User talk:Angr

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

Category:gd-noun 2[edit]

Hi, does the inclusion of this category in Category:Scottish Gaelic entry maintenance mean there's supposed to be something not completely right with the entries therein contained, or is it just listing them without indicating that any action is required, similarly to eg Category:Scottish Gaelic terms with IPA pronunciation? --Droigheann (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea what the category is for. CodeCat edited {{gd-noun}} to put certain entries into the category, under circumstances I don't understand, but didn't actually create the category, so the template was adding a red-linked category to a bunch of Scottish Gaelic entries. I just stuck it into CAT:Scottish Gaelic entry maintenance so the category would be a blue link and would exist somewhere. But I still don't know what this category is actually categorizing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the code more carefully now, I think entries are assigned to the category if {{gd-noun}} is not being used with all three parameters g= (for gender), gen= (for the genitive), and pl= (for the plural). If that's true, then indeed there is something that needs to be cleaned up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I've noticed the category when creating feòrag - it gets there despite having all three parameters. --Droigheann (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The idea was to give {{gd-noun}} the same treatment as {{ga-noun}}, by switching over to numbered parameters. The category tracks entries that still have the named parameters. However, the numbered ones haven't been implemented yet. —CodeCat 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I see. Hope this means it'll help some bot changing the markup, as I suspect nobody'll be interested in dealing with 5K entries manually. (Maybe it's bloody obvious but woe is me for anything related to bots ;-).) --Droigheann (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be done with a bot. Of course only if it's actually wanted, otherwise the category can just be removed from the template and that's that. —CodeCat 21:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Judging by the template's talk page, Droigeann was ok with the change. —CodeCat 21:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, what I said there holds, but of course I hadn't noticed the template had already been changed to put the entries using it into this category, hence my recent surprise. --Droigheann (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

dad[edit]

@Angr I do not understand how by changing "and/or" to "and", your correct "cog" form was changed back to the earlier formatting! Am very sorry about this; only just noticed it! Andrew H. Gray 10:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Andrew talk

French deverbatives[edit]

Do you consider French deverbatives such as dessin, maintien, dégoût and many others as back-formations? And do you think we should have {{deverbative}}, {{denominative}}? --Barytonesis (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not necessarily within French. Etymonline, for example, says that design (and thus, by implication, dessin) is from Middle French desseign, from Italian disegno, which is deverbative from disegnare. So the back-formation took place in Italian, not in French. I think {{deverbative}} and {{denominative}} sound like a good idea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, dessin probably wasn't the best example.
Ok, I made a rough draft of {{deverbative}} by copy-pasting the code of {{doublet}}. However, I see at least two problems with it: it's not particularly informative, since it gives no clue about the lexical category (deverbatives aren't necessarily nouns); and in its current form it's independent from {{back-formation}}, so we have to type the two templates; not a very elegant solution IMO. But deverbatives or denominatives aren't necessarily back-formations, so I don't know.
Makes me think about these discussions, btw: 1 and 2 --Barytonesis (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
No, in English, for example, denominatives like "to hand" and deverbatives like "a hit" aren't back-formations, so they're definitely separate things. And even in languages like French it's probably not always very helpful to categorize them as back-formations. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Greek determiners[edit]

Seeing this edit, I wonder, is there a way to coherently test for whether something is a determiner in Ancient Greek? I simply classed these words as adjectives because I was not aware of such a thing. If there is such a test, quite a few other words should be moved. — Eru·tuon 16:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Mostly I go by semantics and whether the English translation is considered a determiner. Within Greek, if an adjectivy-looking thing is never a predicate (*ὁ ἄνθρωπός ἐστι τοῖος (ho ánthrōpós esti toîos)) and doesn't have comparative and superlative forms (the template automatically generates *τοιότερος (*toióteros) and *τοιότᾰτος (*toiótatos) but I bet you five euros they're unattested), and especially if its meaning is more grammatical than lexical, it's probably a determiner. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Angr: Okay, if there's actually different behavior, you're probably right. I haven't found anything on this (partly because my only grammar that covers these words is ancient: Smyth). — Eru·tuon 18:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Input[edit]

Hi Angr! Not sure if you're the right person to ask, but I could use your input to decide if this revision made by an anon is correct. I have a hunch that it's not and I'm tempted to revert. Do you agree? --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Robbie SWE: It looks OK to me; what specifically are you suspicious of? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The anon changed some of the historical development. For instance, Italian was under Tuscan before and I wasn't sure if taking that away removed valuable information. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. There wasn't anything else under Tuscan. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, I trust your judgement :-) Thanks for the help! --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Noun forms[edit]

Hi. Before I start adding the plural of -μα suffixed nouns on a regular basis, is this how you would format them? --Barytonesis (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Barytonesis: Some people do it that way. I don't see the point in having separate lines for nominative, accusative, and vocative, especially for neuter nouns where they are always identical anyway, so I prefer to write {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|and|acc|and|voc|p|lang=grc}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis, Angr: Another way is {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|p|;|acc|p|;|voc|p|lang=grc}}. — Eru·tuon 17:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|,|acc|and|voc|p|lang=grc}}. —CodeCat 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: So would I, except that the problem of the space before the comma hasn't been solved yet. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Poking @Erutuon some more then! —CodeCat 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I'm Luaifying {{PIE root cat}} right now. I would want to add a serial serial comma (,), though... — Eru·tuon 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... maybe we also want to support {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|,|acc|,|voc|p|lang=grc}} then and treat it as equivalent to {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|,|acc|and|voc|p|lang=grc}}. Both calls should display a serial comma if the user has it configured. However, what should be shown for just acc|,|dat for example? Is a serial comma appropriate in that case? —CodeCat 19:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
No, in that case there should just be a comma-less "and". I like the idea of commas translating to commas and serial comma with "and". Perhaps multiple "and"s separating labels with the same category (case in this instance) should be translated in the same way. So {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|and|acc|and|voc|p|lang=grc}} would display like {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|,|acc|,|voc|p|lang=grc}}, with a comma and then a serial comma with an "and". — Eru·tuon 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
That would be ideal, since that's how such entries are already formatted. At least, the ones created by me. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll use {{inflection of|παράδειγμα||nom|and|acc|and|voc|p|lang=grc}} then. --Barytonesis (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Another question: I see you're using {{genitive plural of|ἄλκη|lang=grc}} at ἀλκῶν (alkôn); is it preferable to {{inflection of|ἄλκη||gen|p|lang=grc}}? @CodeCat, Erutuon, what do you think? --Barytonesis (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the templates like {{genitive plural of}} when they're available and when an entry is just one form, because they involve less typing. But not all case/number pairings have a dedicated template, and some forms are syncretic, so for those I use {{inflection of}}. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)