halliburton Shill 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish inflection templates[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry I'm very late in communicating this, but I am responsible for the changes in {{es-adj}} and {{es-noun-mf}}. I do confess that the table output format is... very bad.

You mentioned that you thought es-adj was broken. Well. The rationale for the changes I put in was that this makes it much more simpler when several of the forms are the same. For example, using the old semantics for something like gigante, it would be {{es-adj|feminine={{subst:PAGENAME}}}}, and give a very verbose output. The two changes I made is that:

  1. if no feminine form is specified, it assumes it to be the same as masculine.
  2. if forms are the same, it gives quite a bit less verbose output, at least in non-table mode.

This means that for gigante you now only have to do {{es-adj}}, and at least in the non-table format it looks much better than before.

This does not break old pages that used the template correctly. I tested it a lot to verify this. {{es-adj|feminine=casera}} still works exactly as expected before. The only thing that would break would be pages that don't specify a feminine form, which didn't display nicely (i.e. would have displayed an ugly [[feminine]] before this change.) So I don't know why you describe the new semantics as "broken".

So I would strongly defend my changes to the parameters and textual output of that template. They were thought out pretty well. I went back to old pages and made sure nothing was broken, and it makes both input and output of pages like gigante or guay or chupacabras much simpler.

Now... As for the table... That is totally my fault and I regret it. I discussed this with Rodasmith and he mentioned something about en-noun. I looked at en-noun and I figured it wouldn't look nice with genders and whatnot... So I borrowed that table code from some of the French templates, which had gender. And I admit that it looks bad and inconsistent. This has to be fixed. –Andyluciano 17:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you said that the parameter names should be wikified... I based them on what some French templates use. And also kept the older ones introduced by Rodasmith for backward compatibility. –Andyluciano 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for this reply.

  1. The problem I am still seeing with the es-adj output is with the feminine plural. Eg on the casero page it gives casero, caseros, casera, and caseros again – in other words, the feminine plural is displaying the same as the masculine plural. There is no caseras displayed.
  2. I think Rodasmith was right to mention en-noun – that is the sort of thing we should be aiming for. Actually if you look at en-verb, that has 5 arguments displayed across one line, so the Spanish adjective would be almost the same as that, but with only 4. I think there are some Latin templates that do something similar. Most templates in other languages don't even include a separate table output though, so it's good that you tried to do something with it!
  3. I understand about the wikification. However, the French verb templates have (almost) all been changed now and I think the general feeling is that all terms should be wikified. That is not a particularly big issue though, for me anyway.

Thanks again. Widsith 10:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation Project[edit]

Hello, I'd like to tell you about the Spanish Translation Project that is currently being worked on.

We are looking for contributors of any level, to help out with the project.

If you are interested, please take a moment and look at the page, and leave any comments or suggestions regarding the project.

Thanks. Bearingbreaker92 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)