User talk:AugPi

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

Archives[edit]

Category:Lojban conjunctions[edit]

Was there an RFDO of this anywhere? --Yair rand (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but there was a failed RFDO for Category:Lojban nouns (November 2009). The arguments (for deletion) would be similar: "conjunctions" are not part of the formal Lojban grammar. —AugPi (t) 04:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the link: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Others&oldid=7911517#Category:Lojban_nouns (and you were the one who nominated it for RFD(O)). —AugPi (t) 04:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
So, thinking in terms of Carolina Wren's argument (in that RFDO discussion) applied in reverse, I "moved" Category:Lojban conjunctions to Category:jbo:Conjunctions. —AugPi (t) 04:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
That way Category:Lojban parts of speech has only three subcategories: 'brivla', 'cmavo', and 'cmene', and it looks tidier that way. With the other categories which I had been recently been adding, those "true" categories would get 'drowned out'. —AugPi (t) 04:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

cascading protection[edit]

I just noticed, when I edited {{fr}}, that your userpage is cascading-protected. I wondered if that was intentional, and if you were aware that cascading protection doesn't protect subpages, but instead protects the templates that your userpage uses, such as {{fr}}? It isn't a problem that you've cascading-protected your page, because the only templates which are locked as a result are templates that should be (and are) locked anyway... it's just an unorthodox way of protecting templates (to cascade protection from a non- project-page), if that was your intent. If it wasn't your intent, would you mind unticking the "cascading protection" box on the Change protection settings page? - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

edo[edit]

I've noticed that the definition of the Latin verb "edo" isn't displaying properly on pages that refer to it. It is displaying it on the same line as the conjugation instead of below it in another numbered list as Latin verb definitions usually do. For example:

  1. third-person singular present active indicative of edō

I'm new here and can't for the life of me figure out how to change it, and I noticed that you were the one that added these definitions, so can you change it to reflect the proper output? The problem is with the output of the la-conj-form-gloss template. - -poyopoyo91 02:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Have done so: it should be A-OK now. —AugPi (t) 02:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your input: the same gloss-on-separate-line format should now be the case for all Latin verbs (which have such glosses), due to this diff. —AugPi (t) 03:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

fraudo / fraŭdo[edit]

Both entries have an Esperato section. Perhaps one is a spelling variant of the other? -- Gauss (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

fraudo would be misspelling (and hence also a mispronunciation) of fraŭdo. (So I deleted the EO entry for fraudo... thank you for pointing that out!) —AugPi (t) 20:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this right before I was blocked two years ago and was planning on fixing it, but the block happened and prevented me from fixing this entry. Thanks for fixing it :) (and I must stop forgetting to add my signature XD) Razorflame 21:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow! You're back! Hello there! :) —AugPi (t) 21:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm back and I need to stop forgetting my signature XD Razorflame 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello Razorflame! Maro 00:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

ignífugo[edit]

I need to double-check something with you. All of the text that I've studied about this word don't mention if it is one of those words that goes -uego or not. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think it does, but I want to double-check with you :) Razorflame 21:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That goes -uego? As in ignifuego? I doubt it. You see, the igní- part means "fire" (Latin ignis), whereas the -fugo part does not mean "fire" (or come from fuego) but rather something like "running away from", like the verb fugar. —AugPi (t) 22:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I was figuring. Thanks for the help :) Razorflame 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

kovrilo[edit]

The Ido translations that you gave for the term kovrilo were incorrect. The correct translations for this term are the same as the translation for Esperanto. Cover, and wrapper, in the sense of a cover.

The term litokovrilo is the word used for bedcover.

Thanks Razorflame 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Latin no-passive inflection tables[edit]

Hi there again, I noticed that all of the no-passive inflection tables have a formatting error where they don't display a hyphen for the perfect and future passive participles. For example:

The templates with the error are: Template:la-conj-1st-nopass, Template:la-conj-2nd-nopass, Template:la-conj-3rd-nopass, Template:la-conj-3rd-IO-nopass, Template:la-conj-4th-nopass and Template:la-conj-2nd-noperf has a similar error. Thanks for your time! poyopoyo91 06:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I will have to investigate — dig through template code — on how to fix that. When I first made those templates I was, if I remember right, reluctant to categorically state that such forms did not exist for such verbs; that would be the reason for the missing em-dashes. —AugPi (t) 23:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That appears to be fixed now! —AugPi (t) 23:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Japanese pitch accents[edit]

I noticed you've been adding Japanese pronunciations recently. I'm curious, where are you getting the Japanese pitch accent information from? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the pronunciations which I hear on RosettaStone. (RosettaStone does not explicitly teach anything about pitch accents; however, since it is permeated by audio, I could not help but notice...) Of course, the info on what locality(ies) the particular pitch patterns come from would be missing... —AugPi (t) 22:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I suspect they're based on Tokyo speech, a.k.a. 標準語 (hyōjungo). That's the most common pitch accent, and the "official" one approved for use by NHK announcers and the like. More at w:Japanese pitch accent if you're interested. -- Ta, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • And a quick PS -- the hiragana and romaji pages for Japanese are generally only intended as disambig pages, so pronunciation info should go on the individual kanji (or other lemma) pages. I'd appreciate it if you could move / copy the pronunciations from the しろ and くろ pages, for instance. -- TIA, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that; I should do so. —AugPi (t) 22:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, pronunciations should often go under the etymology in Japanese entries, as a single spelling might have multiple different etymologies, each with different pronunciations. See 巫女 or for examples. On signle-kanji entries, the topmost headers for Japanese entries must be ===Kanji===, ====Readings====, and ====Compounds====, followed by ===Etymology=== etc. On the page, for instance, I moved the pronunciation from the top of the entry to under the etymology section. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates! I was unsure whether to use the arrows or the line tone markers in the phonetic transcription, so thank you for clearing that up. I'm curious about these edits: [1], [2], [3], and [4] -- you put the up/downstep arrows after the syllable, rather than before. I thought step was marked before, as indicated at w:Upstep_(phonetics)? It's no hill of beans to me either way, I'm still very much learning about IPA and just wondering about the inconsistency. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wavering on that issue due to the case of words of N morae of accent N: for such words, the downstep occurs right at the end of the phonetic transcription. Then, if morae are separated with dots, it might seem silly to have a dot wedged between the last mora and the downstep... Anyway, what decided the issue for me was this finding in the page Japanese phonology: /too.oo.oꜜ.oo.u/, on the same line where it says "to cover Eastern Europe". As far as the dotted circle right after the downstep in the Downstep article, that might be just (in retrospect) a typographical issue, though when I first looked at that article I came to the same conclusion that you did (about the relation of downstep/upstep with respect to syllables or morae), but then the said issue with Japanese caused me to rethink... —AugPi (t) 04:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Q / idea -- what are the accent numbers for that you're adding, such as here? Just on its own, this information is a dead-end, in that it offers no way for unfamiliar users to learn more. Is there a page on EN WT or EN WP that these could link to and that explains what these numbers are all about? If so, would it be useful to have a template put together so you don't have to type the link in every time? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps they are not a good idea, come to think of it... In an earlier phase (of my experimentation with adding IPA), it appeared that there would be missing information in the IPA just by itself; however, the broad and phonetic transcriptions side-by-side should probably be enough...
   Also, I just found these two: 京浜, 巨人 — serendipitously; they use an already-existing template for displaying high–low tones overlayed atop the hiragana. —AugPi (t) 00:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I've seen that notation before, but never on EN WT. I like it, mostly -- except we need to link to somewhere that explains what "common accent" means, and the template should be amended to link to the proper entries for 頭高 (あたまだか, atamadaka), 平板 (へいばん, heiban), and the names for the other pitch accent patterns listed in the template (and these missing entries should be created). The font for the yomi might need changing, too -- that's kind of ugly and a bit hard to read at the moment, at least on Firefox on Windows. (It looks fine in Firefox on Ubuntu, so if I care enough I might go digging through the CSS to figure out what's going on.) For that matter, if the yomi in the accent template is going to mark pitch with IPA-style notation, shouldn't that yomi itself be in IPA? On the 巨人 page, for instance, kyojin is great as romaji, but completely wrong as IPA.
Looking at the What links here page for the template shows only 62 pages currently using this, and some of these like じゅらく or かんご are non-lemma entries and thus shouldn't even have a pronunciation section at all; if we as a community decide to differentiate by pitch accent on kana and/or romaji disambig pages, then just about all of the hiragana pages that use this template would need to be reorganized to list just the appropriate entries under each relevant pronunciation.
Anyway, let me know if you like this template, and what you think about changing it a bit. I'll have some time next week when I could work on this. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I like the template, and I have already made some changes to it: links to 平板型, 頭高型, etc. Also, parameter 4 has been made optional, so that the IPA and this template can be used on separate lines. Also, I made a new template: Template:ja-Common Accent, which has a pair of links, one from "Common" to 共通語 (which has a link to Wikipedia's "Japanese dialects" article), and one from "Accent" directly to Wikipedia's "Japanese pitch accent" article). A pair of trials: and . —AugPi (t) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
One quick suggestion, maybe 標準語 instead of 共通語? The latter is more generic, and can be used more loosely even for other languages, whereas the former is more about the "standard". If I understand it correctly, modern Japanese is the 共通語 across Japan, but the Tokyo dialect is more specifically the 標準語, as pertains to news announcers and the like. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Done! Should "Common Accent" be changed to "Standard Accent" as well, or is that neither here nor there? —AugPi (t) 23:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That might be a good change, too -- I'm less certain of the nomenclature for the accent, but I think that consistency would be good. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Heya, one quick note -- PR sections should go right by the appropriate POS section(s) that use that reading, ideally under an Etym section if there is one. Have a look at 赤#Japanese for an example. I also tweaked the formatting within the PR section; let me know what you think of that. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright then, so ELE-wise, the "Kanji" header always has precedence over the "Pronunciation" header, even if there is no "Etymology" header in between... —AugPi (t) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, for single-kanji entries anyway, the order should be Kanji, Readings, Compounds, and then the usual Etym, Pronunciation, POS sections. For single-kanji entries with multiple etyms and pronunciations (in Japanese, the etyms are based on the reading of the word), each pronunciation should go under the relevant Etym section and just above the relevant POS section(s). is one such example of a single-kanji entry with multiple etyms & readings. Any Japanese written word that has multiple readings should ostensibly have at least one etym section per reading. Feel free to ask if I've muddled this or left anything out -- I gather you're just starting out with Japanese, and I'm not sure what background knowledge I might be erroneously assuming.  :) -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 08:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin -aris, etymology 2[edit]

Hi! Maybe you could have a look at these two edits in -aris: diff and diff. The "conjugation of" template seems a bit broken now. Greetings --MaEr (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

An additional problem is that the instance under the second etymology is not a formative suffix; it's an inflectional ending. We generally don't add those for Latin, in part because we've not yet decided how to handle them or what PoS header to include them under. The "Suffix" header is for formative suffixes, not for inflectional endings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That's right; I have removed that Etymology/definition. —AugPi (t) 22:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Latin quotations[edit]

Since I know you add Latin quotations, I thought I'd let you know that there is now a separate Category:Latin quotation templates. You no longer have to sift through the listings of English-language quotation templates to find these, so finding and using a template to format Latin quotes should now be easier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip; those are an interesting set (of templates). —AugPi (t) 04:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

WT:TR#bruja[edit]

Hello! You speak Spanish, so I wondered if you might have knowledge of or dictionaries of Spanish etymologies that you could bring to that discussion. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

morior#Inflection[edit]

Do you know whether there's a way I can solve this problem by using 22=? Or should I just subst: the template and fix the future participle? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I added parameters 3 & 33 to the {{la-conj-3rd-IO-depon}} in order to override the default 2 & 22 for the future infinitive and participle. Then I edited morior and it seems to be fixed and hopefully the template works well elsewhere... —AugPi (t) 13:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of any other words off the top of my head that need this, but I guess it's better to put it in the template. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your la-quasiconjubot subpages[edit]

I don't know if those pages are still being used, but I noticed that they all use {{conjugation of}} with a raw link. That is, the parameter contains [ ]. That usage is deprecated, so can you either remove the brackets from the links, or delete the pages if you no longer intend to use them? —CodeCat 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have trimmed/cut down a lot of my no-longer-used userspace. —AugPi (t) 20:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

laboro[edit]

hi, yes, of course :)
1. laboro is not an active-only verb. it's true, it's a mostly intransitively used verb, nevertheless it can also be used transitively. that means it can be put in all passive forms.
2. intransitive verbs and the use of the passive: most intransitive verbs (or intransitively used verbs) can form a passive: the impersonal passive, this means third-person singular only (there is no third-person plural impersonal passive). and the the passives formed with the part.perf. and the auxiliary verb sum (perfect passive, etc.) are always, the part.perf., in the nominative singular neuter and, the auxiliary verb, in the third-person singular.
laboratum est would be the perfect impersonal passive, laboratum erat the pluperfect, etc.
sorry about my english, i'm just realising, it's getting very, very rusty ^^
--Ninud (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the claim that the third person impersonal passive is singular only, what do you make of this specimen: http://duomo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ENG/PA/PAlist26644S0.HTM? —AugPi (t) 04:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:nov-noun[edit]

Can {{head|nov|noun}} be replaced with {{nov-noun}} in every situation? If so, I could update all of them for you. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I read up on Novial, and I made this change to the template, so now it's possible just to use {{nov-noun}} without parameters in almost any situation. If you find a problem, please tell me. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for you improvement. I have generalized the template even further and the only case missing now is that of uncountable nouns (if there are any such in Novial — why wouldn't there be? But I haven't encountered any yet...) —AugPi (t) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Nor have I, although to be honest I just glanced over the language. It's not bad, but I can't say I like it enough to ever learn it. I'll add in support for them anyway, just to be safe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Missing" templates[edit]

  • I had left this message at Quasibot's talk page.

Special:WantedPages shows about 200 missing templates that are "wanted" by pages created by this bot. They seem to have been "wanted" virtually since creation and would remain wanted indefinitely AFAICT. Is there a way to recreate the entries without leaving behind this kind of detritus? This kind of thing makes Special:WantedPages less useful for its main tasks: identifying pages that are truly needed and identifying some problematic practices. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the template and found out that there is a way in which #ifexists works which I had not foreseen. Anyway, I don't think that the template can be fixed so I have "pre-deleted" it by blanking its contents, which is to say that I will now be agreeing with the deletion of that template... —AugPi (t) 07:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
(When a phrase of the form {{#ifexists:A|B|C}} is included in a transcluded template, the page (or template) whose name is A will show up in Special:WantedPages.) —AugPi (t) 07:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. That is what caused Special:WantedPages, when they finally started running it again, to be almost useless because it was occupied by thousands of wanted pages the wants for which were generate by the ifexist references. Ifexist is fine if it almost always does not generate a "want", ie, if the "want" indicates an error to be promptly corrected.
Thanks for attending to this. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

la-conj-form-gloss[edit]

Hi there. As part of the deletion - would it be OK to delete User:Eiggge. The user has made no other edits ever. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Have done. —AugPi (t) 08:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What was the point of deleting the template if you put back the same kind of information? --Fsojic (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The information that I put back is only for the participles; a verb has only (up to) four participles so that information is rather easy to maintain "manually". The template was used not only on the participle forms but also on all of the finite forms (there are about a hundred of them for each typical Latin verb); the template was really meant for maintaining all of the "glosses" for those finite forms. What I have done is return the participles to a style quite similar to that employed by FitBot (talkcontribs). —AugPi (t) 15:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I decided to use gloss (instead of non-gloss) definitions for the participles (continuing the style started by FitBot) because the non-gloss definitions of the Latin participles are already included in their Etymology sections. When a participle form is shared by two different verbs then splitting that participle's entry into separate Etymology sections is mandatory (according to the way en.wiktionary is organized) so because of that then even non-shared participle forms also should have Etymology sections. The participle forms are considered to be non-lemma forms instead of lemmas in their own right, so the main Etymology section would be in the lemma's entry, not the participle's entry. The participle's Etymology section should just point to the lemma's entry, and an appropriate way to do that is to define the participle relation to the lemma, i.e., to give what is in effect a non-gloss definition of the participle. To repeat that non-gloss definition in the definition section seems redundant and empty; the glossy FitBot style seems more aesthetically pleasing (and, as I said, maintaining four participle entries manually isn't that hard so one might as well do it.) —AugPi (t) 15:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
That template transclusion "technology" is outdated anyway (and no one was maintaining it other than myself; I never bothered to explain how the "frames" for each verb should be set up, and their style of set-up was overworked and clumsy). If I had to reimplement a glossing system now I would probably go for using Lua modules (which seem a lot more fit for the task). —AugPi (t) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

nascentia[edit]

Hi,

Are you sure it's an Interlingua word? In French Wiktionary we have it in Latin. Could you confirm please?

Regards and apologies for my English, — Automatik (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

-öx[edit]

I created a page for that Volapük verbal suffix; and when I say your Volapük subpage, I thought you could add it. Is it "obsolete" or not? As for Interlingua, on a side-note, I thought I saw someone changing the spellings of some Interlingua words; I don't remember who it was that did it. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)