Talk:δάκρυ

@Erutuon, JohnC5: {{grc-decl}} won't work on this one. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And between δάκρυον and δάκρυ, one should be formatted as an alternative form of the other, but I don't know which one to choose. --Barytonesis (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: This term only appears in the nominative-accusative singular and dative plural δάκρυσῐ (dákrusi), so this table should be split apart regardless. Beekes seems to imply that δάκρυον (dákruon) is a backformation from δάκρυᾰ (dákrua). —JohnC5 10:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: {{grc-decl}} could be used in one way or another: either by creating a table for δάκρυον, δακρύου and adding nominative singular and dative plural manually, or by adding all the forms manually ({{grc-decl|irreg|NS|GS|DS|...}}). I'm not sure whether the tables should be separate, but if they are merged, it sounds like δάκρυον is both more commonly used and more regular, so it should be the main entry. — Eru·tuon 19:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think functionally δάκρυ and δάκρυσι are just irregular forms of δάκρυον. It's simpler to analyze it that way, because there are more second-declension forms in the paradigm than third-declension. (δακρύων could belong to either declension.) Then the question is whether we follow the LSJ in having a separate entry for these irregular forms (δάκρυ), or have readers click a link and read about the irregular forms in δάκρυον. It's easier for Wiktionary to treat irregular forms that way than for the LSJ, because we have links and a clearer entry structure. But I guess for lack of any other option, we tend to follow the LSJ. — Eru·tuon 20:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Etymologically, we'd want δάκρυ to be the lemma and δάκρυον, the by form, but whatever. —JohnC5 20:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)