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


meaning of "tripodot" in Hungarian or any other language —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 22:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC).
The inarticulate phrase above begs the question, "What is the meaning of "tripodot" in English or any other language?"
Further, there is a polyglottal punnishmental humor for many terms and phrases that have different or even contradictory meaning in various related languages. (A la famous fauxpas of a car named 'Nova' ('New star of power' in English), but marketed in Spanish countries where it means 'Doesn't Go'.)
A methodical exploration or thoughtful practice of documenting such interlingual anomalies could benefit the use of language in such sensitive arenas as politics, comedy, diplomacy, and interlingual interpretation or translation.-- 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Related meaning[edit]

I propose that 'tripod' can also refer to the shape of each leg, regardless of the number.
Many devices use more than 3 legs to support an object. Most commonly 4 legs, each use structural (& hinged or sliding joint) triangles to provide the need support for towers, masts, mounting poles, etc. Additionally, (just to address the complexities of language) many other common objects use 4 legs for support. See quadruped as a taxonomy term for for certain animals, but I propose a distinct but consistent word like quadripod.-- 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC) == The following 'Beer Parlor discussion' is a generic discussion of the structure & context of Wiktionary entries, and has little to do with the defined word 'tripod'. It should be categorized and relocated with its ilk.
(This constructive suggestion also applies to my response to tripodot entry above.)-- 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Beer parlour discussion[edit]

This entry was discussed in the Beer parlour; here is the discussion that ensued:

EncycloPetey and I have recently been discussing how to present derivation information in etymologies; we have yet to come to agreement. User talk:EncycloPetey#equison etymology and User talk:EncycloPetey#Unresolved discussion contain the discussion thus far. For convenience, I copy them hereto in the following rel-tables:

In brief, our disagreement centred on the etymologies of the English words tripod and its closely related near-synonym tripus. Both derive from the Latin tripūs, itself a derivation of the Ancient Greek τρίπους (trípous); however, in the case of tripod, there is an intermediary: I asserted that it is the stem tripod-, whereas EP asserted that it is the (nominative?) plural form tripodēs. The discussion that followed was clarifying, but not conclusive. Atelaes then passed comment, stating that "both of [us had] solid arguments on [our] side, and neither [was] being dull". The discussion then petered out.

EncycloPetey proposes only to note lemmata and collateral forms (where known and applicable) in etymologies, whereas I propose to show etyma's stems where they are not obvious from looking at their lemmata. A possible compromise that has not yet been discussed is something like this:

What do others think?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am undecided on the issue, but I thought I'd add a few things, to clarify the issue for others. Ancient Greek πούς, the central word in this issue, has ποδ as it's stem, or bare form. This can be a little confusing for English speakers, because in English, the singular form is a bare form, that is, it has no inflectional ending. However, in Ancient Greek, as in Latin and many others, all forms have an inflectional ending. Now, consider the very (phonetically) similar English word pod. If you say the plural aloud, you don't actually say the "d", you simply say the plural inflectional ending "s" (realized as /z/, because the last consonant is voiced), with the end result something like /pɑz/. The /z/ is a little sharper, kind of hinting at the dental, but a /d/ is never said. Ok, ok, you can say it with an actual /d/ in there if you're specifically trying, but in natural speech you don't. This is because it's very tricky to say /dz/, and so many languages streamline it to something. This is what's happening with πούς. The inflectional ending of the dictionary form (the nominative singular) has s as its inflectional ending. The /d/ is not pronounced, and the vowel is lengthened and rounded a bit to sort of compensate, and they spelled it as it was pronounced. However, the d is still a part of the word overall, and shows up in most other forms. In any case, it can be a bit confusing to users, as they might well wonder where the d came from, as it doesn't appear to be in the Latin nor the Greek (even though it actually is). Various editors have tried various approaches to clarify this, such as noting the stem itself, or noting the genitive singular form, which shows the d. Keep in mind that the English word tripod did not come from any of these particular forms, but from the word as a whole, the collective sum of all the different forms. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
To supplement what Atelaes said: Yes, the English word tripod derives from τρίπους (trípous) as a whole (i.e., as a lexeme), whereas tripus derives from the specific form τρίπους (trípous) (i.e., the nominative singular form).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I am inclined to mentioning stems in etymology, unlinked. That's what I do for Armenian, e.g. in ծովագնաց (covagnacʿ). --Vahagn Petrosyan 14:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that normal users would benefit from seeing the stem in etymologies. Having the stem unlinked seems to avoid complications. But if contributors in the most affected languages were running out of things to do, stems redirecting to the lemma and appearing on the inflection would be fine. Other approaches might also work. I have just started using unlinked stems in preference to linked particular inflected forms in etymologies. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Like Atelaes said, you're both kind of right. What I normally do is say "From (the stem of) tripodes", rather than actually write the stem as a separate form with hyphen. Ƿidsiþ 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That's clearer than eschewing any mention of the stem whatsoever; however, that method either forces the user to click on the lemma of the etymon to work out the stem from the inflexion table given thereat (in the case of extant entries, and quite difficult in the case of, say, Latin verbs, where the English derivation tends to be modelled on the stem of the passive perfect participle) or does not tell the user anything useful (in the case of inextant, "red-linked" entries). Moreover, that wording does not dispel the implication that the stem is "some independent entity, which can be cited in a vacuum". IPOF, that method is the worst of both worlds.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
But for English verbs modelled on the passive participle, we can list the participle in the etymology without worrying about stems. Latin participles have their own lemma pages and are treated as a separate part of speech for that language, since they have their own inflection and grammar separate from the verb. The concern is what to do when there is no specific form to link in the etymology, and a stem (word fragment) is desired by the editor. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
No, we can't. The distinction between derivation from the passive perfect participle itself and derivation from the passive perfect participial stem is exemplified by the separate derivations of reparate#Etymology 1 (the adjective) and reparate#Etymology 2 (the verb); that is:
  1. reparate (adjective) = (Wiktionary): "From the Classical Latin reparātus (repaired), perfect participle of reparō (I renew”, “I repair)."; (OED): "< classical Latin reparātus, past participle of reparāre…"
  2. reparate (verb) = (Wiktionary): "From the Classical Latin reparō (I renew”, “I repair), modelled on its past participial stem reparāt-."; (OED): "< classical Latin reparāt-, past participial stem…of reparāre…"
The adjective reparate has adjectival and perfective verbal force, whereas the verb reparate only has verbal force. In our discussion, you talked about collateral forms; you would need to show that the participle in question was used as a collateral form of the verb to show that the English verb was derived from it and not from its stem.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes we can. For the second Etymology, the OED's etymology (and our derivative etymology) consists of a convoluted way of saying it comes from the fourth principal part of the verb, that is, the supine. If we list the supine form of the verb in the etymology, then we need not mess with the stem. I'm surprised that there is no French intermediate. --EncycloPetey 23:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the supine to comment.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Having looked at some Wikipedia pages, it seems to me to be pretty similar to the English infinitive. (Specifically, the full infinitive, complete with the particle to, as opposed to the bare infinitive, without it; since I find it difficult to distinguish a difference in meaning between those two English constructions, I therefore find it difficult to distinguish the Latin supine from the present active infinitive.) It seems to me that this could work for English verbs deriving from Latin ones, so I'll go with marking derivation from the supine if that's what you think is appropriate and unless someone else gives me a reason not to.
However, the point about the need to demonstrate the use of nominal and adjectival inflexions as collateral forms still stands for English nouns derived from them (because almost all English nouns have a purely nominative force in isolation). Pertinent to this discussion, you still have not proven the use of the plural inflexion tripodēs as a collateral form of tripūs.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I wanted to point out the distinction, but you've also summarized it well. Cases like the 3rd-declension nouns and adjectives from Greek and Latin, still need examination and discussion as part of this thread, but there probably won't be a need to worry when it comes to verb derivations (at least not in any of the situations I've yet come across). --EncycloPetey 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad that verbs aren't a problem; however, nouns still are (maybe less so adjectives). Really, the only way I can see around using stems in the etymologies of nouns deriving from the lexemes (sans case endings) of Latin and Ancient Greek third-declension nouns is for there to be demonstrated use of a form other than the nominative singular as a collateral form in every single case. But, let's cross that bridge when we come to it. For starters, please provide the necessary evidence for the use of tripodēs as a collateral form of tripūs.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
As I've noted before, that isn't at all an easy thing to do, but I'll present the evidence I have so far. First, the Facciolati Lexicon lists tripus principally as an adjective. There is a subsection for substantive senses, but all the quotations and translations given there are strictly plural. Likewise, Lewis & Short, although they give tripus as primarily a noun, list only quotations using the plural form, with no examples at all of the singular. They have a separate header for tripodes, including the genitive and gender, although it directs the reader to the tripus entry for more information, and Facciolati does the same. Finally, Niermeyer lists a Medieval variant of tripoda in the headword line for tripus (three-legged stool). Taken together the evidence is stronger than any individual item, although not quite explicit. --EncycloPetey 02:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, all that does seem to hint at some irregularity of usage, but what we need is primary evidence; that is, unambiguous uses of tripodēs as a collateral form. The first properly English use of tripod(e) that the OED attests to is from 1603. (Apart from that, it also gives "[1370 Mem. Ripon (Surtees) II. 130 Item unum tripod ferri.]" ("Mem. Ripon" refers to "Memorials of the Church of SS. Peter and Wilfrid, Ripon v.d. (Surtees Soc. 1882–88)" according to its bibliography), but that looks more like Latin than English.) Maybe some of that information will help.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm... if all the uses from the primary sources are plural, then isn't that de facto evidence? What sort of "uses" do you imagine finding other than the sorts of citations I've mentioned exist in L&S and in Facciolati? What we are actually lacking is evidence for use of the singular; we have no lack of evidence for the plural. —This unsigned comment was added by EncycloPetey (talkcontribs) at 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC).
The question is whether they have a singular sense: Would those uses be translated into English with the word tripod or the word tripods?
Anyway, thinking clearly about this again, even if the use as a collateral form of tripodēs is proven (or plausibly demonstrated, or whatever), then the English word still derives from the stem. We don't say "a tripodes", we say "a tripod". The plural is tripods, not the invariant tripodes or the suffixed *tripodeses. The only thing that proving that Latin used tripodēs as a collateral form of tripūs achieves is making it unnecessary to mention the stem in the etymology; however, that is only because the stem would be obvious, and not because the word wasn't actually derived from the stem.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Where did you find any source that actually says the English word derived from the stem? All you've shown are etymologies in dictionaries that mention various forms or a stem, and not always the same one. --EncycloPetey 22:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition and Unabridged both explicitly mark derivation from the stem tripod-. Many others mention the stem, whilst others mention the genitive form tripodis or only the ending thereof. By contrast, no dictionary I've seen states that the English tripod derives from the Latin tripodēs.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Those two sources are not independent, as both are based on the Random House dictionary, which means we really have just one source making the claim. Dictionaries do contain errors, and I believe that this may be one of them. If there is no evidence for a singular form of the Latin substantive, then all the etymologies you've mentioned or alluded to are wrong. --EncycloPetey 23:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example of the use of the substantive in the accusative singular tripodem. What about some evidence of the use of tripodēs as a collateral form with a singular sense? At the moment, your case seems weaker than mine; at least I have a source that unambiguously backs up what I'm saying…  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Your example is dated 1826, which is long after the date that tripod entered the English language. Your case is weaker, because it is predicated entirely upon an apparent error in a single quote from a single dictionary whcih (I note) is not present in any other dictionary that did not copy their information from Random House. I have evidence for the use of the plural substantive prior to the origin of the English word, even in Classical Latin. You have no evidence for substantive use of the singular. --EncycloPetey 00:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
But you have not shown that they have a singular sense. I shall search for a pre-1603 Latin citation of the substantive use in the singular at a later date. To show that this isn't an isolated error by Random House, derivation from the stem is also given for the -ped terms aliped, biped, fissiped, multiped, pinnatiped, quadruped, and soliped. More -pod terms will follow; I've GTG ATM.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Returning to margin…'s etymologies of -pod terms that give derivation from the stem include hexapod, polypod, tetrapod, and the aforementioned tripod. Also of note from the OED: isopod, n. (a.) "…f. Gr. type *ἰσοποδ-…"; hexapod, n. and a. "ad. Gr. ἑξαποδ- six-footed…"; cirrhopod "…f. assumed Gr. κιῤῥό-ς…+ ποδ- foot"; taliped, a. vs. ‖talipes; palmiped, n. and adj. "< classical Latin palmiped-, palmipēs web-footed…"; and, bradypod and bradypus, from βραδυποδ- (bradupod-) and βραδύπους (bradúpous), respectively.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

To explicate my comments' significance for EP:
  1. You have only shown that tripodēs was in use in Classical Latin in a plural sense. (Well, you haven't actually shown that, but only asserted it; however, I've seen uses of that term in Classical Latin myself, so that isn't a point of contention.) You need to show that tripodēs was used in a singular sense before you can claim that it was used as a collateral form of tripūs. At the moment, all we have is an ordinary noun which doesn't seem to be attested in the lemma form in Classical Latin (similar, according to the OED, to the case of *fauxfaucefaucēs).
  2. You asserted that "[my] case is weaker, because it is predicated entirely upon an apparent error in a single quote from a single dictionary". This is not true, as exemplified by the ten other similarly-formatted etymologies to which I linked. I'm sure I could find more etymologies like that for terms that derive from Latin nouns where the stem is not apparent in the nominative singular. Moreover, I linked to some etymologies in the OED which refer to stems; solely to stems in the case of cirrhopod, hexapod, and isopod. Tripod is not some isolated case that can be explained away as an error.
  3. Even if there exists "no evidence for substantive use of the singular" form(s) of tripodēs "prior to the origin of the English word", there are still all those other -ped and -pod terms to explain away, for every one of which you would need to show the existence of one or more collateral forms.
  4. Recapitulating my point (in terser form) that I made in an above post in this section (timestamped: 14:11, 9 May 2010): English terms that lack their etyma's case endings and which are modelled on the stems are therefore derived from those stems. That is the difference between bradypus and bradypod, talipes and taliped, tripus and tripod, vibratiuncula and vibratiuncule, &c. — the former of the pairs is derived from its etymon, case ending and all, whereas the latter of the pairs is derived from the stem of its etymon.
That is what calls for a response from you.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Your examples of stem-derivations are still not independent of each other. Multiple appeals to a single dictionary relies on a single editor's choice for a single published work. your appeal to the OED is in error, as it clearly lists isopod as coming from Neo-Latin Isopoda, which is isopoda, and is explicitly identified as a neuter plural form. Your entire argument for why you think tripod comes from a Latin stem is based upon a single doctionary's use of that stem in an etymology, and seems to ignore the fact that most major dictionaries make no such claim whatsoever. You have presented no evidence that tripod or any similar word derives from a stem, rather you have presented only one dictionary's editorial choice for presenting its etymologies, and that choice is at odds with all major dictionaries. The same is true of words with the same ending. Your entire case is based upon what the publishers of the Random House Dictionary chose to do, and which has since copied from them. We need not propogate their error.
Your point about "singular sense" is irrelevant. If a word was never used in the singular, and never appears in a singular form, then we don't invent such a form simply for the purpose of writing etymologies. The word in that situation is plurale tantum, and is the source word regardless of its meaning in the other language. The fact that it is considered singular in English does not necessitate that it have a singular meaning in Latin to be the source word. --EncycloPetey 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I number my points for clarity:
  1. I only quoted the relevant part of the etymology, which was the part that made reference to a stem alone. The OED's etymology for isopod in its entirety is: "[a. mod.F. isopode, f. mod.L. Isopod-a neuter pl., f. Gr. type *ἰσοποδ-, f. iso- + πούς, ποδ- foot.]". Note that in the Latin etymon Isopod-a — whose stem is obvious in the lemma — the OED uses a hyphen to separate the stem from the case ending. It does this a lot; another pertient example is equison, for which it gives "ad. L. equīsōn-em groom…". And of course, it gives the unpredictable stem ποδ- (pod-) for πούς (poús). Assumed but unattested lemmata have the same ontological status as their stems, which explains why they give *ἰσοποδ- but not *ἰσοπους, wouldn't you agree?
  2. I searched b.g.c. for pre-1603 hits of "tripus" OR "tripodis" OR "tripodem" OR "tripodi" OR "tripode"; it yielded 622 hits. Undoubtedly, there will be a healthy number of uses of the singular substantive in there. Here's one from 1531: Tripus ferrea ante regiã ſemper ſtare ſolebat… (tripūs ferrea ante rēgiam semper stāre solēbat, an iron tripod always used to stand in front of the palace). My Latin isn't great, so I might have got some of that wrong (I'm uncertain about the sense of rēgia that is meant, because I didn't look at the context very much). Curiously, that 1531 source seems to treat tripūs as feminine; however, it is number, and not gender, that is the issue here.
  3. If they remain close in sense to and retain the case ending(s) of their Classical etyma, it is highly likely for English derivations from Latin or Ancient Greek to preserve the grammatical number of their etyma. The OED lemmatises two words ending in -podes (both derived via Latin from the Ancient Greek πόδες (pódes)), viz. antipodes and Sciapodes — both plural nouns. (Antipodes has the back-formed singular form antipode as well as the etymologically consistent antipous (e.g.); however, that changes nothing — antipodes isn't used as a singular noun, at least not usually or without earning others' reproach.)
  4. "Your entire argument for why you think tripod comes from a Latin stem is based upon a single d[i]ctionary's use of that stem in an etymology, and seems to ignore the fact that most major dictionaries make no such claim whatsoever. You have presented no evidence that tripod or any similar word derives from a stem, rather you have presented only one dictionary's editorial choice for presenting its etymologies, and that choice is at odds with all major dictionaries. The same is true of words with the same ending." — I presented a summary of the etymologies given in various dictionaries in User talk:EncycloPetey#equison etymology. Most marked derivation from the nominative singular in conjunction with either the stem or the genitive singular; Random House's, as we know, unambiguously marks derivation from the stem qua stem. As I explained in point 4 of my above post (timestamped: 15:14, 16 May 2010), I regard the way the words are written as evidence of derivation from the stem. The way Random House writes its etymologies is not just some arbitrary editorial choice or house style; it's a factual assertion. As you know, the OED differentiates entries by etymology — those from the same root are treated in one entry, whereas those from different roots are treated in different entries. Now, take the OED's entries for tripod, n. and a. (etymology: [ad. L. tripūs, tripod-, a. Gr. τρίπους, -ποδ- adj., three-footed, also as n., f. τρι- three + πούς, ποδ- foot.]) and for ‖tripus (etymology: [L. tripūs, a. Gr. τρίπους tripod.]). Clearly, the OED believes that the singular form tripūs exists (as I demonstrated in point 2) and that tripodēs is not plurale tantum (even if they were wrong, that would be irrelevant, because the point here is about the consistency of their assertions). Given all that, why does the OED treat tripod and tripus in different entries if, as you assert, stems are invalid etymological elements, unless they disagree with you?
  5. "Your point about 'singular sense' is irrelevant. If a word was never used in the singular, and never appears in a singular form, then we don't invent such a form simply for the purpose of writing etymologies. The word in that situation is plurale tantum…" — I cited in point 2 a Latin text which uses tripūs. The Latin tripūs is thereby attested from 1531, which is 72 years before the date of the first attestation (1603) of the English tripod. That means that tripūs already existed as an ordinary noun (and not as a plurale tantum) in the Latin lexicon long before the English tripod came about. The existence of tripūs also means that tripodēs is ipso facto not plurale tantum, irrespective of whether its existence precedes that of tripūs or of any of the other singular forms. Since tripodēs is not plurale tantum, it is simply an ordinary nominative singular form. Ergo, your assertion that tripodēs is a collateral form is without basis unless you can show its use in a singular sense. (Consider this analogous example: Were we to first attest an English verb in the third-person singular present active indicative form decades or even centuries before its infinitive form, would you therefore maintain that they are separate verbs?)
  6. Given points 1–5, there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the Latin tripodēs is the direct etymon of the English tripod; moreover, the fact that no other dictionary I'm aware of asserts as you do should cause you to retract the assertion.
I respectfully ask that you concede.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) gives the etymology of referent as "1835–45; < L referent- (s. of referēns)…", whereas the OED (draft revision, September 2009) gives it as "< classical Latin referent-, referēns…". It is interesting to note that the OED (2nd Ed., 1989) gives the etymology as "ad. L. referent-em". What I believe we are seeing here is the most up-to-date way of thinking about English derivation. In the case of the OED, they used to show the stem by giving the accusative singular, with the case ending separated therefrom by a hyphen, but now, as with Random House, they give the stem instead (in both cases, giving it priority). I wager that when the OED gets round to revising its entry for equison, they will give its etymology as "< classical Latin equīsōn-, equīsō…", supplanting the second edition's "ad. L. equīsōn-em…". I take this to be the most plausible interpretation of the data.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the lack of response, I'll consider this discussion concluded and strike the header.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What to do with forms in Dutch that are composed of verb+adjective or verb+noun? Such as leunstoel? In Dutch, verb infinitives (the lemma form) have a suffix. The suffixless form occurs in the 1st person singular, but this is not a lemma form like it is in Latin, so it's not suited as an etymology. —CodeCat 20:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
You're confusing the stem with the first-person singular, which can be spelt identically. For example, in Latin mascluine agent nouns (let's take dictātor as our example), the stem is spelt dictātōr-, whereas the nominative singular form is spelt dictātor (i.e., identically, since macra aren't actually written in Latin). In the case of leunstoel, it's the difference between "leun (I lean) + stoel (chair)" and "leun- (the stem of leunen (to lean)) + stoel (chair)". IMO, that shouldn't be necessary, since the stem (leun-) is obvious from looking at the lemma (leunen).  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
CodeCat: What we do in those sorts of situations for Latin is actually list both the form and the lemma. See WT:ALA#Romance language verbs for a special situation that often occurs. Since the lemma for Romance language verbs is the infinitive, we want to mention the Latin present active infinitive in the etymology as the immediate source word, but we also have to link to the lemma of the Latin verb to avoid lots of extra clicking. The standard solution in that situation is to include both, but that's different from the current issue, where there isn't even a form-of page to link to. --EncycloPetey 21:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Word formation and interlinguistic derivation or descent are different things; you're talking about the latter, whereas CodeCat's talking about the former. Unless Dutch compounds involving verbs always involve the first-person singular, there is no reason to mention them in the compounds' etymologies.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)