-ίζειν
Mglovesfun raised the question on whether -ίζειν should be listed as -ίζω. I didn't really have a verbal suffix entry from Latin or Ancient Greek to base it on, so I went with the infinitive. Should it be changed?
As far as I know, for Latin and Greek verbs we use the first person singular present as the lemma form (the form which has the main definition, etymology and such). So it should probably be moved, yes.
Sorry to bother you again, but should diacritics be used when creating entries for Ancient Greek suffixes? For example, -ικός instead of -ικος, -ίζω instead of -ιζω. Existing entries for Ancient Greek suffixes use diacritics, but empty links to these two suffixes don't.
I don't know. If the suffix is always or never accented in every word, then it should have the accent/no accent in the entry too. But if some of the derived words have the accent while others don't, then I'm not sure. Maybe you could choose one or the other and call the other one an alternative form.
I believe they should have diacritics, like all Ancient Greek entries. See WT:AGRC for more on this subject.
Ancient Greek has different accent classes: some accents are fixed, while others are mobile. On top of that, there's a constraint on how many moras from the end a mobile accent can go. I don't know all the details, but that's the general idea. That means that some suffixes will always take the accent, while others may or may not take the accent, depending on the word they're attached to, and how many moras they have with the inflectional morphology factored in. Your suggestion is a good one as far as the fixed accent goes, but with the mobile accent there may be no really reliable answer. Since most editors have no clue about accent classes (and some of us have a clue, but not much else), it would be a good idea to rely solely on the form of the suffix's lemma in deciding whether to mark the accent or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)