User talk:I'm so meta even this acronym

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

shadows on the wall[edit]

Not sure if it would meet our criteria for inclusion. However, see w:Allegory of the Cave for background. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was an allusion to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. What are your criteria for inclusion? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
That looks like a lot to take in. I'll get back to you once I've had time to look it over. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nice username! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I can't take the credit for it; I took it from xkcd 917. I would have taken the handle User:ISMETA, but someone somewhere'd already taken User:Ismeta, so the system wouldn't let me. :-( I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Having read every xkcd comic, including the hidden ones, I certainly recognized the reference. In this case, I find it somewhat humorous on another level, because I'm willing to bet that if you stick around, somebody will confuse us, or even accuse me of sockpuppeteering. Anyway, it's great to have you here! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


Probably just running together "very same" (meaning something like "exact") ? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes; that makes a lot of sense. I took it to mean something like "true", formed from veri- (as in "verity" and "verisimilitude") + -some (as in "worrisome" and "flavoursome"), but I think you may be right that it's just "verisame" with a typo; Buckminster Fuller uses "verisame" (see Citations:verisame), which supports your interpretation. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


You are inventing Classical pronunciations for a word that did not exist in Classical Latin. If you do this, you need to mark the pronunciations as modern pronunciations based on Classical principles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry. How do I do that? Does it have a different New Latin pronunciation? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem. New Latin pronunciation differs enormously by country. I usually don't add pronunciations to New Latin terms because of that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. How about a qualifier like "(pseudo-Classical)"? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Like this? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Possibly. It ought to use the {{a|}} template though, for formatting purposes. However, I'm not sure that "pseudo-Classical" will be clear enought for even the casual reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I've gone with "Classicistic" instead. Is that better? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for starting the discussion. I'm curious about the outcome. Longtrend (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure; I'm curious, too. I'm surprised this sort of issue hasn't come up before. CodeCat has pinpointed the issue, I think. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Cool username. -- Cirt (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I got it from this. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Sweet, sweet. -- Cirt (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, really recently there was a discussion on how to treat romaji entries, and basically we decided to treat it as a soft link. All the information that would go on a romaji entry instead only goes on kana entries, which usually in turn link to kanji entries. I saw your edits on hanshinron (which were exactly the way to do it until a week ago, so no criticism there) and in the new format it would be like this:



All the information that was on the previous romaji entry can be merged with the matching hiragana entry. Thanks for your help :) --Haplology (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. Just to make sure I understand you, does that mean that ローマ字 entries don't get definition lines at all? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
They do get definition lines, but the lines are produced by {{ja-romaji}} and are basically soft redirects. Take a look for yourself. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What he/she said. There was a debate over having complete definitions, abbreviated definitions, or none at all, but we went for option C, no definitions. The template produces a simple link to はんしんろん in this case. --Haplology (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, 分かります。 :-) How elegantly parsimonious. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


We usually put quotes that use inflected forms on the entry for the lemma form. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my boldness, but I've reverted your removal of the quotation. That entry's such a stubby thing that, surely, the quotation does some good by adding information, and at the very least certainly does no harm; also, n.b. that I'd also already added the quotation to the entry for the lemma at dioecēsis. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It's supposed to be stubby. The whole point of dioecesim is to give the bare minimum of information to clothe what is essentially a soft redirect to dioecesis, where the definitions ought to be. I agree that it probably does no harm, but keeping entries standardised is important in general around here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you believe that all soft redirects should be stripped of quotations? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You might be able to dredge up exceptions, but in general, yes. Not Wiktionary policy or anything, just personal belief. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. In my opinion, it can at times be helpful to include quotations in entries for inflected forms; for example, would it not be helpful if the four definitions in the Latin entry for aulae were furnished with citations, demonstrating to the curious user the differences in usage between the genitive- and dative-singular and nominative- and vocative-plural forms? (I know this argument doesn't really apply to the particular case of dioecēsim, but it had a bearing on the general principle you advocate, I should think.) I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think that would be helpful, because most users of our Latin entries know how the cases work already, and those who don't won't learn anything from the examples. (PS: It reduces template overhead if you just write ''dioecēsim'' instead of using {{term}} when you're not actually linking to a page. Not something that really matters much, but being details-oriented is part of my nature.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I must, respectfully, disagree with you; the "feel" of the usage of grammatical forms is, in my experience, learnt gradually — in part from the internalisation of grammatical descriptions, and in part from direct familiarity with examples of those grammatical forms. As for using and not using {{term}}, I've found that not using it (or using it without the appropriate sc= or lang= parameter) can lead to display problems; moreover, it had only been out of laziness that I didn't use it consistently. Be that as it may, I was unaware of the template-overhead problem, and in the light of that new knowledge, I shall in future use simple italics or other methods of presentation when I mention terms (without linking) in discussions, where assuring correct display is not as important as it is in entries. Is that OK? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't remember how I learned the cases; it feels as if I always could feel the difference, although obviously that is far from the truth. I will have to say that we remain in disagreement, but this is such a pitifully unimportant issue that I'm not going to revert your revert for the sake of my views. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad that, even if we remain in disagreement, we're civil and amicable about it. :-) I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Could you clarify what sort of etymological info you're looking for? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Atelaes. I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my mistake; I meant to add {{rfp|lang=grc}}, like this. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense. No worries.  :) -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Could I ask where the quote is from? I can't find evidence of this word anywhere. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's from an early–eighteenth-century introductory text of Biblical exposition by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Is that any help? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, δικαιωσύνη (the lemma form of δικαιωσύνην) is a modern Greek word, not an ancient one. It might possibly be medieval, but I have an utter paucity of sources on medieval Greek. You might want to ask Flyax about it, as he is better versed in both periods than anyone else here, and would likely have more insight than anyone else. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion; I've done just that. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyax has concluded that δικαιωσύνην is a misspelling of δικαιοσύνην, which may explain the original source quotation "Τὴν δικαιοσύνην, id est κατά τὴν δικαιωσύνην." — Κατά (Kata) can mean "badly" or "erroneously", right? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I also can't find εὐφνία. I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist, as Google only returned nine results, and most of them were typos. Was the request misspelled? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll recheck my source in a bit and then get back to you. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I suppose the word you are referring to is εὐφυΐα. --flyax (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Here's my source:
  • 1978, W.F.R. Hardie, “‘Magnanimity’ in Aristotle’s ‘Ethics’” in Phronesis XXIII, № 1, page 74:
    The athlete needs the right sort of physical endowment, and similarly a man “must be born (phunai), with an eye, as it were, by which to judge rightly and choose what is truly good” (1114 b 5–8); this is the “perfect and true excellence of natural endowment”, εὐφυία (b 10–12).
So, yes, I misspelt the request (and the source omitted the diaeresis). I'm sorry to have wasted your time with that one.
BTW, you recently created an entry for ἤθη (ēthē) — thanks! — which is the etymon of the English ethe, a plural form of ethos. The entry for ethos also lists ethea as a plural form of it — and I see that it's sufficiently attested — but does that plural form have an Ancient Greek etymon as a precedent? That is, I suppose I'm asking, does ἦθος (ēthos) have more than one pattern of declension? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Ἦθος (Ēthos) does in fact have two forms of inflection. I have substituted a better inflection template, and created the entry in question. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) — IFYPFY. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! You're a star. :-) I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


Complex explanations of pronunciation of suffixes in isolation tend to fall apart. The suffix -uus is a case in point. It appears to have originally been a primary suffix, and is present in words like equus (=equos), arvum and vacīvus. As you can see then, statements about the stress falling on the antepenult fall apart, because in these words the stress falls on the paenultimate syllable instead. See sxn 234, II, 8 of Allen & Greenough's New Latin Grammar. I usually find it best to keep explanations of the pronunciation of the suffix limited to the pronunciation of the suffix in isolation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Oh, and usually a request for etymology should be placed in an Etymology section. This (1) makes it easier to insert the requested information, (2) aids in removal of the request template, and (3) helps to ensure correct formatting by the next editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree, but your counterexamples don't contradict the pronunciation information I've given; equus is governed by the ⟨-quus⟩ exception already provided for, whereas arvum and vacīvus exhibit -vus, not -uus.
Re requests for etymology, is this what you mean?
Finally, could you tell me what "trop." (as in Lewis's & Short's A Latin Dictionary, “equus”, II.C.2: "Trop., of a secret conspiracy…") means / is short for, please?
I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
-uus and -vus are orthographic variants of the same suffix.
Re: RQEs: Yes, that's one example of what I mean. Look at Portuguese cromo for a more complex instance to see why this is usually preferred.
"Trop." is short for "Tropical", which is a word formerly used to mean "figurative". --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but because of the widespread orthographic conventions governing Latin spelling (and which are enforced in this dictionary), in the case of that suffix -uus always represents / and -vus always represents /wus/. Strictly speaking, of course, -uus is just as much governed by the paenultima law as any other bit of Latin; however, because the first syllable of -uus will always be light (except for in the case of ⟨-quus⟩) — which means that any word it forms (other than those ending in ⟨-quus⟩, like oblīquus) will have a light penult — it can be stated that the stress of any given word formed with that suffix will fall on the antepenult, which is a helpful thing to note for our users.
FWIW, I already tended to add the separate headers when requesting etymologies for homographs; nevertheless, I now add the etymology header as a matter of course.
Thanks for the enlightening explanation of trop.; I have created trop. and edited tropic, tropical, and fig. accordingly.
I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


I noticed you re-added an rfe for this entry. It looks like you're asking for the etymology of the character, but that should be given in the ==Translingual== section. If you're asking about the etymology for karada, etc., that should be given in the lemma entry, which is . (Admittedly, that entry right now is a dog's breakfast, but it's on my to-do list.  :) ) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

{{rfe}}s for Japanese terms go in 新字体 entries and {{rfe}}s for character derivations go in Translingual sections; OK, gotcha. Sorry for inconveniencing you. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Annoying RFEs and RFPs[edit]

I for one find all those RFEs and RFPs you are adding pretty annoying. Luckily for you, there are quite a few editors who seems to support what you are doing. Do you have any evidence that the RFE requests and RFP requests actually get fulfilled at a significant rate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be annoying. Some requests are fulfilled somewhat quickly (Ancient Greek, Japanese), whilst others aren't (obscure languages). There is a definite purpose to the {{rfe}}s: once they're answered, I link to that entry in its etymon's or etyma's, like I did in the case of the etyma of requiebro (which was FWOTD yesterday): [1], [2], [3] (granted, that didn't involve {{rfe}}s, but that's the kind of thing that answered requests allow me to do). Since they annoy you, I shall cease to add those request templates to Czech entries. I added this pronunciation to rádio; please check that it is correct. Also, can you recommend a reliable source for Czech etymologies? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the RFE requests and RFP requests actually get fulfilled at a significant rate? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Define "significant rate". I can't really be bothered to look through my contributions for the evidence; they're open to you, too, so be my guest if you want to look yourself. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Is there a definition of "significant rate" for which you have evidence that RFE requests actually get fulfilled at a significant rate? (Above, you have provided links to edits that have no bearing to RFEs; I don't know why you did that.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I can't be bothered to spend my time getting that evidence; I have better things to do with my time, but if you don't, you are free to peruse my list of contributions. Those links are there to demonstrate my explanation for why I add RFEs ("once [an RFE is] answered, I link to that entry in its etymon's or etyma's [entry or entries], like I did in the case of the etyma of requiebro [recently]"). It was rather impolite of you to ignore almost all of the content of my above message (17:14, 16 September 2013). I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I went through your contributions and did not find any edits of yours that serve RFEs placed in the pages, but I did not check every single edit. Can you point me to a couple of edits of yours that serve RFEs? You would understand that adding RFE is not serving it, and that editing an etymology section that does not have RFE is not serving RFE. So again, can you point me to a couple of edits of yours that serve RFEs? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
IIRC, I have, in all my time here, served one (or maybe two) RFE(s). That may be to my discredit, admittedly, but that wasn't your original question; you originally asked whether the RFEs and RFPs that I add are served "at a significant rate".
For your interest, I recently added an RFE to the Afrikaans entry for koning, Metaknowledge served it twenty days later, which enabled me to add it as a descendant to the homographic Dutch entry the next day; presumably one example doesn't establish that my RFEs are "served 'at a significant rate'", but I certainly have no appetite for conducting a survey of all my RFEs.
What did you intend to accomplish by your interrogation of me? If it was to get me to stop adding RFEs and RFPs to Czech entries, a simple request would have sufficed. If it was to get me to serve others' RFEs, an appeal to the spirit of reciprocity would have done the trick. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I have warned Dan Polansky about this. Meta, feel free to continue adding requests to any entry if you need the etymology, pronunciation, etc. — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ungoliant. Valid requests shouldn't be removed. But you took away my nick... ;w;Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for reassuring me that I have not inadvertently been disruptive in my addition of requests. Metaknowledge, I have changed my signature, which I hope will discourage other editors from conflating us. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia link[edit]

Hi! You changed the link to Wikipedia on Bundesgrenzschutz from the {{wikipedia}} template at the top of the page to the {{pedia}} template in an "External links" section at the bottom. I'm wondering if there is any consensus how to deal with links to Wikipedia (as a third option, there's {{slim-wikipedia}}). So if you know of anything, please let me know too :) Thanks! Longtrend (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know what the consensus is (if, indeed, there is one) regarding those templates; I'd assumed that, because all three template types exist, it's up to the individual editor's preference. Certainly, my preference is for using {{pedia}} in External links sections; this mirrors Wikipedia's usage (links to other projects go at the bottom of their articles), reduces horizontal compression and/or lopsided vertical lengthening of entries, and (less validly and somewhat hyperbolically) stops Wiktionary from looking like one big glorified redirect to Wikipedia. What's your preference? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't really have any preference :) I've always used {{wikipedia}} and never really thought about it. Your arguments sound fair, though. Longtrend (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. Well, thanks for asking. Do you mind me making the change from {{wikipedia}} to {{pedia}} when I edit here? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
As long as that's not the only change you're doing on an entry, I think that's fine. Longtrend (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Good to know. And no, I wouldn't bother editing an entry just to change the style of link to Wikipedia; that would be far too petty a sole change to bother making an edit for. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Tibetan pic[edit]

Hi, [4] reads རྒྱལ་པོའིསྲས་མོ (rgyal po'i sras mo), i.e. the king's daughter. Wyang (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you! So it was pretty accurate, after all... I am grateful for your recent spate of Tibetan contributions, especially your edits to སྲས་མོ (sras mo). Additionally, would you mind adding a Tibetan Babelbox to your user page (I think only {{User bo-1}} currently exists, so if – as I assume – your proficiency in Tibetan surpasses level 1, you'd need to create the box template, too; it may just be easier to add [[Category:User bo-N]] – with whatever the appropriate number is – to your user page), so that users in need of Tibetan-related help can find you, and create an entry for སྲས (sras, son) please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, སྲས (sras) done. I don't know what my Tibetan level is... but I am happy to be of help when I could be. Wyang (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I added the Category:User bo category to your user page as I suggested above; I hope you don’t mind. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, no worries. Wyang (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

data from external dictionaries[edit]

Just saw your reply. Thanks! – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. If you need any more information regarding the legal issues that can crop up whilst you edit here, I advise you to contact User:BD2412 — he's the resident expert, by all accounts. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


Nice job you have done expanding the W1913 stub! Equinox 20:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)



removing the flame war at Wiktionary:Requests for verification#anonymous is a good idea, however I do think that the use of the word at wikipedia, wikitionary and so on, is not described by any of the 5 senses. Even people who know my name, can call me an anonymous user, who makes anonymous contributions. They can even refer to me as the anonymous, so there's even a noun sense. It may be hard to find citations, if wikipedia/wikitionary &c. aren't considered to be durably archived. -- 17:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Five senses, you say? I only see four. Anyway, you may have a point. Usenet might be a good place to look for examples of such usage. As for "the anonymous", I think that's an adjectival use, rather than a full-fledged noun; I would suppose that anon is the more likely word for the nominal sense you describe. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, five senses, including "without consideration of prestige or background", which doesn't have a definition, but a synonym ("on the merits") and six alleged translations. -- 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
On the noun sense, see Anonymous, and w:anonymous IV. -- 21:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. I must confess that I'd forgotten all about this until I renoticed this section when Hekaheka posted a message for me about Matth.
Take a look at google books:"anonymouses" — I am almost certain that you could find there the evidence you need for a robust noun section for anonymous. You may also find the two quotations I've added to Citations:anonymus useful. I hope this helps. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


I don't think the abbreviation Matth. is used in Finnish, because "Matthew" is Matteus in Finnish, and the Gospel of Mathew is abbreviated as Matt.. Where have you seen "Matth." in a Finnish text? --Hekaheka (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It occurs after the Finnish translation in the translation table in the English entry for sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Perhaps some Finnish Biblical commentators use Book-name abbreviations deriving from their Latin names (cf. the English Luc. ([Gospel of] Luke), from the Latin Lūcās). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be my own edit. It's an error, or at least a potentially misleading entry. I don't remember anymore, why I wrote "Matth.". Possibly I wanted to use the English abbreviation, because this is the English Wiktionary. I'll add the words "Finnish translation of" and then it will be clear to everyone that "Matth." is intended to be English. I did not want to make a Finnish entry of these words, because as far as I know, this particular sentence of the Bible is not used proverbially in Finnish. --Hekaheka (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, in that case, never mind; I'm sorry for wasting your time. Thanks, besides, for creating Matt. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ancient Greek inflection headers[edit]

Could you please stop replacing inflection with declension? Ancient Greek has been doing "Inflection" for a long time, and there are a great many entries that have the header. Changing it in a handful of entries only serves to make things messy. If you think that it should be the standard going forward, then by all means propose such a change and interested parties can discuss it. Thanks. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Sorry; I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)



I'm not sure to understand why you removed the label archaic, but don't you think it would be useful to have a category that would collect all the ante-classical words altogether? And shouldn't we empty Category:Latin archaic terms then? --Fsojic (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, consider the generic preamble to Category:Latin archaic terms: "Latin terms that are no longer in general use but still encountered in older literature and still sometimes used for special effect." In belonging to a dead language, how are those archaic terms any different from the rest of the Latin lexicon, which are also "no longer in general use"? And do we have any evidence that they are "still sometimes used for special effect"?
That said, I can see what you were thinking: Everything Latin that's ante-Classical is Old Latin; synonyms of "Old Latin" include "Early Latin" and "Archaic Latin"; hence, "Latin archaic terms". However, for the reasons I gave above, and for the sake of consistency with the analogous categories (Category:Ecclesiastical Latin, Category:Post-classical Latin, Category:Vulgar Latin, Category:Late Latin, Category:Medieval Latin, Category:Renaissance Latin, and Category:New Latin), I assert that Category:Old Latin is a better category name for these terms. (Re the choice between "Old Latin" and its two synonyms that I listed: there is no language with an ISO code that is called "Archaic"-anything, and there is only one which is called "Early"-something (Early Tripuri, whose ISO code is xtr); by contrast, there are thirty-nine top-level categories for various languages called "Old"-something, from Old Armenian to Old Welsh.)
I have asked in Module talk:labels#Old Latin data for the necessary changes to the labelling infrastructure to be made. After they are instituted (which I hope they will be), we can go ahead and empty Category:Latin archaic terms into Category:Old Latin, as you suggest. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


I appreciate it, but I really don't need (or deserve) all those thanks for all my edits. :-)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry; I think just the message on your talk page would've been a better idea. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Wouldn't it be better if you could place, in your user page, where your username came from? Just a suggestion. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that opening up inside jokes to the out-group is necessarily a bad idea, but on the other hand, that renders them no longer inside jokes. If, as your title implies, you believe there is a legal problem with using this name sans citation, I urge Meta to ignore this at will. I am not a lawyer, but that seems ludicrous. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Right now, my user page is just a place for me to dump links that are useful to me. If and when I get round to writing an introduction for myself or something like that, I may indeed mention that my username is unscrupulously plagiarised from xkcd. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Historical hiragana[edit]

Heya, I just noticed in this edit diff that you added a request for だいくんゐ. That's an historical spelling that isn't used anymore following spelling reforms after WWII. I've been adding historical spellings to entries as I go (and when I remember, using the hhira parameter of the JA headword templates), but I don't think anyone has done any work on creating entries for historical hiragana. If you'd like JA editors to create those as a matter of course, I suggest you might want to bring it up in the Beer Parlour -- adding requests for the historical hiragana forms of each and every JA entry to the WT:WE list would quickly become ridiculous and tedious.  :)

If you're at all interested in Japanese kana usage conventions, have a look at w:Kanazukai.

Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd already looked into that topic before, but, looking into it again, I learned some new things, so thanks for the link. :-) Don't worry, I wasn't intending to add every historical-hiragana red link to WT:WE, and yes, it would be great if ja editors would "create those [entries] as a matter of course"; however, I don't really want to bring it up in the Beer Parlour until the discussion I started about Old Latin is resolved. Therefore, would you mind teaching me what I need to do to create entries for those historical hiragana, please? That way, I can help to tackle the workload, rather than adding to it. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers, thanks for the explanation and offer of assistance. Part of why I suggested WT:BP is that I myself don't have any clear idea what would be best for hhira (historical hiragana) entries. That said, the circle of JA editors is (naturally) smaller than the whole BP audience, so perhaps I can kick things off here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for creating historical hiragana entries[edit]

Pinging @TAKASUGI Shinji, @Haplology, @Atitarev, @Wyang, @Jamesjiao -- do you all have any strong feelings about the creation of entries using the historical hiragana (hhira) spellings?

I'd like to propose that we create hhira entries much like existing kana entries -- as soft redirects, just listing the relevant POS headers, with the relevant lemma terms listed underneath using {{ja-def}}. Example for なびかふ:



# {{ja-def|靡かう}} to be waving, streaming, or bending in the wind: to do so continuously

Would you all be amenable to this? Is there anything you'd like to do differently? For example, should we indicate on the page somewhere that this is an obsolete (or at least archaic) historical spelling? Should we categorize these entries differently? Please chime in.

Once we have a clear consensus, perhaps Haplology or one of the other code-y editors could update the accelerator scripts to make it easier to create such entries.

And for that matter, I was thinking this might be a minor enough issue to handle just among us JA editors (and please ping anyone I've missed). But perhaps this should be brought up in WT:BP or elsewhere? Let me know what you think.

Cheers all, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Atitarev, Haplology, Jamesjiao, TAKASUGI Shinji, Wyang, and of course @Eirikr: In the specific case of なびかふ (nabikafu), wouldn't it be more correct to say that なびかふ is actually the all-hiragana spelling of 靡かふ, rather than of 靡かう? I imagine that the form with kanji would be attestable, and indeed more readily so than the all-hiragana form. If that were to be decided as the way to treat these forms, then presumably 靡かふ would then get an entry, and would simply be defined as:
…or something similar. As for 大勲位 (だいくんい, だいくんゐ), that's a materially different case, because the two all-hiragana strings both pertain to the same with-kanji string; that is when, I think, what you propose above, Eiríkr, is pretty much the right thing to do. On top of that, it would probably useful to state somewhere in such an entry what the current all-hiragana form is (i.e., だいくんい in the case of だいくんゐ), and having a category of hhira forms would also be useful (which category would, I assume, need to be added manually to entries like なびかふ).
That's my input, for now, but I defer to you other editors, given the great yawning gap in my proficiency in Japanese. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • They should be marked as obsolete if they are allowed to exist. I don't know if allowing old kanazukai to exist is really worth the trouble. Listing the old kanazukai in modern form headwords or making them hard redirects seems like the better option. There are too many of them, and besides rekishiteki kanazukai, there is also kan'yō kanazukai (w:ja:許容仮名遣) and possibly others. Another thing is about jōdai tokushu kanazukai, and whether they should be marked Old Japanese (or other) and not Japanese. The current Japanese header is actually (rulebreakingly) an amalgamation of everything Japanese, eg. 顔映し. Wyang (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have hard dates at the moment for the particular entry at 顔映し, but insofar as the ISO lang codes go, we have JA for “Japanese”, and we have OJP for “Old Japanese” -- that's it for anything Japanese. OJP apparently has an upper bound of 794 CE, as at w:Old Japanese. That means anything attested between 794 and now can only really go under a “Japanese” header. My sense so far has been that we hew pretty closely to the ISO codes when it comes to language headings, so that's what I've been doing whenever I create or edit entries.
Re: obsolete kanazukai, we list obsolete spellings in other languages, even English, so I'm not sure why they would be verboten for Japanese, provided of course that they are marked as obsolete, with users clearly directed to the lemmata entries under the modern spellings. We (the JA editors) haven't been adding in entries for the obsolete spellings, but I've been poking around to re-check policy, and I'm not seeing anything saying we shouldn't. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 04:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Entries with Pronunciation n headers[edit]

The template {{rfc-pron-n|Pronunciation 1|lang=la}} preempts the action of Kassadbot for Pronunciation n headers in Latin entries and now categorizes by language. 20 languages so far have such headers, Latin having more than any other language. See Category:la:Entries with Pronunciation n headers, the master category, and {{rfc-pron-n}}.

The template is better than hard categorization, because it is the standard. I've converted two or three of these that are probably yours. How many do you think you added? I assume they were all added after Dec 29 when we had our discussion. I'm happy to search myself if I know how many to look for. DCDuring TALK 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just finished checking all my edits to pages with Latin sections since the 29th of December; I converted the one use of the hard category that remained to use {{rfc-pron-n|Pronunciation 1|lang=la}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't like these headers, but they seem indispensable in some cases, including many if not all of their uses in Latin. Having them sorted by language makes it a little easier to get folks with the right knowledge to take a look and either eliminate them or defend them and expand their use to all the relevant cases. DCDuring TALK 21:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


I assume this is the Latin name of the prophet Hosea. But I'm not sure of the Lemma; it might even be "Osee" (from the Greek). SemperBlotto (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC) - p.s. Don't we put citations of inflected forms at the lemma citation page?

Yes indeed; see Ōsēe, Hōsēās, and User talk:Flyax#*Ὡσήᾱς (*Hōsēās) for context. Unfortunately, I'm not yet certain of those forms' lemmata, so I can't yet confidently "put [the] citations of inflected forms at the lemma citation page". — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


How would you pronounce ÆØÅ? I would pronounce it as /ɛːœːoː/ or Anglicized as /æːɜːɔː/ but that's just how I would pronounce it. In fact, I have never seen it before. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that there would exist any standardly accepted naturalised/Anglicised pronunciation of this term. I've added the Danish and Norwegian pronunciations of the letters' names; presumably any pronunciation that deviates from them would be an approximation of one or both of them, anyway. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I pronounced it as [ei.iː.əυ.ei] before I did some research. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; that refutes my presumption, then! :-) Do you think it's worth including pronunciations like your pre-research one (which looks like it's based on the English letter names for A, E, O, and A again)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
But English is not my native language so I'm considered out of the sample space :) --kc_kennylau (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: An anonymous user has suggested at Talk:ÆØÅ#Adjective that the example sentences for the adjectival senses of ÆØÅ are just uses of the nominal sense. Do you have any citations of this term being used unambiguously as a true adjective, perchance? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

rfe: -σύνη[edit]

Hi - you rfe'd -σύνη, my Bambiniotis gives PIE *-tunā as predecessor to the ancient Greek. Would you know about formatting this? cheers Saltmarsh (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Saltmarsh. Is this what you meant? If so, it would probably be a good idea if you could flesh out the one-word citation of Bambiniotis that's in the References section. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

oder noch[edit]

Hi! You added oder noch to Wiktionary:Wanted entries. What makes you think this is an idiomatic unit? I can't see that. Longtrend (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Longtrend: Well, I had the sentence fragment "danach alles gestr. oder noch 1–2 Wörter?", which I translated as "After that, everything is crossed out — perhaps 1–2 words?"; I couldn't see how oder noch (perhaps) could derive unidiomatically from oder + noch. Or have I mistranslated the sentence? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You mistranslated it :) Actually it would be "Is everything after that crossed out or (= oder) are there one or two more (= noch) words?". So it's the normal conjunction oder with the adverb noch (sense 4). Longtrend (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Longtrend: I see; I apologise for the mistake. I've removed oder noch from WT:WE and I shall add "Danach alles gestr. oder noch 1–2 Wörter?" to oder and to noch as an example sentence. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem! This is really a weird and unusual sentence, but it's better than no example at all, I guess. Longtrend (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. No wonder I had trouble translating it! :-S  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Why would you list the current term as one of the related terms? —CodeCat 21:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not related; co-ordinate. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
So it's coordinate with itself? That doesn't make sense to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Eirikr: My thinking was that, given the {{sense}} preamble "Ancient Greek diacritical marks", the list should include the names of all the Ancient Greek diacritical marks. I suppose the preamble could be changed to "other Ancient Greek diacritical marks", but given that the diacritical definition of κορωνίς isn't very clearly presented, included as sense 2.2.2, I think it would be useful to retain κορωνίς in the list. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)