Talk:κινούβοιλα
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Sigh[edit]
@Metaknowledge, can you fix this too? —JohnC5 06:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I probably can't. It's attested in Dioscorides, so the actual entry should be Ancient Greek rather than Dacian, right? My Greek skills are not good enough for me to feel confident making an entry, I think. @KIeio? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Hey, in the final stage of writing my thesis the coming month and a half I hope to not spend any significant amount of time on the internet at all beyond what is absolutely necessary.. so I won't have any time to work on Wiktionary for now (or at least I shouldn't, assuming I can keep myself from using the internet to procrastinate). If by July the issue still isn't taken care of, feel free to tag me. — Kleio (t · c) 00:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @KIeio: Thanks for telling me, and good luck on finishing up your thesis! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Hey, in the final stage of writing my thesis the coming month and a half I hope to not spend any significant amount of time on the internet at all beyond what is absolutely necessary.. so I won't have any time to work on Wiktionary for now (or at least I shouldn't, assuming I can keep myself from using the internet to procrastinate). If by July the issue still isn't taken care of, feel free to tag me. — Kleio (t · c) 00:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hey @KIeio... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Wow, that's.. quite the etymology section. I'm not really in any position to tell if it's reliable or not though, so I can't help you there. All I can see is that it should be moved to a Greek script entry (κινούβοιλα), which I've done. Not sure about the language header, it being a mention of a Dacian word but in a Greek text. I'd go for Ancient Greek, though, as it's the approach I've taken with a similar case in the past. — Kleio (t · c) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Category:Dacian lemmas is full of Latin-script Dacian entries which I'm pretty sure are just mentions too (haven't checked, but haven't heard of any Dacian texts either)? Yet they're classed as Dacian lemmas. Consistency with that precedent would then dictate we keep the language header as it is now. — Kleio (t · c) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @KIeio, that "precedent" is merely more people who have no idea what they're doing. Now that I see the scope of the problem, it's rather unfair to ask you to clean it all up, although I really wish somebody would do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Gotta say I do find the idea of using the 'native' language header to be more intuitive; it feels weird adding a clearly non-Greek word under a Greek header. I had the same misgiving with haliurunna. Is there actually a policy somewhere regarding this? — Kleio (t · c) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. We must simply do what we feel is proper. That said, if these are attested in Greek script, they should go to those pagetitles independent of the L2 header. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not entirely sure on all of them being attested (only) in Greek; some may be in w:Pseudo-Apuleius too, who wrote in Latin. It's all a bit of a mess. — Kleio (t · c) 20:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid not. We must simply do what we feel is proper. That said, if these are attested in Greek script, they should go to those pagetitles independent of the L2 header. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Gotta say I do find the idea of using the 'native' language header to be more intuitive; it feels weird adding a clearly non-Greek word under a Greek header. I had the same misgiving with haliurunna. Is there actually a policy somewhere regarding this? — Kleio (t · c) 20:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @KIeio, that "precedent" is merely more people who have no idea what they're doing. Now that I see the scope of the problem, it's rather unfair to ask you to clean it all up, although I really wish somebody would do it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, Category:Dacian lemmas is full of Latin-script Dacian entries which I'm pretty sure are just mentions too (haven't checked, but haven't heard of any Dacian texts either)? Yet they're classed as Dacian lemmas. Consistency with that precedent would then dictate we keep the language header as it is now. — Kleio (t · c) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Metaknowledge Wow, that's.. quite the etymology section. I'm not really in any position to tell if it's reliable or not though, so I can't help you there. All I can see is that it should be moved to a Greek script entry (κινούβοιλα), which I've done. Not sure about the language header, it being a mention of a Dacian word but in a Greek text. I'd go for Ancient Greek, though, as it's the approach I've taken with a similar case in the past. — Kleio (t · c) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
PIE entry[edit]
@Mnemosientje Could you double-check for any mistakes? And how do we feel about having a PIE page for this? It has only 3-ish descendants and more or less all a bit shaky, but I don't particularly like how I placed them at *h₂ébōl, since this way they don't display at *ḱwṓ. Catonif (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the person you want for PIE matters, I have a decent working knowledge but rarely edit PIE entries. I think some people at WT:ES may have informed opinions on the matter. As for the entry itself, it looks good to me, great work. The awkward tension remains regarding what language header should be used for words from Trümmersprachen that are only attested in texts from other languages (such as is the case here), but that is another discussion. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 10:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)