User talk:AugPi/2010

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

Dutch[edit]

Hey man. I don't know where you are, but perhaps you'll consider returning after seeing this humor, because Jamesjiao can sure need your help on some template bot ;) Laats 81.68.255.36 18:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

New conjugation templates[edit]

I've created a complete redesign of {{nl-conj}}. There is now one base template {{nl-conj-base}} which contains the table, and three templates {{nl-conj-wk}}, {{nl-conj-st}} and {{nl-conj-irr}} to generate the forms. The table itself allows a lot more customisation and is more flexible, and also displays some forms that weren't displayed until now (such as gij-forms, past subjunctives and plural imperatives). I've tried it out on a few test cases and it all works nicely. All verbs are supported, and I added support for verbs like 'herinrichten' that was discussed above. Only reflexives are not supported yet, but that's more due to issues over how to make them work than technical limitations. --CodeCat 11:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

See subject! :) JamesjiaoTC 05:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanx! —AugPi (t) 05:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I've missed your entries since you've been gone :( I'm glad you are back :) zwavelzuurhydraat can use a look over too. Razorflame 04:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about all that[edit]

I think we both got a bit confused there with which templates exist and which were still needed. I hope it's all fixed now. —CodeCat 15:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. —AugPi (t) 15:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

abbiettezza[edit]

According to my print Italian->English dictionaries, they are not alternative spellings. They are separate words. Razorflame 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just rolled back... —AugPi (t) 05:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Cheers, Razorflame 05:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

laatste[edit]

Could you check if the sense 2 merits it to be in Category:Dutch adjectives, or if it is part of sense 1? -- 124.171.169.189 00:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It is part of sense 1. —AugPi (t) 13:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought so but the definition did not quite suggest latest (final would imply the absolute end, but compare: over de laatste update where it is merely the latest (available)). Would this be laat in its superlative form? -- 124.171.169.189 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is laat in its superlative form. It is possible that laatst/laatste can mean two different things: (1) latest (so far), and (2) ultimate (the last one ever). However, if this is the case it should be reflected in the article for laatst, not the one for laatste, which is just the inflected form of laatst. —AugPi (t) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Accordingly, I removed last/final/ultimate from the definition of laatste: however, this may have to be moved to laatst, because SPQRobin (talkcontribs) probably knows what he's talking about (he's the one who added those words). —AugPi (t) 20:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I had recently added laatst as a translation for ultimate but perhaps ultiem or uiteindelijk are better translations, so I moved laatst to the Translations To Be Checked section. —AugPi (t) 20:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask CodeCat (talkcontribs), see if he can settle this. —AugPi (t) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The word laatst has gone through pretty much the same development as in English. In English, the word last derives from an old superlative of late. This older superlative preserves a more archaic meaning of late, which is 'slow', and hence 'far behind'. The word late then developed a new, more 'regular' superlative, latest, with the newer meaning of late - far ahead in time.
The Dutch situation is the same, except that the meanings 'last' and 'latest' both translate to the same Dutch word, laatst. So it means 'newest, most recent' in the newer sense, where it is the opposite of vroegst. But also 'last, furthest behind' in the older sense, where it is also the opposite of eerst. The sentence het laatst in de avond therefore has two meanings: 'the latest (in time) in the evening' or 'the last (in order) in the evening'. Hope that clears it up a bit? —CodeCat 20:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
That will do, thank you. —AugPi (t) 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

phonograms[edit]

Hi AugPi,

This nl:beken and nl:bezie might interest you: I am experimenting a little with phonograms, particularly for words with more than one stress pattern. Thoughts/suggestions are welcome Jcwf 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea for distinguishing heteronyms in a more visually immediate way. I wouldn't use them to distinguish between NL and BE (and Limburgish) pronunciations. I tried using your phonograms in the beken article... and it works! By the way, how would you translate klemtoonhomogram to English? "Stress heteronym" or "suprasegmental heteronym"? The English word "homograph" (instead of "heteronym") doesn't quite do because it is defined as "same spelling, different meaning" whereas "heteronym" = "same spelling, different pronunciation (& meaning)" and the differing pronunciation is the important part. —AugPi (t) 01:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
If I look at the Venn diagram at w:Homograph its definition does seem to include the difference between desert and desert, but the term heteronym is somewhat narrower because it excludes homonyms.
My term klemtoonhomogram would translate into "stress homograph" or actually "stress homogram". I may have made a mistake by changing the ending -ph in -m, although words in -graph often indicate the writer/instrument, rather than the written. (Telegraph versus telegram e.g.). And nobody has balked at it so far. And the Dutch wiki uses homograaf and homogram as synonyms.
I agree that the phonograms are most useful for suprasegmental differences rather than things like dialectical ones. It should remain a functional addition rather than a mere embellishment, I think. Actually I wonder if a frequency analysis picture would not be even more useful, particularly for tonal differences, but I don't have working analyser. Jcwf 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
One reason I do not like the term heteronym is that the Greek only refers to "other word", not to "written the same". (The important point about these suprasegmentals is that they are written the same but have different stress.) The other reason is that in Dutch the word is mostly used for a particular kind of pseudonym. Jcwf 03:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"Heteronym" seems to be partly synonymous with "homonym" in Dutch as well. But according to one definition in Dutch, heteronyms are not witten the same way (here). Confusing, isn't it? Anyway, this would mean that at least the English term heteronym could be used here. Wikiwoordfanaat 10:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
From the homograph article: "Homographs are a kind of homonym in the loose sense of that term, i.e. a word that is either a homophone (same sound) or a homograph (same spelling)." So, loosely speaking, heteronymic homographs are a kind of homonym, in other words, heteronyms are a kind of homonym. Only loosely speaking, because strictly speaking, homonyms refer to different "semes" (meanings) of a polysemic word. ... OK, from having glanced at your linked page, "homoeidonheterosemantofonoglos" = English "heteronym". English "homograph" = "homoeidonheterosemantoglos". The definition of heteronym seems to fit better (from looking at the definition as it is written). There is already a Category:Dutch heteronyms, and I checked the words under its rubric to see that they are indeed heteronyms, in fact all "stress heteronyms"... and there is already a link from that category to the Dutch category "Klemtoonhomogram in het Nederlands"... so there is no need to change anything: just put beken et al. under the existing category. —AugPi (t) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Here is a little follow-up to clear things up:
heteronym = homoeidonheterosemantofonoglos
homograph = homoeidonheterosemantofonoglos and/or homoeidonfonoheterosemantoglos
homonym (strict) = homoeidonfonoheterosemantoglos
which matches the tables at the bottom of the linked articles. —AugPi (t) 01:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
That is a lot of insight for me in one day! I have been wondering about this for some time, but who actually voices all those .ogg sound files? Is it possible record two for the heteronyms of voorkomen? JamesjiaoTC 01:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

MewBot's list format[edit]

You need to use # as the list bullet, it won't recognise *. This is done on purpose so I can easily see how long the list is at any time. —CodeCat 08:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, point taken (or pound taken, in this case), sorry for that blooper. —AugPi (t) 15:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

extrusive[edit]

Would you happen to know the Dutch word for extrusive? If you do, could you please add it to the translation box on the entry? Thanks, Razorflame 00:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Done! —AugPi (t) 01:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) Razorflame 01:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

oil spills[edit]

Hi AugPi,

You made olievlek and olieramp synonyms of this dreadfully actual topic, but actually there is a difference in meaning. Olieramp indicates the event, the catastrophe and cold well refer to something on land like what happened in Kuwayt. Olievlek refers more specifically to the oil slick as it is on the surface of the water and is not necessarily a disaster. Could you modify?

Greetings Jcwf 03:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! —AugPi (t) 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

{{oppose}}[edit]

Is this a good idea? I'd hate to think of people losing their comments this way … —RuakhTALK 19:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hadn't thought of that, but I now think I see what you're saying: if a user makes some kind of mistake while typing out the subst:oppose template then the comment in parameter #1 would just vanish without a trace. In which case the answer to your question would be: only if the comment is fairly short. If it is too long to remain intact in the user's memory then the user is better off using sig= followed by a comment followed by ~~~~, which is (I am just now realizing) what everybody's been doing. —AugPi (t) 19:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm[edit]

Why does eo-conj need to be checkered? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

So that the user will be able to tell immediately (at a glance) that, say, "eo-conintoj", "eo-coninton", "eo-conintojn", "eo-coninto" are all variations (inflections) of "eo-coninto." The tense and the two adverbial participle sections don't really need checkering and I might remove the checkering from them... however, I do think that the central sections: active participle, passive participle, nominal active participle, nominal passive participle would be helped by some kind of checkering in order to break it up visually into 2x2 blocks:
each block = {nominative, accusative} × {singular, plural}. —AugPi (t) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so I removed the checkering from the 1x1 blocks, since for them the checkering is superfluous. —AugPi (t) 20:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I added a request to the Esperanto section of your Inflectobot. The requests seem to be piling up... could you please run your Inflectobot (to "devour" those requests)? —AugPi (t) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
There are other ways to visually separate information like that... the checkering just seems really weird to me.
The requests pile up because there are so many of them. It takes time to prepare the uploads, and sometimes I just don't have the patience to sit and do ten of them at a time (which I usually do, when the mood takes me). So I'll get around to it when I have the patience to set up a batch of forms of 10 verbs... — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 20:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Returning the #[edit]

Would you like to return the one symbol # instead of adding two symbols #: that you added. Please. Thanks. -- Bugoslav 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Opiaterein's strike-out was incorrectly executed. I just corrected it. —AugPi (t) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The strike-out was reversed by Conrad.Irwin, so I removed the remaining colon, as you requested. —AugPi (t) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you checked out the statement made here by Stephen. This is not factual. -- Bugoslav 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(1) Can you point out (e.g., copy here and underline) exactly what about that statement is not factual, and (2) can you give me evidence that it is not factual (e.g. a link to voting policy pages)... because I don't know enough about HR, FR, or NL Wiktionaries to know what their actual voting requirements are. I know for a fact, though, that ES and PT Wiktionaries have voting requirements. —AugPi (t) 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I could navigate to nl.wiktionary.org, browse through Gebruiker:Jcwf 's edit history, and try to find any actual voting going on, thereby find out where nl.wikt 's voting pages are... OK, I have to go now, but I will do this later today per your request. —AugPi (t) 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
(1) "By the way, almost none of us here are eligible to vote on the French, Dutch, or Croatian Wiktionaries." (2) I know for a fact that hr:wikt doesn't have such a procedure hr:Wječnik:Glasovanja. And you and I both know what is going on with this particular vote. Your explanation that because some projects have such procedures is interesting but not exactly true. Because if en:wikt is about to allow votes such as this one, then it is up to a greater community to voice their oppinions.
We are all persons here, and members of the same project, it is WM - wikimedia, it has one and the same goal - sharing knowledge.
Thanks for a reply. -- Bugoslav 16:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as nl.wikt goes, there are no restrictions that I know of, but then I think in my time there I have tried to get people to vote twice only. The first time nobody voted, the second we were pretty unanimous about the logo. Formal voting policies have never been formulated and that pretty much goes for all things formal. Jcwf 16:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
However, it may be time to institute such rules. I will propose to create a threshold of xxx edits, whereby edits at en.wikti do not count. Jcwf 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user[edit]

No I don't think so. Face is the French for head (of a coin). It seems to be an honest mistake, I changed it from face to pile and that was it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I unblocked him after seeing your edit. —AugPi (t) 15:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for one day per your conversation about him with SemperBlotto. —AugPi (t) 15:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Template[edit]

see WT:RFDO at the bottom of the page. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mglovesfun[edit]

Hi AugPi,

I was not aware that my English was too bad to contribute here, but actually I think Mglovesfun is little more than an obstructive troll. He should be banned, because otherwise Wiktionary becomes a playground for such people just like Wikipedia. Jcwf 16:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

To both of you, could you comment on the template not on me on the deletion page. The only two editors to defend the template are Codecat and Conrad.Irwin, while you've just said I shouldn't have nominated it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, now, seriously: Mglovesfun is an admin and established member of en.Wiktionary, just as Razorflame said! The worst I could do to him is slap him on the wrist for a few seconds the way Msh210 did a few times to Vahagn Petrosyan. (Well, I now see that Ruakh blocked Vahagn Petrosyan for 15 minutes (!), which is kind of surprising; but Vahagn could have easily unblocked himself, couldn't he? Anyway, I wouldn't do that... we're all *adults* here, right? No need for pillow fights.). I'm going to have to, as I said, modify template {{nl-adj-form}}, the prospect of which doesn't seem pleasant to me (after having had looked at the code the other day). I might also consider adding a FAQ section to Appendix:Dutch parts of speech#Adjectives, to try to address immediate concerns NL-wise noobs might have (after having had encountered an "inflected form of" Dutch article)... all of this: when I get a Round Tuit... —AugPi (t) 01:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's the Round Tuit: RoundTuit.jpg Maybe that will help. —AugPi (t) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's done! —AugPi (t) 03:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Now we just need an NL-noob to go ahead and peruse your FAQ... I personally think it explains the inflected form quite well. JamesjiaoTC 04:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
For your 2nd sentence: thanks! For your 1st sentence: maybe time will tell (who that NL-noobje will be and how 'it' would react)... —AugPi (t) 04:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

zeilen[edit]

Hey there AugPi. Have you ever heard of the word zeilen used to describe the word sailing in Dutch? Thanks, Razorflame 19:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean "het zeilen" = the noun "sailing". Here is an example: http://www.alberteinstein.nl/ ("Einstein en de kunst van het zeilen" = "Einstein and the art of sailing"), so I have modified the zeilen article to include that definition (i.e., you are right, basically). Often, the infinitive form of a Dutch verb can be turned into a noun just by preceding it with "het" (the neuter article). —AugPi (t) 20:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was unsure about it, but you helped me to solidify it now :) Yes, I meant het zeilen ;). Razorflame 20:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

leasen[edit]

Hi there AugPi. I've come across this word in my Internet travels again, and I've translated it roughly as to lease. I was wondering if you could fix up the entry that I made. The translation is correct, but it would be very nice if you could add conjugation to it, as I am still learning my Dutch verb conjugations :) I've been studying them for the past month now, and I still haven't gotten them down pat yet, so it would be nice if you could add it to this entry for me. Thanks, Razorflame 13:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's done! (and it was a little tricky) —AugPi (t) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the help! I was pretty sure that it was a weak-t verb, but I wasn't sure about anything else. By the way, can you help with the conjugation of upgraden please? Thanks, Razorflame 13:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the 3rd person singular might still be wrong, according to http://www.onzetaal.nl/advies/leasen.php , so I won't feed it to MewBot yet, but I'll check upgraden... —AugPi (t) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, no problems :) Thanks for the help! Razorflame 13:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

admirer[edit]

The double ɚ is the correct US pronunciation. --EncycloPetey 16:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I added a UK section: is that better? —AugPi (t) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I also did a little cleanup; we usually put the UK before the US pronunciation (alphabetical order). --EncycloPetey 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflected forms in nl-adj[edit]

The idea was that nl-adj would just have the comparative and superlative forms. All the other forms were for {{nl-decl-adj}}. —CodeCat 09:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

But that was your idea. —AugPi (t) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and what was wrong with it? —CodeCat 09:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is: doesn't the inflected form occur just as much as the comparative and superlative forms, if not more: so it should show up on the inflection line, just as it does in the Woordenlijst. —AugPi (t) 09:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that you are trying to make Dutch appear as if it were English, which it is not.(*) The inflected form is a prominent feature of Dutch adjectives. The Woordenlijst always gives information about the inflected form of Dutch adjectives, while only sometimes gives information about comparative and superlative forms. In astronomical terms, if Earth is the lemma form, then the Moon is the inflected form, Mars is, say, the comparative form, Venus is the superlative form, the moons of Mars are the inflected forms of the comparative form, and, well, the analogy breaks down with the satellites of Venus... but the point is that the Moon is much closer to the Earth, so it should feature prominently in the inflection line rather than be relegated to down below in the Declension table.
(*) - To be fair, German also just has comparative and superlative forms, but that is because German has a plethora of inflected forms (by case), so they would crowd out the inflection line. —AugPi (t) 09:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I think I'll back off... it's just that I accidentally ran across the template {{nl-adj2}} and at first thought that you moved {{nl-adj}} to {{nl-adj2}} before doing your overhaul, so that set off ideas running in my head: like perhaps I could use {{nl-adj2}} and then you (or someone else) would replace with {{nl-adj}} and a Declension table... Ok, can you answer this: are there any rules for knowing when a Dutch adjective has a partitive or not. For example, is it true that past participles don't have partitives, or that adjectives ending in -ig always do have partitives? —AugPi (t) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah: never mind... I deleted {{nl-adj2}} as there's no use for it now. —AugPi (t) 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The idea for {{nl-adj2}} was that some people like to provide the terms only in terms of stems and endings, which is how the English templates work. It never really caught on, though, and I never bothered to bring its appearance in line with {{nl-adj}}.
As for the partitive form: It is the form used in the combination iets x (something x). E.g. iets groots (something big), iets blauws (something blue) etc. Past participles definitely allow this: iets vergetens, iets geverfds. However, only past participles of transitive verbs have inflected and partitive forms, since they are the only past participles that can be used attributively. Past participles of intransitive verbs occur only in the uninflected form, in a participial construction (with auxiliary verb). —CodeCat 11:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder...[edit]

I noticed that during a few of the adjective edits you made, you also created a few adjective form entries. May I remind you that MewBot can handle adjectives as well (just the {{nl-decl-adj}} and {{nl-decl-adj-nc}} templates), so you can just dump them on the feedme page. ;) —CodeCat 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that Declension tables were easy enough to fill out manually, but if you really want for MewBot to be fed Adjectives... well then, I'll keep that in mind... and at the same time you could check the Declension templates to see if I made any mistakes... the latter really would be useful. —AugPi (t) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I will. Just add them and I'll try to check if it's not too many. —CodeCat 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
MewBot thanks you for your support. :9 —CodeCat 22:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

verb forms[edit]

Looks like you're using a bot. In any case, you're creating some incorrectly formatted entries. For one thing, participles are a separate part of speech in Latin. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you call a bot... What I have just been doing is: I deposited the following code into WT:SAND :
{{subst:User:AugPi/la-quasiconjubot-3rd|dīrig|dīrex|dīrect|11=dirig|22=direx|33=direct}}
After WT:SAND gets dumped with the "file" I click on WT:SAND's edit button and I just cut from WT:SAND, type in the name of the new article, and paste the contents of the article into it (and then repeat: cut from WT:SAND, type in new name in search box, then paste contents, etc.).
I don't know if that would qualify as a bot or not, since it has nothing to do with using Python.
Anyway, I removed the participles from my template's code. —AugPi (t) 03:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: I already have a bot that's been doing 1st-conjugation verbs (although I've taken a break for the past few months). Doing 1st-conjugation verbs would thus be a duplication of effort. However, I have not done any of the 2nd-conjugation verbs, and haven't even set up a template for myself to do that. So, conjugating the 2nd-conjugation Latin verbs would blaze trails that haven't yet been started.

However, if you choose to do this, this please be warned that when I set up my bot for the 1st and 3rd-conjugation verbs (I have templates for both), I found several errors present in the current verb conjugation tables. Those errors have since been corrected, but the other tables may still contain errors. So, any initial conjugation you do for 2nd and 4th-conjugation verbs would need to be checked against indepedent sources, just to be sure any errors from the tables are weeded out before proceeding on a big scale. This caution applies in any case, since I see you're setting up for all manner of conjugations. --EncycloPetey 16:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the warning: it's something that I'll have to keep in mind/think about... —AugPi (t) 16:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Old entries for mones et al. - those ought to just be completely redone. They don't use the current templates anyway. --EncycloPetey 04:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. —AugPi (t) 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the problems in the imperatives. I haven't been doing those, and so didn't ctach the problem. As for the errarentur issue, there should be no macron over the second. e. In Latin, there is never a long vowel before the combination nt, so that e can't be long. --EncycloPetey 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good rule to know: I had thought that there was never a macron before a syllable-final n, but then I noticed that macrons occur before the combination ns, as in amāns, cōnservō, &c. —AugPi (t) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the more general rule is "no long vowel before any nasal followed by a plosive" (e.g. nt or nd), although I can't lay hands on a reference at the moment. Give me a few moments to finish eating... --EncycloPetey 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Wheelock's Latin (6th ed.) page 4: It's not quite as I remembered, but close: "Vowels that are normally long are usually shortened when they occur immediately before another vowel..., before -m, -r, or -t at the end of a word..., or before nt or nd in any position." The ellipses are the places where Wheelock's includes examples. In my mind I had mistakenly generalized the third part, I think, although offhand I can't think of a counterexample. Perhaps an area to research when I get the time. --EncycloPetey 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you! Here is a counterexample for nd, though: nōndum. (Wheelock did qualify the rule with "usually," but don't rules in natural languages always have exceptions? Though I'd hesitate to make even this into a perfect rule, so one would say instead: "Rules in natural languages usually have exceptions.") For your generalized rule, counterexamples for nc: cūnctātiō, cūnctātor. However, I expect that it would be very hard to find exceptions to, say, "-ēō-" or even for nt. —AugPi (t) 17:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that nōndum is technically not an exception, because nōn is a separable prefix there. Thanks for the nc counterexamples, as it will save me the time of looking later. --EncycloPetey 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already spotted the problem with the missing supine before I mentioned it. I do want to make a pre-emptive suggestion though: Don't mess with the gerunds (that's gerunds, not gerundives). I have in mind to set up a series of templates and formatting for gerunds, and haven't gotten around to making them yet. It will be a mess to try to re-edit them, so up till now I've avoided creating Latin gerund entries. So, even though you haven't made any gerund entries, I wanted to put that thought out there in case you were considering it. If I manage to set up all the various templates for gerunds (it will take some serious work for reasons I won't bore you with), then I'll let you know. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerunds! Wow! I didn't even see those coming! I didn't get to Chapter 39! No problem: I won't deal with gerunds! —AugPi (t) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:la-conj-3rd-fero. It's so nice to have someone proofreading these and correcting the errors. Thanks! I've corrected some of the errors of my predecessor, but introduced some of my own, it seems. Just want to express my appreciation for the cleaning up you've done on the verb templates. --EncycloPetey 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! And, actually, going far back enough, I am one of your predecessors, so it goes both ways. —AugPi (t) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

template:it-conj[edit]

Hi there. This template now chops off a large part of the table for long verbs. See polimerizzare as an example. SemperBlotto 15:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Someone has changed 75% to 100% but it still gets a horizontal scrollbar (nasty!). Why does it need a % at all? SemperBlotto 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as the chopping off is concerned, I thought that if the table is longer than the horizontal scrollbar [I meant the containing top bar], that the scrollbar top bar would automatically resize itself (i.e. grow larger, to fit the width of the table) when the table is opened, but maybe that varies depending on the browser. And yes, when you mention the nasty horizontal scrollbar, that is exactly the problem that I was trying to solve [no, not quite: I was thinking of the top bar]: the overhanging horizontal scrollbar top bar: however, I don't understand this kind of coding too well... —AugPi (t) 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
A possible solution is to make the tables (it.conj and es.conj) themselves as wide as the horizontal bar, just as is the case with Template:an-conj-ar (see cantar#Aragonese). I'll look through the code of {{an-conj-ar}} to see if I can detect the "magic" piece of code that will make the table fit the width of the screen. —AugPi (t) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
For polimerizzare, even on my tiny laptop screen I don't get a scroll bar... maybe for longer verbs though. The only surefire way I can think to solve this problem wouldn't really work all that nicely for Italian, since there's so much information in the tables, but you can look at how I set up {{de-conj}} to utilize the rows and columns more 'evenly'. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 00:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, a scrollbar... sorry, I know what you (both) are talking about now [I saw those a few times below Dutch declension tables (but those won't happen after CodeCat's last edit(s) (to nl-decl-adj))]. No, I hadn't been seeing those as a result of my edits: I had just seen the top bar expand to fit the width of the table (when the bar is opened up). —AugPi (t) 00:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
de-conj looks very nice, just like eo-conj after your (Opi's) last edit. I guess that the de-conj table fits the width of the screen, just like an-conj-ar: yes, it does (just checked with glauben). —AugPi (t) 00:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The coding for the width of these tables is mystifying to me: maybe you (Opi) can fix this issue with the widths of it-conj and es-conj. —AugPi (t) 00:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like I found the answer from looking at the code of eo-conj: it was right there at the top, "in front of my nose," as it were. —AugPi (t) 00:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
But another solution (instead of widening to 100%) is what is done at {{es-conj-egir}}: center the table so that the top bar overhangs symmetrically on both sides of the table, in which case the overhang is no longer a problem. —AugPi (t) 01:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I serendipitously discovered something: if a conjugation table is not full width (when the top bar is), then not only should the table be centered (which is easy to do, as it turns out), but there should also be a <br> between the top bar and the table, and a <br> under the bottom of the table, so that the table will look properly "framed". The only exceptions to these spacing requirements are: if instead of the <br> (either at the top or bottom, or both) there is some kind of comment. —AugPi (t) 01:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! The tables are looking good now! —AugPi (t) 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

fregissemus[edit]

See Special:Undelete/fregissemus. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Lupin autoedit (which my article-creation templates use) doesn't always seem to behave "deterministically": I guess you caught it by seeing a very large article in Recent Changes... —AugPi (t) 23:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
218,181 bytes: yes, very large. But it became that way 2 minutes after it had been correctly created, so I'm not sure what happened: maybe I hit the "Previous page" button only once instead of twice: I'm supposed to hit the Previous Page button twice after creating a new article. If I hit it only once the Lupin autoedit starts churning again... —AugPi (t) 23:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That was even larger than afflatur (203430 bytes) :-) --Yair rand (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Gismu[edit]

True... but AutoFormat can be told to accept it, like {{abbreviation}}. Also may tag the entries, but I won't remove it or modify the entries so it will look the same until you are in 'edit mode'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind: I might create it again later... —AugPi (t) 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/2010-06/Setting lang attribute for transliterations[edit]

Hi, you voted in support of this proposal, but new information has come up (see the vote page, in the "Oppose" section) that might make you want to reconsider.​—msh210 (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. —AugPi (t) 15:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Quasi-conjugation bot[edit]

This takes up quite a lot of space in the recent changes. Do you intend on it becoming a full conjugation bot? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By "full conjugation bot" do you mean something which batch-uploads with pywikipediabot? Or, what do you mean exactly? —AugPi (t) 17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
An account with a bot flag so the entries don't appear in the recent changes. Bot doesn't have to mean fully automated. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, since I would call it "semi-automated" (not "fully automated"), then perhaps I should request a bot flag... should I do that at the Beer Parlor? —AugPi (t) 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
But first I have to decide whether to call it User:AugPiBot or User:QuasiBot... —AugPi (t) 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The second one looks simpler (only two capital letters), so I'll go for the second one. —AugPi (t) 18:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

afflanti[edit]

Hi, could you please fix this? Something went badly wrong.... (:-) And, of course, see if there are others. Robert Ullmann 11:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see that it has already been fixed... afflo was one of the first verbs I conjugated using my "proto-QuasiBot," and at that time I didn't realize that this sort of error could occur. However, it is easy to fix: if the same content is repeated over and over again, you can just keep the first copy of that content and delete all the rest [or, equivalently, you can just revert to the previous version of that same page].
After I realized that this sort of thing could happen (and now I do know what causes it, and what the warning signs of its occurrence are, so I can catch it right when it happens) I created a user page called User:AugPi/QuasiBot/BlooperCatch, to catch any subsequent errors of this type, though I didn't include afflo because I thought perhaps afflatur was the only blooper... I will add afflo to the blooper catch page now... and note that QuasiBot does not use a BlooperCatch page because it keeps its new entries in its watchlist instead. —AugPi (t) 23:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, afflo was already in the BlooperCatch page, but its participle lemmas are not, so I should add those, and similarly for several other of the initial verbs. —AugPi (t) 23:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It looks all done now. —AugPi (t) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

do[edit]

I've replied on my talk page. I should think it's fine to correct the template. Caladon 21:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

valeo[edit]

The verb valeo has no passive forms. It only has an active conjugation, so there shouldn't be entries for any passive forms of that verb.

Also, the header used for the conjugation section is "Inflection". For Latin, we're using "Inflection" for all parts of speech. One reason for this is that it avoids the problem of whether participles have a declension or a conjugation or both. --EncycloPetey 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clearing that up. —AugPi (t) 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Requests[edit]

  1. Please could you check the inflection tables on assoleō and soleō.
  2. If you have time, is it possible and do we need to create a template for verbs like assultō, where only third-person passive forms exist (this seems quite common)? It would also be good to have tables for aurūginō and praemoveō, but perhaps that's more difficult.
  3. There seems to be something wrong with {{la-conj-2nd-depon}} — see my edit here — usually, if there are no macrons, the 11=, etc. parameters don't need to be filled; if they're not filled, the links have macrons in them.

Thanks in advance. Caladon 13:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

soleō ✔, assoleō ✔ —AugPi (t) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I created a template called {{la-conj-1st-pass3p}} and it is now being used by assultō. Check it out and let me know what you think. —AugPi (t) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for these templates (this one and the one below). It does what I wanted it to do and I'll ask EncycloPetey to see what he thinks, so then we can start using them. Do you think it would be a good idea to add the notes we are currently using, e.g. "*This verb has only limited passive conjugation; only third-person passive forms are attested in surviving sources." to the actual template (they seem to do this a lot for French verbs)? The notes that would be used for the template below would be dependent on the conjugation, but see praemoveo for "* Second conjugation, but with no perfect conjugation." The wording may need to be improved for these; there are many variations in use at the moment, especially for the limited passive one. Caladon 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have now added the note at the top to the template. —AugPi (t) 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to pester you about these again, but if you have time, could you add the respective templates for the other conjugations as well (for both the pass3p and noperf ones). What do you think the third-person passive forms mean for a verb like sileō, like in say [1] (I'm sure there are loads of these cases where an intransitive verb has some 3rd person passive forms, but I can't find any more examples)? Also, have you any time to help sort out declension templates as well, like {{la-decl-2nd-ius}} and add the various ones we have missing? Caladon 16:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The pass3p templates are now done... —AugPi (t) 00:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerning sileō: its definition "to keep silent about" is transitive, so the passive silērī would mean something like "to be kept secret" or "to be kept under wraps"... —AugPi (t) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Or it (silērī) could mean "to be a moot point," not necessarily a secret, but just something that no one wants to bring up. —AugPi (t) 01:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I created template {{la-conj-2nd-noperf}}, which has perfect indicative and subjunctive forms removed, but I'm not sure which infinitives and participles should remain or be removed... For example: in Linguistic-Networks.net I find 3 hits for praemotus, which is described as being uninflectable, whereas praemotum gets 0 hits. —AugPi (t) 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There are a few google books finds for praemotis, praemotam, praemotos, so it's more likely it is inflectable; "praemotus est" also appears but only once. It may just be this verb isn't common enough to get a good picture. There are a few other verbs which would require this or a similar template (which we can use for comparison): prōcīdō, auctificō, immordeō, dēmordeō, adiugō, attribulō and salīvō. Bear in mind that sometimes the tag for no perfect forms was added only because that's what dictionaries stated. Caladon 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the compound perfect tenses for praemoveō do exist then: it would just be the non-compound perfect tenses which don't. —AugPi (t) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I corrected {{la-conj-2nd-depon}}. It was just the merēminī (imperative) form which had that problem. —AugPi (t) 18:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting this. Caladon 07:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ago[edit]

Hello. Why are you duplicating content? If I decide to add an additional sense to ago or improve something, do you expect me to do the same for all inflected forms? --Vahag 15:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... good point. I got carried away. Perhaps a single inline gloss for the main definition would be more appropriate. —AugPi (t) 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

forms of capio[edit]

In providing a translation, you've given only one sense. The lemma entry has three senses. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See Vahag's comment above. In iacens, the gloss for iacio (in the Etymology section) has basically one sense even though the lemma entry has six senses. This is basically no different. —AugPi (t) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I disagree on both counts. I do think the iacens entry is over subdivided, but I don't think it has a single sense. This is also quite different in that a participle does not have person, but a verb does. Participles are move like adjectives, so so their forms are more easily understood across langauges. Verb tenses and pronoun associations are far more variable across languages. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The gloss for laudo in the Etymology section of laudans has one sense, even though laudo has four senses. I am just providing quick glosses, not full translations of all possible meanings. —AugPi (t) 23:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
In an etymology section, it's fine to include a quick gloss. This is often done as much to indicate the part of speech as to give the actual meaning. It also occurs only in a single lemma entry. In a form-of entry, any incorrect or needs-to-be edited information is duplicated across hundreds of entries that might then later need editing. This can creaste a serious problem for future editing. Consider what happens if we decide that the present perfect tense isn't adequately translated, and have to go back and find and re-edit all those forms. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's a valid objection. —AugPi (t) 00:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
A new idea has sprung in my mind but I'll have to work out the details. —AugPi (t) 00:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that your third-person singular glosses all use "it", even though there are several possible pronouns possible. These are some of the reason why I think, in general, a gloss on a form-of entry is not a good idea. --EncycloPetey 23:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you hover the mouse over the it, then "he, she or it" will pop up. —AugPi (t) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The hovering mouse feature is not at all obvious. That still only covers some of the possible translations. --EncycloPetey 23:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I could replace it with "he/she/it", it might look uglier, though. I am following this pattern: http://lc.thoughtpush.com/mod/resource/view.php?id=2774 ... is it wrong? —AugPi (t) 23:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit misleading, and does use archaic language in a rather simplistic view of translating Latin verb forms. The language used also will not apply to some Latin verbs. It's a "quick and dirty" translation guide, and not what I would hope we provide on Wiktionary. Personally, I think quotations will (eventually) prove to be infinitely more useful, even if they do require much more work to include. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

confused[edit]

I'm confused by this edit. It adds unnecessary server strain to an already complicated template. The template already accepts "fut" and "perf". Why is a combination of the two necessary? Why not just code both part separately? --EncycloPetey 04:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"unnecessary server strain"... Ok, I reversed my edits. I was trying to make the parameters of {{conjugation of}} match those of {{la-conj-form-gloss}} exactly. —AugPi (t) 05:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
{{la-conj-form-gloss}} is an interesting one. we don't use that for other languages. My personal preference is not to have those sorts of glosses and just let the reader click on the bold blue link to find out what the lemma form means. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
For some verbs such as dico which have two different conjugation patterns with two different etymologies/sets of meanings, a gloss, even if it is a brief, inline, gloss, would be quite helpful for quickly disambiguating meanings. Also, the terms "imperfect," "perfect," "pluperfect," "subjunctive," "participle," "infinitive," are too dry, too dead, too grammatical, too technical, too "Classical"... it would be nice to have glosses whose meaning jump out at you, in 3-D as it were, more "Romantic"... Besides, you are bilingual or multilingual, right? For you, figuring out the meaning of a conjugated form from a lemma is not hard... but for a monolingual person who doesn't know much grammar, the glosses might come in handy. Anyway, these glosses are now easy to implement (thanks to the template) and can be switched from multi-line to inline or viceversa (whatever might seem preferable) without much effort anymore... —AugPi (t) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I'm aware of all that. I chose the words "my personal preference" pretty carefully. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, my personal preference matches yours. :-)   —RuakhTALK 00:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, if there is something close to a consensus against wholesale glossing (of verb forms), then I'll have to yield. —AugPi (t) 00:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't think there is, no. But thanks for being prepared to be gracious if there were. —RuakhTALK 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I likelwise am not enamored of the new gloss template, but do see it as possibly solving a long-standing problem and debate in a creative new way. I think it ought to be pointed out on the BP for feedback, since others might like it or offer suggestions for improvements. --EncycloPetey 02:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

bot[edit]

Hi, QuasiBot's a bot now, so no need to bore all the recentchanges watchers with lessons in Latin.  :-) ​—msh210 (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wooow! Thank you all! —AugPi (t) 15:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for making those upgrades to the Latin conjugation table templates. That's one more item I can take off my lengthy "To Do" list. --EncycloPetey 02:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AugPi (t) 03:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

-erimus[edit]

This is not a formative suffix in Latin; it is a conjugational ending. We do not currently include these as we have no appropriate POS header for them. --EncycloPetey 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will delete the conjugational endings which I have created so far... —AugPi (t) 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you can think of a suitable POs header, please do suggest it. We might then be able to include entries for these. Otherwise, I had been planning to create an alphabetical appendix, where the information you've so far been editing could reside. --EncycloPetey 04:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A word that came to mind is morpheme. "Conjugational morpheme" (with quotes around it) has 9 google hits, "conjugational suffix" (wrapped in quotes) has 613 hits, and "conjugational ending" (in quotes) has 1650 hits. If POS headers are supposed to be just one word (not a two-word phrase) then perhaps Morpheme would do... —AugPi (t) 13:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22conjugational+morphemes%22 ~ 138 hits
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22conjugational+suffixes%22 ~ 879 hits
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22conjugational+endings%22 ~ 3000 hits
Other phrases to describe these type of entries don't come to mind... —AugPi (t) 13:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Lebesgue integral[edit]

Thanks for creating this, but I think the four senses are one. Yes, the integral is defined first for simple functions and then extended to others, but that's only for pedagogical (and proof) reasons, i.e. to make the more complicated functions' integrals comprehensible (and well-defined), but not because the integral differs in any way when defined for the simple functions from what it is for other functions. I think these can be combined into one definition. (I'll gladly try writing one if you don't want to, but if you insist there are four distinct senses then I won't do so until we have others' input.)​—msh210 (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is something that crossed my mind: that the four definitions are actually one, and should instead be listed as subdefinitions, so if I don't manage to do it (e.g., to supply a main definition for the subdefinitions to go under) then you can go ahead... —AugPi (t) 21:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I meant that they should just be one, not even subdefinitions. Actually, the way the main definition is worded looks good as an only definition IMO.​—msh210 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Forms of zich bekommeren[edit]

We don't really have a proper way to handle Dutch reflexive verbs, so I'm a bit reluctant to let MewBot run over them. What would happen is that you get entries like: bekommerde - past singular of zich bekommeren. Which is not really correct, but I don't know what else to do. —CodeCat 10:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could create an entry like: bekommerde - past singular of bekommeren. —AugPi (t) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Solved it another way. Pure reflexives are rare in Dutch and very few are completely lexicalised. In this case, there is an obsolete transitive verb (as verbs in be- tend to be). So I've added that and moved the conjugation table to it. —CodeCat 22:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

voorkomend[edit]

Firstly, I'm not sure the definition is correct. I can't think of any examples where it means specifically frequently occurring. And secondly, if the previous is true, then isn't it just the present participle of voorkomen? I don't think it would need a separate sense... —CodeCat 17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it looks like you are right... (about the first point). As for the Adjective use, you can remove it if you want, I won't quibble about it (since "occurring" is indeed just the present participle of "occur"... well, actually, now that I have added an expression, maybe you can see if you agree with it: the SOP "*very occurring" wouldn't translate it quite justly, would it?) In any case, since present participles can be used as both Verb and Adjective (but not simultaneously in a given sentence), and since for Dutch we are not doing what is being done for Latin (namely, list participles under the header Participle) then, strictly speaking, I think an Adjective section is still useful (though it may seem redundant), especially considering that "voorkomend" used as an Adjective has an inflected form: namely, "voorkomende", and, I suppose, even a partitive: "voorkomends" (is that so?). —AugPi (t) 06:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not unique to voorkomen. In fact the situation is comparable to that of Latin: participles inflect like adjectives whenever they are semantically able to modify a noun. Some even have comparatives and superlatives, like for example opgewekter to opwekken. The only difference with Latin is that they do not inflect in a predicative position, including when used with an auxiliary to create compound tenses, but that is common to all Dutch adjectives, not participles specifically. Ideally therefore, all participles that are capable of modifying a noun should have a declension table, and that means, as far as I can tell, all present participles and the past participles of transitive verbs. But they should not have a separate definition when they really are just participles.
And as for the SOP-ness of frequently occurring, keep in mind that veel is also an adverb meaning 'much' or 'often, frequently'. The latter sense was missing but I have added it now. —CodeCat 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

{{nl-adj2}}[edit]

Why did you remove this? Much work was put into it and I think it is way superior to {{nl-adj}}. It is a shame to have two templates for the same purpose, so one day we should write a conversion script, maybe. Or maybe not. I stumbled upon this because e.g. {{nl-adj}} does not support accelerated editing. It is a pain to do all this over again. H. (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

How about Template:nl-adj/sandbox, to test out acceleration then move it into {{nl-adj}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for acceleration, there is a formbot to do this. See User:MewBot. Just add any adjectives you need forms created of there, and they'll be done within a few days. —CodeCat 12:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
If memory serves me right, I ran across {{nl-adj2}} being used in some article, for which the "inflected form" (of the pagename) was being adjoined to the inflection line. That caused me to think that CodeCat had let {{nl-adj2}} survive as an alternative to {{nl-adj}}, which only provides for adjoining comparative and superlative forms to the inflection line... and I started creating Dutch Adjective articles using nl-adj2 to adjoin the inflected form to the inflection line. Anyway, later I began to agree (for some vague aesthetic reason, whereas earlier it had merely been reluctant acquiescence) with CodeCat about the obsoleteness of the old style (of inflection lines for Dutch Adjectives), and it just seemed that {{nl-adj2}} provoked unnecessary confusion... so that's the story, made short. I didn't mean to step on your toes. If you want to revive {{nl-adj2}}, I definitely wouldn't get in your way, my hands would be off the issue (e.g., I would exclusively keep using {{nl-adj}}), and the issue (if any) would be dealt with solely between you and CodeCat, got it? —AugPi (t) 06:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning is basically this. We can't get around using {{nl-decl-adj}} as there are too many forms in it to put on the inflection line itself. Therefore, to avoid unnecessary duplication of information, the inflection line is kept to a bare minimum. And since many languages already include only comparatives and superlatives on the inflection line, that's what I did too. —CodeCat 09:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. For some reason I started thinking that including the inflected form right before comparative and superlative forms made the inflection line look ugly (don't ask)... —AugPi (t) 09:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Copies of Dutch templates on your subpages[edit]

I noticed that you have copies of several Dutch templates on your userspace. That's fine, but they are unfortunately still being categorised along with the other templates. So could you remove those categories, please? Thanks. —CodeCat 11:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey doke: I have done so (for templates of the form User:AugPi/nl-XYZ: do warn me if there are any others...) —AugPi (t) 05:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin verbs conjugated by FitBot[edit]

I already have a complete list of these in my Workshop at User:EncycloPetey/Laboratorium. You don't need to generate one. Everything on the list from aequo to insimulo, and all the L thru O 1st conjugation are done, as well as the 4th-conjugation verbs above the rule line. --EncycloPetey 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin conjugation overrides[edit]

Nice work on providing those overrides. Italian is even nicer, we can override any template using more memorable keywords - see the table for volere as an example. I imaging this would be a lot of effort to implement in the Latin templates. SemperBlotto 10:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That is interesting: I did not realize that the Italian conj. templates had also been "base-ified", and that: two days before I started base-ifying the Latin conj. templates, to boot. As far as memorable keywords go: I now know the entire arrangement of the Latin conjugation table by heart in terms of those numbers. It's not hard: 1 though 9 is indicative, 10 through 15 is subjunctive, block 1-9 divides into three thirds: 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, likewise block 10-15 divides into three thirds: 10-11, 12-13, 14-15. The middle third of both blocks is perfective, the last third is passive. Each third consists of: present, future, imperfect (pluperfect for perfective), and no future for the thirds of the subjunctive block. 16-17: imperatives, 18: infinitives, 19: participles, left half of 16-19: active, right half: passive. 16: singular, 17: plural, 16/1: 2nd person present, 16/2: 2nd person future, 16/3: 3rd person future, 18/1: present active infinitive, 18/2: perfect active infinitive, 18/4: present passive infinitive, 18/6: supine, 19/1: present active participle, 19/3: future active participle, 19/5: perfect passive participle, 19/6: gerundive (future passive participle), 18/3: future active infinitive (part. + 'esse'), 18/5: perfect passive infinitive (part. + 'esse')... Yes, I feel comfortable handling the cells of the table just calling them up by number...AugPi (t) 11:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
      I have now added support for (alternative) keyword-labeled overwrite parameters for Template:la-conj-3rd. I think I can just simply copy/paste that same code to the templates for 1st, 2nd and 4th conjugations... —AugPi (t) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      Yes, it's done! (So your comment was helpful...) (Derivative templates (deponents, etc.) can be updated whenever the need arises...) —AugPi (t) 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dutch periphrastic superlative[edit]

There is no comparable adjective that completely disallows the regular synthetic construction of the superlative. Even words in -s(ch) have a superlative -s(ch)t. It's rare, but still held to be a valid alternative by normative grammars. So I think the edits you just did for {{nl-decl-adj}} are rather misleading. —CodeCat 18:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and you also broke MewBot with that change. —CodeCat 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and reverse those edits, then... —AugPi (t) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin verb discedo[edit]

Hi there. Some time ago, you changed the inflection of this verb to "nopass". However, the following passive forms are all in Caesar's "Conquest of Gaul". discedendi discedendum discedi disceditur disceptandi discessum discessus - Would you have any objection to me changing it back? SemperBlotto 16:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No... and I have now just changed it back myself. —AugPi (t) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal number[edit]

But numeral's not any better. Six is a noun in English, it has a plural 'sixes'. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Read Chapter 15 of Wheelock's Latin. —AugPi (t) 00:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"Numeral" is a Part Of Speech, "Number" is not. —AugPi (t) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
He might think he's right, but I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
http://personal.southern.edu/~caviness/Volapuk/HBoV/hbv.htm ... See the section on "Numbers" —AugPi (t) 00:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If they are not numerals then they are Adjectives... Actually I found this in page 97 of the Wheelock's Latin: "In Latin most cardinal numerals through 100 are indeclinable adjectives"... If that is so then the POS should be Adjective, not Numeral, right? —AugPi (t) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Erm, English isn't Latin? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
As for the link, it doesn't mention the matter. He also can't spell 'nominative', 'dative', 'infinitive'. And it's not written about English. What was the point in that? Mglovesfun (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
"English isn't Latin?" Isn't there such a thing as Universal Grammar? —AugPi (t) 01:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I mean, the word Adjective means pretty much the same thing, whether its a Spanish Adjective, French Adjective, Norwegian Adjective, etc. does it not? —AugPi (t) 01:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The misspellings were intentional: the author was adhering to, or attempting to promote, some kind of spelling reform. —AugPi (t) 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for a duration of three days. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-01/Number categories concluded that number categories use the full language name, not the code. Please do not act against the vote without any prior discussion. -- Prince Kassad 09:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

QuasiBot glosses[edit]

Hi there. I was wondering if, in entries such as paenitetur, the gloss template could be substed. That way you could reuse many files, mutatis mutandis, for each new verb instead of building up a library of potentially thousands of little files. SemperBlotto 22:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for not substing and transcluding the templates instead was: see #ago and #forms of capio above. I don't think I understand your "That way you could reuse many files, mutatis mutandis, for each new verb" part: could you expand on that? —AugPi (t) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, as an example, for delego you have many templates such as "Template:la-conj-form-gloss/deligo(2)/line2‎" and files such as "User:QuasiBot/deligo(2)/22" that are not used anywhere else. If you had a series of reusable ones, such as "Template:la-conj-form-gloss/VERB(2)/line2" and "User:QuasiBot/VERB(2)/22" you could edit these every time you gloss a new verb. It just seems inefficient, to me, to have all these little templates and files for each and every Latin verb. SemperBlotto 08:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Template:la-conj-form-gloss/deligo(2)/line2 is being used by many articles, not just the ones that are currently shown linking to it, but many (most?) of the conjugated forms in the table deligo (Etymology 2). (Note that there was previously an error in Template:la-conj-form-gloss/deligo(2)/frame, which caused Template:la-conj-form-gloss/deligo(2)/line2 to be "unemployed," but I have since corrected this error.) However, you are right about User:QuasiBot/deligo(2)/22: once I am done with verb deligo(2), User:QuasiBot/deligo(2)/22 becomes pretty much useless, unless I had overlooked or skipped some conjugated form and then have to come back to it later. What I might do is, say, create a single template User:QuasiBot/la-verb which would accept two unnamed parameters: the first one would be the lemma(X) of the verb, and the second one would be an element of the set {1, 2, 3, 11, 22, 33, lemma, mac}, and then this template would (by means of switch statements) return the correct form. It looks like it would not be hard to do: I would then just have to go through QuasiBot's executive templates and see to it that template la-verb gets transcluded within them at the expected places... —AugPi (t) 08:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Inflection templates - poll 3[edit]

You have voiced your opinion in some of the polls about renaming of categories for what was previously called "inflection templates", templates that are planned to be newly called "headword templates" or "headword-line templates" in the name of their category. I would like to hear your preference in the poll number 3, whatever your preference is, if you would be so kind: WT:BP#Poll: Inflection to inflection-line 3. Thank you for your input and attention. --Dan Polansky 10:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

✔ —AugPi (t) 21:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirects from Unicode codes[edit]

What purpose does this serve? I guess it's to get more traffic from search engines like Google? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I found it handy to use Wiktionary to find the codepoint of a given symbol, it seemed natural to me (after having added countless FL translations and "back-translations" (from English back to the FL)) to add a hard redirect from the codepoint back to the symbol. However, after your latest comment I found the following article: http://stuffthathappens.com/blog/2008/12/14/unicode-leopard/ instructing me on how to type a Unicode character directly, and it actually works, and here is a generalized version of that aid: w:Unicode_input, so perhaps I shouldn't waste my time (or insult other users' intelligence...) Actually, you are even right about this: one can just Google a codepoint up (however, the search can yield just an image, instead of the character itself, ready for copy/paste, which was what I was really after... but then, again, this might just be generating a bad habit, i.e., of not typing in the character directly...) —AugPi (t) 04:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, FileFormat.info does include the actual character, albeit under "Java Data." The Unicode charts are iffy: in the chart for Latin Extended-A, there are several characters for which copy/pasting doesn't work, e.g. U+0170, U+0101, but for others it does work: e.g., U+014B... my idea was to provide a link from the codepoint to the character itself, which Wiktionary articles reliably provide, both in the title and in the headword line. —AugPi (t) 04:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The characters from the Unicode chart for which direct copy/pasting doesn't work seem to be all composed characters: e.g., Ė is E followed by U+0307... For other (non-composed) characters, copy/pasting them directly from the Unicode chart should work... Incidentally, I just learned to compose circumflexed digits: 1̂, 2̂, 3̂, ... —AugPi (t) 05:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually I don't object, as these are unlikely to be ever created as entries. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
These redirects have been deleted per a WT:RFD discussion — Mglovesfun (talkcontribs) said you were O.K. with that, so I hope you are — but if you want them for yourself, you can edit your user JavaScript to automatically redirect such titles, in the same way that http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Foo redirects to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foo?rdfrom=Foo. I just did that for myself, because I think that seems pretty useful; so if you want it, you can copy the relevant part of User:Ruakh/vector.js. (It's the section with the comment, // redirect e.g. [[U+0041]], if redlink, to [[A]].) —RuakhTALK 00:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Esperanto participles[edit]

I thought Esperanto participles are labeled as verbs? Why is QuasiBot labeling them as adjectives? --Yair rand (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons: (1) that is how Opiaterein Inflectobot was labeling them, and (2) that is the part of speech suggested by the -a ending (the ones ending in -o are labeled nouns, and the ones in -e as adverbs). Consider this quote from Ivy Kellerman:
108. A participle is a verbal adjective, as in "a crying child." It agrees like other adjectives with the word modified (19, 24). The participle from a transitive verb (22) may take a direct object, and a participle expressing motion may be followed by an accusative indicating direction of motion (46). The present active participle, expressing what the word modified is doing, ends in -anta, as vidanta, seeing, iranta, going:

La ploranta infano volas dormi, the crying child wishes to sleep.

Mi vidas la falantajn foliojn, I see the falling leaves.

Kiu estas la virino aĉetanta ovojn? Who is the woman buying eggs?

Mi parolis al la viroj irantaj vilaĝon, I talked to the men (who were) going toward the village.
So adjectival participles are adjectives, though they can be used as part of compound verbs:
124. The compound tense formed by using the past active participle with the present tense of esti is called the perfect tense. It differs from the aoristic past tense (35) and from the imperfect (113) by expressing an act or condition as definitely completed or perfected. The conjugation of vidi in the perfect tense is as follows: mi estas vidinta, I have seen (I am having-seen).
but, strictly speaking, not as stand-alone verbs. —AugPi (t) 11:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto participles are all categorized as participles (or participle forms), but they come in three varieties: adjectival (-a, -aj, -an, -ajn), nominal (-o, -oj, -on, -ojn) and adverbial (-e), according to which they receive their POS header. —AugPi (t) 11:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Esperanto adjectival participles seem to function much like English participles, and those are labeled as verbs. Opiaterein inflectobot used to mark them as verbs, but has apparently been marking them as adjectives since January. I would guess that about 75% of them are currently marked as verbs. --Yair rand (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
To claim that participles are verbs is like claiming that quarks are hadrons, which they are not, they are only part of them, which is why they are called partic(ip)les. Participles are, loosely speaking, if I understand right, a kind of verbal particle, though, strictly speaking, the term "verbal particle" is reserved for prepositions which have been incorporated as part of verbs... For our Latin entries, participles are not just categorized as participles, they are labeled as such as well (though they can be used as part of verbs: the perfective passive tenses), and for Esperanto, to claim that any words ending in -a are not adjectives (or determiners) would just create confusion, so, to some extent, IMO, each language has some right to have its own conceptual framework for its own grammar (as established by its own grammarians, such as Ivy Kellerman): kind of like Lojban, though not to the same degree... Otherwise we would have to posit and establish a framework of Universal Grammar for all languages (see Mglovesfun's objection above, in #Cardinal number...) —AugPi (t) 12:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, here is more evidence (which I gather to attempt to convince myself, as well as you): quote from Don Harlow:
The Western passive voice is shown, as Zamenhof says, by coupling the verb esti ="to be" with the "passive participles"; but these are not really compound verb forms, merely the copula linked with an adjective.

(from http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/rules.html#verbs ) —AugPi (t) 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For examples of how participles are formed, see the affixes page. Participles are more accurately adjectives formed from action roots than parts of the verb -- a situation somewwhat [sic] different from that in English.

(ibidem) —AugPi (t) 18:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

combining diacritics[edit]

Some of these are used for IPA. Might it be useful to include those as separate definitions? This would also entail categorizing the characters in Category:IPA symbols. -- Prince Kassad 10:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, separate definitions for IPA meanings (of Latin alphabet combining diacritics) would be useful... The ones I had just been coming across didn't strike me as being IPA-ish, though, now that I am looking at an IPA diacritic chart, I see that the "under-macron" is used for IPA vowels... no, you're quite right: all kinds of accent marks are used to indicate tone: thank you for pointing that out... —AugPi (t) 10:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your removal[edit]

Hello,

I am a long-time contributor here and you seem to have just removed, without comment, a great deal of content I just added to an entry, giving the various usages of a phrase through history, from the 17th through the 19th centuries. Could you kindly restore that? Thanks so much, and best to you (and stay warm!). 71.66.97.228 22:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you re-add them in quotation/citation form, perhaps in the Citations page, instead of just dumping a bunch of raw links which look ugly at the bottom of the page? —AugPi (t) 22:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I don't ever want to add anything in the wrong manner. Could you kindly help me? That would probably have been a nicer thing to do than to remove my text without comment--it was a large amount of work. We all work together here according to our abilities, and as I am not a computer programmer do not always understand how to do the trickier types of templates. 71.66.97.228 22:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a starter: Wiktionary:Quotations. Read though it, and if you still need help then come back and ask me, but in a more specific way. —AugPi (t) 22:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't need to use templates for quotations: they need a little formatting, though... —AugPi (t) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)