User talk:Embryomystic

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


I've removed a number of parameter names that were just alternative names for other parameters. They weren't used on any entries anyway so nothing really changed. I added the first parameter as an alternative for g=, and the plural can now alternatively be given with the second parameter, and the genitive with the third. Nothing else has changed yet, until the "old" parameters have been converted to the new ones, which will take a few days most likely. —CodeCat 20:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the entries have been converted now. What do you think should be done regarding default values? The genitive should default to the page name when it's missing, but what about the plural? —CodeCat 21:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If the plural is missing, it's best if it shows nothing. In most cases, if the plural isn't present, it's because the noun in question is uncountable. I don't think we need to explicitly indicate that, though.
On a sidenote, would you be willing to have a look at gv-verb as well? It's a simpler job, just needs the first parameter to be the verbal noun, if nothing's there, then it's the same as the citation form, and an optional second parameter for the past participle (optional only because I don't have a comprehensive list, and it's still worthwhile using the template). embryomystic (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Er, on reflection, gv-verb may want something a bit more fleshed out, with the option for a present participle (distinct from the verbal noun) as well. embryomystic (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Welsh "bron"[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to thank you for your excellent example sentence on bron#Welsh. It is a moving sentence, and indeed - she does have an incredible pair.

Timeroot (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I had honestly forgotten about doing that, and laughed and laughed and laughed when I got your message. You're very welcome. I think the entry needed it. embryomystic (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


Is there a particular reason why imperatives have their own category? They're just verb forms aren't they? —CodeCat 22:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask a philosophical question like that. I'm just putting entries in the categories where they belong (admittedly, I'm trying to make it so all forms of Ido verbs use io-form of, in order that both kinds of Ido imperatives end up looking essentially the same as entries, but). imperative of puts imperatives in their own category (formerly Ido imperative forms in this case, now Ido verb imperative forms), so I make sure that's where they go even as I bring the basic imperative forms in line with the past imperatives. embryomystic (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a discussion with Donnanz about this just yesterday. My argument is that there is nothing inheritently special about imperative forms in most languages to warrant giving them their own category, especially not if there are not also categories for all other forms. But of course creating a category for every possible form would become unmanageable when a single lemma may have dozens of forms, especially verbs. So I am kind of against creating a category for every form. Do you think this needs BP discussion? —CodeCat 22:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly see the logic there, and I would be interested to see the results of a discussion on the subject, though I decline to take a position myself. embryomystic (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Karelian etymologies[edit]

You can probably fill a lot of them by taking the information from the entry for the Finnish cognate. —CodeCat 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Most likely. I've done a little of that. But I was tiring, and starting to feel guilty for not getting back to the work I was using Karelian to procrastinate on. I'll return to it. At very least, I've added Karelian entries without etymologies to a category that'll allow me to find them easily again. embryomystic (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ido ridar[edit]

Is Ido ridar transitive or intransitive? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Intransitive. Thanks for asking; I've added that to the entry. embryomystic (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Still creating unattested entries[edit]

Ido midomestika seems unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) You continue: efervecigar‎ is another one. Now is the right time for you to stop adding unattested entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I shall endeavour to be more careful in future.
I only recently realised that you are a non-native speaker of English. Your name is very believable as a North American English-speaker. Are you called Dan in Czech also? embryomystic (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
You can call me Dan, if that is where the question is directed.
I asked you to stop adding unattested entries multiple times in the past multiple years. I made no systematic investigation of what volume of your Ido entries are attested, but it seems very easy to find unattested ones. You said something like "I shall endeavour to be more careful in future" months before to me, and you do not seem to keep your word. Therefore, here again is a reminder that at least one person cares about Wiktionary not containing unattested entries. Does anyone else agree with me that Embryomystic should take pains to avoid adding unattested entries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I actually don't think you take any of this seriously at all, since you went ahead and created enoyigar‎; here is google:"enoyigar‎" as for attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't actually need to be directed to Google. It certainly does exist as a word. embryomystic (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Have you ever read WT:ATTEST? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


You inserted a translation outside of the translation table. --Romanophile (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. embryomystic (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


As far as I know the vote hasn't been decided yet regarding the migration of the template term to m. So, why do you keep changing all of them? Did I miss something? --Dijan (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I've edited any pages just to change that one template (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that), but when I'm fixing other stuff, I do tend to favour one over the other (though I also don't always). I don't mean to be stepping on any toes, though. embryomystic (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you have changed a bunch of pages (recently in Gujarati) with changes just to that template. But anyway, I was just curious if something was already decided regarding the two. I prefer the former, but if no one else is objecting to it, then I guess you're free to change it. --Dijan (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Curious. I was in search of borrowings to tag, but I guess I must have gotten sidetracked. As I say, I don't want to step on toes, and I try not to edit just to change one to the other. I'll be more careful in the future. Thanks! embryomystic (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)