User talk:Caladon/Archive 1

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


I was checking out your edit to this term, and thought you might want to be aware of {{wikibooks}}, which allows you to directly link to any article on Wikibooks with a standard look-and-feel. - Amgine/talk 03:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! You may find Wiktionary:About Latin useful for style, though you seem to have the basics done already. Some pointers based on your creation of lasarpicifer with this edit (the link shows the coding, to which you may want to refer while reading my pointers).

  1. We generally do not leave a black line immediately after section headers. It does not affect the page display, but it is a style convention.
  2. Templates should not be enclosed within triple quotes. Triple quotes are for bolding text, which is done only for words appearing in example sentences or quotations, to show where the word was used.
  3. If you use one of the standard latin inflection templates (like {{la-noun}} or {{la-adj-1&2}}, then you do not need to add the category to the page. These templates add the appropriate grammatical category automatically.

Thanks for contributing to Latin. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin inflected forms[edit]

Please look at this edit of mine to nūntiī. You seem to know enough Latin and enough wiki-syntax to understand it without explanation. however, if there is something you don't understand about it, please feel free to ask me. There is a similar system for verbs using a different template (the verb obligō has them on its forms), but verb forms are being added by bot now. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And you've not been using the 3rd declension inflection table syntax correctly. I assume you followed an existing page, but there are many bad template calls for our 3rd-declension nouns, and these have yet to be fixed. I have made this correction to show you the syntax. The parameters are (1) the nom singular without macrons, (2) the nom singular with macrons, (3) the genitive stem without macrons, (4) the genitive stem with macrons. Parameter (4) is optional when the sten lacks macrons.
You seem to be leaving of the macron on the final -o in -ātiō nouns. If you are relying on Lewis & Short, please note that they regularly omit macrons in the final syllable of header forms because they assume the reader will know when and where to put them in. See their dictionary's introduction for more. --EncycloPetey 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Third declension nouns[edit]

Thank you for the explanation on third declension nouns. I don't understand, in the case of the I-stem nouns, why ars, artis is said to be "obviously" a non-I-stem noun on the Wikipedia Latin declensions article. Could you explain that to me? Caladon 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I'd like to say that ars most certainly is an I-stem noun, and I have corrected that Wikipedia article. There are some I-stem nouns that aren't obvious, and there are exceptions to the rule, but ars is not one of them. The majority of I-stem nouns have one of three features: (1) the nominative singular ends in "-is" (from which the group gets its name as "I-stem"), or (2) the number of syllables is the same in both the nominative and genitive singular forms, or (3) the nominative ends in a double consonant. Since ars ends in a double consonant, it should be an I-stem noun, and I have confirmed that it is with some of my Latin references. --EncycloPetey 19:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case of a noun ending in -eus in the nominative singular, is it correct to use the normal 2nd declension template or not? The entry araneus is missing inflections for both the noun and the adjective and in the case of diminutives, do we create separate articles for them? Caladon 17:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For a the noun, yes, the 2nd declension template is correct. For the adjective, no, because the adjective is 1st and second delension. There are separate declension tables for adjectives. Yes, we create separate entries for the diminutives. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your latest question on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


This is a "mixed" conjugation verb, not 3rd conjugation. Verbs can be especially tricky to select the correct table, since they may be active-only, passive-only, or have a limited passive voice. --EncycloPetey 21:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's down to practice and I haven't added any verbs before. Caladon 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your latest verb question on my talk page. --EncycloPetey 17:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Verb questions[edit]

In the case of words with the prefix tene-, is there a macron on the second "e" or not? Does the verb appropinquo have a passive or not and is it intransitive or transitive? And also concerning verbs, have I been correct in assuming that tenebrico has no passive?

I haven't seen any tene- words with a macron on that portion, except for tēnesmos. I wouldn't expect tenebrico to have a passive voice, although it might be one of those verbs that has third-person passive forms only. It certainly doesn't seem to have a full passive conjugation. Note that verbs without a passice voice also tend to lack their fourth principal part. The verb appropinquo seems to be intransitive; it takes a dative "object" or uses a prepositional phrase, rather than taking an accusative object. As far as I can tell, it does have a passive voice. --EncycloPetey 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Small style note: Since in is an independent word in Latin, we don't consider it a prefix, and don't use a dash (in-); we just use in. The hyphen/dash indicates that a component is a prefix and not a word. Just as English cowboy is cow + boy and not cow- + boy. A following hyphen/dash indicates a prefix, and prefixes are components that do not exist as words in their own right.

Yes, there are many Latin etymologies on Wiktionary that contain this mistake or a similar one. I've been slowly finding and correcting them when I do. --EncycloPetey 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The OLD[edit]

I do wish I had the Oxford Latin Dictionary, as it is the current standard in English-Latin dictionaries. However, as you noted, it is rather expensive and I don't have the money right now to buy expensive books. The Latin dictionaries I do have and use most are:

  1. Lewis & Short
  2. Souter - Glossary of Later Latin
  3. Feyerabend - a translated German work; the Langenscheidt edition revised by Handford & Herberg.
  4. Calepinus (1625 edition) - the standard for most of the Renaissance and Enlightenment; particularly useful since it includes translations into many languages.
  5. the Facciolati Lexicon - a massive two volume work that was the precedecessor of Lewis & Short; essentially an edition of Calepinus' work, but with a supplement and additional information (and an easier to read format).

I own a few other dictionaries that are less useful, and there are further volumes for which I make trips to the library to use (especially for Latin of the Medieval and later periods). Although these are not as generally useful, I am sometimes able to track down information in them missing (or difficult to find) in my primary dictionaries. I also have a number of grammars, histories of the language, works on phonology, and a collection of textbooks (which don't always agree). Each of these has useful information for occasional words, or word lists that allow me to make better use of the dictionaries by finding words related in some way or within a topic. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


I've tried a different approach; basically the approach I've been taking with Ancient Greek. Thoughts? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

What I've tended to do with substantives: If the gender of the substantive is variable, then I've listed it under the adjecitve with {{context|substantive}} to note that it is a substantive sense. When the substantive is a fixed gender, or is plural-only, then I add a separate page with a noun section and inflection table. The problem with doing this is that we have not had plural-only inflection tables, so I haven't often added these. There is a discussion underway that I expect will result in having plural-only declension tables sometime within the next month. --EncycloPetey 20:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Surely this verb should be under occidō and using the new templates? Is the present participle meant to be occidens instead of occiderēns? Occidentalis is supposed to be related to the present participle and the verb. Caladon 18:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. There are still many old Latin verb pages that predate our current standards, especially in the 3rd conjugation. I made a significant pass through the 1st, 2nd, and 4th conjugation verbs that call the old templates, but have not finished revising the 3rd conjugation verbs. Two other major collaborative projects came up before I finished. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

context tags[edit]

Please note that context tags also categorize an entry by topic. So, when a word is not English, its language must be indicated like this, in order to place it into the correct category. --EncycloPetey 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

"Proper" adjectives[edit]

Now that you have a reasonable grasp of Latin entry format, and have begun tackling new entries on your own initiative, I'd like to get your opinion on an issue pertaining to Latin. The short version is: Should we capitalize Latin adjectives derived from proper nouns? Lewis & Short do capitalize such adjectives as Mauritanicus or Abanteus, as do editions of Classical texts printed in English-speaking countries. However, this isn't always the case for Latin texts printed in Spanish or French-speaking countries, and the original texts (in the Classical period) did distinguish between capitali or lowercase. Modern Romance languages typically do not capitalize such adjectives either. For Latin proper nouns, we follow medieval and modern conventions of capitalizing them (which is standard in medieval Latin, modern editions of Classical texts, and modern Romance languages), but for Latin adjectives derived from proper nouns, the situation is less clear to me. Do you have an opinon on this issue, or perhaps a viewpoint I have not noted in the preceding comments? --EncycloPetey 00:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ynys Môn[edit]

This word does indeed mean Anglesey. I'm adding the entry as a translation of Anglesey, if that's what you wanted. If you meant the constituent words, then it means something like 'Mon's Island'. YngNghymru 17:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably. There're only something like six users with the Cymraeg babel token, not all active, and not all the active ones working on Welsh. Although this doesn't necessarily mean there're only six Welsh users on the wiki, it seems unlikely there're that many. I think I'll start working through the requested entries, actually. YngNghymru 17:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


You had requested a Latin entry for subiicere, which I have assumed was a typo for subicere, since you noted that subiciō exists and since the only link to subiicere was a typo in the etymology of subject (which I have corrected). If this is not the case, could you please provide additional information about your request? --EncycloPetey 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've looked and wasn't able to find one. If there is an alternative spelling, it's extremely rare or a misspelling. Lewis & Short does mention "subjicio", but calls it "less correct". They don't mention an alternative spelling for other forms, and more recently published references I've checked don't even make mention of "subjicio". --EncycloPetey 21:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


Per discussion in another forum, I've nominated you for adminship. You will need to accept the nomination at Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-05/User:Caladon for admin by following the instructions that are commented out in the source of that page.—msh210 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

All details should be filled in now, hopefully. Caladon 15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Catalan conjugations[edit]

Both the GDLC and the DCVB are online and usually provide etymologies for their words. (The DCVB uses a form that generally ignores Latin inflectional endings, and both make use of breves when accenting Latin rather than Wiktionary's macron-only standard.) See my talk page for my comments on dolor and its relatives. — Carolina wren discussió 20:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: serein[edit]

Sorry for not replying sooner. I've just moved house, and annoyingly I have a French etymological dictionary (albeit a small one) so I can't look this up until I find it; as for the Old French lists, these are just copied from the French Wiktionary, so I don't have any particular 'knowledge' about the individual words, apart from a few I've added here (and there) myself. Mglovesfun 12:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in France right now, and an enormous Old French dictionary says that serain and serein are interchangeable, and as a noun means 'evening' and as an adjective means 'calm'. Mglovesfun 13:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin requests[edit]

I see you’re working hard on processing them. It is appreciated.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin inchoative verbs[edit]

I've finally tracked down explicit information about the conjugation of -ēscō "becoming" verbs. It appears that most of them have only a first principal part and lack the other three. This means that they have only those tenses and forms derived from the first principal part. I've started creating conjugation templates for such verbs. You can see one of them at {{la-conj-3rd-no234}}. It looks as though most of the -ēscō and -īscō verbs are 3rd conjugation, but I haven't found an explicit statement to that effect. There are a few of these inceptive verbs that have a more complete conjugation, like quiēscō, which has all four principal parts (although no passive voice conjugation).

This issue also means that the {{la-verb}} template wont work with these verbs. I'm using the code: {{infl|la|verb|head=cānēscō|[[defective verb|defective conjugation]]}} for now. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


A minor, but etymologically significant, change: The element ad is a word in its own right, so it shouldn't have a hyphen after it to imply it exists only as a prefix. In English words formed by the addition of "ad-", the hyphen is legitimate because the English word ad means "advertisement", but in Latin this is a prepended preposition that exists independently as a word. --EncycloPetey 13:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started trying to deal with the affix situation in Latin, but have only just started. I have found that a number of sources treat prepended prepositions the same as affixes, which misses the point that they are words. I'm more impressed with some German sources that recognize this difference, possibly because German itself is more prone to compounding. Hungarian dictionaries I've looked at (for Hungarian, not for Latin) also recognize the separable particles as such. In Latin, this is critical because spacing in early texts is not as consistent as modern ones. The Latin verbs formed by prepending a preposition are the equivalent of English phrasal verbs. --EncycloPetey 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
PS - It would be great if tomorrow or the next day we could work together on Latin entries. I haven't done as much in Latin lately, since I did a run on Galician, but I really enjoy having another person around. It keeps me thinking and energized. Do you expect to be on-line around this time tomorrow? If so, we might tackle the start of one of the existing cleanup projects. (verbs, affixes, etc.) I'd ask about today, but expect to be away form my computer nearly all day. --EncycloPetey 13:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm here and have caught up on some of the problems that cropped up while I slept. Looks like you're working on verbs. When I started on the verb cleanup (long, long ago), I wrote down a list of "phases" in the cleanup that needed to be done. At this point, the first four phases are done, to whit:
  1. Setting up {{la-verb}} and {{la-verb-form}}
  2. Updating the conjugation table templates
  3. Orphaning use of the old conjugation templates (though there are still a few pages out there that have the icky old tables coded directly on the page)
  4. Orphaning all uses of the old templates "latinverb" and "latinverbdepon".
    ...which leads to the current phases...
  5. Relocating all verbs to the lemma form
  6. Ensuring that the second principal part entry (pres. act. inf.) exists for all verbs that have it
  7. Proofing the conjugation table patterns on verbs (which may not be too feasible, but worth keeping an eye towards)
  8. Correcting all etymology links to Latin verbs to link to the lemma form
  9. Updating and expanding the Appendix pages on Latin verbs and verb conjugation
There's probably nothing here that you weren't aware of already, but you'd mentioned wanting there to be a project list, and this was one I put together. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. I choose a morning to colobortae, then spend an hour without electricity.  :( --EncycloPetey 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


If you're cleaning this up, can you do this one. I suppose the lemma form would be sono#Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be done now and hopefully it's correct. Caladon 16:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

secernere - could you please explain your deletion of my edits[edit]

You didn't give any reason for reverting my edits, which were clearly good faith edits.--Tyranny Sue 14:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason for my reversion of your edit [1] was because you broke the definition line by removing the desired '#'. You can add additional information, but it should be in a consistent format with other entries. I never claimed that the edits were not in good faith. Caladon 14:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC) [pasted here by me from my talk page to facilitate the flow of conversation --Tyranny Sue 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)]
Ok, I've re-added my definition with a # before it. Having looked at a few more Latin definitions, I see what you mean. I wonder why it's the convention to put grammatical info instead of an actual definition (as in, the meaning of the word) with Latin words? Do you happen to know? Thanks.--Tyranny Sue 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Needs declension. Also is Helvetii a plurale tantum? I found a source for it and it just says m and yet it seems to be a plural. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Latin Dictionary says that Helvetii is a substantive of Helvetius in the masculine plural; Helvetius meaning 'of the Helvetii' and Helvetii 'the Celtic people who migrated...from S. Germany to the region of Switzerland'; so it appears it is a plurale tantum. However, L&S doesn't agree as it says Helveticus is a derivation of Helvetii. I added an inflection section to Helvetia. Caladon 16:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[edit]

I noticed you blocked for one day for Disruptive edits. As the IP stopped the redundant edits 15 minutes ago when I explained the situation on the IP's talk page, could I suggest the you perhaps unblock him/her as it appears that the edits were mistakes and this user may have some useful contributions at some point today? --Yair rand 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yair rand: Do you think the IP had any clue (until you told them) that their edits were being undone? I had been wondering. Sorry to butt in. L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


contradico. Has quite a lot of descendants. Cheers, Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can; I tried to find a quotation that wasn't separated or inverted. On the French Wiktionary, the Romanian word contrazice is listed as a descendant of contradico, but our entry for contrazice says it isn't. Caladon 11:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[edit]

I've reverted most of this users's Latin edits, since they consisted of adding macrons where there shouldn't be macrons. --EncycloPetey 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

coming soon[edit]

Just thought I'd drop a note that a used book dealer (who knows my interests) contacted me recently. He's acquired copies of Latham and Niermeyer, so I may soon have those in my personal library. This would make looking up Medieval Latin words much easier, since I won't have to plan a full day excursion to access the local university copies. --EncycloPetey 05:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked aurificium, and Niermeyer gives only one cite and one definition. I've also adjected the pronunciation. Unless it's attested in Classical Latin somewhere, I don't feel right giving it a Classical Pronunciation. Is it in the OLD (which I unfortunately do not yet own)? --EncycloPetey 20:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not in the OLD, and I originally found it in Niermeyer. I was confused as to whether it meant 'a gold washing site' or 'a goldsmith's profession'. Thank you for clearing up the definition and pronunciation. Caladon 06:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for creating celeripēs.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Latin bell- words[edit]

Thanks for sorting all of these.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. In the process, I even found that, in the past, I had added words related to bellum onto armiger's page for some strange reason. Caladon 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


I replied on my talk page.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And again.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

maternalis, paternalis, fraternalis[edit]

Used in etymologies. Do they actually exist? What would he 4th one be, sororalis? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

They don't exist in Classical Latin at least, but I guess we can find sources for most of them. The etymologies need a clean-up. If it exists, sororalis is most likely the 4th one, but it doesn't appear to be in any texts. Will have a look at whether they can be cited or not in a minute. Just checked a few dictionaries and they mostly say sororal comes from soror + -al, rather than sororalis. Caladon 11:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I did think they might be reconstructed terms, see maternité for an example. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Oh that's maternitas. Include those as well please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I can't find anything for maternitas before 1500s; [1], [2], are these evidence for attestation? I can't find sororalis at all. maternalis, paternalis, fraternalis may be similar to maternitas and a source may be found for them. Thoughts? Caladon 11:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Renaissance Latin? I know Descartes wrote in Latin, so Latin was still used until at least 1600, but nobody spoke it natively (I am told). I suspect they merit an entry in some language, don't they? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I can add them as Latin words used in Renaissance Latin and afterwards, although I have no idea why some dictionaries say they are used in Medieval Latin. I have added māternitās but left it on la-attention for now. I would remove sororalis from the etymology of sororal and/or add the soror + -al one or show it as reconstructed. Not sure whether maternal does come from maternalis, since maternalis appears after maternal is first attested, same with paternal and fraternal, unless they are found in earlier texts. Caladon 12:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Latham has maternalis in Latin from British sources as early as 1380. This predates the earliest English usage (at least the earliest one in the Compact OED). The Latin paternalis appears by around 1250, as does fraternalis. I don't find sororalis or its equivalent in Latham. Note that Lathem uses British sources, so there may be earlier uses elsewhere. Souter's Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D. has paternalis, but none of the coordinate terms.
As for the related nouns or adverbs: Souter has materne (like a mother), paterne (like a father), paternitas (fatherhood), and fraternitas (brotherhood, brotherly love). Latham adds materna (15 c.), maternitas (pre 1300), fraternaliter (1389), and sororitas (monastic sisterhood, 1422) --EncycloPetey 03:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
When you say "in Latin from British sources," do you mean they have appeared in Latin texts around the time of the mentioned dates? And are any specific citations given in Latham or Souter? If they are in texts, then I guess they can be made, though it would be better to have a quotation on each entry. Caladon 17:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Latham doesn't specify sources for individual words. He does list all his references at the outset, but does not tie individual words to particular sources. He used Latin texts written in the British Isles to generate his word list. Yes, it would be better to have quotations, but we unfortunately won't have that until we start diving into the primary sources ourselves. That said, it might be possible for some of Latham's citations to determine which source was used by comparing dates. Some of his sources have a unique date for which no other sources are dated to. For example, it appears that the only text dated as "pre 1300" is one by Duns Scotus. Unfortunately, we'd have to search the entire text for maternitas, and there is still no guarantee of it being in there; Latham states plainly that his sources list is incomplete and only includes major sources used. --EncycloPetey 03:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Caladon. In the same way that meritōrius exists and is like the English meritorious, is there also a Latin immeritōrius which is like the English immeritorious?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As you have probably already searched for it, only one result turns up on google for Dionysius Carthusianus' Dialogon de fide catholica, and on [3] it gives the definition 'non meritorius', so you can deduce that it means the same as the English. I don't know if this is enough to make an entry or change the etymology. Caladon 07:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn’t actually, but thanks for that. I’ve mentioned it in the entry. In my experience, the de facto CFI for Latin terms requires only one citation, so if that exists, please, by all means, create the entry for immeritōrius.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Despite the ending, the "elderberry" sense is feminine. Most Latin words for trees or shrubs are of feminine (or neuter) gender, owing to the mythology about dryads. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Declension tables[edit]

Hey, you changed the inflection table thingy on one of the pages I created a few days ago. I don't know the syntax of the template, is there any link you could give me, so that I'd actually know how to use it properly? Cheers, --DyslexicRetard 03:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See the talk pages on the templates, for example [4], [5]. Both entries (obliviscor and recordor) used the correct conjugation table, but the incorrect header (for Latin verbs we use inflection as the header and not conjugation). The macrons were wrong on recordor (I changed recordarī to recordārī) and obliviscor was at the wrong headword (see WT:ALA#Prefer_V_for_consonantal_form.2C_but_prefer_U_for_the_vowel_form). You had forgotten the '11=' term on the conjugation template, and the third part of the inflection line was wrong (for example, it should link to recordatus not recordatus sum). Caladon 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. I assume that the chemical terms racemic and racemate must be derived from this word somehow - possible via grape sugar. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 11:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin verbs[edit]


There was a short discussion about this a while back in the TR, and you apparently didn't participated, so I was wondering, given that you are one of the regular Latin contributors here, what are your thoughts on the usage of literal English translation of Latin verbal lemmata? Real, paper dictionaries overwhelmingly use normal infinitives as definitions ("to xx", not "I xx"), and Wiktionary is currently the black sheep tradition-wise. --Ivan Štambuk 16:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of the issue is influenced by the fact that I'm used to the current system we use. I understand the points raised for the change, but ultimately, if there was a vote, I would probably abstain from voting, since I am not convinced or decided on either side (lemma to lemma is usually what one browsing expects to see, yet the inaccuracy of it and therefore its reliance on the presence of conjugation templates doesn't convince me it's a worth while change or the best option overall). More recent comments by Atelaes (talkcontribs) seem have to drawn me slightly towards agreeing with the proposed change, with his/her point about each page being about all the forms collectively, but only if allowances for exceptions are mapped out. Caladon 10:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for helping me out with the Etymology for that word. It was my first time writing an Etymology for a word. I've noted the changes you've made, which will help me out the next time that I want to add an etymology section to a word that I write. Anyways, did I write the etymology correctly? Thanks, Razorflame 18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine, though I don't know what the standard formatting is for showing further etymological detail like what's bracketed on the entry, since sometimes, if you want to show the full etymology, it can become quite long. Caladon 18:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Since it seems that the Esperanto term for longitude derives from the Latin word longitudo, would that mean that it should be added to the descendants section of the entry? Also, thanks for the help :) Razorflame 18:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added the Esperanto and Ido terms to the descendants. Caladon 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so it was right to add them to the descendants section, then? Razorflame 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Was the etymology you added from a particular source? I don't know anything about Esperanto or Ido etymologies, but based upon what you added, it was correct to add them. Caladon 18:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The etymology that I added was in the form of the other etymologies I have seen on Esperanto entries. Cheers, Razorflame 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


Sorry, I had in mind that the page linked by the Etymology should be linked back in its Descendants section as stated in WT:ELE and didn't know about the rule that Descendants are only acceptable in lemma entries. Do these rules also imply that the Etymology should link to the lemma rather than the inflected form?Matthias Buchmeier 10:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi there Caladon. Does the Latin word taxus have any of those special characters over any of the letters? Thanks, Razorflame 06:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have any macrons, no, as far as I can see. I'm downstairs at the moment, so I don't have all my resources. Caladon 06:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the help! Cheers, Razorflame 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree that the word taksuso (Esperanto) came from the Latin word taxus? Taksuso is listed as both the small evergreen tree otherwise known as the yew, in addition to being the translation for the genus that yews come from, which is the Translingual word Taxus. I figured that since taksuso was a translation of Taxus, then the etymology would come from it. Is this true? Razorflame 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you could make that assertion, but since there's no source of it, it may be wise to add 'perhaps', unless you're absolutely sure of the link. Caladon 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Cheers, Razorflame 07:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you listed taksuso as a descendant of taxus, I take it that taksuso is derived from the Latin word taxus, yeah? Razorflame 07:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably; I listed taksuso on the descendants because it might as well be there. Caladon 07:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks again for the help :) Razorflame 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

quote-book template?[edit]

Hi there Caladon. Can you help me fix the {{quote-book}} template I added to pluva please? Thanks, Razorflame 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the help :) Razorflame 18:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah! So {{...}} is used to add those periods at the beginning and end that designate that it still is going, yeah? Razorflame 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, I only discovered it a while ago, can't remember from whom though :) Caladon 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok then :). Thanks for the info : Razorflame 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


hello. in regards to your edit (no breves), have a look at the reference Lewis and Short which I only copied. --Diligent 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Is my etymology basically right? ambi- is missing all the other languages it needs (notably French, well in my case it's notable). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it's right. L&S states ambi- is an inseparable particle, so there should be a Latin section on that page as a prefix. Perhaps there should be an in-between step to show due in the etymology, as it's more likely to come via due than duo? Caladon 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


la-attention is being replaced with {{attention|la}} as having a template for each specific language rather than a global one is inefficient. The only reason it hasn't been deleted is that it has a lot of links to it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It has become instinctive now to type la-attention. Thanks for informing me of the change. Caladon 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)