User talk:Barmar/2007

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

Italian plurals[edit]

Edit chiodi to see how to get the category for free! SemperBlotto 16:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm working on automating these. See terrazza for an example produced by the bot. Additionally it should find those words that are in Category:Italian nouns but are not using {{it-noun}}. Cheers. SemperBlotto 07:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's great!!! :-) A curiosity: why I cannot see those It plurals entries (i.e. terrazze itself) on the Recent changes page, even with the "Show bots" option on? Cheers. --Barmar 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


I didn't know (or maybe had forgotten) that you can use it in the plural. Would it only be used in a figurative way - as "it's raining flowers" (piovono fiori) ? SemperBlotto 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's it! (tipically piovono: fiori, applausi, bombe and uova too) --Barmar 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And what about nevicare (looking out of the window at the snow) - [1] give ALL conjugations (with a message saying it is mostly used as an impersonal verb). Is it really used as an ordinary one? SemperBlotto 08:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nevicare is usually used in the third singular person, the third plural is very rare. I've NEVER heard the other persons, so I don't believe they actually exist. I think this verb is exactely the same as piovere (and grandinare as well): impersonal and third person only. --Barmar 09:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation help[edit]

Hello, Would you mind adding Italian translations to the page for listen? We have the Italian for one definition, but not for some of the others. Thanks, --EncycloPetey 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


We have a template for regular reflexive -arsi verb conjugations! SemperBlotto 22:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have generated {{it-conj-iarsi}} and changed annoiarsi to use it - could you check please. By the way you can use the {{temp}} template to talk about templates - that way they don't get copied into the discussion. Also, you can create any other templates that you need - just create it using a copy of an existing one as a model. Cheers. SemperBlotto 17:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Formatting help, Welcome![edit]


Hello, and welcome to Wiktionary. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk (discussion) and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which automatically produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the beer parlour or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Connel MacKenzie 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I have a question about an Italian entry. Should caffè have a grave accent? Or should this be spelled caffe? --EncycloPetey 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello again Barbara, I have been looking at some Italian suffixes (see Appendix:Suffixes:Italian). My little Zingarelli gives as an example of -accio the word avaraccio, but there is no entry for the word in the actual dictionary (only avaro), so presumably it is just a very stingy person. I'm having trouble thinking of a good English translation. SemperBlotto 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! Yes, avaraccio is the pejorative form of avaro and means very stingy person. robaccia (=a bad thing: rubbish, junk, trash) is another -accio word. I hope this helps. --Barmar 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - stregaccia is another one that I have heard of - they don't seem to get into paper dictionaries - I shall see what I can do.


I don't thnk that I have told you that you can link to Italian Wikipedia - see deltaplano as an example. Could you also check deltaplanista - it isn't in my dictionary and I am just guessing that it is the same for male and female riders. Cheers. SemperBlotto 15:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Italian etymology[edit]

Can I recommend this site (Thanks for cronometro - new meaning for me) SemperBlotto 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but I really don't know *anything* about etymology and about old Greek and Latin as well. This is why I hardly ever add etymology to my entries... --Barmar 21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


This seems to be an Italian verb - but it isn't in my Collins English/Italian, or my Zingarelli "minore" dictionaries. I assume it means the same as costruire? SemperBlotto 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi! My dictionary (Zingarelli) says it's an archaic alternative spelling of costruire. I don't think it deserves an entry, I've never heard that verb, even in ancient texts. Ah, a question for you.. can you please add to cambio the translation for the cambio of a car, see [[2]]? thank you. --Barmar 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - (cambio is the gears) - and what's the difference between cambio and marcia ? SemperBlotto 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm well I'll try to explain. marcia = gear or speed according to my dictionary. You can say 'prima (marcia)' -> 'first gear', 'seconda (marcia)' -> 'second gear', 'retromarcia' -> 'reverse gear'. 'Il cambio' (the gears) instead is the the *device* used to change gear.


Can you make anything of this entry? A quick Google shows only Spanish websites. SemperBlotto 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It looks like to be a misspelling of unitaglia, an extremely rare neologism/protologism, which means 'one size only' (of clothes). IMHO you can delete this entry without remorse. --Barmar 06:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


Only yesterday, someone on the radio said that you never hear the word goalie these days - everyone says keeper. Keep up the good work. SemperBlotto 15:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, link to keeper added, here and there.. --Barmar 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Italian etymology[edit]

Ciao Barbara. Scusa se mi intrometto, l'etimologia è il mio cavallo di battaglia perciò, se hai bisogno di qualche cosa, chiedi a me. Il sito consigliato qui sopra ( porta qualche volta schiarimenti un po' antiquati o sorpassati, difatti si tratta di scansioni di un vecchio trattato che ormai è di public domain. Ciao --Nino Barbieri 13:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Ciao! Non ti devi scusare, anzi grazie per l'offerta d'aiuto. Il discorso è che sto creando parecchie Italian entries ma non metto praticamente mai l'etimologia perché so zero di greco e 0,5 di latino, quindi preferisco non mettere che mettere cose sbagliate. Se hai voglia di passare in giro ed inserirne un po' tu, sei più che benvenuto. --Barmar 13:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • È tutta questione di tempo e spesso di tempo ne ho 0,0. Poi anche il mio king English è ormai arruginitissimo, e pensare che quand’ero in Inghilterra nemmeno se n’accorgavano che ero straniero (non ho l’aspetto di un italiano sono (ero) biondo). Ma come faccio a trovare i tuoi contributi per metterci qualche volta l’etimologia ??? Ho visto che nella maggior parte dei casi si fa così e perciò non sarebbe per me difficle:
    • Sai, ogni Wiktionary ha le sue regole e perciò dovrei adottare quelle inglesi.
    • Adesso puoi scrivere nella mia pagina *avevo dimenticato di metterla in funzione! **--Nino Barbieri 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi you two. There is a convention (it may be a rule, I'm not sure) that all talk pages are in English. Cheers. SemperBlotto 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Barbara. I have added those hormones that you requested. Do you have Italian translations for them? SemperBlotto 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi and welcome back! I'm adding them right now. --Barmar 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Can you verify and improve this please? Do any of the meanings need to be Capitalized? SemperBlotto 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Mmmmmmh... difficult question. I know that meaning #1 is correct, but to me meanings #2 and 3 look more like Roman slang than Italian, and I'm not Roman but Tuscan. I've found this, I hope it can help. The word pariolino doesn't need to be capitalized.
  • OK. I have totally rewritten it (thanks for that link). I have added a couple of quotations found on Google book search, but I am having trouble providing good quality English translations - I might come back to it later. SemperBlotto 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you check the translations, please, to see which ones correspond with each meaning? Cheers. SemperBlotto 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Done. Buona giornata! --Barmar 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Have you ever heard of this? It is not in my dictionary, and all Google hits seem to be American websites. If it real, it needs to be moved to lowercase. SemperBlotto 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Buongiorno! No, never heard of it, this is the very first time I hear this word. --Barmar 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

fargli etc[edit]

Hi there! In Wiktionary:Requested entries:Italian someone has requested fargli. Do you think that is is at all feasible to include such words. Italian paper dictionaries don't, but we are not a normal dictionary ("ALL words in all languages"). Could you also look at the other red links please (the comments are mostly mine). SemperBlotto 13:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hei! About fargli, I think that it's pure madness to add compound forms like that. I'm counting.. farmi, farti, fargli, farci, farvi, farle, farla, fammi, fatti, facciamoci, fatevi.. dammi, datti, dagli.. comprami, comprati.. etc. etc... it's an HUGE job! The Italian section will end having 1,500,000 zillions of entries!!! That said, I'll give a look and add comments to the other requests. Cheers. --Barmar 14:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it would be the job of a bot if we did it. I am thinking of applying for bot status to add all the many verb conjugations, but I haven't got time to learn all the intricacies of the job yet. The problem with "fargli" etc, is that people learning the language come across them all the time and don't always realise that they are compound words. I shall have a think, and maybe raise it in the beer parlour. (Thanks for adding those words that were not in my dictionary). SemperBlotto 14:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, such a great idea! We definitely need an Italian verbs bot, at least for the normal not compound forms.. and then one bot for plurals and one more for adjective forms. I also agree on the beer parlour discussion about adding verb compound forms (maybe in a second time?). --Barmar 14:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Is there an Italian translation for the first definition? (As in "the 500 pages in this book are unnumbered.") SemperBlotto 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

  • senza numero, non numerato. Cheers --Barmar 07:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Translation request[edit]

fidelizzare and the associated fidelizzazione. Somthing to do with customer loyalty to a product I should think, but I can't quite think of a neat translation. SemperBlotto 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! Sorry, but my dictionaries don't help and my English isn't good enough to translate this. I try to explain the concept to you, so that you can translate it. fidelizzare means to make a customer loyal to a brand or product i.e. by giving him a loyalty card -> carta fedeltà (also said points card -> carta punti) or involving him in another loyalty program (see The fidelizzazione is the process and the result of fidelizzare, the building of customer loyalty and the customer loyalty itself. I hope this can help. Barbara --Barmar 06:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It seems to be loyalize and loyalization. The verb is in the OED with a rather historical usage. But business use for both is on the web. SemperBlotto 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

stata and all the others[edit]

Hmm. I had overlooked the feminine and plural forms of past participles. What should we do with them? I don't really want to make our conjugation tables any more complicated. Also, I can't remember the formal rules for when they are used - is it just with intransitive verbs? I think it is more complicated than that. SemperBlotto 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! Regarding the formal rules, I *think* (I've never studied Italian seriously, LOL!) that only the impersonal verbs such as piovere and nevicare have only the masculine singular form of pp. Intransitive verbs do have all the forms (i.e. Maria è arrivata tardi, where arrivare is intransitive). What to do with them? Well, I don't think we need to add past participles forms to the conjugation tables. I believe we need to treat them *exactly* like the adjectives: a template including the four forms (an it-pp or something like that, just like it-adj) for the masculine singular form and probably a category for past participle forms (like Italian adjective forms) as well. What do you think about it? --Barmar 12:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. I have created {{it-pp}} - see stato and avuto as examples.
I have found my old Italian grammar book. It says - when used with essere the past participle agrees with the subject - when used with avere and the direct object precedes the verb then it agrees with the object - when used as an adjective it agrees with the noun that is being modified.
  • great!!! --Barmar 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Next question - can ALL past participles (apart from impersonal ones) be used as adjectives? It seems reasonable. SemperBlotto 09:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No, only some (probably a few) pp can be used as adj (ie stato and avuto can not), Italian is not a reasonable language.. :-) --Barmar 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian past participles[edit]

It's probably best to use {{past participle of|''infinitive''|lang=Italian]]}} in the definition line of Italian past participles. (The lang=Italian part is so the entry doesn't get added to Category:English past participles, which is the default if no language is specified.) —RuakhTALK 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, thanks. I'll forward your remark to SemperBlotto (that's him who worked on the code). --Barmar 06:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to make sure we're on the same page — this isn't to replace {{it-pp}}, but to work in concert with it; {{it-pp}} goes in the inflection line, {{past participle of}} in the definition line. (See allenato for an example of what I mean.) Sorry if you already understood what I meant, I just want to make sure I'm not leading you astray here. :-) —RuakhTALK 06:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Specifying {{it-pp}} in the headword automatically puts the word in Category:Italian past participles so we don't need to use {{past participle of}} in the definition. SemperBlotto 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC) p.s. Barbara - edit this section to see how to talk about categories without including them (the colon makes all the difference).
      • I know (which is why I explained the need for the lang=Italian part; it's not needed for adding the Italian category, but for preventing the addition of the English category), but {{past participle of}} does more than just add the category. It also wraps the right things with <span class="use-with-mention">, creates a standard Wiktionary-wide presentation, etc. —RuakhTALK 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Italian infinitives[edit]

Questions, questions questions . . .!

I have noticed several times, when looking up a word on "De Mauro" that it will describe a noun by using an infinitive as a noun. e.g. revoca "il revocare, l’essere revocato e il loro risultato". Can all infinitives be used in this way? If so, please tell me that we don't need a noun heading for every one - I'm assuming it is just part of the grammar of the language. Would you translate this particular "definition" as "revocation, being revoked and its result"? SemperBlotto 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi! I'll make you happy: no, we absolutely don't need a noun entry for each Italian verb. The infinitive can be used as a noun, but it still remains an infinitive. There are a few exceptions: levare (you can say 'il levare del sole' = alba) is the first that comes to mind, but they are clearly specified in dictionaries. Revoca IMHO = revocation, retraction, repeal.

A question for you now: is the It pp template definitive? Lazy me, I haven't followed the discussion about it... (-: --Barmar 09:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nothing is ever final in this wiki. But I am happy with {{it-pp}}, and I don't use the {{past participle of}} in the definition line. Some people try to impose a unified style on all entries, but I feel that actual content is much more important. Cheers. Jeff. SemperBlotto 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I definitely agree that actual content is more important than consistency of presentation, but I don't see how {{past participle of}} interferes with actual content. :-/ —RuakhTALK 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Refering to Wikipedia articles[edit]

Hi there. A nice way to link to a Wikipedia article is to use "w:" like this w:Press agent, or even like this w:it:Toscana. You can hide the w bits and pieces using pipes like this Press agent or Toscana (on it.Wikipedia). SemperBlotto 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Jeff. That's useful, thank you! Please, is there a page where I can find the explanation of all the things like that? --Barmar 05:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If only! We do have a help system, but it isn't very good and nobody seems to have the time to iprove it. You just slowly pick up things from other articles. SemperBlotto 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

sostituito (as a noun)[edit]

I can't get my head around this. The definition in De Mauro seems to refer to the beneficiary of a trust - but what has that got to do with substitution? Googling for the phrase "il sostituito" brings up lots of heavy legal stuff, but also references that seem to mean a substitute in football. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 14:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Formatting of inflected forms[edit]

It's great that you're entering lots of Italian entries. However, the formatting is inadequate at the moment. The base word must be formatted to indicate it is being referred to rather than being used with its usual meaning.

For example, certificate has:

feminine plural past participle of certificare

Here, "certificare" must be distinguished in some way from the rest of the sentence to show it is not part of the sentence. Compare "the end of the day" (which defines "evening") and "the end of the day" (which defines the letter y). An imperfect example, but I think it illustrates my point.

Note that wikification is not sufficient in this respect, as other words in the definition may also be wikified. At the very least, the base word should be italicised. The format I prefer for inflections is the following:

feminine plural past participle of certificare

but there is no hard-and-fast rule on the format to use. I prefer this form because the italics show that this is information rather than a definition, and the bold text indicates a headword.

Thanks, and please keep up the good work! We need contributors like you. — Paul G 07:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Paul, I'm not to sure to have understood your remark. I haven't invented anything, I was just copying from other similar entries (see i.e. justifies, buys, loved etc etc).. you'll never see the infinitive verb in italics in entries like that. Or maybe you mean that we ALWAYS need to link the base word even if it's repeated many times in the same definition like the verb certificare in the certificate entry? --Barmar 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ciao Barbara,
I've just looked at "justifies" and "buys" and these have "justify" in bold, which shows that "justify" is a headword elsewhere in the dictionary rather than the word being used with its normal meaning. I would prefer the rest of the text in these entries to be in italics, but that is just my preference. It is sufficient that the base word is bold. Spero che io mi spiega bene :) — Paul G 14:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul, sorry but justify in justifies entry is not in bold.. at least not in my browser :-). But that's not the point. To me doing the things in a way or in another one is completely indifferent. What I want to make clear is that I haven't invented anything, I've just copied/pasted from other recent entries. Maybe we need a rule about that... or it may happen that another admin comes to me saying: "Ehi dear, why are you putting that verb in bold, haven't you seen that most entries use a different standard??". Ciao, buona giornata. --Barmar 07:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Please see the discussion in the Beer parlour and add any comments. SemperBlotto 07:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. This seems to be used as an adjective. Any idea how I should translate it? SemperBlotto 14:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My Ragazzini dictionary (and the De Mauro confirms see says that avente can only be used as adjective in the nouns avente causa -> assign, assignee and avente diritto -> assign, assignee, party entitled. Instead I've never heard the noun avente voto mentioned by De Mauro and honestly it sounds very strange (we usually say avente diritto di voto but in this case avente is a verb not an adjective). --Barmar 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

-iare verbs[edit]

I was just about to do scoppiare when I noticed that it had the wrong conjugation. I have fixed it, and removed the other -iare verbs that were using the -are template (but not fixed them yet). Could you please have a look at User:SemperBlottoBot#Verbs to be done - stage 3. The first group are wrong. Are the others using the correct template? (This exercise has shown several errors so far - it is more useful than I thought). Cheers. SemperBlotto 10:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the second group and I'm going to continue in the afternoon or tomorrow. I've discovered that the -ciare template is missing everywhere, in the entries of mine as well (sorry). Actually this is an extremely common Itailan misspelling: we do pronounce plagierò comincierò mangierò when the correct spelling is plagerò, comincerò, mangerò and so on. So, yep, I agree, this is a very useful exercise. --Barmar 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Ciao, Barbara! I was adding some adjective forms when I noticed you had left a link to panoramica (from panoramico, I believe). I know the noun can have the same meaning as panorama, but I just wanted to confirm an idiomatic meaning (or maybe you'd like to make the entry?) as my dictionary seems to have been misplaced! I've heard a friend use "fare una panoramica di qualcosa" in which panoramica means something like "overview." Is that an accepted meaning? Grazie mille! Medellia 05:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ciao Medellia! You're right, panoramica (noun) means panorama, view and overview as well. --Barmar 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Grazie! Medellia 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

turn in one's grave[edit]

The translations for this idiom appear to be literal, but may be correct. Could you provide a reference for the Italian translation (and move it from "Translations to be checked" back into "Translations") and add this is a comment, as I have done for the French translation, please? Thanks. — Paul G 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've added the Ragazzini dictionary reference, but my main reference is that I am an Italian, a person who was born in Italy and speaks Italian as her first language. This is a common Italian idiom and I currently use it too (it's very common to say something like: "se lo sapesse il mio povero nonno cosa ho combinato, si rigirerebbe nella tomba" or "Shakespeare si rivolterebbe nella tomba vedendo come si rappresentano oggi le sue opere" :-). This idiom has many variants -> girarsi, rigirarsi, rivoltarsi as you can see by Googling it. Ciao! --Barmar 09:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Is this correct? Or can you improve on it? SemperBlotto 11:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, but I don't know the exact meaning of this word (it's rare). I've added the 'pedia link, which points to w:Octroi. My Ragazzini dictionary instead translates it into inland duty or excise. I hope this can help you. --Barmar 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Gerard mentioned on IRC last night that it.wikt: is restructuring their content. I don't read Italian; could you read their equivalent of WT:BP, and let me know what is going on there? Are they removing ====Translations==== sections, but keeping foreign entries? Are they removing foreign entries, but keeping ===Translations==== sections? Or are they planning to remove both foreign entries and ====Translations==== sections? Or is it all just a nasty rumor? --Connel MacKenzie 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (Copied here by SemperBlotto 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Mistakes to be deleted.[edit]

Hi there. When you see pages that need to be deleted - could you just add a {{delete}} template, specifying a reason (such as spelling mistake) after the "|" - then whichever sysop is on duty will delete it. Cheers (and thanks for checking up on me). SemperBlotto 11:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I was just about to ask you about that. Sorry, but I've not understood the 'after the "|"' thing. Well, let's see... I go on the page (i.e. sopri -> sopra is invariable, I add {{temp|delete}} whenever I like and then what? Thanks. --Barmar 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
See sopri - I won't delete it (but someone will soonish). SemperBlotto 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, tnx! --Barmar 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


This seems OK to me. De Mauro has no boaita. SemperBlotto 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a misspelling.. or better a 'boiata', if you want to say it in Italian :-D (I had corrected a misspelling with another misspelling, oh oh) --Barmar 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

multi-word Italian nouns[edit]

Hi there. My plural bot is given a list of words derived from the "what links here" of the {{it-noun}} template. For each word, it gets it from the wiki, analyses the word's use of the template and constructs the plural. It was not designed with the fancy use of the template in mind and generates rubbish. It may take me some time to reprogram - so in the meantime I am just ignoring such nouns. You might want to add the plurals manually (especially if they are actually used (is the plural of say "citric acid" really used or is it just a grammatical construct?)) Cheers. SemperBlotto 16:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thought that the bot could automatically 'strip' the plural from the string like it did with viola da gamba, but if this is not true, I'll stop it. Actually a lot of Italian plurals are not in use or rarely used, but this doesn't mean that they don't exist. Only a few Italian words are invariant and most of them are or foreigner terms (or terms with a foreign origin) or verbs and adverbs used as nouns. --Barmar 18:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
OK - I have amended the bot, and it now supports these nouns. I have run it against all the acidi that we have defined. It just ignored acido silicico that doesn't jave the template yet. SemperBlotto 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. The bot has now completed all the ordinary nouns that we have. I shall look for new ones from time to time, but I won't always spot old ones that have been converted to use the template (they will show up in the middle of a very long list, whereas new ones will be at the end).
Wow! Great job!!! (I mean all that gazillion of plurals and the last improvement as well). Are you saying that from now on when we wikify a noun (already created), we'd better to create the plural form at the same time? In the afternoon/tomorrow I'll add the it-noun template to the remaining multi-word nouns, I hope you can add them to the bot list. Cheers --Barmar 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The plurals bot should be able to handle all formats now. SemperBlotto 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Isn't this also a noun meaning double bed? SemperBlotto 07:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I know, double bed = letto matrimoniale and matrimoniale is adjective only (Zingarelli agrees with me :-) I've added letto matrimoniale to the related terms. (400K is sooooo near!) --Barmar 09:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Multi-word adjectives[edit]

See privo di vita for a use of the {{it-adj}} template similar to that of the multi-word nouns. SemperBlotto 15:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And here's another so-little but so-useful discover! Ah, I have some brand new -are verbs for you: navigare, conservare, gelare, congelare, elogiare, asfaltare, plagiare and degustare. Your bot couldn't find them because I've created them adding the Italian entry to pre-existing words. Cheers. --Barmar 17:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

forms of reflexive verbs[edit]

The bot is progressing well, and I am starting to think about reflexive verbs. Have a look at lavarsi - we only wikilink the forms that are single words. Do you think this is OK, or should we wikilink (and then define) them all. And what forms of the participles should we have? (lavatosi, lavatomi, lavatole etc (I'm not sure if I would find them all correctly) I suppose the gerund and present participle exist in all these forms as well. What do you think? SemperBlotto 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Buongiorno! What a difficult question! I'm not against creating all the definition (it's pretty indifferent to me), but IMHO the question is: will this be useful? or better, will the average Wiktionary user search for 'mi lavo' instead of 'lavo' and 'mi' as two separate words? What do you think? That said, creating all the definitions will solve the problem of reflexive-only verbs such as arrabbiarsi, ammalarsi suicidarsi vergognarsi etc. Past participles and gerund: I think we'd better to consult an advanced Italian grammar book but IMHO the 'normal' past participle of 'lavarsi' is not lavatosi but lavato (the same as lavare) and this is true for ALL the reflexive verbs please see here, we say 'mi sono lavato le mani', 'mi ero innamorato della donna sbagliata' 'se mi fossi arrabbiato, avrei rovinato tutto'. Lavatosi, lavatasi, lavatesi, lavatomi, lavatole etc. are just examples of the zillions of compound forms we have (like fammi, fatti, facci, falle, fatevi, fatemi etc etc etc etc). Just my 2 cents. --Barmar 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'll give this more thought, and do some research before making a decision. I also don't think users will look for mi lavo - we'll keep those unlinked. As you say, DeMauro gives lavato as "p.pass., agg. ⇒lavare, lavarsi" but, in its page for lavarsi gives the participle as lavatosi. SemperBlotto 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You will be happy to know that my old Italian textbook agrees with you that the reflexive pronouns are only added to the conjugated forms, and sometimes to the infinitive - but not to the participles. I have done a quick Google on the combined forms anyway - here are the results.

Infinitive. lavarmi 110,000 lavarti 40,000 lavarsi 479,000 lavarci 40,000 lavarvi 17,000

Gerund. lavandomi 500 lavandoti 800 lavandosi 15,000 lavandoci 12,000 lavandovi 300

Present participle. lavantemi 2 lavanteti 1 lavantesi 100 lavanteci 1 lavantevi 0

Past participle. lavatomi 300 lavatoti 7 lavatosi 390 lavatoci 0 lavatovi 1

I think I should change the {{it-conj-arsi}} to reflect this. Then, when we have agreed a format for that, start to add the linked forms using the bot. SemperBlotto 10:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit sluggish today :-D, are you saying that you are going to change past participles in the template from lavatosi (arrabbiatosi, ammalatosi etc) to lavato (arrabbiato, ammalato etc)? And lavantesi -> lavante and lavandosi -> lavando as well?

However as Goooooogle said, the compound forms of gerund and infinitive of reflexive verbs are very common but we hardly ever use present participles. Actually arrabbiantesi ammalantosi lavantesi or whatever sound awful (orrendi I would say in Italian). --Barmar 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at lavarsi now. Anything you don't like can be changed (or you can change the template yourself!). SemperBlotto 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, looks fine, apart from the present participle. I've done a lot of research in Google (I'm seriously learning Italian this time, LOL) and all the sources seem to agree that the generic past participle of reflexive verbs is an -antesi (lavantesi) -entisi -intisi thing (ie see for reference, or Dunno, actually as I said we don't really use that tense, but if the sources say the same thing I tend to agree with them. Buona serata. --Barmar 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. I have changed the present participle to the -antesi form. I have also removed the wikilinking from the compound forms of the participles, and I won't create them using the bot. If anyone should ever look for them the "Search" button should find the infinitive page - that should be good enough (This can always be changed later). SemperBlotto 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm agree 100% with your last decision. Buona domenica! --Barmar 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I have finalized the arsi template and populated the forms of lavarsi - let me know what you think, and I shall do the rest (as well as -irsi, -ersi). SemperBlotto 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Is there a word to describe verbs such as andarsene and starsene? I was only ever taught andarsene and it was never pointed out that there are others of the same format (English textbooks treat it in that way as well). SemperBlotto 08:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

They're called pronominal verbs (verbi pronominali in Italian), see for some instances of them. --Barmar 08:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


I was about to add this as an adjective but stopped at the last moment when I realized it was an adverb. Then I thought "-issima, -issimi, -issime" is only for adjectives. But Google shows several thousand of these being used (though 6 million for benissimo). Are they all wrong/ignorant uses? SemperBlotto 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not wrong, the adverbs also have comparative forms (see or Other examples of -issimo forms that come to mind are: malissimo (the antonym of benissimo), fortissimo and pianissimo. --Barmar 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


See Wiktionary:Milestones SemperBlotto 08:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow! all this thanks to this d*** Italian weather, it's about 35° these days.. :-( BTW, 425,000 already??? 500,000 is neeeear. Cheers. --Barmar 09:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Could you check this please. I haven't come across this sort of thing before. SemperBlotto 15:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a rare verb, apart from the past participle inferto that you can hear sometimes in the crime news (something like: 'il colpo mortale è stato inferto con una lama lunga 18 centimetri' :-O). Your entry looks fine, I've also checked in my dictionary, I've just added a couple of more common synonyms. Buona serata. --Barmar 20:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

feeding the bot[edit]

See User:SemperBlottoBot/feedme Cheers. SemperBlotto 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, how it works? It's sufficient that I add the links in the usual way (word1 - word2 - word3 etc)? --Barmar 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Any way you like - simple text is sufficient (word1 word2 etc) - I shall just copy/paste into my own offline list. SemperBlotto 07:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Irregular verbs[edit]

The bot has "tipped its toe into the water" of irregular verbs but, before I get "up to my neck" I would like to get them into some sort of order (and get them all defined). As a first step, could you please look at the lists in -ere and -ire - I have tried to group them into families with the same approximate irregularities. Could you correct any errors, or add any that I have not found. Thanks. SemperBlotto 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added some verbs and fixed a few misspellings. Some important verbs are surely missing, but IMHO this is a very good starting point. --Barmar 13:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I shall be doing them in batches from time to time - I have made a start on the "mettere" group. SemperBlotto 16:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I have expanded the "mettere" group using as a source De Mauro (online) - using a wildcard search of *mettere (and then checking the conjugation is the same pattern). This could take some time! SemperBlotto 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) p.s. Have you seen this month's statistics?
Great search! Please consider that only estromettere intromettere (or better intromettersi) premettere, reimmettere, riammettere ripromettere (or better ripromettersi) are common verbs; radiotrasmettere, ritrasmettere, ricetrasmettere, teletrasmettere, videotrasmettere and riscommettere are quite rare and the others are extremely uncommon, I've never heard most of them, although they're correct.

Sooo-Wonderful Statistics: I hadn't noticed they were new (it still says 2000/05/25!): what can I say? -> W--O--W !-!-!-! <- Any other comment would be redundant, the numbers say all ;-) Buon fine settimana. --Barmar 07:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


Ciao Barbara,

I noticed in contraccettivo that you translated the noun as "A contraceptive." This is incorrect - the translation should simply be "contraceptive". "A contraceptive" is the translation of "un contraccettivo", and including the English indefinite article suggests that "un" is not necessary in Italian. Remember that non-English articles give translations, not definitions, where possible (an exception is made where there is no equivalent in English).

Anyhow, please keep them coming - you and SemperBlotto are doing a great job at building up the Italian content. Brava! — Paul G 09:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Ciao --Barmar 13:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi there. Could you look at this please? There is a dispute about a plural. Cheers. SemperBlotto 09:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff! Zingarelli and DeMauro both say that cacciavite is invariable. Cacciaviti is common in spoken language, but I suppose that the opionion of dictionaries is more important. --Barmar 10:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a verb derived from fluorescenza?[edit]

In English the verb to fluoresce is derived by back-formation from fluorescence. Is there an Italian verb? I can't find one on De Mauro. SemperBlotto 14:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No we haven't got any verb like that, fluorescente comes from the French 'fluorescent', to fluoresce tranlates as 'essere fluorescente'. --Barmar 17:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


Is this the stuff you would use to remove the scaly deposit from a bath etc? If so, it is limescale rather than limestone. Cheers. SemperBlotto 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is! Wrong cut & paste, sorry. Buona domenica --Barmar 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


How good is your physics? Is brillanza = luminance ? If not, I think it must be something very similar - but there are lots of words to describe intensity of light emitted, received, reflected etc, and I get totally confused. SemperBlotto 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Physics is nearly a mystery to me and I absolutely ignore what luminance/brillanza is, BUT my Zingarelli dictionary says that brillanza is: (fisica=physics) Rapporto tra l'intensità luminosa emessa in una data direzione da una sorgente praticamente puntiforme e l'area apparente. It also says that luminanza is a synonym of brillanza. This is all I know, hope it helps. --Barmar 18:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Does this mean to be born again (in the Christian sense) as well as to be born again? SemperBlotto 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't know and my dictionaries don't help, but according to it:Wikipedia rinascere also has this Christian meaning. --Barmar 07:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Why does this have two (different? unspecified?) etymologies? Seems to me there is only one? Robert Ullmann 07:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! The Zingarelli Dictionary (1996) says that the Etymology1 comes from the Latin sospectum, past participle of suspicere and that the Etymology2 instead comes from the Italian sospettare. Actually the meaning is the same, I've just followed the dictionary definition. Cheers. --Barmar 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


Does this mean the same as interferenza (an interference - something that interferes)? It doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. SemperBlotto 18:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that word.. are you sure that is does exist? --Barmar 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


I found this word in the the it.Wikipedia article on cats (w:it:Felis sylvestris catus) - I assume that it means long and thin, but it doesn't seem to be in any dictionary. Would the singular be "lungoformo" (zero Google hits)? SemperBlotto 16:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. This is the source of most of the words in my current Italian sandbox

It means that the animal, plant, object etc has a long (and probably also thin) shape. In fact the suffix -forme = -shaped. The singular is lungiforme. Could it be translated into long-shaped? p.s. I lllove the cats as well. --Barmar 16:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It really ought to be longiform in English, but that word doesn't seem to exist. The online version of the Oxford English Dictionary has 703 words ending in "iform" but nothing like that. I shall have a think. SemperBlotto 16:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

-ire verbs[edit]

In -ire I have listed -ire verbs that add "isc" because I thought thay were the minority. However, whenever I come to add a new -ire verb it seems that it always takes "isc". We now have about 30 that don't and about 200 that do. Should I change the -ire page to say something like "most take isc except the following" and then list the ones that don't? SemperBlotto 09:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


This verb is not in any dictionary - but seems to be used as trasformare. OK to add it? SemperBlotto 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

traformare is simply a misspelling of trasformare --Barmar 19:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)