User talk:Caladon/Archive 2

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

scita and scienda[edit]

Hi Caladon. Forgive the spam, but I need to know urgently what the two Latin words scita and scienda mean. My guess is that they're related to either sciō (I can, know, understand, have knowledge) or scītor (I seek to know”, “I ask, enquire) (which we don't have), or to both of them. They have a specialised use in English as terms of political science, as demonstrated by this quotation:

As modern life becomes increasingly complicated across many different sociopolitical levels, Kuehnelt-Leddihn submits that the Scita — the political, economic, technological, scientific, military, geographical, psychological knowledge of the masses and of their representatives — and the Scienda — the knowledge in these matters that is necessary to reach logical-rational-moral conclusions — are separated by an incessantly and cruelly widening gap and that democratic governments are totally inadequate for such undertakings." (taken from w:Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn#Work)

Any help you can give me with these words (the greatest being the creation of entries for them) would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on scita. BTW, you may find User talk:Bogorm#scita and scienda and User talk:Stephen G. Brown#scita and scienda useful.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, Caladon. I've now added English entries for scita and for scienda, if you're interested.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. The English entries look good as with all of your contributions. Caladon 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you; I appreciate the compliment.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

pavor[edit]

Should all those definitions be on the same line? I'd be tempted to have two or three definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this is better [1]? 'Desire' and 'joy' don't seem to convey the definition well enough to merit keeping them there. Caladon 10:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The number of definitions depends on the number of separate concepts that language has for the word, not how many concepts a modern reader has. So, it is entirely possible that a definition could legitimately include many items in a single line that would not be so written for a modern equivalent. --EncycloPetey 15:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
This is useful to bear in mind; a good example of this might be opifex? It's not very clear how many separate concepts there are for pavor, since L&S seems to put it all on one line, whereas the OLD decided to separate it into sudden fear and fear of the future. Caladon 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

French translation for adventurous[edit]

Hi, why have you revert my French traduction for adventurous? I do claim that it is right. —This comment was unsigned.

In the process of adding your translation, you messed up several translations for other languages. I didn't even see that you had added a legitimate translation in all of that. Caladon 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand. Unfortunatly I realise that I have added hundreds of such translations in the past years with the Links-browser and probably everything have been reverted in the same way for the same reason... oh I'm very sad :(((
At least now you're aware of the problem. Your last edit was fine (when you re-added the French translation for adventurous). Caladon 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

credo et ago[edit]

I don't know whether you'd already noticed, but I'm testing out FitBot with regular third-conjugation verbs. I did crēdō (and found some errors both in what FitBot had done and in {{la-conj-3rd}}), and have now run the conjugated forms of agō. I've checked over the FitBot entries for errors, and think I have corrected the problems in the master file. Would you mind looking over the FitBot entries as well for these two verbs, to see whether there are any additional errors I might have overlooked? There could still be errors in the conjugation template, or errors in the bot-uploaded pages. I'd appreciate a second pair of eyes doing this, especially as it's better to put in the work spotting problems before lots of pages have been created with those errors. --EncycloPetey 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

After cross-checking nearly three times, I can't find any errors on the pages themselves. I also checked the template, and no errors jumped out at me. Is it possible to make Autoformat accept pronunciation 1 and 2 as headers instead of added a cleanup tag for them? As long as the pronunciations work for each new verb, everything seems fine. Good work on successfully testing 3rd conjugation verbs; will there be a feed-me subpage in the future for requests, or will it all be done from your Laboratorium? Caladon 06:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Robert steadfastly refuses to accept such headers. He says that no "complete" proposal has been put forward, but has never indicated what is incomplete about the many proposals that have already been made. At least I was able to convince him to make it a separate cleanup category, so now it doesn't flood the Latin attention category like it used to do. He still flags gerunds too, by the way.
I've thought about a FeedMe page for FitBot, but suspect that (aside from you) it would be filled with incomplete requests that all have to be first double-checked and cleaned-up anyway. Thus far, I've limited myslef mostly to regular, common, first-conjugation verbs with a complete conjugation, and for which the full entry has been set up with details and multiple sections. Part of the problem is that I can't really automate the creation of the present active and perfect passive participle lemmata. So, any new verb has to go through a lot of set-up and cleanup and checks before being run, or we'll have lots of red links from forms pointing to a missing lemma. So, I'm just a bit skeptical about being able to keep up with requests when they come from someone other than you. I expect that many requests will fail one or more criteria for the master files that I have. I may have a FeedMe at some later point, but not yet, I think. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

citations:VL[edit]

Thanks.​—msh210 19:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

idololatres[edit]

In general, translations should appear in quotes, just as for a gloss in the {{etyl}} template. I am curious, however, why you've chosen to use the æ ligature. In my experience, this is only used for Latin (1) on stone monuments, and (2) in English-edited texts of the past few hundred years (although the practice has been dying out). --EncycloPetey 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of the fact that you used the quotation marks, but I was unsure as to whether to change my style in accordance, since many editors do not currently, which was evident after the Easter competition. Quite a few quotes need to be updated anyway, and I'll add the quotation marks in future. The æ ligature was in the text and I usually transcribe what the author originally used. Caladon 18:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You have access to a 5th-century edition of the text? --EncycloPetey 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, come to think of it looks odd (my mind was on the later quote I added to īdōlolatra). Unfortunately, it was a few hours ago when I composed this quotation while I was looking for a citation for īdōlolatra. They need to be converted. Caladon 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? I was under the impression that quotations' translations ought to be italicised, not enclosed in quotation marks.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not. Italicized text indicates a made-up example. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
WT:QUOTE#How to format a quotation contradicts the both of us. FWIW, I've only ever seen the translations of quotations italicised.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That page is a "Think tank", which means it includes only the information someone thought worth dumping into it, where it has since grown moldy. If I still have the impetus to do so in a few weeks, I may work out some of the problems on that page, most notably the issues dealing with quotations for non-English entries (which is under-represented there). There isn't any explicit specification on that page regarding format for translations of quotations. In practice, I try always to remember to put them in quotes, just like we do for translation glosses with the {{term}} template. --EncycloPetey 03:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is: quotations' translations are given once indented after the quotation. I don't think that quotation marks are appropriate for quotations' translations, which can be many lines long; the analogy with {{term}} is strained at best. IMO and FWIW, were our policy not to give transliterations, glosses would be best presented in italics; italics make it easier to distinguish at a glance quotations from their translations. Conversely, there are at least two drawbacks to using quotations marks: (1) They are easily omitted by forgetful editors, and (2) Any quotation marks that are used in the quotation have to have their "polarity" inverted if the translation is enclosed in a further set of quotation marks (i.e., if the translation is enclosed with “”, then all first-level quotation marks in the quotation have to be changed to ‘’, then all second-level quotation marks have to be changed to “”, and so on). For these reasons, I shall italicise the translations of any quotations that I add, and shall argue in favour of that convention in any discussion of our pertinent policies.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered that, if the original quotation used italics, then an italicized translation must invert that? I would argue that italic text is harder to read under most circumstances, and should never be used for translations. We've already had a discussion that concluded in favor of the formatting I described. The relevant discussion can probably be found by looking for links to tener, as we were using the short-form translation format for the Spanish section there as a test case and concluded in favor of what you currently see in the entry. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I had considered that; however, unlike with quotation marks, the software automatically inverts italicisation. '' turns italics on and '' turns them off again; use of <i></i> tends to be discouraged. Some fonts (such as Garamond) have illegible italic forms, whereas other fonts (such as Palatino Linotype and whatever default font I'm using now) have easily read italic forms. Italics visually distinguish text for various purposes (such as emphasis, marking the use–mention distinction, &c.), and make it easier to home in on or consciously bracket out text so presented — qualities useful for translations, which, depending on the user, may be something he would wish to ignore or actively to search out. In my opinion, the usefulness of using italics outweighs any slight worsening of readability.
The only "relevant discussion" to which you referred that I could find was in Wiktionary:Beer parlour archive/2007/July#Example sentences, which showed no such conclusion. In User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 9#Medieval Latin books and other unrelated points, you wrote "I know we had a discussion concerning the format of made-up examples in the Spanish entry for tener, and for that discussion we decided the translations should appear in quotes, rather than be italicized." — however, the only use of quotation marks I could see was by Rod, who used them to contrast literal from idiomatic translations. Take care not to misrepresent past discussions with vague allusions to them; an ad fontes approach shows your memory to be faulty.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be pompous; I pointed towards the discussions because I didn't have the time then to track them down, but did want to make sure you had access to the information I was drawing from. "The format I described" was a reference mainly to "not italics", which was then the primary subject of discussion. (I'm sorry that wan't clear.) You'll see that, although no explicit statement is made, the translations in the former discussion (the one I had in mind) are not italicized, although made-up examples and transliterations are. --EncycloPetey 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Forgive the pomposity; now stricken. Strangely, in that discussion you yourself prefer unitalicised foreign-language example sentences with translations in italics (in your comment timestamped: 21:36, 7 July 2007). For the sake of visually distinguishing translations, it makes sense that if the source is in normal type that the translations be in italics, and vice versa; for that reason, that discussion is, IMO, inapplicable as precedent for the presentation of translations of quotations. In any case, quotation marks are a bad idea.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

-tor[edit]

Just wanted to let you know an anon pointed out a problem with the Latin declension on that page. I know enough to see that it's wrong, but am not sure of the inflection pattern or how to use the template. Could you fix it? – Krun 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Doremítzwr has already corrected the problem. --EncycloPetey 14:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

charrar[edit]

Hi, I'm curious if you have a source for this etymology. It seems very unlikely to me; I'd have thought charrar would be some sort of denominative verb related to Latin carrus and French char, and thus cognate with French charrier. I just don't see any historical-phonological way to get Romansh charrar out of conducere. —Angr 14:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember this edit. I imagine the purpose of my edit was to cleanup what was already there, which was poorly formatted and only linked to the infinitive of condūcō, which I was editing at the time. Feel free to change the etymology if it incorrect. Caladon 14:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I didn't look closely enough. Indeed you weren't the one who asserted the etymology, and the person who did hasn't edited Wiktionary in over three years. I'll just remove it then. Thanks! —Angr 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

tempero[edit]

Needs Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Now added. Caladon 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin templates[edit]

Since {{ladecl1&2}} is deprecated, what is the correct template for such declension? Perhaps {{la-decl-1&2}} Attys 07:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Caladon 07:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Decelerate[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? You know, semantically speaking, that deceleration can't be slowing down if acceleration is slowing down. In fact, acceleration is changing velocity at all And the prefix, de, indicates it would be the opposite, so it stands to reason that to decelerate is to maintain a constant velocity. That is, if it were a real word to begin with. The vast majority misusing a word, or using one that isn't real doesn't change its definition or make it a word. Of course, wikis disagree with that, which is why they will never be a reliable source of information. Wikis operate on the arugmentum ad numerum fallacy.71.207.226.58 14:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit introduced new errors; see the third definition. Also, any information like that which you provided as an explanation should go under a usage notes or similar section. I have no idea about the correctness of the definition, but I couldn't find any dictionaries which agreed with your change. Note, the definition for acceleration to mean changing velocity has a physics context label. Caladon 16:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't find any dictionaries that agreed with my definition because decelerate isn't a word. Only a fallible dictionary, such as Merriam Webster, would contain it to begin with. It actually dates back to the infancy of cars when the drivers, who were obviously not physicists, erroneously used it to indicate slowing down. They didn't realise what they were saying was incorrect. Just the same as a lot of societal English discrepancies. Usage does not make a word. Words evolve, but they are only official when linguists acknowledge they are. That being said, the prefix, de, implies it would be the opposite of accelerate, which is clearly to change velocity at all. Ergo, logic dictates that my edit was correct, when I said, "Decelerate is not a word, but if it were, it would be to maintain a constant velocity."71.207.226.58 16:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As you pointed out above Wiktionary is descriptive and not prescriptive. If you wish to open a discussion on this word, please take it to WT:TR; I have nothing more to add and I have already explained why I reverted. Caladon 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
IP, you couldn't be more wrong, in fact. We go by usage not some quango who gets to tell people that they can and can't say. We're all linguists here anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

About the entry "Effect"[edit]

Hello Caladon, i present myself, i´m Nolemaikos, and i´m argentinian and not a natural english speaker so sorry for any mistakes that may present within my words.

In the entry effect, in the etimology section, there were two notions, that i´ve considered to be wrong and procceeded to modificate. Checking on the text history i could see that you were the one who had added them. I´m talking about the parts which said that effectus, ancester word of "effect", comes from "efficio" and that "efficere", comes from the union of "ex" and "facio". The texts considered "efficio" and "facio" to be verbs, the verbs "to accomplish" and "to do".

According to what i know, that is all wrong. Efficio and facio would be the first person forms of efficere and facere, which are the verbs themselves in their infinitive. That is in adittion kind of obvious because all the verbs in Latin present the terminations are, ere and ire, never any different.

Maybe i´m wrong, maybe you know more about latin than me, and there is some reason to talk about efficio and facio as infinitive verbs. I´ve already shown you my reasons for believing what i believe. So i will wait for your reply, and for a resolution to this matter.--Nolemaikos 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A while ago it was decided that the lemma for Latin verbs was the first-person singular present active indicative and not the infinitive, since that's what most dictionaries do. There's no real point in linking to the infinitive in an etymology if the information for that verb is at the first-person singular present active indicative, since the reader will have to click twice to reach the information they want. We don't consider efficio and facio 'infinitive verbs' at all, just where we put the information regarding the whole series of endings for a specific verb. I'm not sure whether I've helped cleared this up for you; see WT:ALA#The lemma and basic format and WT:ALA#Etymology of non-Latin words for more information as to the policy we adopt for Latin entries. Caladon 19:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i accept it, but, i have to say, it looks to me a lot weird to use the first person. In the spanish redaction we do not proceed like that at all. I´ll make myself sure of getting more information about this matter, because, yes, it hasn´t come clear for me why you do that. But i have no problems with it, of course, thanks for your attention, see you around.--Nolemaikos 03:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I´ve read more carefully what you´ve said, and now, i come to wonder, why do you english speakers put the general information about the verb in its first person form´s page? It´s strange that it comes from a dictionaries´s general habit, when what is logical, as it seems to me, is that the infinitive form is the main and representative one for the verb, and the first person shares a same level with any other person or time form. It´s ok anyway, it´s the way it is, can be wrong and established by the habits or can be right after all in some sense i haven´t seen.--Nolemaikos 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wiktionary_talk:About_Latin#Lemmata_for_verbs for discussion relating to this issue; there, the reasons are outlined for the current method we use. Caladon 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

do[edit]

Hi Caladon,

The conjugation table for do lists dor as the singular 2nd or 3rd person future passive imperative of . Is this correct? Shouldn't it be dator? —AugPi (t) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right that it may be dator, but I have no evidence for it (though see [2], [3], [4]). It was VNNS (talkcontribs) who originally made the template, so perhaps it would help to ask what reference he had for dor, and it's possibly he may have made a misake. Caladon 21:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I see, thank you. —AugPi (t) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

cohaereō[edit]

Hi Caladon. Surely /koˈhɛː.re.oː/ is post-Classical, whereas /koˈhai.re.oː/ is the true Classical pronunciation…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We recently decided to change to the former; I was under the impression that the wikipedia article for pronunciation changed to explain that it was pronounced 'ai' in Old Latin. See User_talk:EncycloPetey#aeruginosus. Caladon 13:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't know whence EP's getting his information, because the pertinent section of the Wikipedia article states:

‹ae›, ‹oe›, ‹av›, ‹ei›, ‹ev› originally represented diphthongs: ‹ae› represented /aj/, ‹oe› represented /oj/, ‹av› represented /aw/›, ‹ei› represented /ej/, and ‹ev› represented /ew/. However, soon after the Archaic period, /aj/ and /oj/ lowered the tongue position in the falling element, and started to become monophthongs (/ɛː/ and /eː/, respectively) in rural areas at the end of the republican period. This process, however, does not seem to have been completed before the third century AD in Vulgar Latin, and some scholars say that it may have been regular by the fifth century AD.

However, w:Late Latin states "The English dictionary definition of Late Latin dates this period from the 3rd to the 6th centuries AD." I conclude that /koˈhɛː.re.oː/ and its ilk are proper Late Latin pronunciations, whereas /koˈhai.re.oː/ and its ilk are proper Classical Latin pronunciations. What information does EP have that gainsays Wikipedia (n.b. that the source articles of those quotations both have supporting references)?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The reference they use also says, "Unfortunately, nothing can be said with certainty because even the relative dating of many of the crucial Praenestine inscriptions remains highly problematical. However, the following quotation from the late second-century writer Lucilius (fragment 1130, cited in Varro, de Lingua Latina VII.96) probably satirizes the speech of the Praenestine Caecilius Metellus Caprarius, consul in 113 BC, and if so, shows that the feature was well established in the dialect by that period: Cecilius pretor ne rusticus fiat, ‘lest Caecilius become praetor rusticus’ (i.e. not praetor urbanus, an official title)," so it appears to have been around since the period we are talking about. The best thing to do would be to revive the aeruginosus discussion on EP's page; articles on the Latin langauge on Wikipedia have been wrong before. Caladon 14:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
OK; I've asked EP to join this discussion.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note two things: "Archaic" means roughly "Old Latin" or pre-Classical. "Republican" means pre- or early Classical, since the Classical period straddles the end of the Republic and the start of the Empire. So the change in the pronunciation of ae began before the period of Classical Latin and completed after its end. I've gone through many phonological texts over the past five years looking for more details about the quality of Classical Latin vowels and the dating and specifics of sound shifts, but all authors I've read are frustratingly vague on those points. Most will not commit to specific IPA renderings (or an equivalent) until the period of Late Latin. Suffice it to say that the Wikipedia article is fairly well done, and the pronunciation of ae as /ɛː/ is not inconsistent with that article's content. Their specific IPA values for the earlier form of the diphthongs are questionable, in my mind at least, since I have yet to find an author that describes them that way. It's not impossible, but unsupported in any source I've examined. --EncycloPetey 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So, does that mean that should we note both pronunciations (i.e., the one with /ai/ as well as the one with /ɛː/) for {{a|Classical}}? Or would it be better to have /ai/ for Old Latin and /ɛː/ for Late Latin? I wonder by what point the change came to be considered standard; whilst the fragment from Lucilius suggests that /ɛː/ existed in 113 BC, it also suggests that the pronunciation was still regarded as "rustic" three centuries later.
BTW, @Caladon, should this alternative form be cohēreō?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That's where things get tricky. Old Latin might need to be considered as a separate language, and often has a different spelling. As I say, I haven't found a good source that clarifies the shift to the degree that I'd feel comfortable in answering the questions you've raised, but those are some of the questions that I've been trying to find an answer to for the past few years. --EncycloPetey 22:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Shall we therefore hedge our bets by giving both pronunciations for {{a|Classical}}?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll assume that we shall; see Croesō for an example.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspected that there was a macron in that position, considering the main entry's pronunciation, but I didn't feel confident at the time. I was only trying to fill in the possible forms one might find the verb in. By the way, I hadn't even realised you had requested this verb; it was part of my 'to add' list. As a bit of news, I've now finished going through the 2nd conjugation verbs on Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin/verbs, adding all the ones that I can add (leaving a list at the bottom of possibles that still remain). Caladon 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I also note that you've been creating soft-redirect entries for their present active indicative forms, which is really useful for finding the lemmata of the verb forms that most other dictionaries give in their etymology sections.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 10:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
We're doing that as standard practice whenever we create a new Latin verb entry, for precisely that reason. It also allows other users to fix or clean up most links to Latin verbs from etymology sections (as long as there isn't more than one verb with that form, which sometimes happens). --EncycloPetey 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
That's good to know. The same should be done with the genitive and accusative singulars of nouns, IMO.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Latin verb desino[edit]

Hi there. You added this verb last year using the 2nd form of conjugation. I thought that all 2nd- verbs ended in -eo. That's also what the conjugation template thinks (see for example the 1st person singular indicative active present - which ought to be "desino" according to the entry. SemperBlotto 14:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should; it was just an error when cleaning up some anonymous' entry and it seems to have been fixed now. Caladon 09:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Latin noun bromium (the element bromine)[edit]

Hi there. Which inflection template should I use for this? It goes brōmium (3), brōmiī or brōmī, brōmiō, brōmiō. See la:bromium for details. SemperBlotto 15:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the equivalent on en-wikt of {{la-decl-2nd-N}} but singular only. Since we don't seem to have singular-only templates yet, it will be like what you've done for bisemutum for now (unless you want to do something like dulcia but for singular), but obviously with the stem as bromi|brōmi. There are a number of templates that still need to be added/sorted out. Caladon 15:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

etymology of possideo[edit]

hello, what is the source for possideo as potis+sedeo ?

Lewis and Short give it as por+sedeo

--Diligent 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It's stated in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, but also various other sites that probably got their information from it also put it as the etymology; if you would you like to, you can edit it so it includes both etymologies. Caladon 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Latin verb antesto[edit]

Hi there. You used {{la-conj-1st-nopass|antest|antestit}} for the inflection of this verb. According to Verbix it looks like it should be {{la-conj-1st-nopass|antest|antestet|antestat}}. Are you sure? (I was about to add circumsto) SemperBlotto 13:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) p.s. I'm not really convinced with "-nopass" either.

Because antestor would share any passive forms with antesto, one would need to add a quote (with a translation) to be sure it had a passive; I chose 'no passive' based upon the fact that it is listed as intransitive and the other dictionaries didn't list a fourth part. There are instances of antestaturus on google books, but these could also be from antestor. Generally, in my more recent entries, I chose the template based upon a google books check and what the other dictionaries say. I've never trusted Verbix, it always seem to include any old form; at the end of the day it's about whether there's any real quotable Latin that proves otherwise. Caladon 15:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
According to Korol'kov's and Dvoreckij's dictionary there is a deponent verb an-testor (antestor, summon so. to testify does not derive from the verb sto). ante-sto, on the other hand, has no participium perfecti activi (is intransitive). The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 22:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad bot entries[edit]

Hi there. I have made a start on systematically deleting bad bot entries having entries of the form "... esse" and "... iri". I have got as far as verbs beginning "al..." and it is very very boring. I am going to mix this task with more productive work, if that is OK with you. SemperBlotto 12:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does look really boring. I might have a go, but I need to standardise some of the new entries first. Caladon 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I spotted this in the recent changes (obviously). Why are these wrong? Is it not possible to correct these by bot instead of deleting them? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see User talk:SemperBlotto/2010#Latin_infinitives and our latest one at User talk:SemperBlotto#Latin_related_issues; I wouldn't know about how to correct these automatically. There's also a problem with macrons which have been changed on the original entry (at the moment, they will have to be done manually, but I think this will end up part of a backlog because it is so boring) Caladon 12:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

-esco verbs[edit]

Hi there. I'm getting more and more confused here. As an example - in erubesco the headword lists erubui as the perfect form and then you use the "la-conj-3rd-no234" template and supply a second parameter (erubu) that the template ignores. Should template "la-conj-3rd-nopass" have been used instead? (as in maturesco - which seems to be the same sort of verb to me). I have just added claresco (with a choice of conjugation tables), but won't botify it until I hear from you. Cheers SemperBlotto 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

extollo[edit]

Hi there. Please check this verb. It only seems to use the 1st principal part, so I've used la-conj-3rd-no234, even though it has only been used on -esco verbs before. It doesn't show the infinitive (extollere). I won't botify it yet. SemperBlotto 15:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks okay. There are a few non-esco verbs in [[Category:Latin defective verbs]] like sterto and inquit, and this one seems to be one as well. For future reference, if you ever come across verbs that, in L&S and other dictionaries, are only shown to have two principal parts, and there isn't any evidence for the perfect or supine (i.e. third or fourth principal parts) on googlebooks (usually for compounds where you can guess what the principal parts will be by looking at related verbs or the main verb it comes from), we have been using the formatting you can see in absono. Caladon 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

transfugio[edit]

Could you check the inflection of this one please. I'm not 100% sure. SemperBlotto 08:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Getting your retaliation in first[edit]

Hi there. The Latin words that I am working on are always in my sandbox. You are always welcome to add any of these in advance if you think that I might make a mistake - or you could add a note suggesting macron placements etc. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the majority of what you add now is fine, and any errors you do make are macron related or to do with incorrect verb tables. Currently, I am inclined towards better coverage of Latin words than improving our current entries, so any errors that slip through may go unnoticed; but if I see anything in particular, I'll drop a note. Caladon 18:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

ludicer[edit]

I would have thought that it went "ludicera", "ludicerum" (but what do I know!). SemperBlotto 22:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See aeger for an example of this type. Caladon 22:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin verb ferio[edit]

Hi there. Would la-conj-4th-nopass be correct for this verb? SemperBlotto 18:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC) <answers self> No, it hasn't got any perfect tenses either </answers self> SemperBlotto 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, on google books, there are possible citations for forms from all principal parts (ferīvī and ferītum), including passive forms (suggesting a normal 4th conjugation template); but in Classical Latin, there are no perfect or supine forms attested. Usually you can tell if it is going to require the nopass template or not if L&S uses an 'n' or an 'a' after the verb. Caladon 18:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
OK feriretis was what I found in the Vulgate.

inquiam [edit]

Would you like to have a go at this impersonal verb? I'll add the inflected forms manually. SemperBlotto 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that all the information you require is at inquam; I'll add the present active participle to the irregular table, but there are a few forms missing that you will need to add, which you can see there. Caladon 07:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry - that was all wrong. Please ignore. SemperBlotto 09:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

nāscitūrus[edit]

This looks like it ought to be a future participle of nāscor (but isn't as far as I can tell). So I have added it as an adjective (and guessed at the macrons). Feel free to correct it if it is wrong. SemperBlotto 18:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

L&S suggests that it is found in this form in the Vulgate and Palladius, so a note should probably be added to the inflection of nāscor that both forms exist. Caladon 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

kalend--- words[edit]

Hi there. I have come across the following in several books of the Vulgate :- kalendae kalendarum kalendas kalendis. They are obviously something to do with the Calends, but I'm not sure what to do with them. L&S has Kalendae, Kalendalis, Kalendarium, Kalendarius - all capitalized and with alternative spellings with C-. What would you recommend? SemperBlotto 08:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend the main entry being on the 'k' spelling. Regarding whether it is capitalised or not, the Oxford Latin Dictionary does not capitalise, but a few others do. Regarding capitalisation, I would choose the non-capitalised version for the main entry, with the capitalised versions as alternative spellings, until we get someone like EP's opinion on it, as it can be easily switched in the future. If you are wanting to add Kalendalis or Kalendarius, we decided, eventually, that adjectives, whether they from proper nouns or not, should not be capitalised, so I don't see why this shouldn't be the same here. There is already an entry at calendae but it is really messy. Caladon 16:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
OK - uncapitalised "proper adjectives" is what I am used to in Italian. I'll get round to it. SemperBlotto 16:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Latin numerals[edit]

I'm getting myself psyched up for a go at Latin numerals. Firstly getting all the facts straight in my head, and looking to see what out best practice is. I have just created a plural-only version of our 1&2 template, and used it at terni. Does that seem reasonable? (I'll get back to you with detailed plans later) SemperBlotto 16:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The template looks fine. ternus needs cleanup in accordance with having terni, and it will be good if these entries finally get some attention (I think EP was working on quotes for cardinal numbers back in May). The other types of entries that need clean-up are those like quidam, etc. Will the inflection line template {{la-num-1&2}} be used for those like terni? Caladon 16:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
la-num-1&2 added (so much stuff that I haven't found yet!) SemperBlotto 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

y with macron[edit]

Hi there. Could you confirm that I'm using the correct character (from the edit menu) for a lowercase y with macron. See syriacus as an example. It always looks to be boldface on my screen. SemperBlotto 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) p.s. There's no macron in our Latin entry for Syria.

Yes, it's the correct character, as far as I can see, and it's the one I have been using. Caladon 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford Latin Dictionary does not put a macron on Syria or syriacus, so maybe L&S is wrong about there being a "ȳ" there. Caladon 14:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
OK - I'll take it off before botifying it. (and add a note) SemperBlotto 14:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

amb#Latin[edit]

Hi there. This seems to mean both. I am not sure of the part of speech, and have no idea of its inflection (amborum is in the Vulgate). Any ideas?

See ambō, as it looks to be the genitive plural from this; presumably, [5] is wrong about their entry. Caladon 17:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't know how to inflect ambo either! SemperBlotto 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The Oxford Latin Dictionary says that the accusatives are ending in -ōs/-ō, -ās, -ō, the genitives -ōrum, -ārum, presumably -ōrum, and datives and ablatives as -ōbus/-īs, -ābus/-īs, -ōbus/-īs, and apparently duo can be used as a point of comparison, if that helps. L&S' explanation is just confusing. See also [6]. Caladon 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
OK - copied that. It's a hand-crafted table so my bot won't see it. I'll add any manually for now. SemperBlotto 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

present participle templates[edit]

Hi there. Why is the documentation of {{la-decl-3rd-part}} pointing at {{la-decl-3rd-1E}}? This sort of thing doesn't make understanding our Latin templates any easier! SemperBlotto 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There are many errors with the template documentation, like {{la-decl-3rd-PAR}}. The difference between the ablatives is what makes this significant between the use of the templates or the other. Caladon 15:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made a start at updating Wiktionary:Latin templates. Eventually it will contain a mention of all our Latin templates (except those gloss ones). I shall try to figure out what they all do and supply some sort of documentation (so much to do, so little time). SemperBlotto 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I still don't know what {{la-decl-3rd-B2C}} is for, and we are lacking a lot of templates, like plural only templates for nouns and some verb templates for those which have no known perfect or supine principal parts. Caladon 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

prōlongō[edit]

L&S has this as "prolongo", but it seems to make sense with a pro- macron. I won't botify until you give a judgement. SemperBlotto 11:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that it should have a macron. Caladon 11:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. But now, for protervus, L&S actually put a breve on the pro-. I don't really like changing that to a macron, even though it is related to prōterō. SemperBlotto 11:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Go for without a macron, but apparently according to the Oxford Latin Dictionary, protervus is only long on the 'o' in Plautus and Terence, i.e. has a macron, and short elsewhere, so under inflection or usage notes, it might be helpful to mention these authors use it long. Caladon 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

moriendi and nascendi[edit]

Hi there. These two look like they should be some sort of future participle of morior and nascor. But not according to our inflection tables. Is there anything to be done? SemperBlotto 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't entirely know myself. From looking at various sources, the suggestion is that the gerundive of deponent verbs still bears a passive meaning, and that some deponent verbs governing the ablative use the gerundive impersonally.
I don't know if all deponent verbs are going to have an attested future passive participle, so one can either make a new template or parameter (for the current template) for those deponent verbs with a known, attested future passive participle, create the future passive participle with all the forms and add a note to the inflection of the corresponding verb, or change all the deponent verb templates to include it on the displayed conjugation.
It is said that intransitive verbs have no gerund, but apparently those verbs taking the ablative are an exception if used impersonally (it is reminiscent of how intransitive non-deponent verbs can sometimes have impersonal, 3rd person passive forms, even though it does not make much sense in literal translation.) Also note how you have already added one of these before, see persequendus.
Not all deponent verbs will state whether they are intransitive or transitive for each sense, and not all deponent verbs have been tagged with [[Category:Latin deponent verbs]] Caladon 21:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

necnon[edit]

Can this also mean neither / nor ? SemperBlotto 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, it is supposed to be an emphatic way of expressing neque, but in a strongly positive sense (a kind of double negative), so that it means 'and also'; therefore, I can't see how neither or nor can fit here if it is only used in a positive sense, unless there is some later usage, which follows the lines of this, but it would not make much sense with it being a double negative. Caladon 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Latin sources of words[edit]

Hi there. As I said on my talk page, you are welcome to add words from my sandbox - especially if you think that I will make a mistake with them. My source is the Latin version of Wikisource e.g. la:s:Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Stuttgartensia). I copy/paste all the text from an entry and then run it through my own software (too difficult to share) and remove all the words the give blue links in Wiktionary. Normally I remove all words starting with a capital letter, as many of them are just words that start a sentence (and some others might not meet our CFI). In the case of Latin, I also discard words ending in -que where it is obvious that they are just other words with "and" tacked on. As an example, here is the result from the "Song of Songs" (including capitalised ones):-

Amana Aminadab Bether Carmelus Damascum Engaddi Esebon Galaad Hermon Israhel Libani Pacifice Pharaonis Salomonem Salomonis Sanir Sulamiten Sulamitis

adloquenda adspiret ambiunt areolam beatissimam cellam convallium conversio cypressina cypri decorus deosculer disponsionis distillans distillantia eburneus formonsa fraglantia germinassent hiemps hinuli hinulo intremuit laquearia mandragorae marmoreae nixa occultis perfla pessulum potandum probatissima pulsantis punicorum putationis reclinatorium repperiens ruminandum sugentem tonsarum tornatiles tornatilis vermiculatas vinariam vulnerasti

Please let me know if you would like me to create such a word list from any particular online source.

My future plans include whatever Wikifons has on early science (Newton etc), then I would like to try some modern sources e.g. I thought that there was a Latin version of the Vatican newspaper "Osservatore Romano" (but I can't find it anymore). SemperBlotto 09:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are any sources I find that would be suitable, I will inform you. I imagine defining words from modern sources might involve a bit of guess work. I remember finding a Latin newspaper website once when looking up a word, but I don't believe I have it any more, and I doubt it was related to Osservatore Romano. Caladon 16:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

conquesto[edit]

Is there a Medieval Latin verb conquesto? I've just come across conquestei (=conquesté) in an Old French text. It seems to be a synonym of conquerre. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an entry in Niermeyer for conquesto, suggesting it is attested (not sure when, c. 900?), to mean obtain by means other than inheritance, and then eventually to conquer; a google books check throws up a few citations. Caladon 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

macrons[edit]

Hello. Could you name your sources regarding macrons in syllables (of Latin words) that are both long by position and long by nature (for example dētēctum and refōrmō). Thanks. --Omnipaedista 10:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The macrons for dētegō are based upon this edit to tegō [7] by EP, who I presume had a good reason for going for a macron. The entry for refōrmō is based upon the macrons for fōrma and related compounds, which was originally implemented by EP back in this edit [8]. Basically, the source used by EP or myself, as a standard, what we have unofficially decided on, is Feyerabend, as far as I know. Generally, macron disagreements occur on syllables preceding a double consonant; there are still many unresolved disputes regarding these cases where different sources do not agree. If you have any other macron queries, please discuss, because I myself find there are some cases, which are difficult to judge. Caladon 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

metropolis[edit]

Re latest addition by Amit6. I think there should be a macron on the e. I would have used template la-decl-3rd-PAR-navis rather than la-decl-3rd-PAR (but I could be wrong). Definition should be metropolis (capital city) rather than metropolitan. (Do you want to have a quiet word with him?) SemperBlotto 16:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I think you are right about -navis, because there seems to be google books evidence for the accusative with -im, and the definition was for metropolitanus. He seems to be making entries too fast, and he doesn't seem to know about macron placement, but some of the things he has been making has been later than Medieval, so I would not have a clue about macron placement for them (although, I guess it is less important for Modern Latin, since pronunciation often takes the language of the native speaker). Caladon 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I know almost nothing about macron, now what can I do? --Amit6 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you are asking, but it is usually a process of learning, since most macrons can be deduced from word to word, although dictionaries need to be consulted the majority of the time. I will try to check your entries as much as I can, but it may be difficult to do all of them, because it seems to take a long while. Caladon 17:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

occasus[edit]

I think the adjective should be replaced with the perfect passive participle of occido. See occido2 in L&S. SemperBlotto 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea. It does not make any sense to have a passive meaning, since occidō, meaning to set, does not have a passive, and I can't find it in any dictionary. Caladon 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

pleo[edit]

Hi. I had no idea this was previously discussed. If there were no attestations for "pleo", the right thing to do would be to mark it as reconstructed; the evidence for the existance of the root form is overwhelming. But fortunately there is no need to do that; here you have a link to an attestation of the third person plural present indicative in the passive voice, "plentur". And here you have a Medieval example of the perfect "plevimus". And these are just what I found in a few minutes of Googling. With access to a good database, finding further evidence should be trivial. Best Λεξικόφιλος 08:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

One thing you (Caladon) could do is restore the original deleted revision of "pleo" created by me, and then send "pleo" for RFV. If and after it fails RFV, the result of the failed RFV is going to be posted to Talk:pleo, so it is going to be easily traceable why the entry was deleted. --Dan Polansky 08:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Λεξικόφιλος, you can post the citations to Citations:pleo; see Citations:identicus for a model. See also WT:CFI#Attestation. --Dan Polansky 08:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
RFV seems to take ages, especially for Latin words, since I have sent three Latin entries to it lately, and they have not received any attention. The citations appear sufficient, but please do remember that the citations attest pleo after repleo, so the etymology of repleo needs to reflect this. I have no idea about reconstructed pages for Latin, and it is currently not very well established. Caladon 17:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
An entry should sit in RFV for at least a month. You have sent "superextruxi" for RFV on 5 January 2011 (Wiktionary:RFV#superextruxi). As a month has now passed, you can close the RFV on the term as failed, and delete the entry, archiving the discussion at Talk:superextruxi. You can delete the page as you are an admin. See the top of WT:RFV for further instructions. --Dan Polansky 18:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I will deal with it eventually if nothing comes of it, but I thought that there might be a chance for some further input. Caladon 10:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not know where the input would come from. I have once sent a Latin entry that I have myself created to RFV (identicus), from where it was attested by Mglovesfun, so in that case it worked. But he does not really do Latin; he just used Google search in a way that did not occur to me. If you really want to get an entry attested, you usually have to do it yourself. It you think that the probability of attestation is low, then you would send it to RFV, with the intention that the entry gets deleted. There are almost no people in Wiktionary who do Latin, so sending a Latin entry to RFV is really a request for its deletion unless per chance someone is able to attest it. Recently, SemperBlotto has been rather active in Latin, but I find it unlikely that he would spend time attesting questionable Latin entries; he seems to do a great volume work rather than wasting too much time on a single entry.
That said, I see no harm when you leave an entry in RFV for three months. --Dan Polansky 10:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I have done what you describe for superextruxī, but I have left the other two, since I am less sure of those (although ficiō looks deletable to me). Caladon 11:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

prudens[edit]

Shouldn't the macron be on the "u" rather than the "e"? (I'm about to add adverb and superlative) SemperBlotto 14:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be like how I changed it to, with both, because 3rd-1E adjectives with -ens, usually have macrons corresponding to -ēns, -entis, like participles. Apparently this is a contraction of providens, which is a participle anyway. prūdenter then has no macron on 'e' because it is from the genitive. Caladon 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)