User talk:Embryomystic

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

Irish translation request[edit]

Hope you don't mind me asking this of you specifically (not that I'm saying no one else can answer) but anyway, I'm trying to help a friend/acquaintance out here, with a translation to Irish for a tattoo. He wants a tattoo saying (in Irish) "You miss 100% of the opportunities you don't take". I told him something like "Caillean tú cead faoin gcéad de na seansanna nach glacann tú" but told him I'd try to check it out first of all. So, what do you think of that? How does it sound? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 17:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't answered this query, but every time I try to approach it, I think there's probably a more native way to put it, and resolve to look into that further, and then other things get in the way. I imagine your friend got the tattoo already, sorry not to have helped. What you've got there certainly works, grammatically, but it feels a bit... literal as a translation. Irish proverbs (which is more or less where this kind of saying falls, in my opinion) tell you to do things or talk about the general way things go, but not in that kind of a direct way. I would say something more like: Tapaigh do dheis nó caill an t-iomlán "Take your chance or lose the lot". I'm probably not the best person for this, though, and sorry again about the delay. embryomystic (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


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)

WT:BP#Prepositional pronoun[edit]

We've been working lately on clearing Category:Entries with non-standard headers, and this header is responsible for a great many of these I brought this up so we could decide whether to use another header or to get it added to Kassadbot's list of standard headers so entries with the header don't get added to that category. You seem to be the main person who added the header, so I figured you should be informed of this. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ido pronouns[edit]

Hola! I'm trying to learn a bit of Ido, and it seems like our coverage of Ido pronouns is pretty spotty - we don't have entries for vi, tu, su, onu, il, el, eli, or oli. Also, our entries for ilu, elu, and olu are not quite formatted consistently, and ili has its definition listed as "they" without specifying that the referent has to be a group of males (which as far as I can tell it does). I don't yet feel comfortable enough with Ido to fix these issues, but since you seem to be an active Ido contributor, I'm bringing them to your attention in case you feel like fixing them. Danko! —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I will look into this a bit; in general, what's written on the Ido Wiktionary is probably the best point of reference for what should be on the English pages. embryomystic (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi there. Are you sure of the conjugation table? I would have thought it was impersonal. (I'll hold off running the conjugation bot for now) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You are most likely correct. I may have rushed that particular one; as I recall, it was one of the last additions I made at that particular time, and my attention and energy were waning. embryomystic (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

term or term/t[edit]

Hi, I'm curious about this edit. Is {{term/t}} now preferred to {{term}} even for attested forms? I thought {{term/t}} was just for reconstructed forms, but I was away from the Internet for a month and may not be entirely up-to-date on the current fashions around here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

{{term/t|xx|blah}} is the same as {{term|blah|lang=xx}}. It was designed to have a more similar syntax to {{l|xx|blah}}. --WikiTiki89 21:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that, the question is whether {{term}} itself is being deprecated. Are we supposed to be changing it to {{term/t}}? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
We were going to rename it, but we couldn't yet. —CodeCat 21:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I'm guessing that in Manx, jarg means possible, right? Could you make an entry for it please? --Back on the list (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Let me look into it. embryomystic (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
It's actually a defective verb meaning can. I've created an entry for it and added glosses to the etymologies of the words that derive from it. embryomystic (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

term, term/t, and usex[edit]

Hi! I reverted your changes to kāja, because the changes in the examples weren't consistent (some ended up with a long dash separating them from their translations and some didn't). I noticed you did similar changes with taču and milzis (but consistently, in these cases). Is this part of some overall change of {{term}} to {{term/t}}? Why the change -- wasn't {{term}} good enough? Were there problems? Also, is {{recons}} also going to be abandoned? If so, please tell me (and also tell me why), so that I can start using the new templates acurately and appropriately. --Pereru (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pereru: {{term/t}} is the temporary name for a template designed to replace both {{term}} and {{recons}} and make the syntax identical to that of {{l}}. {{term/t}} will probably soon be renamed to {{m}} (see Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/January#Template:m is orphaned, convert Template:term and Template:term/t to it?) --WikiTiki89 04:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I suppose there is no problem if I continue to use {{recons}} and {{term}}? When the new template is ready, these will be replaced by it via bots, right? --Pereru (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
{{recons}} hasn't really been used for a while now, because {{term}} can now do the same. —CodeCat 03:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
{{recons}} has been deprecated, and shouldn't be added to any new entries, if I'm understanding things correctly. Please use {{term}} (with an asterisk at the beginning of the cited reconstruction) instead. embryomystic (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The inconsistency of the changes was due to my (on reflection, probably misguided) effort to save space. The non-dashed examples were long ones that wouldn't fit on one line, whereas the dashed examples were shorter and would fit comfortably on one line. The rest of your questions appear to have been answered. embryomystic (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Italian reflexive verbs[edit]

Why are you putting the label "reflexive" on verbs that are already reflexive? That seems kind of redundant? —CodeCat 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you objecting to {{label}} with 'reflexive', or {{reflexive of}}? I suppose it's a bit redundant, but the former is there because I'm fixing context tags, and the latter is there because it's a convenient way of categorising the verb in question as a reflexive verb, as well as linking to the verb that it's derived from. How would you prefer I proceed? Manually add the category? Refrain from adding the label for context? embryomystic (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant the label specifically. I understand that it can be useful to categorise the entry, but I don't think it's a good idea to put "reflexive" before every single sense. It looks strange and messy, and makes me wonder why the entry is making the effort to tell me that the verb is reflexive four times. I think it would better be placed in the conjugation table. —CodeCat 03:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can refrain from adding the label in the future. embryomystic (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sense definitions[edit]

I notice that, among your changes of the 15th of May to the word finish, were several switches of the initial letter of a sense definition from upper to lower case, accompanied by the removal of the terminating full stop. Though a peripheral Wiktionary contributor, I had noticed some time ago that the vast majority of sense definitions, even (perhaps particularly) phrasal ones did in fact start with a capital letter and end with a full stop (period). Therefore I have been "tidying" sense definitions in that direction while I was making contributions. Have I been mistaken in this ? Is there somewhere in where standards in such matters are stored ? ReidAA (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I had been doing it out of my own preferences for rendering a sentence fragment, and even then, not for its own sake, but only while I was adding something else. If you can find support for your own inclination, I'll happily conform to the current consensus. embryomystic (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, my involvement with Wikipedia is peripheral, being focussed on adding quotes. Thus I don't know how to go about finding out what the current consensus is and don't have much inclination to find out how. ReidAA (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That's somewhat unfortunate, if only because that's kind of how this whole venture works. embryomystic (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Examples in iesist[edit]

Hi! I see you've replaced the direct formatting of examples in iesist with formatting done via the {{usex}} template. Is this the standard now? Should I always used {{usex}}? (I notice that the output is apparently the same as what I had before.) Is there going to be a bot change of all other pages that have the direct formatting, to make {{usex}} standard? (I note there are thousands of them, for Latvian alone.) --Pereru (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether it's the standard, per se, but I was fixing a {{context}} tag, and thought I'd do it. As for a future bot change, I'm not sure, but it's entirely possible. embryomystic (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2014 (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 Category:Ido imperative forms in this case, now Category: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)


Please don't create entries like this with no useful information. I believe there was a discussion about entries like this not too long ago, with consensus that they should not be created. If you think there should be an entry for "icadie" but you don't know its definition, add it to Wiktionary:Requested entries (Ido). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Feedback taken. I've fixed icadie to include etymological information. embryomystic (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)