If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:
Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.
You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.
Thanks for your edit here. There were a few issues, which I have since corrected. Specifically, Ἠώς(Ēṓs) is an Ancient Greek alternative spelling, not a modern Greek descendant. Take a look at the changes I made, not all of which had to do with your edit. Any questions, feel free to ask. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί22:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clearing up. I saw it and I just made that quick connection to link the two pages. Can you further clarify as to what dialects they belong? Ηως to Ionic and Εως to Attic, perhaps? GuitarDudeness (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My sources are crap on proper nouns, but what they have seem to indicate that Ἕως(Héōs) is Attic, but give no dialect on Ἠώς(Ēṓs), though Ionic is a reasonable suspicion. -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί21:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to limit the columns to 4 in Latin entries. If a section becomes too long, it is possible to use a collapsing display, as in some of the English entries. The 5-column format exists primarily on entries about punctuation and on pages indexing given names. It's not a general style feature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you add a {{Babel}} box to your userpage so we know what sort of language proficiencies you have? I've elected to whitelist you, but to do that, we will need to know a little more about you. Thanks. Jamesjiao → T ◊ C22:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for noticing and commenting. From a Greek standpoint it is/ should be either from Hera of Hero (more interesting if the two are truly connected) but then there is this information which claims a Semitic origin. What do you make of it? We could add the three possibilities to the Etymology. —GuitarDudeness(Talk | contribs)12:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding this source and for making this edit! I would be inclined to add these two etymologies due to the uncertainty (thought the Semitic explanation does not seem to account for the iota subscripting of the ῴ(ṓi)). I wasn't aware Hebrew had ōi/ōy clusters. The etymology ἥρως/Ἡρώ + ᾠδή seems the most likely to me. I'm going to bring in @Atelaes in on this question (I hope neither of you minds). As someone who works on both AG and Hebrew, Atelaes might have an opinion (though I'm not sure I've spoken to Atelaes directly before). —JohnC5(Talk | contribs)22:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For etymologizing Ancient Greek names you can use the outdated but still useful Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen by Pape & Bensler. It derivesἩρῴδης from ἥρως, translating the name into German literally as Frohs, from OHG fro, I assume. --Vahag (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your edit, but I wonder how come the Ancient Greek form has a short e. A long ē would be expected due to the laryngeal. —CodeCat14:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I can see that, but I also do not see it uncommon in Greek words :/ (e.g. δόσις<*déh₃tis ?). Until now I have seen it referred to PIE *méh₁-trom. It has to be it... How are we on μανθάνω(manthánō), was it not referred to this root? And does not *med- bear any relation to *meh₁-? GuitarDudeness (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PIE nouns in *-tis (and *-tus) are not good examples as they underwent a later change that made their descendants all take the oblique zero-grade as the root. δόσις comes from a form closer to *dh̥́₃tis.
In the case of *méh₁-trom, this would produce *μῆτρον. Beekes claims that, in Greek, NHC- developed differently than the normal outcome of -CNHC- (-CNη/ᾱ/ωC-), leading to Nε/ᾰ/οC-. He thus uses *ḿ̥h₁-trom > *mh̥́₁-trom > *métron > μέτρον.
I know, but as the page seemed a mixture of Ancient and today's Greek formats I just adapted it to Ancient Greek to at least have the fundament over which to create the Greek page. Sorry. Just did it to that one. And you did to it rightly what I hoped, thank you. :) GuitarDudeness (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent addition of the meaning to a possible P.I.E. root, makes more sense! The previous semantic was just nonsense. Andrew H. Gray 08:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Andrew
@kc_kennylau: My opinion is, hoping for constancy, that as it seems the kind of *-kaps, it should inflect similarly, as opposed to the dissonance I see between *-faks (substantive noun?, since no gender is given, with acc. *-fakem, pl. *-fakes) and *-kaps (substantive noun with acc. *-kaps, pl. *-kapā). What does De Vann have? GuitarDudeness (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. But did you see the incoherence I indicated? Sihler notes agent nouns and action nouns made with *-s- on root. Thus we could suppose this class originally substantive, later used adjectively(?) We seem to have substantive forceps, manceps, municeps, artifex (later adjective), aurifex, opifex etc., while others share adjective property. In the end, if you write those articles by your hand, you can take *-kaps as norm, I say. But where do you get that substantive noun inflection (i.e. acc. *-kaps por *-kapem, pl. *-kapā pro *-kapes)? GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refer to -ceps/ -cipitis. Again I say, if *-faks and *-kaps form substantive nouns, why does one decline as acc. *-facem/ pl. *-faces and the other as acc. *-kaps/ pl. *-kapā? GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that was what I was saying. I adapted the article of *faks to *kaps, which, as I said, we can use as norm for these constructions. It would be good if someone could certify these being agent nouns built with *-s- . Then we could add that to the etymology. GuitarDudeness (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
You mean certify that it is *-faks not *fak? --kc_kennylau (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. I mean that it would be good if we can confirm the kind of *-fak-s (factor, doer), agent noun, being formed with *-s- added to root *fak- (do), as, e.g., *h₃rḗǵ-s (ruler) is to root *h₃reǵ- (rule). GuitarDudeness (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your many recent PIE additions. They are very well thought out and formatted! I'd just like to mention a formatting oddity whereby we normally omit the "Proto-" in "Proto-Italic", "Proto-Hellenic", etc. I think this is because it just gets very dense and redundant very quickly. Just thought I'd mention! :) —JohnC520:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it started off that way because the subdivisions were language families at first, and Proto-language terms were included only later. —CodeCat20:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this exchange and though I'd mention that, while we often reference Pokorny out of deference, his research is now considered fairly inaccurate and overly inclusionist. —JohnC504:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JohnC5. Which are the most up to date sources? And those roots, *ḱley- and *ḱlew-, so apparently straightforward from *ḱel-, as many other roots of this kind of progression (and here "accepted"), are thus independent? What do hodiern sources say? GuitarDudeness (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.[1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.[2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.
This change is not in doubt, it's known as Szemerényi's law. What is in doubt, however, is whether this change occurred in the history of the noun *bʰōr. The noun could have been coined after the change took place, after all, and then a form such as *bʰors never existed. —CodeCat14:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not deviant, they're perfectly regular. All PIE nouns with stems in -r are missing the final -s. —CodeCat15:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That, after some corruption of nom. marker *-s. To have *-s would be obvious. Not having it and even worse with lengthening of the stem vowel is not obvious (devious) and causes whomever to ask "how?". Thus the answer on Etymology. -GuitarDudeness (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who knows a bit of PIE grammar will know this. We don't have to explain the grammar of every language in detail. —CodeCat15:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would bother me to have it on every single PIE entry which shows the effects of Szemerényi's law. And of course if it's on one entry, people are going to add it to others. So it's better to not have it on any. —CodeCat16:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to know that. We could indicate Szemerényi's law then in the least (albeit not my preference). The English Wiktionary is, mea sententia, outstanding in its information and honor to etymology. I do not understand the insistence in obscurity by avoiding such brief explanation. But in the end the word seems to be yours... -GuitarDudeness (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have is that it's not etymology. Yes, at some point in the history of PIE, -rs became -r. However, the law continued to be productive synchronically, so that any new nouns ending in -r lost their -s automatically, without application of Szemerényi's law but purely by analogy with existing nouns ending in -r. We know this because, it appears, -s was restored in the genitive forms of proterokinetic nouns. We have -mén-s rather than -mḗn as the genitive of neuter men-stems. So by late PIE it was no longer a sound change but merely a rule that any noun ending in -r must have no -s in the nominative and the preceding vowel is lengthened. The long vowel part of the rule was even extended to nouns ending in consonants that weren't affected by Szemerényi's law originally, e.g. *dyḗws, *pṓds. These nouns kept their -s, however. —CodeCat16:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, can I recommend making your userpage a link to your talk page if you're not going to put anything on to it? It would make is easier for people to communicate with you. --{{victar|talk}}00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wiktionary and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.
A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.
There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal!
With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.
