User talk:CodeCat

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 2009-2010 · 2011 · 2012
Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
borrowing → bor313:02, 31 August 2016
Transliteration templates209:52, 27 August 2016
DodgeBow120:25, 25 August 2016
*hratan802:49, 25 August 2016
"Certainly not neuter!"314:05, 24 August 2016
Proto-Samic112:49, 24 August 2016
Could you help me figure out what's happening with человек?415:03, 19 August 2016
Estonian noun declension templates619:38, 14 August 2016
Mewbot category move error013:47, 13 August 2016
rooi, goei, etc.522:24, 12 August 2016
Script recognition module1221:52, 9 August 2016
dragka111:02, 9 August 2016
Template:ca-IPA2213:58, 5 August 2016
monddood2223:24, 4 August 2016
Reversion of my merger of the etymologies of "loop"202:30, 4 August 2016
MewBot is acting odd504:29, 31 July 2016
Reverted edits601:50, 30 July 2016
vsSwitcher123:19, 29 July 2016
Request categories008:47, 29 July 2016
iuxta321:19, 27 July 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

borrowing → bor

Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/borrowing, borrowed, loan, loanword → bor passed. Would you like to use MewBot to edit all entries per the proposal? If you don't want to do it, let me know and I'll post a request in the BP. Thank you!

--Daniel Carrero (talk)00:22, 31 August 2016

I don't think it's right to do it given the strong opposition.

CodeCat00:34, 31 August 2016

I don't understand exactly what you mean. A formal vote passed with a result of 14-5-3 (73.68%-26.32%), so I believe we simply can go ahead and do it. Do you see any problem with that?

--Daniel Carrero (talk)00:54, 31 August 2016

I'm a bit uncomfortable with how we're officially "canonicalising" the shortcut forms the way we did with {{lb}}. The shortcuts are redirects to longer forms. If we're not going to allow the longer forms, why even have them? I think we should just leave shortcuts as shortcuts and long forms as long forms. That's why, when the time came to orphan {{context}}, I renamed them accordingly: long to long, short to short.

CodeCat13:02, 31 August 2016

Transliteration templates

Hey, I was writing an etymology (perhaps unnecessarily detailed but bear with me) in which I needed to mention such things as stem endings and consonant clusters written in non-Latin scripts.
I used the {m} template initially, but it doesn't make any sense to me to link to pages that shouldn't and won't be made, so I used {lang} instead, but now I have no transliteration. Is there a template that transliterates without linking?

Crom daba (talk)07:56, 27 August 2016

Use {{m}}, but put the term to transliterate into the third positional parameter instead of the second. Examples:

  • {{m|ko|물}} == ‎(mul) -- linked
  • {{m|ko||물}} == ‎(mul) -- no link


‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig08:57, 27 August 2016


Crom daba (talk)09:52, 27 August 2016

Codecat, regarding

This entry is an instance of copyright infringement as it is producing a service that competes the trademark holder. Following,, Individual words are not copyrightable, although some may be trademarks, but this does not prevent [Wiktionary] from using these words, as long as [Wiktionary] is not producing a product to compete with the trademark holder.

Please consider carefully your reverts and submit upwards for review if needed. If page must be removed, let this be the compromise., 25 August 2016

Code, in case you were curious, I believe this user may be involved in this debate.

JohnC520:25, 25 August 2016

Probably, but Modern English rat and Middle English ratten would suggest otherwise, though. I do not care much for what unattested forms might have looked like, what I care about is what the attested forms look like and what they tell me and they tell me that it is more likely that the old English form looked something like this *hrātan rather than like this hritan. But it is unattested and so we can never know what it looked like in reality.

Mountebank1 (talk)20:22, 24 August 2016

ā becomes o in Middle English, and combined with the evidence of ratten I'm more inclined to reconstruct a short vowel and a long consonant for Old English, going back to Proto-Germanic *(h)ratt-. Where this comes from or what it's related to is anyone's guess, but it can't be related to *hrītaną on account of the ablaut.

CodeCat20:29, 24 August 2016

Look, you are falling down the rabbit-hole of regional variation. There is a form rit out there and a form rait, and rot, and rawt, and ret. The form rit is very common in Northern England (i.e., Scotland) while the form rat is more common in the rest of England and that's why I entered it as rat. There are a lot of forms out there for this word, but all of them seem to derive from *hrītaną. You are right, I should have just entered the Old English form as ̽hrītan, because this is what it probably looked like when you discount all regional variation.

By the way, I originally listed the Old English form as '̽hritan' but then I went down the rabbit hole of regional variation where me thought that a form ̽hratan might have existed, as well.

Mountebank1 (talk)21:18, 24 August 2016

There's still no conclusive evidence that this verb is from *hrītaną though.

CodeCat21:46, 24 August 2016

I could not find any conclusive evidence and that's why I have created a new entry for rit. It's rather uncommon outside Northern England, but can still be encountered in the Midlands. The etymology for rit is somewhat clearer.

Mountebank1 (talk)22:16, 24 August 2016
Edited by author.
Last edit: 02:49, 25 August 2016

On second thought, it is also unclear where the verb rit comes from. The Middle English Dictionary says that it derives from unattested Old English *rittan not *hrītan. rit is pronounced with a short i, by the way, and rat also has a short vowel.

Mountebank1 (talk)22:30, 24 August 2016

"Certainly not neuter!"

While "|n" was copypasted and while I didn't look for the Latin gender before, "certainly" does not fit here:

  • Different (New) Latin authors could have used different genders. Thus a masculine or feminine example, does not proof that trapezoides never was neuter.
  • I've onced read that words in -oides have the gender of the original word, e.g. *asteroides would be masculine as the Greek word ἀστήρ astḗr is masculine. It wasn't a reliable source and I haven't checked this statement, but it could be correct. If it is, trapezoides would be neuter as trapezium and the original Greek word are neuter.
  • Latin trapezium and German Trapez, Trapezium, Trapezion, Trapezoid and Trapezoides are neuter, and Trapezoides was declined like a Latin word (genitive Trapezoidis, dative Trapezoidi, ablative Trapezoide etc.). For Trapezoides one can also find the neuter plural "Trapezoida" (1786: "die Trapezoida", "gleich große Trapezoida", "drey Trapezoida"; 1733: "in Trapezia und Trapezoida").
    Well, there could be gender-shifts from Latin into German, but they should largely be restricted to "irregular" or "unusual" words like changing feminine paragraphus into a masculine Paragraphus. But paragraphus was also masculine in New Latin, thus it should be doubtful whether or not there was a gender-shift when the word was adopted into German. In case of trapezoides/Trapezoides there should be no reason to assume that there was a gender-shift.
  • (1560) has "Trapezia, & Trapezoidea Euclides communi nomine Trapezia vocauit". That should say that Euclid used the single term trapezium for both trapezium and trapezoid, and trapezoidea should be a neuter plural, see -ειδής. (1619) also has the plural trapezoidea and writes "..., & trapezoidea omnia communi nomine appellauit trapezia ..." which could proof neuter gender (omnia, inflected form of omnis). (1871) has a Greek and a Latin text and uses trapezoidea in Latin too.

So it's very likely that trapezoides is indeed neuter.
The plural however might be somewhat doubtful: "trapezoidea" can be found in earlier New Latin (1500-1650), while "trapezoida" can be found in German (18th century). As educated Germans back then learned Latin and wrote and read in Latin, it's likely that the authors would have also used trapezoida and not trapezoidea in a Latin text. But well, it does not attest the Latin plural trapezoida.
PS: One can also find trapezoidem and Trapezoidem (acc. sg.), e.g. "Trapezoidem in [picture of a triangle or a big delta] convertere." and "des Trapezoidis [...] den Trapezoidem". In German it's masculine, and I'd guess it's masculine in Latin too. But as stated before, this does not proof that the word was never neuter. - 04:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

04:30, 24 August 2016

The difficulty is that nouns ending in -ēs were never neuter in Latin. In fact I don't even know if there is a neuter declension they'd fit into. So if this is neuter, it'd certainly be a one-of-a-kind exception.

CodeCat12:32, 24 August 2016

Well, I just added "trapezoides" without any length. Someone else changed it into "trapezoidēs". Compared with other words ending in -oides the i should be long, that is "trapezoidēs" should be incorrect anyway.
Dictionaries mention several neuter nouns in -oides, like ascyroīdes, cynoīdes (or cynoīdēs), neuroīdes, sēsamoīdes - though some of them might be hapax legomena or words just used in science and not in poetry. In case of cynoīdes/cynoīdēs different dictionaries give different lengths for the e. But maybe there's no proof for any length. Also dictionaries mention adjectives in -oides, which are -oides for all genders in the nominative singular like monoides. But it could be monoīdēs, ēs, ēs (neuter with long e), or monoīdēs, ēs, es (neuter with short e like in Greek). There are also other adjectives in -es like diopetēs and īsoscelēs. But again the length of the neuter nominative singular might be doubtful, and maybe there's no proof for any length too and maybe it's just a guessing.
Based on dictionary entries it should be more likely that the neuter ends with a short e, e.g. for neuter nouns in -oides it's more often -oīdes in dictionaries than -oīdēs. That is, it should be trapezoīdes n (a and first e should be short like in τραπέζιον ‎(trapézion) and τράπεζα ‎(trápeza), plural should be trapezoīdea, maybe also trapezoīda). With accusative trapezoidem and plural trapezoides it should rather be trapezoīdēs m, but I have no Latin proof for the gender. Reasons to assume masculine instead of feminine gender: German Trapezoides with accusative Trapezoidem was masculine, and trapezoide and trapézoïde in Romance languages are masculine too.
As far as I know, trapezoīdes n is indeed a one-of-a-kind exception, but not because of its neuter gender, but because of the plural trapezoīdea which can be found in New Latin. For other words in -oides the neuter plural might be unknown, and in case of the adjective isosceles one can find the plural isoscelia. Side note: -oidea is also an inflected form of New Latin adjectives in -oideus like rhomboideus. That is, just finding a word form ending in -oidea regardless of context does not attest a neuter plural for a word in -oides. - 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

13:53, 24 August 2016

With this additional evidence it makes more sense now. Thank you for explaining!

CodeCat14:05, 24 August 2016


Hi CodeCat, do you remember where did you findinformation given in Reconstruction:Proto-Samic/ńuolë? Thanks in advance.

Pamputt (talk)12:47, 24 August 2016

User:Tropylium/Proto-Samic, though it's also simple enough to reconstruct yourself if you know the rules.

CodeCat12:49, 24 August 2016

Could you help me figure out what's happening with человек?

The word человек in the genitive plural is messed up. The underlying code is generating approximately [[человек#Russian|челове́к]]* and passing it to full_headword() -- specifically, it's calling full_link() on человек and then appending the *, which happens on line 241 of Module:ru-headword, and then passing the result to full_link() as an inflection. This works fine for most cases but messes up with человек, apparently because it's the same as the headword and hence should be boldfaced instead of linked.

Benwing2 (talk)02:49, 13 August 2016

If you generate just [[челове́к]]* that ought to be enough. full_link should go over all the links embedded in a term and process them appropriately. I don't know if that would fix this problem though, it does seem like this is a bug. I just don't know where yet.

CodeCat12:56, 13 August 2016

So it's actually generating [[человек#Russian|челове́к]]<sup>*</sup> and the links module is somehow getting confused and surrounding the whole thing with a self-link. The underlying wikimedia code doesn't display links well if there is a < in the left side of the link, which is why the weird display happens.

Benwing2 (talk)03:30, 15 August 2016

Yeah, the software doesn't allow html inside links.

CodeCat12:42, 15 August 2016

Estonian noun declension templates

Hello, 2 types have mistakes in them: "seminar", and "ase". I don't know how to fix them, since from what I can tell you have overwritten these templates with "invoke:et-nominals|show|seminar}}{{documentation". Just looking for some clarification. Strombones (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Strombones (talk)17:28, 14 August 2016

The Estonian templates are kind of in a half-finished state. There is really a lot that can be improved, especially for, say, words that allow more than one possible partitive form.

CodeCat17:31, 14 August 2016

Ok, but is there a way to fix those 2 aforementioned templates?

Strombones (talk)18:08, 14 August 2016

In the module, yes.

CodeCat18:49, 14 August 2016

Sorry, what module? I apologise, I'm just a beginner.

Strombones (talk)18:59, 14 August 2016

Mewbot category move error

Mewbot caused an error; here's the revision:

I also notice that if the edit had gone ‘right’, it would have resulted in wikitext which is 100% equivalent to wikitext which is already there. This applies to a lot of edits that Mewbot does and I really question whether performing edits like that is a good idea, since they bring no measurable benefit and clutter up the revision history., 13 August 2016

I've seen that you edited these before, but are they actually right? I mean does one ever hear: Dat idee vind ik echt goei, or something? And if so, how could we tag them because they don't seem to be common at least, do they? (I'm obviously speaking of goei, not goeie as an inflection of goed.)

Kolmiel (talk)20:21, 12 August 2016

If you search on Google for "een goei", with quotes, you find quite a lot of results that corroborate this usage.

CodeCat20:44, 12 August 2016

Okay. Thanks :) Also predicatively? For "is goei", there seems to be very little that isn't either fully dialectal or very, very old.

Maybe a note such as: "Many speakers use goeie as an inflection of goed. The uninflected form goei does occur, but is less common." ??

Kolmiel (talk)21:29, 12 August 2016

I don't think it's used predicatively, but you may just find one?

CodeCat21:36, 12 August 2016

I found one that went: "Biertje? Ja ok is goei." On instagramm or something. But that's it. So maybe simply a tag "chiefly attributive" then.

Kolmiel (talk)21:43, 12 August 2016

Nice find. :)

CodeCat22:24, 12 August 2016

Script recognition module

Do we have any module that recognizes the script of characters? Given "J", it would return "Latn". Given "Δ", it would return Grek.

I noticed that {{l|sh|во̀да}} (во̀да) is correctly labelled as Cyrl and {{l|sh|vòda}} (vòda) as Latn, without using the "sc=" parameter.

--Daniel Carrero (talk)21:04, 27 July 2016

That would be Module:scripts. Specifically the findBestScript function.

CodeCat21:06, 27 July 2016

Thank you.

--Daniel Carrero (talk)21:07, 27 July 2016

I would like if {{auto cat}} (or {{charactercat}} or whatever template), when used in Category:Bb, automatically recognized that "Bb" is in Latin script. For example, it could be categorized into "Category:Latin script something", it could have "Latin script" in the description and the "Bb" in the description would have the right script label in the code.

Likewise, Category:Δδ can be created for Greek script.

And Category:Bb: ⠃ (Latin–Braille) already exists. The category name has a mixture of scripts, but the module is already prepared to recognize the different contents before and after the colon.

But findBestScript requires a language code and the categories mentioned are multi-language categories. Can't we change the module so that it iterates over all scripts, when the language is und or something?

--Daniel Carrero (talk)00:13, 28 July 2016

That can work, but what about cases like Latn vs Latinx? A language would never have both as its script, but if it blindly goes over all the scripts, it's different.

CodeCat00:34, 28 July 2016

You're right. A letter like "C" is probably both Latn and Latinx. The same problem probably would happen with pa-Arab, ota-Arab, etc. if we had similar categories for the Arabic script.

Maybe it's not feasible, but can findBestScript iterate over all scripts, but give priority for 4-letter scripts? If it finds something in Latn or Arab, it stops the search and does not iterate over Latinx and fa-Arab.

Or maybe just give priority to Latn over Latinx and forget Arab and the others unless they become a problem at some point.

--Daniel Carrero (talk)00:46, 28 July 2016

Where is dragka attested? Just stumbled across this romanization you created way back but can't find it in Wulfila.

Kleio (t · c)10:58, 9 August 2016

Oh nvm, just noticed you had this mention it as an alternative form. I pointed that page to 𐌳𐍂𐌰𐌲𐌲𐌺 instead, which shows it to be an alternative form of 𐌳𐍂𐌰𐌲𐌺.

Kleio (t · c)11:02, 9 August 2016

Since you were telling me about this, can you fix the template I made? Thanks ;D

What's wrong with it?

CodeCat20:29, 3 August 2016

It doesn’t display.

Can you give an example entry where it doesn't work?

CodeCat20:33, 3 August 2016

Here it is: (Central) IPA(key): /kə.təˈla/

It looks like the module isn't finished yet. I did say it wasn't deployed yet.

CodeCat20:39, 3 August 2016

Hi. I'm wondering why mewbot put the pronunciation section above the etymology.

Kolmiel (talk)00:22, 4 August 2016

Because then it's in the same place regardless of whether there is one etymology section or several. It makes more sense that way.

CodeCat00:40, 4 August 2016

Is this a new policy? Should I do it? In Dutch or always?

Kolmiel (talk)00:43, 4 August 2016

I'm doing it for entries I make, including all Dutch ones, but it's up to you whether you see the merits or not.

CodeCat00:47, 4 August 2016

Thank you. I might be seeing them, but I tend to be attached to whatever I'm used to. I'll sleep on it :)

Kolmiel (talk)00:54, 4 August 2016

(Side note in case it's relevant...)

For Japanese entries, a single spelling may have multiple readings, each with it's own etymology. Historically, we've been putting the Pronunciation sections under Etymology for most Japanese entries. See 上下 for an extreme example.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:52, 4 August 2016

There are some cases where that occurs in Dutch too, see Category:Dutch heteronyms. However, the vast majority have one pronunciation for the whole entry, so it's a more practical default.

CodeCat00:53, 4 August 2016

Interesting to see that in Dutch, thank you. Am I correct in recalling that this happens in German too, with words that have separable prefixes in one form, but inseparable in another?

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig01:03, 4 August 2016

Dutch has the second largest heteronyms category after English, but that's probably just because I spent some time filling it up, and other languages haven't had similar attention yet.

CodeCat01:11, 4 August 2016

Yes, such stress differences occur in German, too (cf. unterstellen). German should have even more heteronyms than Dutch, because the former does not always properly distinguish long from short vowels in spelling (cf. Küchlein).

Kolmiel (talk)01:21, 4 August 2016

Personally I don't think MewBot should be putting the pronunciation above the etymology in single-etymology entries. This is contrary to the de-facto consensus that's emerged. If you don't like it, we should discuss it instead of unilaterally making a change like this, because it produces inconsistency in the Wiktionary structure.

Benwing2 (talk)14:19, 4 August 2016

It's more inconsistent when pronunciation is after etymology if there is one etymology, but before it if there are multiple etymologies. It's also annoying as hell when I have to swap them around each time I add a second etymology section.

CodeCat14:22, 4 August 2016

(Wouldn't a proper database back-end be nice -- enter the Pronunciation data in a Pronunciation field, and let a layout engine worry about where to put it. Ah, well.)

(... actually, does anyone know if Semantic Wiki or any similar extension might allow just that?)

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig17:13, 4 August 2016

I completely agree. Although I wonder if that wouldn't make contributions even harder -- currently someone can just hit Edit and make a simple change like fix a typo, and see the whole structure. A database backend would have to be quite complex to handle all the variations that are currently encoded in the textual interface.

Benwing2 (talk)18:05, 4 August 2016

The point here is that consensus exists for a reason, which is to keep the dictionary broadly consistent. You can't (or shouldn't) just arbitrarily change things like this, even if it seems better.

Benwing2 (talk)17:19, 4 August 2016

I'm not changing anything, I'm making it consistent. By having the pronunciation in the same position whether there is one etymology section or many. To do it any other way would be inconsistent.

CodeCat17:20, 4 August 2016

Reversion of my merger of the etymologies of "loop"

I was under the impression that the general consensus was to only separate etymologies if they were mostly or entirely different. While the verb may come from the noun, definition 2 of the noun probably comes from definition 1, and all the other definitions precede in some way from an original sense. It would be ridiculous to separate them out, however interesting it might be. Is there a reason you feel different parts of speech should be given distinct etymologies, and am I wrong in thinking there was a consensus not to do so?

Andrew Sheedy (talk)06:31, 3 August 2016

The noun is derived from the verb, so that is its etymology. Showing the etymology of the verb as the etymology of the noun is misleading because it gives the impression that the noun was also descended through that same path when it clearly wasn't. The noun didn't even exist for most of that history, and was only created recently, so clearly its etymology is not the same.

If the noun were derived from the verb via a suffix, then we'd show this suffix but not repeat the entire etymology of the verb. We should do the same if the noun is derived without suffixation. Linguists call this a "zero derivation", and it's a derivational process just like a suffix might be. It creates a new word, with its own history/etymology. In fact, perhaps we should start indicating and categorising zero derivations as such.

CodeCat12:40, 3 August 2016

OK, thanks for the clarification (though note that the entry says that the verb comes from the noun, not the other way around). I'm not opposed to treating such derivations as separate etymologies, but I think it's better to be consistent, whatever we do. I won't make any changes either way, however, if there is no solid consensus in place.

Andrew Sheedy (talk)02:30, 4 August 2016

MewBot is acting odd

This happened, the bot seems to be removing the past participle and past singular forms from the nl-verb headword line template (also on other entries)? Not sure if intended, thought you should be aware!

Kleio (t · c)23:21, 26 July 2016

No, that's intended. Since the inflection table already shows these forms even when collapsed, showing them also in the headword line is redundant.

CodeCat23:23, 26 July 2016

That makes sense -- but then I think there ought to be some kind of parameter to set in the nl-verb template so it doesn't show the [please provide] text in the headword line, now it just ends up looking incomplete.

Kleio (t · c)23:29, 26 July 2016

I'll remove that once the bot is done.

CodeCat23:30, 26 July 2016

In case you have Greek terms in your sights - forms are shown in the HWL that appear in Greek dictionaries (eg the feminine & neuter forms of adjectives). In most cases they tell you all you need in order to 'get' the paradigm. When viewed on a computer these forms may be superfluous, but when viewed on a mobile telephone they make it unnecessary to view the whole table which with some terms may exceed screen width. I would request that the HWL are not changed.

Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk05:19, 27 July 2016

MewBot seems to have repeatedly messed up the entry at 'm.

Equinox 04:29, 31 July 2016

Reverted edits

Hello, I specified Belorussian translation and added some translations to "etymology" page and "Serbo-Croatian" page and you reverted them. May I know why? Was there anything not okay? Thank you for answer.

MahiraYT (talk)01:14, 30 July 2016

Some of the translations were obvious nonsense, and so I didn't want to take any chances and removed them all.

CodeCat01:17, 30 July 2016

Can you give some example of any of those which were obvious nonsense and why you think so? I don't recall adding anything incorrect neither in "etymology" nor "Serbo-Croatian".

MahiraYT (talk)01:22, 30 July 2016

You added an Old English translation for "etymology", while I doubt the English had any such concept. Likewise, you added a translation of "Serbo-Croatian" into Old Church Slavonic, even though the language didn't even exist at that time, and it certainly wasn't called that until much much later.

CodeCat01:24, 30 July 2016

Even a dead language can have words for new concepts. It's dead but it's not absolutely forgotten and forbidden. Linguists still care about that language and try to implement new words into it. There's a word for computer in Latin. Do you think Romans had computers? There's a word for computer even in Old Church Slavonic (ищислитєл҄ь). I don't see any reason why срьбьскохръва́тьскъ ѩꙁꙑ́къ shouldn't be an option. It's even on Slavonic version of Wikipedia. Don't take me wrong but I think your "didn't even exist" reason is kind of irrelevant.

MahiraYT (talk)01:33, 30 July 2016

See WT:CFI. Our criteria exclude such terms.

CodeCat01:42, 30 July 2016


Where can I find the source of table class="vsSwitcher"?

Bigbossfarin (talk)23:09, 29 July 2016

It's in the JavaScript, specifically MediaWiki:Gadget-legacy.js.

CodeCat23:19, 29 July 2016

Request categories

When you have the time, please check if you agree with all the category changes proposed in Wiktionary:Votes/2016-07/Request categories.

I'm interested if there's any objection. The vote is scheduled to start in 2 weeks. The start can be postponed if there's need for further discussion.

I invited people to see the vote in this BP discussion.

--Daniel Carrero (talk)08:47, 29 July 2016
  1. "{{R:Gaffiot}}" is incorrect. It's "{{R:Gaffiot|1=juxta|2=juxta}}" and that's not baldy formatted.
  2. Different dictionaries give different lengths for the vowel u, and it's not a matter of time like old dictionaries giving one length and modern dictionaries giving another length. One could use something like "{{la-adv|iūxtā or iuxtā||-}}" but that looks more ugly.

So please feel free to further improve the entry, but your revert is no improvement. The reference link then is wrong and the vowel length is somewhat incorrect or biased, unneutral (maybe see WT:NPOV). -Poskim (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

15:45, 27 July 2016

From what sources do you derive the ū?

JohnC516:05, 27 July 2016
@CodeCat: Regarding your comment "Badly formatted, again":
Well, you first simply stated "Badly formatted". You never told me why you thought it was badly formatted and back then you didn't format it in another way or told me how to format it in a better way. Now you changed it, thanks. But in my defence, the template Template:la-adv does not mention the parameter "|head2=". Well, Template:R:Gaffiot does not mention any parameters too (though luckily there is Template:R:L&S), but you can't expect that other users guess correct parameters when the documentation is missing, incomplete or even incorrect.
@JohnC5‎: There are Pons, Georges, "FriezeDennisonVergil" and "Lewis", maybe Stowasser (cf. de:iuxta which earlier just had "iūxtā" and "Der kleine Stowasser" as reference). "Lewis" maybe got replaced by Lewis and Short and I don't know good "FriezeDennisonVergil" is, but Georges, Pons and Stowasser are quite famous names. Also Georges, Pons and Stowasser are younger than Lewis and Shorts, so they could be more correct. However, there are also modern dictionaries which have a short u (namely Langenscheidt's small pocket dictionary).
-Poskim (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
16:19, 27 July 2016

FWIW, etymologically it looks like ū should be expected but French joste indicates that at least in Proto-Romance it was (probably) short (not necessarily in Classical Latin, cf. French annoncer < ad + nūntiāre with long ū). Also, some modern dictionaries appear to leave out long marks before two consonants so the short u in Langenscheidt might not be probative.

Benwing2 (talk)21:19, 27 July 2016
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page