User talk:JohnC5

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

Please fix your signature[edit]

Templates in signatures are not allowed by WT:SIG for numerous technical reasons. Please change it to a plain one. Keφr 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of this I was not aware. Thanks for pointing this out, and I will rectify the problem immediately. Shall I fix all of the entries that reference it? And could I ask you to remove the page User:JohnC5/sig, please? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 06:28, 03 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, please. (I see you did it already. Thanks.) Keφr 14:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

 :)  — LlywelynII 15:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Er...ok? :) —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 18:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronouncing New Latin[edit]

I'll pass along awareness of an old problem in Latin, that I notice cropping up in some of your entries. When we label a pronunciaiton "Classical", we mean the pronunciation that the word had in the Classical period of Latin. So, a New Latin term cannot have a "Classical" pronunciation. One might argue that the pronunciation is merely given according to the classical rules, but New Latin words had no existence at that time, and the biological terms are usually not pronunced with any attempt at Classical rules. In fact the pronunciation will vary markedly by the country and modern language of the speaker.

As a result, I never added a pronunciation to a New Latin term that I created, because Wiktionary is supposed to be descriptive, and giving a Classical Latin pronunciation to a New Latin term would instead be prescriptive. I have no solution for this difficulty, but thought I would pass this along, as you seem to be creating a number of New Latin entries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Yeah, that makes total sense now that you say it. Trust me: I'm well acquainted descriptive-over-prescriptive labeling—it just slipped my mind me that this would be a problem here (though it obviously is). I wish we could make a module that were a mix of la-pronunc and grc-ipa-rows that would display several different historical Latin pronunciations (Classical, Vulgar, Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical, German Church Latin, French Church Latin, American Academic Latin, British Academic Latin, sundry Medieval, etc., and the option to choose which to show). I know this would not necessarily account for all modern pronuciation habits, but overrides could be added, and it would go a long way to help. Do you think this would be a useful task to consider? And again, sorry for the fuss. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think that would be helpful. For one thing, we intermix IPA and audio recordings, so we end up with a right mess if we try to put multiple IPA forms into a single module. There's also the fact that British and American aren't the only Latin pronunciation traditions to cope with; there's also German, Swedish, Spanish, etc. and that becomes too much to try to handle, particularly when you consider that not all the pronunciation rules run parallel across all traditions. We've tended to focus on providing Classical, Late Latin, and Ecclesiastical pronunciations only--for the sake of sanity. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: If what you say is true, are there modules providing Late and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciations currently? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Not modules, no. The Classical Latin module is a fairly recent addition, and as far as I know, no attempt has been made to systematize Late or Ecclesiastical pronunciation. Those pronunciations have been inserted the old-fashioned way. The Classical also has a few limitations, and in those circumstances, the pronunciation for the Classical must be added manually as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Do you think it would be a useful project to try writing a Late and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation template? Also, what limitations in the Classical template can you identify that we might be able to fix? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Hi JohnC5. Re the two editions, I'll make separate templates later, OK? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: That's perfectly fine with me. I was considering doing the same thing but wasn't sure what the de facto policy was (i.e. one template for both or one template each). I only changed it in poppyzon because I happen to have a physical copy of the 2nd edition in front of me and thought I would use the newer version. Of course, you were right about the copyright issue though. Incidentally, I am enjoying the avalanche of citations that page is receiving. I also appreciate your edit to the la-headword module, though I wish it didn't place a comma between the first and second genitive, but I can't think of a better way to fix it without making some big edits. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Since {{R:OLD}} is currently transcluded in only eight entries, I decided to engineer a more elegant solution than having two separate templates for the different editions. {{R:OLD}} now specifies the edition with a positional parameter; I've written documentation for the template, which should explain the tweak. Re poppyzōn, feel free to cite the second edition as well; there is no harm in having both editions cited in one entry — I have occasionally cited the NED (1st ed.), OED (2nd ed.), and OED (3rd ed.) all in the same entry! (FWIW, the first- and second-edition OLD entries for poppyzōn differ only in minor punctuation, and are to all intents and purposes identical.) Re Module:la-headword, CodeCat very helpfully fixed the comma issue, so that's all sorted now. BTW, thanks for the work you've been doing answering so many of the requests at WT:WE. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agyrium and adōnidium[edit]

Those entries are great. I'm thoroughly impressed with your work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Thanks! If there are any other entries on WT:WE you want done, just tell me because I've just been doing them willy-nilly. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 22:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offer. I'll give it some thought. May I get back to you about it tomorrow? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Absolutely. If you ever want anything done (that is, in a language you think I can handle), just tell me. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Will do. Cheers. :-)  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JohnC5. Would you mind turning your hand to creating ναζιραῖος (naziraîos) and ναζειραῖος (nazeiraîos), please? The citations I've added to Citations:ναζιραῖος should be helpful in such an endeavour. Thanks for your time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Done! Tell me if you need more. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 06:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Hello again. I recently created an entry for the Ancient Greek verb περισπάω (perispáō). Would you mind taking a look at it and correct any errors you find, please? In particular, could you add conjugation tables for it, please? Thanks for your time. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I have done my best. I normally try to avoid verbs since I always worry I'm missing some rule. ObsequiousNewt, perhaps you could check it? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thank you very much! You can be sure that your expertise is greater than mine… I've gone ahead and created entries for περῐσπώμενος (perispṓmenos) and περῐσπᾰόμενος (perispaómenos), that verb's two present mediopassive participles, which I had hoped that I could manage myself. Would you mind checking to see that they're a-OK, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've made quite a number of modifications; if you have any questions or reservations about any of them please do not hesitate to ask. (Also, regarding showing both the contracted and uncontracted inflection tables... I intend to modify Module:grc-conj to do that; I've just been really busy lately.)ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 17:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Thank you both for the corrections and additions and for percolating the changes throughout the whole entry! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Greetings again, John (if I may call you that). Would you care to turn your hand to creating an entry for διαίρεσις (diaíresis), please? I've added a citation of one of its forms, διαιρέσεις (diairéseis), to Citations:διαίρεσις. You're more comfortable with nouns, yes? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Done and done. Could you figure out a better word for heads in definition 8? This appears to make some mention of the concept, but is there a better term? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thank you kindly. Re your concern about "heads", the OED (3rd ed., June 2013) has, for “head, n.¹ III.30”, the sense "A chief or principal point or division of a discourse, subject, etc.; each of a set or succession of such points or divisions; (more generally) a point, a category, a topic, a matter." Would you agree that it is in this sense that LSJ uses "heads"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I certainly would agree. It's so strange: I could have sworn that I skimmed the OED entry for head last night looking for that definition, but my eye must have jumped right over it. Thanks for the confirmation. I have updated the entry to be a bit clearer (I hope) and to have some more antonyms. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 15:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Yes, I agree, it is clearer; I too found "head" to be a somewhat opaque definiens. The addition of antonyms is also valuable. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple things[edit]

Firstly, let me say that I'm glad of all the work you've done, both in Ancient Greek and elsewhere. Secondly, let me point out a couple things you can do differently:

  1. The sc= parameter isn't actually necessary; polytonic is coded as default.
  2. {{grc-ipa-rows}} is being replaced by {{grc-pron}}.
  3. {{grc-alt}} is being replaced by {{alter}}.
  4. It's {{Q|grc||h.Hom.|33}}, not {{Q|grc|h.Hom.|Homeric Hymn to Hermes|33}}.

Thanks! ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 00:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: Thank you so much. I will start using these immediately, and I apologize for the inconvenience of having made these errors. Someone should probably update WT:AGRC to reflect these changes because it seems a bit out of date. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
No big deal. And I'll see what I can do about WT:AGRC. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 12:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


What was your source for this edit? ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: Hmm, an interesting question. Perseus's inflection tool certainly provides that form, though that can't have been why I added it... Honestly, I can't find my source now. :/ If you can't find anything, feel free too remove it, and sorry, if so. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 03:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Thanks for expanding the entry. What's sense 7 (κατᾰνάγκη) about? Does that mean that δῆμος (dêmos), as I infer, can be used to mean the same thing as λεοντοπέτᾰλον (leontopétalon)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I apparently wasn't thinking clearly... but it appears that sense VII in LSJ actually refers to the second definition of κᾰτᾰνάγκη, i.e. Ornithopus compressus. I've fixed the entry for δῆμος (dêmos) accordingly. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 03:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: I do have one question concerning δᾶμος (dâmos). Isn't normally the practice to put alternate forms that have a different lemma under a new entry as opposed to under the main entry? Otherwise, it would defeat the purpose of the alternative forms links? I'm unsure... :/JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been putting them under both, frankly... my reasoning is mostly that when this is done with verbs, you'd end up adding alternate/dialectical inflection tables for every tense but the present, and it seemed silly to leave it out on those grounds. Then again, that's not a problem with nouns. I'll go and bring up a discussion in the Beer Parlour. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Hello John. Would you mind checking the entry I just created for εὐώδης (euṓdēs), please? I'm not very confident about its declension. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: Looks good to me. :) I notice how you represented the comparative and superlative in the notes, and I have often wondered what the best way to do this in AG would be and whether it should be in the inflection or after (a similar question arises for Latin). Should we suggest the modification of the base templates (grc-decl-blank-...) in order to take the parameters comp= and super=, which append the comparatives and superlatives to the notes section? Also, should the Latin templates be altered similarly? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Accordingly, I have created an entry for -ώδης; does everything with that also look in order? Re displaying comparatives and superlatives, I believe these (as well as corresponding adverbs) should appear in headword lines, rather than at the bottom of declension tables. I have for quite some time intended to write a general-purpose headword-line template for Latin adjectives which would also present adjectival degrees and adverbs (though I've yet to get round to that). Do you think that would be a good idea, or are you of the opinion that those words should be presented elsewhere? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Re -ώδης, yes, everything seems to be in order, except for the ~1,112 entries we have to add now. :/ Re degrees, I am of two minds:
Mind the first: It would be nice to have the headword also display the degrees and adverbial degrees, but this seems like a lot of work then to go through and change every adjective afterwards.
Mind the second: If you put the degrees into the templates, you can probably get them to auto-generate a great number of correct forms, thus obviating the need to go though all the previously made entries. This, however, hides the forms further down the page, and we will still need to go through removing redundant mentions of adjectival and adverbial degrees.
Regardless, is this a question we should bring up on some other page/in the sight of some other people? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I had my reservations because the inflexions generated by {{grc-adecl-3rd-con-ες-prx|εὐώδ|εὐῶδ|εὐωδ}} for εὐώδης differ from those given in w:Ancient Greek grammar (tables)#Sibilant-stem, two suffixes - three genders. My ultimate purpose in all this was the creation of κεχηνώδης, which I ask, one last time, that you check for accuracy, please. (Besides the declension, I have my doubts about the etymology and the definition.)
Back to the topic of the display of adjectival degrees and corresponding adjectives. Re it "seem[ing] like a lot of work then to go through and change every adjective afterwards", there are currently at least four headword-line templates for Latin adjectives in widespread use. If and when I finally get round to uniting their functions all under one template, it would be necessary to update all the Latin adjective entries to use the new template anyway. This is indeed something worth discussing with the wider community, but I suspect that any discussion we might have would come to nought unless there were some specific, concrete, and imminent change we were discussing. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I understand your reservations about the declensions, but the contracted forms do agree with those tables—it's the uncontracted forms for which I cannot attested. I will assume that they are correct, if not extant for every form.
As for the etymology, I can't decide whether I wouldn't list Κεχηναῖοι (Kekhēnaîoi), κεχηνότως (kekhēnótōs), and κεχηνώδης (kekhēnṓdēs) under the lemma χάσκω (kháskō) with the etymology "From the perfect stem of χάσκω (kháskō, to gape) +‎ -ώδης (-ṓdēs)." —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear; I wasn't hesitant on account of the uncontracted forms. There are differences between the contracted forms generated by the declension-table template and the forms listed in the Wikipedia article; they are 1) {{grc-adecl-3rd-con-ες-prx|εὐώδ|εὐῶδ|εὐωδ}} gives the nominative neuter singular form *εὐῶδες, whereas Wikipedia has *εὐώδες; and 2) the genitive plural in all three genders is *εὐώδων according to the template, but *εὐωδῶν according to Wikipedia. Which of these are correct?
I completely understand where you're coming from with regards to κέχηνᾰ's supposed derivations. However, the LSJ explicitly states in its entries for both Κεχηναῖοι and κεχηνότως that they derive from κέχηνα; the entry for κεχηνώδης, meanwhile, presents the headword hyphenated as Κεχην-ώδης. Presented with merely hyphenated forms, I would interpret their derivation in the same way as you; it's the explicit statements to the contrary that make me hesitate (again). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Sorry for the confusion. I was looking at the Perseus declension tool (which I know @ObsequiousNewt: distrusts), but it seems to split the difference by listing neuter nominative singular as εὐῶδες but genitive plurals as εὐωδῶν (which is more in line with what I normally imagine). I seems like the template may need a second looking at, just to make sure everything is kosher.
I still think that the use of κέχηνᾰ is merely out of lexicographical convenience, since it allows them to refer to an entry that has the intended form without then saying it comes from χάσκω in the same etymology. I'd be more inclined to believe the current method if κέχηνᾰ had some separate meaning or were a lemma of its own. LSJ seems to be littered with these stubs for oddly conjugated forms, and I think this is just fortuitous use of a preëxisting stub.
I also concur with your views on adjectival and adverbial degrees. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I've decided you're almost certainly right about the derivation of those κεχην- words; the entry for κέχηνᾰ probably only exists to help pre-digitisation readers find the lemma from an unpredictable conjugated form. I've moved the list of derived terms and edited the etymology for κεχηνώδης accordingly. Regarding the forms of εὐώδης, please see my response to ObsequiousNewt below (timestamped: 20:05, 7 December 2014). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's stop here before anything else happens. First of all, -ώδης (-ṓdēs) is not an alternative form of -ειδής (-eidḗs), it's from ὄζω (ózō) (see Smyth grammar section 833a.) The genitive plural is εὐωδῶν. On the subject of the two words in κεχην-, I think this is Perseus confusing its system of using a preceding * to mark capitals with LSJ's system of using a preceding * to mark words that aren't actually attested. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: Okay, so that means that {{grc-adecl-3rd-con-ες-prx}} does need to be altered, because εὐωδῶν is not correctly generated. Also, this version of LSJ lists those κεχην- lemmas as capital, though only Κεχηναῖοι is capitalized in the actual text of the citation. I will update the etymology of -ώδης (-ṓdēs) to reflect this change. What do you think of our adjective degrees question? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I would vote against putting the adjectival degrees in the headword, partly because we don't do it with verbs, but mostly because they're not an important part of the adjective. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: At least as far as I'm concerned, I was thinking more about Latin in my advocacy of presenting adjectival degrees in the headword line. Then again, things are done differently with Latin, whose verbs' headword lines do present their four principal parts. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Re “So -ώδης meaning smelling (ὄζω), as in εὐώδης fragrant, acquired a range of meaning originally inappropriate to it by passing into the general idea of ‘full of,’ ‘like,’ as in ποιώδης grassy (ποίᾱ), λοιμώδης pestilential (λοιμός), σφηκώδης wasp-like (σφήξ). This suffix is distinct from -ειδής having the form of, like (898 a).” — Jeez, that couldn't be any less ambiguous. Thank for clearing that one up for us; κέχηνᾰ (kékhēna) +‎ -ώδης (-ṓdēs) = κεχηνώδης (kekhēnṓdēs) didn't make sense in the context of -ώδης being a mere form of -ειδής suffixed to omicron-terminal words. Re εὐωδῶν, I've now corrected the erroneous contracted genitive plural forms in {{grc-adecl-3rd-con-ες-prx}}. Re the wierd capitalisation, JohnC5 has already shown that this error is not restricted to Perseus and κεχηνώδης (kekhēnṓdēs) does exist (as κεχηνῶδες) — the LSJ cites a scholion of Dionysius Thrax by Prophyry ("Sch.D.T.p.146 H."), which scholion I've quoted at Citations:κεχηνώδης. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


I see your userpage claims you like suffixes. If that be the case, I have a rather unrewarding task that I've had in the back of my mind for what is probably years now, which is to go through this page's list of derived terms and 1) make sure that all the bluelinks use {{suffix}}, 2) check all the redlinks for attestability and create those that are, and finally replace the big table on the page with {{suffixsee}}. Naturally, this is quite a lot of work and some of it rather mindless, but I felt like telling you just in case somebody else wants to get around to it in case I forget to do so forever. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Oh wow, there is nothing I dislike more than a suffix that uses a table and not {{suffixsee}}. I am "in the middle of" (read: taking a break from) adding all the derived terms from -bundus. I will gladly take a look at this. I make not promises, however, that I will finish in a timely manner or ever; though, if I stop, I will tell you. Thanks for asking! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, nice work with -bundus. If you get to attacking -phyte and then stop midway through the arduous task, please do let me know where, because maybe I'll finish up the rest. Thanks —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I've done the first column of them in which I've already found that the following only appear in list/dictionaries or in other languages:
list moved down the page
Could you take a look at aletophyte and see if you can find attestation or propose its removal? When we are done, I might leave a full list of unadded ones on the discussion page with a note that they should only be added with attestation. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 10:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Only found one use, so I RFV'd it. That sounds like a good idea; if you wanted a really pointless task, you could check whether any print dictionaries include the unattested words and then add them to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, but I don't think you should bother, because nobody really cares about that appendix anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: FWIW, I care about that appendix; I find a lot of its content interesting, and it would be even more so if it were an exhaustive list, partly because of what it would tell us about the patterns in lexicographers' choices of unattestable inclusions. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I'll leave it up to you to add these if you like. This task is a bit too tiring for me as it is with out that added complexity. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 21:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy to. Please post me the list of unattestables when you're done working your way through all the -phyte words. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: @Metaknowledge: Here's the unattestables from column 2:

list moved down the page

Also, can we find out what the first element of emophyte is? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 09:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The closest fit I can find is ἠμύω (ēmúō, I bow down”, “I sink), but that seems a little doubtful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, that does seem plausible but doubtful. If we can't find anything, I guess we can mention that. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This nomenclature supposely derives from:
However, I haven't been able to find an etymon that fits from a quick flick through; there's a good chance I've missed it, though. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: The only thing I can find in this that is close is εἰᾰμενή (eiamenḗ, riverside pasture) (p. 6, I, 8), but the meaning is not close enough. May I ask what says that this is the source? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym:, @Metaknowledge: This project is done from my perspective. ISMETA, here are the unattestable terms:

Metaknowledge, here are the potentially attestable terms if they are not for brand names or fictional names. If you want to try to add these, be my guest.

Perhaps we should put the list of unattestables on the -phyte discussion page for posterity? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 11:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


Well, when I look at labor, I see that its fpp is lābendus instead. Is lābundus kind of the old fpp? --kc_kennylau (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: It is the older form, you can find a reference for it here. It is part of an older stratum of participles in -undus (eundus, secundus, oriundus, rotundus, and -bundus). You can find a note about it at -bundus. The form lābendus is merely auto-generated by the conjugation template. If I could alter it in the template, I would. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: I would like to ask what kind of verbs use -endus and what kind of verbs use -undus? I'll change it later. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Those are the only ones I can think of. The verbs in -undus are all very old and irregular. Jasanoff, Jay H. "The origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: a new proposal." Harvard Ukrainian Studies (2006): 195-208 argues these few verbs (eundus, secundus, oriundus, rotundus, labundus, and -bundus) gave rise to the gerundive morphology. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Would the fpp of exsequor also be exsecundus? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Sorry, I misspoke. Only eundus and labundus are the proper fpp of eo and labor respectively. The other ones did not get codified as the proper fpp of the verb but are auxiliary forms. Does that make sense? I didn't explain that super well. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Ok. Then should I also include rotundus as one of the fpp of roto, or should I make no change? I've changed the template to show that the fpp of labor is labundus. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: I think you should leave roto as is. I'm not finding dictionaries that list rotundus as the fpp proper, but just as an auxiliary form. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: What about sequor and secundus and sequendus? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: It seems both are attested but sequendus is preferred as "canonical" form. Are you in charge of module:la-verb? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Yes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: I was wondering recently why we don't include poetic/syncopated forms. I'm sure there was a discussion and a decision, but I was thinking about it because I had to add perfixere recently. Just curious. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Could you provide a source and/or an elaboration? --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: These two sections. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 07:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Well, those two sections used the aux verbs "can" "could" "may" "might" which express uncertainty. --kc_kennylau (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: I thought it'd be something like that, though some of those syncopate forms do come up quite frequently. I wonder whether there has been an overt discussion of this in the past? I might start one, if there hasn't. Also, your Kennybot is my savior when it comes to adjective declensions. I've been trying to add all the forms of -bundus, but it is slow going because I try to add all the derived terms to the verb from which each -bundus term stems. As you can see, I'm only up to osculabundus. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Well, which syncopated forms come up frequently? And do you have any source for the attestability of prefixere perfixere? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Well..., though neither of the examples are classical era syncopation. That is the only grammatical parse I could think of for that form unless there is some verb perfixo/perfixeo, but I cannot find any evidence of that. I had actually not looked at those citations until you brought it up just now. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 08:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Me neither. Should I keep your prefixere perfixere? --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Edited --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Well there are cites enough for it. We are just unsure as to whether the gloss is correct. Maybe slap a rfv on it? —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 08:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Okay, added. --kc_kennylau (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kc kennylau: Thank you, thank you! Here are some more sources for that syncopation. I was hoping to find a list of example uses of syncopated forms, but that is not currently forthcoming. As I say though, these forms do show up and currently they seem underrepresented. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


Any chance of adding the Latin verb itself? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: In progress as we speak! :)JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Done!JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

automation initiated[edit]

I finally got to write some codes to create the syncopated verb forms. If you like, please check for errors (although I've been checking them for like 10 times and then debugging them already). --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: Are you talking about the stuff you did for saevio and servio or is there some other stuff for verbs generally? If it is the former, that looks great! If it is the latter, I don't know where to find it. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 17:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Refer to User:Kennybot my bot's user contribution. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


This has a specific meaning in mathematics - e.g. "In this paper we continue the study, started by J. Bang-Jensen (1989), of locally semicomplete digraphs, a generalization of tournaments, to which many well-known tournament results extend.". But I can't figure out precisely what it means. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto: interesting. Believe that the obvious meaning (partially complete) is indeed another acceptable definition, but as for this meaning (along with gonihedric) on the WT:WE, I am baffled as to what they should mean. Are there any math buffs who could help us out? JohnC5 21:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that I've figured it out - but it could well have other, similar, meanings for other maths objects. There is nothing on "Mathworld". SemperBlotto (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: So the definition of a complete graph is a graph in which every vertex is connected to every other vertex by at least one arc. It seems like intuitively that a semicomplete complete graph is one in which every vertex is connected to every other by at least one path but not necessarily one arc. This, however, is merely idle speculation based on half remembered math classes. As I see it, the current definition is synonymous with complete and thus must mean something different. JohnC5 21:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto: Take a look at semi-complete now? JohnC5 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

extra space[edit]

[1] You mean it didn't make you mad? :-p - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: Now I'm even sadder for having missed such a good opportunity for a pun. Better quit Wiktionary forever I guess. :( JohnC5 05:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Format of syncopated forms[edit]

Those that exist (I'm thinking of entries like nostis and deum) don't have a label like {{lbl|la|poetic}} or something of the kind but instead masquerade as normal inflections. What would be the optimal format for such entries in your opinion? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: Hmmm... I tend to do something like {{qual|poetic|syncopated|lang=la}}. I'm loath to use {{lb}} or {{cx}} in non-lemma entries. Does that help? JohnC5 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Not sure what the appropriate qualifier would be for the -ēre alternants of -ērunt, but User:Kc kennylau bot-created a whole bunch of those, right? Maybe a qualifier could be bot-added to those ones, at least? (I reckon the rest ought to be done by hand to ensure they're attested.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: Well the -ēre ~ -ērunt (and -re ~ -ris) forms tend to be poetic or high prose, so I'd imagine {{qual|poetic|alternative}} might work. I'm not positive about the word alternative, in part because it makes me think those verb forms skip class to go smoke cigarettes on the jungle gym. Can you think of a better word? JohnC5 21:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think "alternative" is fine; I'm not too choosy, as long as they're marked in a standard way and that's added to WT:ALA. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Citing the NLW[edit]

Hello John. I noticed you citing Johann Ramminger’s Neulateinische Wortliste at some point. Accordingly, you may find useful the reference template I just created, {{R:NLW}}. You can see it in action in archicoenobium#References and I've written documentation for the template; let me know if you have any questions to ask or suggestions to make about the template. Cheers. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: You are my favorite! I was wondering why there wasn't a template, but apparently I'm just stupid. :) JohnC5 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You may be excessively self-effacing, but you're not stupid. Thanks for making use of the template already. I've added to the documentation the real examples from dīvidium, haereticō, and parabolō and I've clarified what link numbers look like; is the documentation clearer now? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yes, yes. Sorry if I seem like I am always mocking myself. I have always noticed that this is trait of the American South, wherein we tend to apologize and self-deprecate more than is necessary/common. I have been told by my German professors before that I apologize too much. So, know that it is in good fun; though, it does annoy me that whenever I make a mistake, there is a record of it...
That clarification of the template is quite helpful. I was a bit confused after first using the template, but the instructions clear that up nicely. JohnC5 20:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That's how use of template:taxlink works[edit]

If you use {{taxlink}} enough for a given taxonomic name I will add the taxonomic name. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: :) JohnC5 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


This is more complicated than it looks: Lewis & Short at Perseus has no Classical Latin words ending in -oideus, but it does have words ending in -oides. It looks to me like -oideus may be -oides (the standard Latin spelling of -οειδής and -οειδές, which are really -ο- + -ειδής) with Latin first- and second-declension endings tacked on to make it a regular Latin adjective. That might mean that we're really looking at conus + -oides or -ides + -us. Or maybe conoides + us. Or something. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I suppose I was going off of -oidea when I wrote this. I was under no delusion that -oideus was a classical Latin suffix, certainly. It seems to me that -oideus is a New Latin latinization of -oid, -oïde, or something of the ilk. The OED entry for -oid lists -oideus as Post-Classical. After that, I can't say why it's -oideus over -oidus. JohnC5 05:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

putidissime Shavius and παραβάλανευς[edit]

Hi John. Re this edit of yours:

  1. Gaffiot gives παραβάλανευς as the etymon of parabalānī in its entry for părăbalāni; w:Parabalani gives the etymon as παραβαλανεῖς. Perhaps the word is plurale tantum, like πᾰρᾰβολᾶνοι; is the plural form attestable?
  2. See Citations:putidissime Shavius.

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Gaffiot made a mistake, because the accent of *παραβάλανευς violates the usual rules. Παραβαλανεύς would be possible. --Fsojic (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Fsojic: Do you know whether either one of παραβαλανεύς or παραβαλανεῖς exists? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Παραβαλανεῖς seems to. --Fsojic (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — IFYPFY. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Sorry about that. I wish WT:WE had a more information sometimes (I have a further question on this point). I'm still not fully convinced on either count though:
  1. Even if the third declension παραβαλανεῖς exists and has the ending -ᾰνεύς (-aneús), -ᾰνέως (-anéōs), one would expect its latinization to be parabalanēs and not parabalānī. The etymology might be closer to parabolus + -ānus, by analogy to Ancient Greek παραβαλανεῖς. We could add παραβαλανεῖς, but I'd love to see that citation, if someone has access to Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum II, 1, 1, 179.
  2. I'm not sure I'd count these as uses. They seem to me to all be humorous mentions. The closest one, I'd say, is the first, and even then it's more allusion than idiom. I dunno. Do whatever you think is correct.
As I mentioned earlier, I was curious about the entries omniae, omniās, omniārum. These all seem to stem from mis-declensions of the omnia as 1st or of *omnius as 1&2. I can find a few citations, but they seem to be from isolated Medieval sources, scannos, or errant modern Latin translations. Is there a particular usage that brought these to your attention? I don't think they should be added unless we have a source supporting them directly. JohnC5 20:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That citation, expanded, seems to be:
  • Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, tomus alter: Concilium Universale Chalcedonense, volumen primum: Acta Graeca, pars prima: Epistularum Collectiones [Actio Prima?] (1933), folium 179
I'm not sure about that, however. AFAICT, it has the call number 15.938 (2,1,1) at l’École française d’Athènes, so that citation can be accessed there, if that's any help… :-S  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Please forgive the delayed response (as well as the premature page-save):
  1. Re parabalānī, it looks like an alteration of παραβαλανεῖς, dropping the third-declension -εῖς (→ -ēs) in favour of the second-declension -οι (→ ), probably under the influence of -ānī. The trouble with the etymology parabolus +‎ -ānī is that the alteration of oā is left unexplained.
  2. Putidissime Shavius appears to be just a superlative form of the original putide Shavius (which is more common); I'll add them both once I've got round to researching the latter.
  3. I agree with your interpretation of those strange omni- forms. I'll dig out the citation where I originally found omniam at some point. I think it's worth recording these Mediaeval and New Latin misdeclined forms (though we should mark them as errant).
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: No sweat on the early submit. As for your points:
  1. Sounds good to me.
  2. Sounds good to me.
  3. Sounds good to me.
Unrelatedly, note the changes I've made recently to remove uses of {{grc-decl-1st-ala-pax}}. All form of this were either -alp-pax or disyllabic -ala-prx, and the aforementioned template should be removed soon. Also, note the super classy {{grc-decl-1st-ια-pax}} for nouns in -ῐ́ᾱ (-íā). Hope all is going well, and congrats on the admin nom! —JohnC5 23:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:R:du Cange[edit]

Hi John. I've created another reference template for Latin; see {{R:du Cange}}. I hope you find it useful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I was not previously aware of this resource, but I will integrate into future additions! JohnC5 00:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Splendid. Happy editing! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


It is not essential (and possibly not desirable) to have a full entry for a lowercase from of a Latin proper noun. By use of {{epinew}} I direct specific epithets to the lemma in whatever language is appropriate, usually Latin or Translingual, but also various other languages for apparently invariant epithets. For genitive forms of names probably unattested in the nominative (eg, harrisii), it's arguably a different story. I treat the genitive as a Translingual lemma, though some of them appear under Adjective and others under Noun headers. I wouldn't be surprised if some were called proper nouns. I know some are classified as noun forms. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Makes sense. I believe that this was on WT:WE or someone specifically requested it. I can't imagine why I would have made it otherwise. I remember being very confused about what to put and in what language when I initially created it. Feel free to delete it; though, please move the etymological info to the relevant page. Sorry for the bother. —JohnC5 01:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for. Not much is written down. I've made a lot of decisions, mostly small, unilaterally and without documentation, because not many were interested. Feel free to challenge any of these. The process of explaining usually helps me and I welcome explicit or implicit (from lurkers) support and explicit disagreement, even if not fully thought out. I always try to save content as best I can. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Module Errors[edit]

Please always check Category:Pages with module errors whenever you make changes to a module with transclusions. It's got 91 entries from an intractable language-code problem, but there are also 60 or so Ancient Greek ones with gender-syntax problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I'm very sorry. I had no idea this page existed and will certainly check it in the future. I was aware that my changes would probably cause a module error on a (comparative) handful of pages but had intended to update those pages once I inquired how to find them. Rest assured that in the next hour I will alter all those pages with the correct gender format. Again, sorry. Now that I know about Category:Pages with module errors, I will be much quicker about fixing that those problems as soon as they arise. —JohnC5 08:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed, and again sorry for the trouble. —JohnC5 08:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:R:Smith's DGRG[edit]

Hello again, John. I've created {{R:Smith's DGRG}}, which cites William Smith’s 1854 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography on Perseus. It might be useful for you if you're ever working on entries for placenames and the like mentioned in Classical sources. Please let me know if the documentation requires elaboration, clarification, or whatever. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: As all the hip youths say nowadays: "Coolio!" This will be very useful. —JohnC5 03:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's good to hear. Cheers! — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Source for descendants of specific epithets[edit]

I had been using mostly WikiSpecies when I added some of these. What do you use? Catalogue of Life? The Plant List? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Pengo: I asked Pengo to make a script (whose input and output is here) to find all the descendants of a term. Further discussion may be found on Pengo's page, and hopefully Pengo may answer any other questions. —JohnC5 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Sorry, have been logged out for a bit. Yes, they're all from CoL. Pengo (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I try to take the long view on taxonomic name matters. DCDuring TALK 17:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

pedophilia etymology[edit]

Hi John. Re your revision of pedophilia's etymology, judging from the facts that the two earliest-dated quotations at Citations:pedophilia (1900, 1908) are by or refer to the seminal German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who seems to have coined the term Pädophilia erotica (paedophilia erotica), and that the German Pädophilie is cited sixty-five years earlier than the English pedophilia (see Citations:Pädophilie), I think we can quite justifiably state that the English pedophilia derives from an adaptation of the German Pädophilie. What do you think? Shall I make the change to the English entry's etymology? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: That seems good enough for me! I think we should still leave the AG and the English surface analysis, as they are both relevant. Would you agree?
Re Γελλώ, where in this wide, wide project can I find someone good at Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform? I spent a while trying to figure out what to put, but I was too unsure. —JohnC5 19:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
How's this? I don't know of any cuneiform-able users here, but I've added your request to Wiktionary:Tea room/2015/May#Γελλώ. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: ✓+ —JohnC5 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
BTW, could you create the Aeolic Γέλλω (Géllō), please? That's the lemma for the only form we have that's actually attested (Γέλλως). In point of fact, I think it's pretty weird that LSJ lemmatises Γελλώ (Gellṓ) without a single citation to support that form… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yeah, so I was trying to decide this one. @ObsequiousNewt: has been working on a new module of AG dialectal declension, and I was considering waiting until Newt finished so that we could get a hold of the Aeolic declension. I think though that that implementation may still be a little while out; so, I'm unsure how to proceed at the moment. —JohnC5 21:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's fine now that you've added those quotations prompted by the DGE (though those {{Q}} abbreviations need to defined in Module:Quotations/grc/data). Re waiting for Aeolic declension, that's totally fine; feel free to hold off until that's ready. I suppose this is a bit of a nudge to ObsequiousNewt. ;-) (BTW, you don't need to use {{reply to}} or its redirect, {{ping}}, to ping anyone; just liking to a person's user page in the same edit as posting a signature with ~~~~ will ping that person.) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm working as quickly as I can; there's a lot of cross-referencing I have to do to get the dialectical forms in line. Just put a rfinfl tag on it and one of us will remember to take care of it later. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Please, there's absolutely no need for you to apologise; my winking emoticon was meant to suggest that my pressuring you was in jest. Thank you for all your fine work. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 09:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: So, in reference to your {{Q}} point, I have often omitted citations because the source was not contained in the module (and I often cross-reference what is in the module). I have in the past had trouble finding a good, compendious list of all the standard AG references, until a few nights ago, when I found this in the DGE. I would start adding them all to the module so that we would not encounter this problem again, but my Greek is not good enough for me to link properly to Greek Wikisource and I am unclear as to the canonical naming convention used to translate the titles in the module already (not to mention the DGE being in Spanish, which I translate by triangulating between French, Latin, and If someone wanted to help me add them (and also spruce up Module:Quotations/la/data), I'd be very grateful.
As for the continuing pedophilia etymology question, I have often been confused about whether a word constructed from AG roots should be categorized with {{etyl}}. I think it should because, no matter how you look at it, you eventually get back to AG, but I don't know whether etyl is supposed to be limited to only the exact root lemma coming up through time. Also, borrowings confuse me slightly. —JohnC5 02:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that lista of autores y obras is most useful! I had plans to work on an appendix for the Old, Classical, and Late Latin corpora; I suppose I should link up whatever I do on that with Module:Quotations/la/data. Given that I therefore need to learn what to do with those Quotations/[lang]/data modules, I'd be happy to learn the ropes by helping with the Byzantine Greek quotations-data module, if you wouldn't mind teaching me.
I hope you weren't offended by my reversion. My thinking is that the Ancient Greek παῖς and φιλέω aren't really "operative" in this etymology; they're redundant to the English affixes. I don't think there's all that much agreement about categorisation of entries vis-à-vis ultimate but indirect etyma, but re your obviously correct and valid point about "eventually get[ting] back to AG", that has the consequence of adding almost everything in English to Category:English terms derived from Proto-Indo-European, which I don't think is very desirable. Hence my rather vague regulatory notion of the "operativeness" of etyma. Any thoughts? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to help fix the Latin and Greek Q modules. How should we decide on titles and dates? Also, should we write all of our changes into one of our namespaces and then add them all at onces or just steadily add new authors piecemeal?
As for the etyl question: I'm not overly concerned. Until someone gets me embroiled in one of the RfV blood feuds because I disagreed on etymological policy, I think your edit and my general sense of the issue should work. —JohnC5 00:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Titles: Whatever's the scholarly standard, I guess (there's hoping there is one!). Dates: I am personally not very satisfied that displayed date ranges are currently whatever the author's birth and death dates are; I hope that dates are definable on a per-work basis. I'm pretty clueless about all this, though, and am unfamiliar with Lua, in which Modules are written. @ObsequiousNewt: Do you have the time, patience, and inclination to do some hand-holding here? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Once I'm done with the inflection modules, probably, and sure. The first condition will make it a while until then, though. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: That's fine with me; thanks. I'm sure John and I have some preparatory work we could do in the meantime. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym, ObsequiousNewt: I've set up my User:JohnC5/Sandbox3 as a space for adding entries to be added later into the AG module, and I've provided an example template/explanation that may be copied to create entries. ISMETA, shall we start adding authors not in the module? I would start now, but I am currently writing an interminably long PIE article. —JohnC5 03:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the example template, but I'm not exactly clear on how to use it. Could you add one or two author entries to User:JohnC5/Sandbox3, so that I can see it in action, please? (Sorry to disturb your work on the "interminably long PIE article". Is that something for Wikipedia?) — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: No worries. the article/entry was *gʷʰer- and all its derivatives (just a whole mess of citations). I've added a couple for you to look at. —This unsigned comment was added by JohnC5 (talkcontribs) at 21:37, 7 May 2015.

Thank you. I shall do what I can to help with User:JohnC5/Sandbox3 in times to come. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User subpages[edit]

Hi John. Re this, you may find using {{Special:Prefixindex/User:JohnC5/}} useful. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@I'm so meta even this acronym: I'm actually aware of that, but I haven't used it yet because the width of the columns forces the links to appear below the Babel box which leaves an awkward distance between the the links and the rest of the content on the page. Thank you for pointing it out, though! I may wait until there is more filler (like if people added smileys to my list...) before switching over to the prefix method. —JohnC5 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
How’s this? Feel free to revert that if it's not your bag. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym, Dixtosa: Thank you both! My page looks much better now. I see neither of you were inclined to add smileys.
In a tangential note, META, do you really use the phrase to be one's bag legitimately or just humorously? I thought it was antiquated, but it may be common UK practice for all I know. —JohnC5 20:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
There you go. Feel free to delete it if you think it's crap (I won't be offended). Yes, to be one’s bag has some currency in the UK, though it's usually restricted to negative constructions and singular possessors; i.e., it’s not my/your/his/her/Brian’s/Mary’s bag. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


This seems very dubious. It's an athematic noun, and those never have the accent on the last syllable in the nominative. I don't think Sanskrit and Greek evidence is strong enough, as both of these could have regularised the accent. —CodeCat 11:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@CodeCat: That seems fair. Feel free to return it to normal. —JohnC5 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)