User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 12

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


This term has a sense specific to modern bryology, but I haven't been able to find a good explanation (finding the one for Asteraceae was hard enough!). Think you can help? Circeus 23:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Orac. Pyth. ap. Pausan. Arcad. c. 42.[edit]

Hi EP. Please see the discussion at User talk:Atelaes#Ἀϱϰάδες Ἀζᾶνες βαλανηφάγοι, οἳ Φιγάλειαν Νάσσασθ᾽, &c. — Orac. Pyth. ap. Pausan. Arcad. c. 42. for context to this request. I expand the Latin citation given as the title of this section to "Orac[ulum] Pyth[iæ] ap[ud] Pausan[ian] Arcad[ian] c[aput] 42."; however, I'm not at all certain that I'm correct with my case endings, least of all in the cases of "Pausan[ian]" and "Arcad[ian]". Could you review and correct my expansion for me please? Thanks. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Poll on formatting of etymologies[edit]

I would like to know your preference as regards the use of "<" vs "from" in the formatting of etymologies in Wiktionary, whatever that preference is. Even explicit statement of indifference would be nice. You can state your preference in the currently running poll: WT:BP#Poll: Etymology and the use of less-than symbol. I am sending you this notification, as you took part on some of the recent votes, so chances are you could be interested in the poll. The poll benefits from having as many participants as possible, to be as representative as possible. Feel free to ignore this notification. --Dan Polansky 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re wikilinking in quoted text[edit]

I recently contributed to a discussion to which you were party five months ago (at Wiktionary talk:Quotations#Links in the body of quoted text). I notify you in case you wish to respond. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that some time ago (2007) you input some Twi numerals. One of my students speaks it as a mother tongue and I had him record some words that I uploaded. (The only audio available in Twi so far I think). However, the spelling he gave me differs considerably from what you give. Not susrprisingly, because he was not so sure about the written part... I just used his notation at nl.wikt, see nl:Categorie:Woorden in het Twi and commons:Category:Twi pronunciation not realizing what you have here. Could you help me sort this out? nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf Jcwf 03:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

EP hasn't contributed here for six months; don't expect a speedy response. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
He has been pretty active on Wikispecies[1] lately, though.--Daniel 06:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello, I don't know where to ask, so I ask you: Because of inactivity of Interwicket I run again JAnDbot for interwiki linking. But in en: is my bot blocked and have no flag. Reason for blocking was "reomoving of interwiki". It was because I am used to run bot with -force parameter, which means removing incorrect links (in wiktionary it means other capitalisation), but this was not wanted on en:

Now there is possibility of -cleanup parameter, which means bot removes only non-existing links (deleted etc.), which I use now.

So, can you unblock User:JAnDbot and give him bot flag? You can look to its contributions on cs, de, eo...

Thanks, JAn Dudík 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:Bots. -- Gauss 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]


Hey, welcome back! —RuakhTALK 16:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. I won't be resuming WOTD (though I might volunteer to cover a month at some point), and I don't expect to return right away. I have a couple of pending obligations elsewhere, but may be adding some 18th-century quotations as a result of work I've postponed. Among other things, I really want to write a couple of much-needed Wikipedia articles on bryophytes, and that can take some time since I'll be working alone and from scratch on them. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Understood. I'm just glad you're not gone permanently, which someone had said you were. (I'm not sure how they decided that.) —RuakhTALK 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you back! --Dan Polansky 08:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back to this humble project. Please stay as much as you want. Here are cookies for you. --Daniel 12:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


It may not have been your intention, but you recently reverted an apparently constructive edit on plod. Please be careful not to undo the efforts of others to improve articles without good reason, which should be stated in the edit summary. Thank you. — User:Smjg (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was apparently destructive. Please do not confuse red links with dead links. They are not the same. --EncycloPetey 21:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What's the difference? More to the point, what use is a see also link to a page that doesn't exist? — User:Smjg (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Red links are our friends. They tell us what words we haven't defined yet. SemperBlotto 21:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are we telling people to see them then? If there's such a word, how about writing an entry for it? — User:Smjg (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
We have the cross-links ready in advance, for when the entry is created. I do not know Polish well enough to create that entry. It is generally a bad idea to create entries in languages where one is not reasonably fluent, and we discourage such activity. If you know Polish, you may create the entry. If not, you can ask User:Maro to do so, as he does know Polish. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just had a look, and am yet to find the policy you are on about. Though I did find at Template:also/doc: "Use this template to show similar entries". Is there something I haven't found that indicates that nonexistent pages count as "entries"? What are the criteria for assuming them to exist, anyway? — User:Smjg (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia. We don't have amassed collections of written policies. Most of the community norms you will not find written down. The item you are looking for is on the Main Page, which gives the goal of Wiktionary as aiming "to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English". Since there is a word in Polish with that spelling (I can confirm in two of the leading Polish-English dictionaries), we plan to have that entry. Removing links to entries simply because they don't yet exist is counter to Wiktionary's goal. --EncycloPetey 23:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
How does the goal "to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English" equate to linking policy? Anyway, while I agree with linking words that naturally occur in the text to pages that don't exist yet, it doesn't seem to make sense to confuse our readers (many of whom don't edit the wiki, but are just looking for the definition of a word) by instructing them to "see also" a nonexistent page. Especially considering that we have Wiktionary:Requested entries anyway. — User:Smjg (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Your views on linking seem to presuppose that the majority of Wiktionary appears as sections of text. It doesn't; sections of text make up only a fraction of the content of each page. WT:WINW would be good to read. If you need the principles of Wiktionary explained to you, we do have a request page for that, but you should probably read WT:AGF first. Many of our "see also" links were created by bot from a dataset indicating what words would have the same sequence of characters, so that the links would be ready for when the pages eventually exist. This saves us a great deal of effort later. I can give you additional examples of templates specifically designed to create red links (like {{t}} or {{t-}}), even with interwikis for entries that don't yet exist on other-language Wiktionaries. It's a community norm to create these red links in expectation of the entries. If you would like to change the community norm, then you need to start a discussion in the WT:BP proposing the change. Telling me that you don't understand the norm will not change the community's practices. --EncycloPetey 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. płód is now blue :-). Maro 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring and agree with EP and Semper, it's usual to link to all valid variations on a word, whether those words currently have entries or not. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Venetian etymologies[edit]

Hi there. I have been deliberately leaving the etymologies of (most) Venetian terms as simple comparisons with the Italian. I have no idea if the words came directly from Latin, or via Italian - and I don't know who to ask. SemperBlotto 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For some words, I can be fairly confident of a Latin origin and have added etymologies. In other cases, I don't know and will not be adding the etymology. Venetian is considered a separate language by linguists and can be traced back as far as Italian. I even have a few volumes on Venetian history, and some medieval documents (in reprint) from Venice although they are in Latin and not Venetian. --EncycloPetey 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at SemperBlotto's talk page. -- PoliMaster talk/spy 17:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)--~~~~~


I've enabled Twinkle for my account on here. Does Wiktionary have the same triggered actions in recent changes to look out for? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I've never used Twinkle, so I couldn't say. I don't know who uses it, either. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, it works and looks pretty good! How do I look out for unconstructive and vandalism edits. Do you get much vandalism on this project? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 18:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
We do, yes, and it's mostly a matter of watching the Recent Changes and New pages. It's better to catch vandalism when it happens than to try to find it much later. --EncycloPetey 18:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you reply to my message for you on SemperBlotto's page? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see one for me there. Did you intend the duplicate message sent to him to apply to me? --EncycloPetey 18:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said, that it was for either one of you to reply too. D'ya wanna reply here now instead?

Might as well. I haven't been here much for the past few months, but have done a lot of fighting vandalism. I'm not in the GMT, however, and am not keeping regular hours right now either. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but he is in GMT and was he talking about rollback? -- PoliMaster talk/spy 18:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Rollback is an editing feature like "undo". It is not related to the time. --EncycloPetey 19:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


Oh, you can remove my usex if you want. They aren't necessary when we have good citations from reasonably far back in the past. Why all the tweaks to this page? Is it a WOTD candidate? Equinox 19:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I just nominated it. I wanted to clean it up before nominating it; we have so few adverbs with good entries, and fewer that are featured as WOTD. --EncycloPetey 19:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Incidentally I got that ety from Webster (under bifarious). It seems to be their mistake, as yours makes more sense. Equinox 21:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I figured something like that. It looks like a vowel agreement shift that happens in compounds with this ending, possibly influenced by similar-ending words like nefarious whose ending has an origin that actually is unrelated. --EncycloPetey 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SH accents[edit]

I've seen accents on Serbo-Croatian words here and thought that was the convention here. I'll correct my mistake.

Doccolinni 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you've edited out the accents I've added in declension section of poruka, but the accents should be written when detailing declensions because quite frequently a word in different number and case is spelt identically but differs in pronunciation (intonation).
Doccolinni 23:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
That;s an issue that ought to be raised at WT:ASH. If that's something that should be put into declension tables, then it ought to say so explicitly there, so that everyone will do it the same way. Or else, if it's not to be done, then everyone will still know. I've studied some Croatian/Serbian, but I generally don't edit in that language. --EncycloPetey 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Well you can look at e.g. poruka. The only difference between nominative singular and genitive plural, and genitive singular and nominative plural, is in intonation and vowel length. It is obvious that indicating accents is thus important in declensions. Where I think the accents should not be written is in the "See also", "Derived terms", "Synonyms" and similar sections, but what I have encountered so far is exactly opposite - accents are written in those sections but not in declensions (here's an example). Now that clearly makes no sense. --Doccolinni 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you undo my edit on cantankerous?[edit]

I am not sure why you undid my edit on the cantankerous page. I updated the definition to a more accurate one and gave the source, which was a dictionary by the way. The old definition was plainly incorrect. LCX1280 03:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't copy information from other dictionaries. Also, other dictionary can (and sometimes are) incorrect; the fact that you found a dictionary to support you does not necessarily warrant a change to a definition. The best way to support a different definition is to provide quotations documenting usage with a particular meaning. --EncycloPetey 03:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So then how did the original definition of the word come about? As far as I can tell, it was added in 2004 by, who gave no sources for his definition. So is it that the first person can spew any definition that he/she wants and that is accepted as true. I did not look just in one dictionary, but in several ones. In none of them is cantankerous described as stubborn. They all define cantankerous as an ill-tempered disposition. I think we can agree that ill-tempered does not equal stubborn. I took the definition of the word from the The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, I even provided the google book link p797. Apparently, you were too lazy to spend 10 seconds to verify the definition. LCX1280 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. Definitions are not given from dictionary sources; they are written by the editors and supported by quotations, just as I have done for the second definition of rollway. See parrot and listen for examples of well-documented definitions with multiple quotations for each sense. Wiktionary does not limit itself to the contents of previously published dictionaries, so saying that "no other dictionary uses this word in the definition" is not a valid argument. We don't simply perpetuate old data.
It is not possible to verify your claim of using multiple dictionaries, as the partial URL gien in the edit comments does not lead to any source, just to google.books generically. So, please don't harp about sources since I did waste my time trying to find a source you claimed to have used without actually identifying.
If you would like to tell people how to do their work on Wiktionary, I suggest you start a page of your own in your Userspace, but please read WT:WINW and WT:AGF first. --EncycloPetey 04:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The url works for me. I tried it in both Firefox and IE it takes me to the information page for the book. Maybe you did not copy and paste the full URL by mistake. Here is the full URL, it was too big for the comments: The fact that dictionary can be wrong in principle does not imply that the previous definition was right by definition. The page only had one quotation from an unknown source that did little to support the theory that cantankerous = stubborn or irritable. Anyway, I do not see why you are protecting the previous definition so adamantly. You only added a pronunciation to the page and never edited the definition. It seems most illogical. I added several quotations for cantankerous to show that it equals to

"given to or marked by an ill-tempered disposition". Anyway, this whole experience has left me disappointed with wiktionary and I think it will be my last contribution. LCX1280 04:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

cot-caught merger[edit]

All surveys I have found on the merger indicate that it occurs anywhere from 40% to roughly half of the country. The low-back merger spread quickly throughout many parts of the country in the 20th century following the removal of phonics from the public school classroom in favor of the dumbed-down "Sight Word" approach to reading instruction, but what sounds "mainstream" to you sounds accented to other 50-60% of the country.

I also don't know where you got the idea that distinguishing cot and caught is some northeastern phenomenon. Much of Massachusets and northern New England are c-c merged (but not low-back merged). And considering that most of the Midwest and South do not undergo the merger, I don't know where this claim that I am biased towards any particular area of the country comes from.

And "t" and "d" are palatalized before "r", creating pronunciations like /t͡ʃɹiː/ for "tree".--Dezzie 15:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... Massachusetts and New England are in the northestern United States. They are a minority of the US, and you've been removine/replacing pronunciations in facor of that region. Ergo, your changes are biased.
Palatization isn't the issue. You've been adding pronunciaitons like /dʒɹi/, which uses an entirely different English phoneme. --EncycloPetey 17:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you read anything I just wrote, or do you simply have poor reading comprehension? You accused me of having a northeastern bias and stated that the majority of speakers in the US are cot-caught merged, both of these claims are untrue. What I just explained to you is that there are accents in the Northeast with the c-c merger, and those without. Making a distinction between the vowel in "lot" and "cloth" isn't unique to these accents in the Northeast, most of the South and Midwest preserve the distinction as well. So where is this claim that I'm favoring any one accent or region coming from again?--Dezzie 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, you're more interested in insults that supporting arguments with facts. I'll keep that in mind from now on. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A fully grown adult unable to admit when he's wrong is a pathetic sight to see. You realize that your accusations were completely baseless, and clearly you have nothing left to say. Get your facts straight next time. --Dezzie 21:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to spout insults, please do it off-line. Doing it here again will result in a block for your behavior. This will be your only warning. --EncycloPetey 22:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, I've already taken a bit different approach.

And putting Serbo-Croatian after Turkish is a stupid mistake, I got used to automatically putting Serbo-Croatian at the end. I'll fix that. --Doccolinni 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

request for inspection[edit]


¶ I would like to ask if you could inspect this user; it acts very much like one ye blocked, by not putting spaces after commata. --Pilcrow 20:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had the same question, SemperBlotto and I have been reverting this editor for weeks. As well as not using spaces, the translations look suspect. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this has been going on for months. The editor has:
  1. no knowledge of spacing and punctuation
  2. puts new senses on the same line as existing senses
  3. mis-matches parts of speech
  4. adds translations to the wrong sense
  5. adds translations even if they were already there
  6. adds the same translation to the same sense multiple times
  7. adds all nominative forms of an adjective translation instead of just the lemma
  8. adds every conceivable Latin translation of a word, even if it applies to a different sense or is a very rare meaning of that word
  9. adds translations that are flatly incorrect
I've tried several times before (always without success) to communicate with this anon, but have never gotten a response or seen a change in the editing. 70 to 90% of his edits are problematic to worthless on any given pass, so it's safe to assume you can revert it all without losing much. The IP always seems to edit from 187.1XX.XXX.XXX or 189.1XX.XXX.XXX, but I don’t know how to do a range block or how to ensure too much isn't blocked. We do have valuable anon edits coming from similar IP addresses. --EncycloPetey 21:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It is back yet again! --Pilcrow 17:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is another instance. --Pilcrow 03:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this user has been involved in this activity almost daily since last November, and possibly from an earlier date. --EncycloPetey 03:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

cot-caught merger ctd.[edit]

Once again, only 40% of Americans undergo the cot-caught merger, both Labov's 1996 survey and Harvard's 2003 survey corroborate this.

The cot-caught merger is standard in Canadian English, and occurs in many accents of Ulster and Scottish English. It is a phenomenon occurring separately from General American English, and should be labeled as such. So not only is labeling the c-c merged pronunciation as General American incorrect in that it only occurs in a minority of the population, but it also gives off the illusion of it being a purely American occurence, which couldn't be further from the truth.--Dezzie 17:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Question 1: Are you discussing mechanical sound as heard by linguists, or are you discussing the presence of two separate phonemes as distinguished by speakers? --EncycloPetey 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
With the Harvard study, I know that participants were asked if they pronounce cot and caught the same, and they would respond by saying they're pronounce the same, or that they are different. I'm not sure how this question is relevant.--Dezzie 18:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
On Wiktionary, pronunciations in slashes are phonemic; using symbols to represent the different sounds interpreted by speakers. Square brackets are used to provide a more precise description of the actual sound as would be recorded by a linguist. It is possible for the phonemic and phonetic symbols to differ quite strongly from one another. --EncycloPetey 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that. I'm just trying to figure out what you have in mind.--Dezzie 23:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Question 2: Did you know that the 40% of Americans undergo the cot-caught merger live across 60-70% of the geographic United States? And that the Midwest and Great Lakes area have a mixed population in this regard? --EncycloPetey 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why geographical size should take precedence over population. Also, the Great Lakes region is a firmly stable area for the cot-caught distinction on account of the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. That's why I labeled the /ɑ/ pronunciation as both, as most accents affected by the NCVS do not undergo the merger due to the fronting the "cot" vowel to /a/ and/or /æ/. There are parts of the Midwest that merge, but they are more inland. It's mainly a swath heading west from Pittsburgh into parts of southern Ohio, Indiana, and central Illinois.-Dezzie 23:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
you haven't answered my question; you've asked a different one. --EncycloPetey 23:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you please clarify?--Dezzie 23:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Look at Question 2 above. Please answer that question. --EncycloPetey 23:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You asked me if I was aware that the 40% who merge live across anywhere from 60 to 70% of the geographical area of the US. I haven't seen any hard numbers on this, but I find this claim believable as many of those large, sparsely populated western states are in c-c merging territory. I told you that I wasn't sure why geographical size should take precedence over population. That's like arguing that Standard Russian should be based off of the Siberian dialect. You also asked me if I was aware that the Midwest and Great Lakes area had a mixed population with regard to the c-c merger. I explained to you that the Great Lakes area is not c-c merged, only parts of the southern and western portions of the Midwest. The northern cities chain shift occurs in the Inland North, where "caught" is lowered to /ɑ/ and "cot" is fronted to /a/ or even /æ/.--Dezzie 00:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Question 3: Did you notice that my last question was a yes-or-no question about two statements of fact, with no additional slant or bias? And, do you see that in both your first and second reply, you argued against geographic size taking precedence over population, even though I had never claimed that it should? --EncycloPetey 06:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Having done some more research, I can now see that Michigan's upper peninsula, northern Minnesota, and northwest Pennsylvania are c-c merged, so yes, I am aware that the Great Lakes has a mixed population now, you were correct. It should be noted however, that the c-c merging areas of the Great Lakes are sparsely populated, with the largest cities being Erie and Duluth, cities of 101 and 86 thousand respectively, with the vast majority of the population living around the Great Lakes residing in the Inland North area, which isn't c-c merging. Also, I am aware that 60-70% of geographical area of the country is in c-c merging territory.--Dezzie 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
As with your first reply to Q2, your response above does not answer the question at hand. I do appreciate that you are also accumulating facts in this discussion, and these facts will help us to work out a mutually agreeable solution. However, I must ask that in your responses you do answer the question I have asked. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You asked me to give a yes-or-no answer to both parts of question two, and I answered yes to both parts in my last reply. I am now aware that there is a mixed population in the Midwest and Great Lakes with regards to the c-c merger, and that c-c mergers live across 60-70% of the US. To both parts of question two, yes and yes.--Dezzie 02:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any more questions? I don't know where you're going with this.--Dezzie 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do. However, my teaching semester will start soon, so I have to spend more time elsewhere for the moment until the start-of-semester issues settle a bit. --EncycloPetey 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Magister[edit]

This seems to be an issue in the Latin world in general and since I noticed you were editing Latin pronunciations in general I thought I'd ask; magister seems to be pronounced by some modern scholars as /maˈɡis.ter/ and by others as /ˈma.ɡis.ter/. I realize that neither is reliable seeing as there are essentially no real native speakers of Latin, but Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar (as well as other Latin grammar textbooks) say that the stress falls on the antepenult if the penult is short, so /ˈma.ɡis.ter/ should be the correct form. Wiktionary, however, has /maˈɡis.ter/ as the pronunciation (as well as /maˈɡis.tra/ for the feminine). I was wondering if this was an exception to the general rule that I'm unaware of or if it's incorrect and should be fixed. --Jmolina116 05:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which Latin textbooks? Wheelock (ch.4) stresses the penult syllable, and this agrees with the pronunciation rules set forth both in Wheelock and in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Where does the New Latin Grammar indicate the stress for this word? I own a copy, but that word is not indexed and I didn't spot it as an example in the pronunciation (accent) section. The penult in magister does have a short vowel duration, but the penult is metrically heavy because it ends in a consonant (the "s"; the "t" begins the next syllable). You may be confused by the fact that many English writers fail to distinguish between short vowels and light syllables, or use terminology that conflates the two.
The rule for a "short" (vowel duration) penult is that it will still bear the primary stress if the syllable is metrically heavy; i.e. contains a diphthong or ends in a double consonant that is split between the penult and the final syllable. Note that this doesn't apply to all double consonants, e.g. tr is a blend that is treated as belonging to the following syllable, but it does apply to x since it is pronounced as two separate consonants. --EncycloPetey 05:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The New Latin Grammar doesn't specify the word itself, it just has the general rule. I was unaware that the rule applied to metrically heavy syllables, I thought it only relied on vowel length (counting diphthongs as long vowels). Thanks for the clarification. --Jmolina116 06:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I also recall reading elsewhere that short penult syllables are unstressed (though I cannot recall exactly where at the mo') and that this applies to magister, possibly from an analysis that the final consonant of the penultimate syllable is just s, with the t belonging to the next syllable. This also explains how magister evolved into forms like maestro, maestro, Meister, and master. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename request[edit]

Hello. I want to request my user account be renamed from "Slipknot1" to "A7x" please. The reason is to maintain username consistency with my other accounts in other Wikimedia projects. —§ stay (sic)! 07:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wiktionary:Changing username. You have only three edits here, including the request you just made, so it may be easier to just open the new account. --EncycloPetey 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. The request has been already handled. Regards, —stay (sic)! 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Block Special:Contributions/[edit]

This user is persistent in ignoring requests on their talk page to get in line with WT standards. They seem oblivious to the fact that their Talk page even exists. I'm not sure how else to get through to them other than blocking them. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand entirely. I might already have blocked this user myself, but I don't know enough about CJKV entry standards to be comfortable making an appropriate decision. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate this user for blocking. They persist in re-adding previously deleted bogus content. They clearly have no real knowledge of the terms they insist on entering / editing, and refuse to respond to requests on their talk page. I'm getting quite sick of undoing their messes, especially when it is so often on the same set of pages.
If this is not the correct place for such a request, I apologize for the bother, and ask only that you point me to the proper page. -- TIA, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't really have a special page for that; it's usually brought up in the Beer Parlour. --EncycloPetey 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:R:Merriam-Webster Unabridged[edit]

is it ok? thanks a lot. Regards--Pierpao 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't this do the same thing as {{websters-online}}? --EncycloPetey 01:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. This template point to an unofficial site. My template point to that is, the official site (you can use it only paying a fee, free version is The site I use to consult moreover shows the reference string to be written in citations. So I wrote that specific template.--Pierpao 08:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The template should certainly not link to a pay version. Please do not copy definitions from copyrighted works. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
1) The template not link to the pay versions pages, but to the home page only. If you want to go on from there you have to login (with paid user name and pw). 2) I do not copy (If you see my edit you can easily find mistakes and imaginative definitions). Obviously. See my unified account edits. I'm a very experienced Wikiprojects user. 3) Again. As required by the Merriam-Webster site, the template contains exactly the string you must insert in the references if you use (like i did) any data from their Website.--Pierpao 20:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I had missed what you said about the reference string. Cool. I just was trying to head off possible trouble. I didn't do any investigating and, apparently, not enough simple reading of what you written above. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
No problem Thanks :).--Pierpao 09:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Prescription bottle[edit]

I am getting these translations from Google Translate. Is Google Translate a bad place to get translations?JCRules 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --EncycloPetey 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, I'll remove them immediately. But I'm keeping Filipino, because I'm part Filipino, and I know it in that language too. --JCRules 23:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:nl-adv[edit]

FYI Jcwf 15:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Pengo/Latin/Top 1000[edit]

I fixed that Interlingua -> Translingual (thanks). I still haven't announced the list anywhere. Any other feedback before I do? Pengo 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


this has been copied from my talk page for you convenience. you may move it back if you prefer.

I find no evidence that this word meant "addict". --EncycloPetey 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. The word "glutton" is almost archaic, so we need a more modern equivalent. For example, "helluo librorum" has traditionally been translated as "book glutton", but that sounds archaic now, so a better translation would be "book addict". Also "glutton" refers mainly to food, and the term "helluo librorum" shows that "helluo" refers to consuming or using other things too. The etymology for glutton implies that the term in Latin for "glutton" when referring specifically to food was gluto, glutonis. "Helluo" is more general, so needs a more general translation. "Addict" is not perfect, so if you can find a better one that would be great. Can you find evidence that it means "squanderer"? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean that. To "squander" is to waste, often by not consuming, rather than to consume. Thanks. Gregcaletta 11:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Country names[edit]

You wrote me about the language names, and while I do not speak all ~100 languages, I add, I generally copy the name for the country directly from the Wikipedia article, and I never add a country's name to the list unless there's a Wikipedia article, unless I speak the language. But sure, if you prefer that I only add names for the language I do speak, I'll accept that. Mulder1982 17:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

was-WOTD position[edit]

In regards to WT:BP#Position of Template:was wotd, I wanted to make sure you can get the current look of {{was WOTD}} if the position is changed. I've added an option to the bottom of the display section at WT:PREFS with the description Move the was-WOTD template back to the absolute top-right position (vector). Could you enable that and visit this test page to see if the test template is displaying where wotd currently displays? If you don't have that pref enabled it should just float like {{wikipedia}} below in the "content" area of the page. Thanks. --Bequw τ 02:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been intending to reply that the display position problem seems to have been transient. I haven't been active much the past two days because my home connection is down (again), and editing from work is excruciating if I have to open an edit window--getting an active edit window can take a minute or more. --EncycloPetey 14:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hope the connection comes back soon. Glad to hear the position issue was transient. --Bequw τ 00:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Would it be correct to say this comes from Latin operaticum (which may however be unattested) or better to stick with ouvrer +‎ -age? Thank you, Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Hey buddy, can I ask you to cast an eye over Galician mentir. I have a feeling the conjugation is a bit irregular. --Rockpilot 12:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Username rename request[edit]

Can you please rename my username to 'belze'?


Why this translation was wrong? On invado entry there is a translation "I enter". Maro 21:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You need to be aware of two parts of context here. First, although "I enter" is a possible translation of invado, it does not necessarily follow that invado is a good translation of "I enter". Translation is not a purely reflexive phenomenon. It also does not follow that every possible translation should be given for every word. Some translations are majority senses and some are minor.
The bigger issue here is that the edit is one of thousands made by an anon whose IP address keeps rotating, so he can't be blocked. The anon in question has been making dozens of bad, dubious, and erroneous edits for months, but fails to respond to any attempt at communication and never improves the poor quality of his work. Semper, Mglovesfun, and I are among the editors who've noticed this recurring problem and have been trying to combat it. Neither I nor anyone else here has the time to check and correct all the countless mistakes the editor has been making since last year, and will probably continue to make in the future. It is much, much easier to revert en masse than try a systematic cleanup. --EncycloPetey 23:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


We've talked about it here. Can you unblock me? [OG] -- 05:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You have never talked about this. I expressed an opinon, and other editor expressed an opinion. You never responded in the intervening year. Wiktionary relies on consistent formatting for a wide variety of reasons, not all of which are summarized in our style guides. --EncycloPetey 05:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
"Other editor" (who is an admin) unblocked me, so there was no particular reason to say something. I wanna make things right. When suffixes (or infixes, prefixes, etc.) are used in the section, the way that I do is the most common one, you know it. If you want to see it with "from" and a period, then tell it to the community, stop blocking me. Don't you think we need a standard for that? -- 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to systematically change the existing entries, then that needs discussion. You were blocked for removing the format that already existed. It is not a question of what you do, but of the changes you are imposing to what others have done. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You changed the existing entry Lüksemburglu, would you think of blocking yourself? -- 06:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you conceding that you were in error or simply playing at rhetoric? Or do you mean that changing a single entry constitutes a systematic change? --EncycloPetey 06:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It'd be better if you answered my question(s), instead of asking other questions. Again, I wanna make a standard and I believe I've done nothing wrong. -- 06:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand that you want to "make a standard", but that involves discussing it because you are proposing to unilaterally and universally impose your own standard that changes the work of others. I don't understand why you think I am the one who needs to propose that the existing format be kept as it is. --EncycloPetey 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


i am going to fix it up, thanks for catching my appalling mistakeAcdcrocks 03:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand that but that bot needs to be updated, I have already created hundreds of recordings and there should be a differentiation-there sometimes nonexistant but often very discordant pronunciations of words in the UK, US, Australia, Southern US, New York, California etc.Acdcrocks 03:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

c-c merger[edit]

Once again, the Labov and Harvard dialect studies indicate that only a minority of Americans are cot-caught merged. Also, seeing as it's a phenomenon occuring in varieties of Canadian and Scottish English, I listed it separately. If there is some source you can cite that would indicate that the merger is occuring in the majority of US English speakers, and hence can be considered standard, I would be happy to see it.--Dezzie 18:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with an additional listing for the cot-caught merger pronunciation. Such additional listings are fine.
I do have a problem with forcing a single "majority" population on the entire United States, especially since "minority" of the population accounts for the majority of the geographic territory. Pronunciations are given principally by geography, and not by regional accent. If you would like to change this convention on wiktionary, please propose it for a consensus decision. --EncycloPetey 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Could you show me where this convention that geography takes precedence over population is spelled out, or where this was agreed upon for this site?--Dezzie 21:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly, but the conversation has jumped from place to place each time its resurfaced over so many years that I cannot say with certainty I'll be able to find the relevant bits. It's strongly implied in the current version of WT:PRON, although that page (like many others of its kind) has never gone through a formal rewriting and approval process, so there are some non-standard bits in there courtesy of the principal author. There is probably more information somewhere in the archive either to my talk page or to Widsith's talk page. Also possibly in the vote discussions around the approval of the current version of Wiktionary:ELE#Pronunciation. As I say, the conversation never occurs in a particular place, so I can't easily point you to it.
What makes you think that "US" is intended to mean "GenAm"? It doesn't mean that, and the article the template points to makes that clear. --EncycloPetey 15:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


Can ye remembre why exactly ye deleted that entry? --Pilcrow 03:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It was probably unattested. I think that was around the time autocompletion of form-of entries started, and we had a lot of "bad" entries created as a result of tacking "-er" and "-est" onto words that shouldn't really have them. The form "more mournful" was deemed to be the norm, I believe, with no evidence for "mournfuller". However, if the form can be cited to meet CFI, then it can be recreated. --EncycloPetey 04:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Petey, I need your wisdom on this.

I was looking over the word xorob, and I noticed that Dick Laurent had placed the etymology before the pronunciation. When I made the change, and placed the pronunciation before etymology, per the guidelines, he undid them. This is his reasoning[2]:

"‎ m (255 bytes) (etymology goes before pronunciation, and I don't like to use Fusha transliterations of Arabic verbs for Maltese etymology, prefer a Maghrebi version)"

I pointed to the guidelines and undid his change. Since he is watching the pages, he reverted the page back.

There is a second issue, implicit in his quote. Etymology for Maltese is properly cited to Arabic proper. Citing to a Maghrebi (Moroccan) variant is akin to taking a word in English (e.g., "beam") and tracing it back to German "Baum". Maghrebi Arabic dialects are on an equal footing with Maltese, and all derive from an Arabic parent.

The issue continues as to which transcription should be used. In the entry for kiteb, Ric leaves the following[3]:

"(→Maltese: I'm uncomfortable using the MSA forms of Arabic verbs in Maltese etymologies)"

I'm willing to yield on this, but only if the guidelines call for it. Would you consult with Martin and see what his take on this is as well?

Thank you.

Reidca 02:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Arabic or Maltese to comment on the choice of dialect, but User:Stephen G. Brown might be. As far as the placement of Etymology section, yes the Etymology should always come before the Pronunciation section. That is a site-wide standard with only a few allowed exceptions (such as when there is a single pronunciation but multiple etymology sections). In general, Etymology should precede Pronunciation in every entry. Our primary layout document WT:ELE says this. If there is a document somewhere that says otherwise, it needs to be corrected. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I did recheck the ELE, and I was in error. I will point to كتاب, and say that there might be confusion: the pronunciation is before the etymology, amongst other issues. There might be other places where this has occurred. Thanks, Petey! Reidca 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I find it kind of baffling that you defer to Pete and Martin on Arabic and Maltese... They're both great editors, but neither of them are really familiar with either language, to my knowledge. — [Ric Laurent] — 03:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


  1. What is your opinion on this discussion I started in the BP quite a while ago, [4]?
    I beleive that there will (and should) be duplication between the sections. People will not look for Related terms in the Etymology section, so it's silly not to list them.
  2. What do you think of this RFV discussion, which is now archived [5]? Caladon 18:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    Since it never occurs as an independent word, I'd move it to -ficio. But that's a gut reaction without a long period of thought. I might have a different opinon if I researched the issue and mulled it over (or I might come to the same conclusion). --EncycloPetey 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for username usurpation[edit]

Hi there, I would like to usurp the username Entropy so that I can include it in my unified login. ([6]) The current user with this username has not made any contributions. Thanks! Nklose 05:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I just found the page Wiktionary:Changing_username and have filed a request there. Nklose 06:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi there. I modified mille to cope with millia which I found several times in Latin texts. e.g. "Passus tricies et semel, mille millia et quingentos pedes", "Et misit cum eis quadraginta millia peditum, et septem millia equitum, ut venirent in terram Juda ..." - these look like plural usages of the noun mille to me. Or are they usages of a different word - the origin of miglio in Italian, and mile in English. SemperBlotto 08:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • p.s. The OED, in its etymology of "mile" says "all ultimately < classical Latin mīlia , mīllia , plural of mīle , mīlle a mile, spec. use (short for mīlle passūs or mīlle passuum a thousand paces)" (my bold). SemperBlotto 09:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)



Please note my changes to the German translations of Canis Major, Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, Canis Minor you did a long time ago. I changed the gender in one and endings in the other.

Please note the following. Bär is a masculine noun, not feminine and the paradigm for endings in the nominative case is as follows:

(ein) Kleiner Bär but der Kleine Bär.

(ein) Kleiner Hund but der Kleine Hund. --Anatoli (обсудить) 04:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You might check the German Wikipedia articles then, since that was the source of the translations. They may still be errors on my part, but at the time I went by what the German Wikipedia had. --EncycloPetey 04:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstand me. :) Well, "Kleiner Bär", the correct translation you made, is a masculine, the ending -er is an indication. "Kleiner Hund" was also a correct translation but it should be without the article "der". As soon as you add "der", the adjective ending changes to -e. I don't think the German Wikipedia had this kind of error - native speakers don't write like this. The ending of the adjective is determined not only by the gender but by what precedes it. Anyway, in the past I've seen quite a few mistranslations into German here, which I've been fixing, it's a typical mistake. --Anatoli (обсудить) 11:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Hi EncycloPetey!

Over on Wikiversity I have been performing original research on the technical term dominant group.

When I was updating my links here and checking out other matters I ran across the following:

"On Wiktionary we ask "do we think it is the case?". This also means that whereas Wikipedia discourages original research and relies on the research of others, Wiktionary users themselves actively research terms and their meanings."

Although the term "dominant group" is proving to be an extensive research effort, I am hoping to get a few pointers from the term research that is going on here. Do you know which Wiktionary users are actively researching terms and their meanings and where these efforts may be viewed?

Wiktionary appears not to have any actual research pages so I am wondering if this is done off-line or in some special parlor, chat room, or user space.

Any help or comments you can provide are much appreciated. Marshallsumter 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussions on the finer points of meanings of terms normally take place in the Tea Room. However, WT:RFD and WT:RFV are both discussion areas for whether terms merit inclusion on Wiktionary, and so some discussion of meanings will happen there as well. --EncycloPetey 22:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)