User talk:EncycloPetey/Archive 9

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



You requested this word. Is this a specific phrase in onomastics? I am not familiar with it. I understand both parts of the compound word but together they do not mean anything to me. --Panda10 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is specialized. I can cite a usage that may help you. In Régi Magyar Családnevek Szótára: XIV-XVII. Század (Kázmér Miklós, 1993) p.568, s.n. Kegyes, the notation at the end of thentry reads:
< kegyes 'jóságos, szelíd, istenfélő' (NySz.), 'jóin-
dulatú, jámbor, barátságos' (TESz.). M: jellemnév.
— Vö. Becses, Derék, Jámbor, Jó, Jobbik, Böjtölő, Böjtös,
Isten, Istenes, Szent, Szentes, Szeredás.
As near as I can tell, "NySz." and "TESz." are historical or etymological dictionaries of Hungarian that are being cited. The "M" is for "motiváció (a névadás indítéka)", or the motivation / origin for the surname. The end is a list of surnames that have a similar origin, which may help you to figure out the term. I'm not certain there is an English equivalent; it may have to be defined in English rather than receive a direct translation. --EncycloPetey 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, ok. It means that the person's name was created (probably by others) based on his character. jellem = character, personality, név = name. So it's a name that expresses the character of the person. Maybe you can help me translate or describe it properly. --Panda10 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
In English, I'd say that it's "A kind of surname, nickname, or byname, originally describing a person's character, personality,..." --EncycloPetey 02:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply regarding reduplication[edit]

User talk:KYPark#reduplication --nemo 05:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


I symbolize the GOAT vowel with /oʊ/ for the pronunciation of words like coastal without labeling it US because because that is the symbol used in w:IPA chart for English dialects in the Pan-English column. This is the kind of broad transcription advocated in User:Keffy/Transcription_essay, which you have linked from your user page. Labeling that US and adding a UK pronunciation with /əʊ/ implies that there is a phonemic difference between the dialects, rather than merely the normal differences in accent. It is phonetically misleading as well; I do not believe the realization of this vowel in the two accents is as different as /o/ vs. /ə/ would suggest. Really I would be happy with either, even for American; or even better /ɜʊ/. But it seems best to stick to what appears to be Wiki standard. Brock 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are speaking from a Wikipedia perspective, but what I have put in is the Wiki standard for the English Wiktionary. There is a difference between the two because the two site have very different goals. We prefer to give a broadly phonemic representation for each regional accent in English, which will reflect differences not normally seen on Wikipedia. Take a look at the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, which also consistently indicates the difference between /əʊ/ and /oʊ/ throughout for UK and US. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not speaking from a Wikipedia perspective. I link to a Wikipedia page because it is linked from all over the place in Wiktionary. And I wasn't copying that page's theory of transcription anyways, just using it to find an agreed-upon set of symbols. /oʊ/ is a broad phonemic representation and it is equally valid for all major accents of English. Wiktionary:Pronunciation has this to say on the subject:

For example, the standard US pronunciation of law usually has a short [ɔ] sound while the standard UK pronunciation nearly always has a long [ɔː] sound, but neither dialect distinguishes phonemically between long [ɔː] and short [ɔ]. So, the only phonemic transcription given is /lɔː/, optionally supplemented by phonetic transcriptions to show details like vowel length.

Most sensible; and I don't even have long vowels or ɑ-ɔ distinction in my dialect. If you think that is not Wiktionary custom you ought to go edit that page. Brock 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have read that page selectively. Look again at the example given right under the header "Section layout and templates", where an example of UK/US distinction is given with əʊ and oʊ distinguished. Look also at our IPA transcription guide at Wiktionary:English pronunciation key. Please do not lecture me on Wiktionary common practices, as I have been editing regularly here since 2005, and helped to establish current Wiktionary practice on pronunciation transcription. I say again, you are speaking from a Wikipedia perspective on policy, practice, and norms. For example, quoting selectively from policies is considered bad form here. If you wish to change current Wiktionary practice, you are welcome to start a discussion in the WT:BP. Otherwise, please accept the advice you have been given. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I lectured you on phonology for a couple of sentences, and referred to some help pages on the subject to demonstrate that I had read the policies and was trying to follow them. Your every sentence seems designed to remind that you are a senior pooh-bah, while I am an outsider to be impugned with the barbarism of Wikipedia for some inapparent reason. I did not realize that the salient portion of Wiktionary:Pronunciation was not the whole section entitled Phonology and phonetics, but rather some example in the layout section that contains didactic redundancies not actually included in the portmanteau entry. Or that I should ignore the advice to use the symbols in w:Help:IPA for English in favor of a less useful page hidden in a list of links at the bottom of the page. Really, you should go edit the help page so it doesn't contradict itself. Brock 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Help:Interacting with humans. And don't shoot the messenger next time. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I did read that after you rudely castigated me for "selective" quoting. Perhaps you should review the section on attacking ideas not people. I took your advice on using IPA stress marks instead of apostrophes. But if you don't even try to explain how /lɔː/ is different than /koʊst/, I must assume your advice on this subject is confused or idiosyncratic and follow the written policy.

Normally I would apologize here for altering a page I shouldn't have. But your sly ad hominem attacks and preening arguments from authority disincline me to do so. Brock 23:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So actual policy is different than the documentation says, fine. You could have convinced me quicker had you admitted as much, instead of going on about Wikipedia and so forth. Brock 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rhymes[edit]

Ah, you're right. Sorry about that. Opabiia 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Hinder-[edit]

I try and weed the first element of compound words as prefixes out, however, I am not certain about this in regards to 'hinder' as it is not a noun. Use as a prefix is analogous to 'æfter-', 'under-', etc Leasnam 16:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Page Deletion[edit]

How do you delete a new entry once you've created it in error? Or does that have to be performed by one with such permissions? Leasnam 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It must be deleted by a sysop. If you created the page yourself, you can mark it with {{delete}} to indicate that it needs to be deleted. --EncycloPetey 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Prefix or not?[edit]

Well, my rationale would be that if it imparts a context to the new word not conveyed by the preposition itself. In the case of 'hinder-' a second connotation is that of "wicked, cruel" which one cannot ascertain from the preposition alone.

I always considered a preposition, when added to a verb, as invariably being a prefix...this explanation is quite new to me, but it is an interesting one :)

Nouns as Prefixes[edit]

Also, I do sometimes believe nouns *can* function as prefixes, when their meaning is opaque, but I otherwise avoid creating such as new entries 1). because there is no direct need, and 2). because that would take forever ;) and I haven't the time. I should not have used that as a defense -- Leasnam 17:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


I did a small adjustment to the etymology, which clearly derives from a taxonomic adjective (I could not find uses outside biological descriptions), but I'm not sure what the proper lemma form (in -is or -e) is, nor about the vowel lengths. Circeus 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The macrons were correct, as far as I can tell. I've tweaked it a bit more since (1) "taxonomic Latin" isn't a language, (2) I'm not sure I'd consider -formis a suffix in Latin (at least not in its own right), although I'll have to give that more thought. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As a _noun_ I found references only to cave markings (I did not find adjectival uses with reference to them). As an adjective, I suspect it might in fact be an attributive use fo the noun, but I'll admit I am not all that versed in anthropology/archeology (maybe anthropology alone will do? archeology is somewhat of a subfield of anthropology broadly defined). Circeus 18:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It is originally an adjective, so the adjectival use is the primary meaning. The noun use grew out as a substantive of the adjectitve, and not the other way round, as far as I can determine. I have found a number of adjectival uses in anthropology, but only when searching for collocations like "tectiform symbol" or "tectiform marking", "tectiform rock", etc. --EncycloPetey 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to visit[edit]

Progress on Simple English Wikt is quite slow at the moment, and I was wondering if you and a few other thoughtful editors here would consider visiting for a few weeks. I know there's tons of stuff to do here, but it would be nice to have some interesting company at home for a spell.--Brett 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I don't know the ropes over there. I'm finding most of my time taken by Latin, Galician, recategorization, and template writing, which isn't an issue on the Simple English Wiktionary (as I understand it). I usually find that I count on the bit of extra time I have free in the summer to get projects done that have piled up during the rest of the year, and still have three major projects waiting for some work this summer. So... any time I might spend on Simple would take away from that. I may drop in, but it's unlikely I'll be around there much. --EncycloPetey 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to undulate[edit]

See: User talk:KYPark#undulate --nemo 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See again. --nemo 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


You have mentioned it previously, and this was one of those cases where I wasn't sure, since there is a Latin entry for ad-. The Latin entries for prefixes, suffixes and prepositions aren't very clear, but I did know about the fact that since they are words in their own right, they are not suffixes. The reason why I was convinced in writing ad- instead of ad was because one source stated the etymology as so. Caladon 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be available at the same time tomorrow. I always wanted there to be some sort of joint project or task-list for Latin and some of the problems with the affixes have been slightly inhibiting.
On another note, I want to ask you about this edit to the etymology section of expletive [1]. This doesn't follow what WT:ALA says, but it is a very minor issue. Caladon 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Verbo is not familiar with current Wiktionary standards. Usually letting him know of a problem will keep it from happening again, but not always and there are many problems. In this case, he also decapitalized the definitions (which is not wanted). --EncycloPetey 14:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I had wondered why you might have gone offline. There are some verbs I have left for now, namely consolidare--the Oxford Latin Dictionary says there is a third principal part, whereas L&S says there isn't?; disiunare--is this even attested?; and descopulustrare which I don't have any information on. The problem with consolidare is consistent with all verbs which are stated on L&S as having no third principal part. Caladon 18:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) When there is disagreement between L&S and the OLD, I go with the OLD as more current scholarship. (2) My sources indicate that solidō conjugated like amō, so I would suspect its derivatives to do so as well. The word disiunare is not attested. WhenI researched this issue before, I found that it appears only as a hypothetical source word in various etymologicsal dictionaries. There may be a Late or Medieval Latin word, but if so then I haven't found it. (3) This is another User:Frous entry. He often adds Latin words that are found in little and obscure dictionaries of questionable value. I'd either RfV it or just delete it outright, since you and I are the two people most likely to go looking for it and neither of us have found it. --EncycloPetey 18:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Can "The perfect and supine forms are unattested in Classical Latin texts. These forms are assumed to be regular in most dictionaries," from the usage notes of spūtō be used for most verbs listed in L&S that only show the first and second principal parts? Could you also check whether in + f = īnf in most cases? Regarding our task list, there should not be many verbs left to move from their infinitive. Can in cruce corvos pascere, nuces relinquere, pede tellurem pulsare, pedem referre all be moved normally? And in the case of iocare, revertere and sepire, are these all alternative spellings of iocor, revertor and saepio respectively? Regarding etymologies, should the Latin sections for ad and sub be removed? Caladon 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
(1) No, that text is inclluded because the forms appear in some other reference works, which suggest there might be attestation in Late or Medieval sources. Some Latin verbs simply lack the third and fourth principal parts. (2) Feyerabend certainly seems to agree that in + f- -> īnf-. (3) Perhaps not, but there are some entries out there that were never properly categorized. They'll be harder to find and correct. I stumbled across two such entries a couple of weeks ago. I don't have a strong idea what to do about expressions, since it is quite possible that they appear mostly (or only) with an infinitive verb. I'd look for attestation before moving them to a 1st principal part. (4) sepire is an alternative spelling, but iocare and revertere are not. Deponent verbs normally don't have the active conjugation forms, The form iocabo is attested in Plautus, and seems to be the reason for a iocare entry. I would delete the entry if the present active inifinitive isn't attested (it isn't as far as I can tell on a quick look), and note the odd form in Plautus at iocor. I don't see any reason for a revertere entry, unless it is a Later or Medieval form. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, the iocare and revertere sections can be deleted straight off? I edited sepire and sepio, but could you check to see it's the right format. I don't understand when one should use the alternative spellings header and alternative forms header. Should the infinitive sepire be shown as an alternative form/spelling of saepire/saepio or should it show that it is the present active infinitive of sepio? The verb for, fārī will need your attention as well. Also I noticed arguendo is now tagged as having an invalid header as the Autoformat bot did not recognize 'Gerund'. In relation to verbs that possibly have no third and fourth principal parts, how would you add an entry like amylō or accubō? Also, culare seems to have reappeared after deletion (See [2]), so I presume that it can be deleted straight away? And something I have been wondering for a while, should the suffix -rix be -rix or -rīx (Compare [3] and [4]) and does it, in most cases, come from the masculine agent noun ending -tor, if it exists, or from the main verb, e.g. coniectrix, coniector and conicio (L&S and OLD seem to disagree on this one). Caladon 11:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)



That's actually a use of instead of as a preposition, not of instead as an adverb. --EncycloPetey 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi EncycloPetey, I didn't realize instead of was considered a different part of speech than instead, but in retrospect it makes sense. Thanks for your input and cleanup. (I've never really contributed to Wiktionary, I've always gravitated towards Wikipedia and Wikinews; I was looking for hello synonyms, but got sidetracked by the citations feature.) -- Zanimum 15:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If you enjoy the citations aspect of Wiktionary, you could be of great help. Even if you add citations only occasionally, you seem to have learned the basics quickly. BTW, I've added a 1623 Shakespeare quote, both to extend the chronological range of citations for instead of and to demonstrate some of the issue with citing Shakespeare. The First Folio is the edition I usually cite because I have a facsimile copy and so can look up exactly the capitalization, orthography, and spelling that was actually used instead of relying on modern edited editions that do not preserve these features. --EncycloPetey 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Funny funny. Um... question here, that Wikisource:Citations doesn't seem to deal with: What's allowed in terms of quotes? Should it always be literature, or can news accounts or other non-fiction works be included? With sources modern enough to still be under copyright, are there any no-nos, so long as I keep the quotes short? Thanks! -- Zanimum 17:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ginger Beer[edit]

Hi, I just have a style question. I noticed you changed the vertical list of Chinese translations into a horizontal list on the ginger beer page. Is that how I should format the translations next time?

Yes. All tranlsations are listed by language. The languages appear in alphabetical order as separate bullets, but multiple tranlsations for a single language are as a list separated by commas. For Chinese, there are additional issues that I am not completely familiar woth. So, if you have questions specific to Chinese (such as dealing with Traditional and Simplified forms), I recommend asking User:A-cai, who is our leading contributor in Chinese languages, and who knows Wiktionary format very well. --EncycloPetey 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! And thanks for the welcome message. Ethansmith 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ke language code[edit]

You created the {{User ke*}} templates and associated categories for Koine Greek. Wikipedia apparently uses them too. This seems errant as ke isn't an ISO 639-1 code. Nor do I believe that Koine Greek has a 639-3 code. Would you be fine using grc or maybe proposing something like grc-ke at Wiktionary:Languages without ISO codes? --Bequw¢τ 08:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine. I created those templates based on the WP ones, but before I knew there were standard ISO codes and before we becgan using them in a standardized way here. --EncycloPetey 13:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave it with grc then because SIL codes this as Greek up through 1453 which includes the Koine period. I'll delete the temps and cats. --Bequw¢τ 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


IPA=?--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

tx x2!!:)[but what doesthe ipa-dot "." mean pl?]--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 20:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

w:International Phonetic Alphabet#Suprasegmentals. --EncycloPetey 20:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ic-- "" [notIPA]<whatr those dots4/name?--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. They could be the places where the word may be hyphenated. However, the rules for English hyphenation vary from country to country, and even vary according to different style guides for different fields. Newspaper publishers and sheet music publishers, for example, have different hyphenation preferences. Where did you see the word presented that way? --EncycloPetey 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Longman dict.[ISBN7-5600-4328-3/H.2067](wot isthe H.nr4/for?)-tx!:) [links rmine]--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

H number? No idea. Sorry. --EncycloPetey 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

y-noworry-- # (UK) IPA: 'vɛəɹi

   Rhymes: -ɛəri

why"r"notsame?--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 23:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Because /r/ is the rolled "r" found in Scottish dialects of English, and in languages like Spanish. Most speakers of English do not roll their r's, and the IPA symbol for that sound is /ɹ/. The "Rhymes:" pages were set up and named before we made this distinction consistently, so they tend to use /r/ instead. --EncycloPetey 23:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be worthwhile without a very sophisticated bot. Not only would all the pages using /r/ have to be renamed, but all the links to those pages in every Wiktionary article woud have to be corrected. --EncycloPetey 23:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the bureau-ocracy[edit]

You are now one of us and may expect an influx of free junkets and that comes with our lofty station. — hippietrail 01:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, good! I like milk and rennet. --EncycloPetey 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


canIPAbe aded4sake ofnon-native users?tx--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

We limit the WOTD display to the word, part of speech, a few definition(s), and a link to an audio file where one exists. The IPA will vary by dialect and region, so we don't include it in the WOTD display. However, IPA is always present on the entry by the time the word is featured. --EncycloPetey 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

but audio=per seregional2?!:o--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but most entries have only one audio file (or none). By contrast, most entries have two or more IPA pronunciations. It is easy to link just one audio file, but messy to display multiple pronunciations. Also, the audio always is linked by the same short word and small icon, but the IPA pronunciations would be of variable length and display over more space, and this would detract from the display of the definitions. --EncycloPetey 19:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


  1. (Deletion log); 15:56 . . SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:junket" (No usable content given)
You posted a general procedure question there. The talk page for an entry is for a discussion about that word, and not a place to ask general questions. For examples of a citations page done well, see Citations:listen and Citations:parrot. --EncycloPetey 20:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Examples of use

  • 1556: "Nor their bakettes lack no conceytes nor ionketes."

--Thomas More. Utopia. Trans by Ralph Robinson. Reprinted 1869. p95

  • 1790: "We grow tired of the frequent Repetition of Balls, of Plays, or of Opera's ; which are Studied, artificial Refreshments : Whereas, Conversation is the natural Junket of the Mind ; and most Men have an Appetite to it, once in the day at least : The Person, likewise, who secludes himself from Company, will as naturally impair the Vigour of his Understanding, as he would diminish the Strength of his Body by too abstemious a Course of Diet."

--Ambrose Philips. The free-thinker. Vol III. No 124. p95"

no duh-ipa[edit]

   * IPA: /nəʉ dɐː/
   * IPA: /nəʉ dɜː/

<ok??--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, but I've corrected the ipa on the entry. --EncycloPetey 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

əʊ -oʊ <rdifrent sounds?or oʊ=KK?:o--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The sound /əʊ/ is how the British pronounce "long O". In the US, that vowel is pronounced /oʊ/. There are lots of these slight differences in pronunciation between English in the UK and the US. --EncycloPetey 21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


dun!only,rel-terms>compounds--mind havalook?ok likethat?:)--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what you have done with those templates is correct. However, the editor who inserted the list of compounds did not format the list correctly. Right now, it is formatted as a Translations section, with "Mandarin:" in fornt of every entry and with the {{t}} template. A compounds section should not use either of those features.
I also do not know whether "Compounds" is an acceptable section header. We try to limit them to only a few standard headers so they can be checked by bots and to keep entries consistent. "Compounds" is not a header used in the languages I normally edit. --EncycloPetey 23:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

imade'Derived terms'ofit>itneedsderi/code now?-iforwrdedthe editor'n'acai whohelps us ureply--史凡/ʂɚ˨˩fan˧˥/shi3fan2 (歡迎光臨/Welcome! 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


igot thismsg: "Any chance of shortening this signature, plus not putting apparent gibberish in WT discussions? "

My advice would be to shorten your signature. Include only essential components, the welcomes, alternative names, etc. are not necessary. Only a name, maybe a short Latin version, and a link to your talk page altering people about RSI. More than that puts so much in that people don't notice the RSI and can't find the important parts. --EncycloPetey 14:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I appreciate you fixing the template up a bit, but unfortunately you broke the template and it no longer does what it's supposed to. Here's what it should do: The plural form is either {{{1}}}, {{{pl}}} or {{{pl1}}}, taking the first one that is specified. If this equals '-' then show 'no plural'. If none of these is specified, show '{{{PAGENAME}}}en'. Right now, it doesn't do the latter part, so many articles (such as erwt) are now missing the plural form because they relied on this automatic -en. --CodeCat 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I think I see where I went wrong, and will fix it now. --EncycloPetey 14:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


(cur) (prev) 13:34, 15 July 2009 AutoFormat (Talk | contribs) m (579 bytes) (header Derived terms to L4) (undo)

{{diff|6984941}} displays diff.​—msh210 19:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
er-wheredo ifind thenumber pl?--史凡 ( 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 20:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
You don't really need template:diff. I went to the history (clicked "history" atop the page [[化妝]]), clicked "prev" to find the difference between AutoFormat's edit and the previous edit, and (could have simply copied the URL of that page but instead) noted the "diff=___" number form the URL and pasted that as the parameter of {{diff}}.​—msh210 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
gotit-tx!:)--史凡 - 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI! 23:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

modus *[edit]

I’ve replied re: modus at my talk page. In brief:

  • If not a derived term, where should such terms go? (Descendants?)
  • In this case, modus ponens etc. seem pretty legit New Latin – they’re not English-specific.
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Not being specific to English doesn't necessary mean they're New Latin. Taxonomic names, for example, are Translingual. The question is whether it's used primarily within Latin sentences, or whether it's used in many different languages. We'd need to decide the language before we decide where it gets listed. --EncycloPetey 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Further replies at my talk page – in brief:
  • If they are Translingual, which section of the root word are they put in?
  • Shall I (or you) update Wiktionary:About Latin to clarify this?
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


*myLongman only has2nd spelin,wichseems lesfavord i/WT-'dperhaps a usagenote bemade'boutsay distribution/frequency?,lilconfusin2menow asis..:/

A question like that should be posted in the WT:TR, since it is about usage. --EncycloPetey 20:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ic ur point---ilbe given ahardtime asusualtho:(--史凡 ( 請也用/Please also use skype: sven0921為我/since I suffer RSI!) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I am an experienced Wikipedian (since 2005) starting fresh with this account and also am experienced here. I have two accounts with rollback at Wikipedia. Could you give me rollback here so that I can revert vandalism and be the first person ever to be granted rollback in the history of Wiktionary? Pzrmd 03:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks as though you have fewer than 50 edits here with no history of fighting vandalism. Familiarity with Wikipedia does not necessarily translate to familiarity with Wiktionary. There doesn't seem to be any reason to grant rollback at this time, particularly since rollback is considered an admin power on Wiktionary. You would need to log considerably more edits and then apply for adminship. --EncycloPetey 15:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh well. I have made thousands of edits here but I don't want to reveal who I was. (I wanted rollback separately, certainly not adminship.) Thanks anyway. Pzrmd 06:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

dux, duco, duce[edit]

Hi there Petey,

I was wondering if there is any difference between the Italian duce deriving from the Latin verb duco or from the noun dux. Perhaps I'm having some sort of common sense blackout right now, I just don't know. Could you tell me? Thanks User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 09:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. The Latin dux is a noun from which we get French duc, English duke, etc. The Latin ducō is a verb, and while it is possible for a word in one part of speech to derive from a word in another language with a different part of speech, that isn't a common occurrence. To say that Italian duce derives from the verb rather than the noun would therefore indicate that something unusual happened in Italian that did not happen in English or in other Romance languages. --EncycloPetey 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what does that mean for the etymology given at duce#Italian? Is it perhaps false? User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably means that the etymology is incomplete. My guess is that Italian duce comes from Latin dux, which in turn comes from dūcō (I lead). So, the etymology currently there appears to have skipped a step, and also is using the wrong form of the Latin verb. --EncycloPetey 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Take care and I will put the extended etymology into duce. User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I'm pretty new on Wiktionary (although I'm a regular contributor on Wikipedia), and I have a question about Wiktionary entries. What are the policies on separate entries for alternate spellings or spellings with and without diacritics (for example, pièce de résistance versus piece de resistance)? They seem to more or less both have the same information; should one of them simply redirect to the other, or just say "alternate spelling of X" with only a link to the other one, and no content? Thanks! DroEsperanto 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not a simple question, and the answer will vary by word. For color and colour the two forms exist in part because the spellings are each standard in their respective regions (US vs most other English-speaking countries). In other cases, especially where one spelling is predominant over all others without regard to nationality, we may simply use the template {{alternative spelling of}} for the entry on the less common spelling. Either way, there should be some full entry for every documentable spelling that meets the requirements of WT:CFI. We do not use redirects here, and cannot really do so. A redirect works for linking topics in a single language (as on Wikipedia), but not for handling spellings in all languages. If an entry spelling is a redirect, then what happens if that spelling turns out to be a word in some other language? The redirect is then lost anyway, and so that's one reason we just don't use them. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that makes sense. It seems like it would require a lot of work to synchronize a bunch of pages that are for exactly the same thing, though. What about when one usage is preferred over the others. The only reason I asked is because I saw that both of those entries (piece/pièce) had requests for audio pronunciation. Anyway, thanks! DroEsperanto 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The issue of duplicating/synchronizing is a long-standing one. We haven't found a workable solution, although many possible ones have been proposed. The MW software just isn't well-designed for the kind of needs a dictionary has. --EncycloPetey 00:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. So if I see pages like that where one has more content than the other, should I just manually synchronize them? DroEsperanto 16:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As long as the two forms have all the same meanings, that is a possibility. --EncycloPetey 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin variants[edit]

Given that Latin has changed over time, how should we approach such changes? -- De novo 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you identify a language that has not changed over time? This isn't a problem specific to Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
We have "Old English", but I've not seen any New Latin headings yet ... What I was asking is: should we have "New Latin", "Classical Latin", etc. headings, or do they get listed as one? -- De novo 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
We only have headers for languages that have ISO codes. Under ISO coding, all Ancient Greek is a single language and all Latin is a single language. So, the simple answer is that we don't separate out different Latin periods because there isn't an official langugae code for that. --EncycloPetey 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About the suffixes: wouldn't you call them as such? I made it clear on the page that they were used for grammatical case, gender, etc.. If I'm wrong to call them suffixes, w:Suffix is wrong also. -- De novo 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Most entries listed at -en are grammatical suffixes too. Is there a reason we don't use them for Latin? -- De novo 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There do exist some (mostly very old) entries for inflectional endings as suffixes. That is a known problem. A suffix is an ending that forms a new word, not one that modifies the case, gender, number, etc. of an existing word while preserving the same fundamental meaning. We've been more consistent about this in Latin; some languages here have not been as consistently edited. --EncycloPetey 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
So, it's accepted by the community here not to add "inflection endings"? Should we remove any existing inflectional endings? I won't be labeled a vandal if I did remove these? -- De novo 15:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Accepted by the community? No, not on the whole. There are people who think we should have coverage of inflectional endings, but most of those people agree that "Suffix" is the wrong label. We haven't decided what to do about them. There are some languages where they're actively being removed (like Latin), but I couldn't tell you for certain which ones. The intent for Latin is to develop an Appendix page that covers them, but deciding on a suitable form hasn't happened. That's something you could start compliling, either for Latin, or for other languages like French or Spanish. If suitable appendices existed, it would probably be easier to accomplish a cleanup. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you give an example as to what an appendix would look like and what contents it would have? Just a list of inflectional endings? -- De novo 16:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at some of the appendices that exist, such as Appendix:Latin cardinal numerals (still in progress) as an a example of a more thorough Appendix. A simple list isn't very useful. It's better if there is explanation of each list item and contextual information as well. However, it can be easiest to start with the simple list, and then expand the appendix by stages with additional information. I can't offer an example of an inflectional endings appendix, because there aren't any yet. There are lots of Appendices (mostly categorized as such), and you might broswe around them. There are many different Appendix styles that vary with content. --EncycloPetey 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that page goes in-depth. Alright, I'll see what I can do. Thanks. -- De novo 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Thanks. The OED2 gives 10 definitions of this word: 8 are marked obsolete and one is an error for imminency. I have added the non-obsolete one - Eroica 19:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I added some derived terms,[5] I would have copied what I found elsewhere. Even if this was incorrectly formatted, or whatever, I see that as a opportunity to improve the entry. Answer on my talk please. Cygnis insignis 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. A summary that indicated that would have been more helpful. A quick note would have allowed me to recall the entries I was emulating from my browsers history.
  2. The must be some special use of "derived term" that I do not appreciate. I suppose there is a difference between translingual and 'other languages'.
  3. Did you attempt to see what I was attempting to do, and why I am surprised that Sirenia gives no link to sirenian? There is a link to tr:Sirenia, perhaps you can use that to illustrate what you mean.

Alternatively, and I suspect this is a better idea, can you put me in touch with a user who is willing to help me with my first edits to this site? All my edits to wikimedia sites are made in good faith, and often with a great deal of forethought. When I find missing and incomplete entries here I'm keen to add to them, but I personally find the guidelines bamboozling and digressive. And I'm not completely ignorant of the subjects relating to this site. It is insulting to be reverted like a vandal, without explanation, no matter what opinion you have formed of my worth. If it helps you to suggest a user, my temperament is more suited to those who don't make "absolute" assertions. I would make an exception for those who are never wrong, at least in anyone else's opinion. ;-| Cygnis insignis 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


It’s "torzhókskoy", a form of "torzhókskij" (торжокский), the adjective for the town of w:Torzhok. —Stephen 23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, if ending is -ой (-oj), then stress moved to ending: торжокско́й (torzhokskój), if it's nominative singular masculine.
Compare: torzhokskój and torzhókskij.
But torzhokskoj can be a form of torzhokskij, as Stephen said, - feminine singular genitive, dative, instrumental, or prepositional case, then stress is on stem: torzhókskoj. --Jaroslavleff 10:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: a avea <- habeo‎‎[edit]

Hy. Pardon my error. I wasn`t carefull. I have a link which might come in hand in the future: It`s in Romanian, but you can make sense of it (e.g. in the case of the verb avea, you can see its etymology at the end of the entry ("Lat. hăbēre"). You might want to ignore entries from other sources except for DER - The Romanian Etymological Dictionary edited by the Romanian Academy; you can see the entries source on its last line where it says Sursa: ...'. The other sources (DEX - Explanatory Dictionary, NODEX - The New Explanatory Dictionary, etc.) might not be very accurate (and sometimes they can be very faulty). AmHaArez 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, I just read what you wrote. I don't know anything about that. Please answer me there. Ferike333 11:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi, you left a message on my talk page. Is this OK? B1. I thought I should check before I paste this into all the other entries for paper sizes.

John Cross 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

any better?

John Cross 06:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

vasa efferentia[edit]

'd u hav alook-al sg/pl formsEMPTY+needCONFIRMATION ok--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 12:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article itself looks OK to me; this is an attestable plural form. --EncycloPetey 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

consistent-usagenote i aded[edit]

uagree w/wording?rite place2mentionit?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 05:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's inappropriate there. It isn't about the word consistent; it's about other words in 'other languages. The Usage notes section should pertain to usage of the current entry, not to other entries unless those other entries are confused in some way with the current one. --EncycloPetey 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

thenwhere2puthe caveat sononativsrsparedthe embaresmentofCONSISTENTLYusinconsequenti/english enlieu ofconsistent??--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You put it on the word that's being misused. --EncycloPetey 03:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

consistentISthe1MIStranslated>'dbe onBOTHentrysthen[theproblemw/alotevregularshereis thatheyrbasicaly MONOLINGUAL-ENGLISH-u{sory,interm.=NOrealskil},sb,during} nhensuguyzhavNOUNDERSTANDINGwotlearnin'asanonativ taks,yet'vhighsoundin'n'hevyhandedapproaches.

  • inconsistentthatsaSTUBreferin2consistent-nowu'd'vMOVDITHERE,orletitbe[i'vseenotherex.,cjunkitithought,butno,rm feelsgoodeh!?imof2CEDICTenjoyDOIN'EVENMORE!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 03:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    It in improper to put information on a page that isn't about the contents of that page. You should not have put it there, and it should be removed. Moving it to another page in this case wouldn't work without rewriting the definition of inconsistent, which ought to have at least two separate senses. Leaving inappropriate material on the wrong page in the meanwhile is not an appropriate suggestion. --EncycloPetey 07:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

nwotholdsubak2improv oninconsistent, 2busydiscusin'DELETINstuf??-bigwordBLABLA,SYNERGISM myas here!

User:Walled gardener[edit]

Hi EncycloPetey,

I was wondering if you could flip the bot flag on User:Walled gardener, at your convenience of course, per Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-03/User:Walled_gardener_for_bot_status. Thanks! -- Visviva 17:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, that didn't get taken care of in March? Should now be flagged as a bot. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


I see. I was looking at it like this: "There are several aquatic North American grasses ... grown for their edible grain"; "zizania is any of them". I suppose either way works. Equinox 11:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi just checking (since I often create missing topic categories) are we including all of these four now, yeah? 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks that way. The vote went badly, and will probably require another round of decision-making within the year. I've decided to stay out of it for now. --EncycloPetey 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


I am not aware of this difference between /r/ and/ɹ/. If this is going to mislead foreigners, then I do accept yours.Nobleness of Mind 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Etymologies for taxonomic names[edit]

Thanks, that was a sloppy mistake of mine. Twpsyn Pentref 12:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

-ology, -alogy, -ilogy, and other stuff[edit]

These edits appear to me to be at least partially wrong, but I haven't time to research. Also missing quadrilogy. - Amgine/talk 04:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

They're from Greek roots, so Atelaes would be a better person to investigate the roots. Past discussion shows that most of these terms are rare outside of dictionaries, so a few good cites would probably be the best means of "fixing" the spellings, whatever they may be. --EncycloPetey 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, don't bring me into this mess. :-) I can say that the user does seem to be following etymologically sound spellings. However, as I'm sure we're all well aware by now, English does not always remain true to its etymological roots. I suggest a bunch of rfv's as the best solution to this issue. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't see that vote. --Barmar 06:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ad- cont.[edit]

My questions have become lost amongst other posts, so I will reiterate them more concisely and ask others that have cropped up:

  1. What is the difference between alternative forms/alternative spellings (the categories and the headers)?
  2. Verbs with no third and fourth principal part mentioned; what format should be used (considering that it does not explicitly say they are lacking those parts)?
  3. What is the current status on standardization of Latin pronunciation between /e/ and /ɛ/ etc. as I read one of the discussions under Latin spelling and pronunciation's archives that you seemed to suggest in 2007 that pronunciations would be held off until a consensus was reached on Wikipedia.
  4. Prefixes such as ad-, prae-, sub-; do they deserve an entry or not? I thought that if L&S listed them as an 'inseparable participle' they did, otherwise not, but these still exist.
  5. Finally, what is the current status on standardization of in-line quotations? What I mean by that is those quotations listed directly under definitions. Currently, my own method, User:BiT's, and yours do not match and I am aware that on WT:ALA that the section has not been added as of yet. You can see the variations here: [6], [7], and [8], which are all slightly different.

Sorry if this list of questions seems a bit long, but some things aren't established enough or clear enough to allow smooth editing. Answer in your own time and thanks. Caladon 21:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of these are a bit obscure in the "policy" pages, and some aren't universally consistent, so I try to give a best approximation answer for those:
  1. Alternative spellings are two "forms" that are pronounced the same, but which are written with different letters of an alphabet. English color and colour are alternative spellings. Alternative forms can be either (a) two forms that represent the same word but aren't quite pronounced the same, such as Latin caelum and caelus (ety 2) or (b) two forms that are (or can be) pronounced the same, but which are written with ideographs as so aren't "spelled" with letters, such as for a number of Japanese entries. There are in-between cases, such as Serbian which uses two different scripts; the two forms aren't quite alternative spellings but really transcriptions of each other. A different section header is usually used in that case.
    In the case of caelum and caelus for etymology 2, should the section header say alternative forms instead of alternative spellings? Caladon 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yes. --EncycloPetey 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    In the case of a word having both alternative spellings and alternative forms, like in Sinensis (alternative spellings: sinensis, alternative forms: Chinensis and chinensis) or zancha, which header comes first? I tidied up some of the words that were in [[Category:Latin alternative spellings]], but there are still many that need editing. Caladon 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    When a word has both, I list them all as "Alternative forms", since that is a broader heading. Having more than one such header is frowned upon. --EncycloPetey 14:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. Could you give a couple of examples of such verbs lacking a third and fourth principal part? In cases where the {{la-verb}} doesn't apply, I usually make use of {{infl}} with the appropriate labels for the parts that do exist.
    Some examples include: acontīzō, adindō, addīvīnō, admigrō, adnūtriō/annūtriō, advēlō, etc. Caladon 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    My copy of Feyerabend indicates that admigrō and advēlō are regular 1st-conjugation verbs, so presumably they have all four principal parts. I have no further information about the others, and would go with my suggestion of using {{infl}} with the labels normally given by {{la-verb}} for the first and second principal parts (present active and present infinitive). --EncycloPetey 02:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    Therefore, is the verb belonging to etymology 2 on claudō the way {{infl}} should be used on all these types of verbs? Caladon 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, although there seems to be a problem in the template coding that is keeping the link to the infinitive from showing up as bolded text. --EncycloPetey 14:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. I'm tending to favor /e/ for now, just to get data encoded, but I haven't seen a clear consensus with evidence presented on Wikipedia, nor have I found a clear and data-supported author who made a case either way. The best and clearest arguments I've found tend to be from dated books or in sources that talk about post-Classical changes, without clearly stating what the Classical state was supposed to be.
  4. All of those exist as prepositions in their own right, so I wouldn't grant them a separate Latin entry. If they are formative as prefixes in English, then an English section is appropriate certainly. However, for Latin I've tended to create/keep affix entries only for formative affixes that are not words in their own right, or for which the affix bears a meaning that is significantly different from the independent word.
  5. User:BiT often deviates from community norms, in part as a result of being around for a very long time and not frequenting the discussion fora much. The only differences I can see between our formatting amounts to:
    (a) your use of w:en instead of just w: before a link to the English Wikipedia. The language is assumed to be the same for the source and target, so the en you're including isn't needed, though it doesn't hurt anything either.
    (b) your use of a colon at the end of the source identification line. Some people advocate this, I despise it. It looks wrong after chapter/verse identifications and other source information that inherently includes a colon. I prefer a comma or no punctuation to use of a colon.
  6. (c) your use of ellipsis, in two ways. First, I only begin/end a line with ellipsis if part of a sentence is omitted. If the quotation includes all of the sentence (or sentence equivalent in unpunctuated source material), then I don't use ellipsis. Second, there is an ellipsis template {{...}} which keeps the ellipsis from being divided between lines when a page in displayed. I habitually use it any time an ellipsis is needed.
--EncycloPetey 03:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have edited all entries which I added quotes to, changing what you said was inconsistent. What is your opinion on wikilinks in quotes like on -ve? Caladon 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
That entry needs a thorough cleanup. If those are quotations, then the source needs to be identified and the text taken out of italics. If they are invented examples, then there are too many. In either case, linking all the words is incorrect formatting; we decided that shouldn't be done because it distracts from the purpose of the quotes, which is to show use of the entry word, not of all the other words. --EncycloPetey 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your advices. Renebeto, Sep 03 2009.

Tongues and cheeks[edit]

How about this as word of the day? Certainly the US could do with an expansion of vocabulary, wouldn't you say? Jcwf 15:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the WOTD requirements. Non-English words are not featured as WOTD here on the English Wiktionary. You'd need to do that on the Dutch Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 15:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be a word sorely missing for certain Anglophones. As humor is Jcwf 20:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you.

Can you separate both divisions (Proper name & name), from the definitions I gave with additional explanations on the map, that are very accurate.

I am very active in Walloon language standardisation, so I know the item rather well.

--Lucyin 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Wouldn't that be pronounced IPA(key): /viˈbraː.tsi.oː/, or would that be post-Classical Latin? —AugPi 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That might be Ecclesiastical or some other post-Classical form of Latin, but not Classical. --EncycloPetey 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Very interesting; thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


What is the swastika doing on the frontpage? Jcwf 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's the result of a vandal who altered the Laoo script template, which is used on the Main Page. The change has been reverted, but it will be some time before the servers/caches reset and this clears away. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks!! Jcwf 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


  • how2helpLEARNERSc-ing'emBOTH[nget daDIFRENS
  • u rv 1rfp w/o leavin'IPAetc
  • how2make aCATEGORY?
  • how duzdad helpmatch r.n-米粉?--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're asking. --EncycloPetey 13:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You know...[edit]

...cascading protecting the Main Page would have really been easier than protecting each and every of those script templates. -- Prince Kassad 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but (1) those script templates affect all the pages they're used on, and (2) I've no knowledge of how to set up cascading protection here. We've never used it before. So, I could protect all the templates or have sat around waiting for someone else to try the same stunt. --EncycloPetey 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Oooooh I didn't know. Really, I don't understand it very well these kind of interwikis but anyway sorry.--Libertatis 04:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: memorium misspelling[edit]

Replied to your message at my talk page. -- OlEnglish 20:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

filiō quotation[edit]

Hi EP. I added a quotation to the non-lemma Latin noun-form entry filiō. Could you check whether the translation is appropriate please? Also, could you specify whether the case is the dative or ablative singular (I think it’s in the ablative)? I got all the text and text info. from Wikipedia, FWIW. Thanks,  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've copyedited the translation; it's ablative use of the term. Without a source against which to compare for the quote (WP doesn't identify a specific text), I have normalized the Latin orthography (although I'd rather not) to be internally consistent. Some of the intervocalic "u"s were written as "v" and some as "u". I've got connection who may be able to turn up a specific, and possibly dated, copy of this text. If I can locate one, then I'll follow the text it has. --EncycloPetey 02:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Great. Yeah, do what you think is best. Thanks.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Prefixes and prepositions[edit]

I know that, in Latin, you have been treating parts of words that are prepositions as non-prefixes, such as "in" in "immobilis" and "ad" in "adsum", the reasoning being that prepositions are words in their own right.

I find this treatment surprising, and want to give the following for your consideration.

In English, there are some prefixes that are formed exactly as corresponding prepositions:

Would you then consider "under-", "back-", "down-", "up-", "over-", "out-", and "in-" non-prefixes?

The page Latin prefixes ( considers "in-" and "ad-" as prefixes.

The source Greek and Latin in Scientific Terminology by Oscar E. Nybakken, tells me:

Most of the prefixes used in the Latin language were prepositions and adverbs which in that language could be used as independent and separate words. These are known as separable prefixes. Other prefixes were not used as separate words but adhere to some following noun or verbal stem. There are known as inseparable prefixes.

--Dan Polansky 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue in English is much more complicated. Some instances of in- are from the Latin, and so ought to be considered a prefix in English. Other instances are the addition of an adverbial/prepositional particle, which is a separate word. Further, English does not offer the possibility of separating the prefix from the word to which it is attached, whereas (as you have noted) this is possible in Latin. I have looked at a wide array of sources on the subject of Latin "prefixes" and there is not a universal agreement (I am aware of both sides). There also is not universal agreement in Latin about the distinction of suffixes. I have chosen to follow a clearly definable and appliable guideline for Latin prefixes; the same guideline can be useful for other languages, but may not be so easily applied. In languages derived from Latin, for example, a Latin "prefix" particle sometimes has become a genuine prefix, and cannot be separated meaningfully from its other components. So, I have not attempted to apply my Latin prefix guideline to those languages, nor would I advise it as a regular principle. One must look at what is happening in the language being considered. Now, when the "prefix" is a noun, adjective, or verb in a language, it is much less likely to be a prefix, in my estimation, but adverbs / prepositions are not so easily classified most of the time. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Romance verb inflection lines[edit]

Since Physchim62 seems to be fairly inactive these days, and seems to have based {{ca-verb}} and its variants off of your {{es-verb}} and {{gl-verb}} series I thought I'd ask you these questions before I starting mucking around in the Catalan verb templates some. Is there a reason for the choices you made of what forms to put on the inflection line? In particular, why the 1st person singular form(s)? (I'm presuming that Physchim62 left off the 1st singular preterit because it is not used in spoken Central Catalan.)

If the idea is a commonality to the appearance, I can understand that, but it complicates the inflection line for Catalan entries if dialects are mentioned, as the 1st person singular indicative present happens to be a form that varies between the three major dialects with standard setting bodies (Central, Valencian, Balearic). My inclination is to have only the past participle on the inflection line as it generates adjective forms and leave the rest of the forms for the table. — Carolina wren discussió 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Two primary considerations came into play for both {{es-verb}} and {{gl-verb}}:
  1. The 1st-person present shows important stem changes that distinguish major verb inflections (as does the 1st-person preterite). For example, Spanish and Galician -car verbs exhibit a stem change to -qu- in the 1st-person sg. preterite because the inflectional ending is -é, but -cer verbs should their stem change (usually to -zc- in Spanish) in the 1st-person present. The infinitive is used because that is the "dictionary form", of course, and the past participle is important to feature because it is the basis of adjectival derivatives. With these four forms, one can see in summary form all the major changes in the conjugation for any regular verb.
  2. Both Spanish and Galician are Romance languages, and the four forms we're using in the template happen to be the descendants of the four principal parts of their parent Latin verbs. These four form are featured in {{la-verb}}, and the four forms have been included in Latin dictionaries and textbooks because they show the major elements from which the entire conjugation can be inferred. The four forms thus allow for historical and etymological comparison as well. It is, in fact, because these four forms can be used to summarize a Latin conjugation that the same forms work this way in Spanish and Galician.
If there are additional considerations in Catalan, then the same basic sequence may not be the best choice. However, it could be worth including something that identifies the conjugation pattern if there is regular and predictable variability. I know, for example, that Swahili nouns come in "classes", and this class is identified in the inflection line. We do the same thing for the declension of Latin and Ancient Greek nouns. It might help to create (or find) a list of major conjugation patterns in Catalan, if you don't already have that information at your fingertips. Anyway, that's the best I can do for explanations and suggestions. Let me know if there's something I haven't explained sufficiently. --EncycloPetey 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I have utterly excellent sources for Catalan verb conjugations. Besides my usual sources for info, over on the Viccionari, Vriullop has been a busy bee and added stubs for all 8.637 verbs in the DIEC2 and the additions from the Valencian IVL, with conjugation tables that give a wealth of dialectal info. Entries for the forms themselves are sparse over there, and the lemma entries mostly lack etymology, pronunciation, and definitions, but the Viccionari has the conjugations extremely well taken care of.
Most Catalan verbs are 1st conjugation (-ar), with some 2nd (-er or -re) and 3rd (-ir) verbs, but unless a new verb expands upon an existing 2nd or 3rd conjugation base additions to Catalan these days are added as 1st conjugation verbs. The 1st conjugation verbs do exhibit that sort of consonant mutation you describe for -car, -çar, -gar, -jar, but its exactly the same regular mutation that happens with the plurals of nouns that end in -ca, -ça, -ga, -ja and so utterly regular and predictable from the infinitive that I question the utility of including a form for that purpose. Anyone who might benefit from seeing it on the inflection line wouldn't need it.
The only conjugation where a regular verb could benefit from an extra form would be in the third conjugation. That's split between the inchoative verbs (that have an -eix- infix in the conjugation of some present tense forms) and the non-inchoative verbs. But the non-inchoative -ir verbs are about 10% of the -ir verbs and less than 1% of all Catalan verbs. (About 30 non-inchoative plus another 10 for which -eix- is optional. All 1st and 2nd conjugation verbs are non-inchoative.) Indeed, they probably could be considered the largest class of irregular verbs.
Still, if you think dealing with that on the inflection for regular verbs would be a good idea, the 2nd singular or 3rd plural of the indicative plural would be the best choices. Both forms exhibit both the consonant mutation found in some 1st conjugation verbs and whether a 3rd conjugation verb is inchoative or not, with the only dialectal variation being that Valencian uses -ix- as the inchoative infix.
There is one thing to be said in favor of 1st singular indicative present, when verbs are irregular in that that form, they often are irregular in a manner that can't be inferred from other irregularities, but that would seem to argue for including that form in the inflection line of irregular verbs, not of the regular ones. — Carolina wren discussió 04:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is also possible to have an optional "note" parameter, that explicitly adds the word irregular or inchoative to the inflection line. We do this for Latin deponent verbs because they have some important peculiarities. Using such a parameter would alert users without requiring the inclusion of specific verb forms. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Hey there,

when I studied Latin, we were taught the present infinitives of the verbs (similar to learning the French present infinitive travailler etc.). Why are the Latin verb articles in the present active on wiktionary? Ciao User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 09:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Because that's how the majority of textbooks and dictionaries for the past several hundred years have done things, using the first principal part instead of the present active infinitive (second principal part). This includes the international standard dictionaries from Renaissance times through the 19th century. This is also what they're using on the LAtin Wiktionary for the lemma form of the verb. Ancient Greek dictionaries do this too, as well as those of a few other Classical languages. There's a current thread in the BP where lemma forms of verbs in various languages are being collected, and an older discussion on the ALA talk page. You can see additional commentary there. --EncycloPetey 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, what a coincidence that you guys are discussing this at the moment. Anyway, rather strange that we were taught the present inf., isn't it? I understand your point about the many infinitives. Thanks for your time :) User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 21:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


If the lineage is to be interpreted narrowly, then it:ginocchio should be removed as well.

[entry on "ginocchio"]

Thanks. Reidca 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Not in CGEL. I will look for its analysis of similarly formed words.

The American OneLook dictionaries show it as both adj and adv. The compact OED and Camb Adv Learners show it as only an adjective.

At COCA: 1., it is usually a post-positioned adjective as befits its origin as a prepositional phrase, but I found one use before the noun modified; 2., it appears with the following verbs: "stare", "fall", "stand", "watch", and "sit". In one instance I noticed that an author or editor seems to have objected to considering it an adverb and inserted a comma: "he stared, agape." "Fall" is used like a copula "fall silent".

With the uses that I have seen so far, I wouldn't object to removing the adverb PoS. But writers seem to be punctuating more as if they thought it were an adverb with these verbs. DCDuring TALK 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If writers are treating like an adverb, but dictionaries and grammatical analysis indicates otherwise, then Usage notes might be one way to indicate this. --EncycloPetey 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for all your precious advices. This is just a small reaction to Uncertain at the etymology of the verb excello, the IE root is *kel (high) (source : Pokorny) --Diligent 06:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Latin Verbs List[edit]

Was thinking... would it be worth while to add vādō in the Spanish list? If your goal is to show common derivatives in the daughter languages (regardless of how suppletive eō is), every daughter language takes the present indicative and present subjunctive from that verb. Reidca 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


You're usually good about picking up the additions I make to WT:RE:la, but this one's unusual enough I thought I'd bug you here as well.

Catalan has at least four words that descend from this, bua, buba, bubó, and bubònic, English has at least two bubo and bubonic, and I imagine quite a few other cognates, especially for bubonic in other languages. Of course, it's the dual etymology with different macronization (assuming the exist entry for the owl is correct) that makes it interesting to me. — Carolina wren discussió 23:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The RAE traces Spanish bubón directly to Ancient Greek [9]. I suppose this could mean via Latin, but the RAE doesn't usually seem to do that. The word is in Calepinus, but isn't in Souter's Glossary of Later Latin, so I'm not sure when the term entered Latin. --EncycloPetey 20:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
My usual sources conflict in this case, with one giving it as coming directly from Greek in the XVth, but the other as via Latin (with no date given). The sense seems to have been different in Ancient Greek, apparently being restricted to just swellings in the groin. If I had to guess, the generalization occurred in Latin sometime after the Black Plague as an early example of New Latin, even tho it's before the usual start date. I've also seen the Latin version given as būbōn, so if the evidence is better for that form I can see adjusting the etymology for the Catalan entries, as the DCVB likes to ignore terminations. — Carolina wren discussió 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Form entries[edit]

Hi EP, Opiaterein offered to run his bot to create Hungarian noun forms. See User_talk:Panda10#Hungarian_nouns. I am concerned that this will create more cleanup work, although it should not. Any thoughts? Do you think Hungarian is ready for a bot to create noun forms? --Panda10 20:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Dear EncycloPetey, I was trying to be nice and add a word that I have heard that was not in your wikitionary. I even took the time to register, so that I could log in. I was trying to edit out the word "Template:" from the definition of divisec when I was amazed to see you had deleted divisec already. I complment you on being very quick on the draw. I did rather feel dirtied by your describing divisec as a seeming protologism, which implied that I personally had made it up (coined it to gain what?). If I may quote one of your competitors (Michael Quinion on World Wide Words) "The difference between a protologism and a neologism is that the latter has actually been used somewhere, even if only once, while a protologism exists only as a suggestion of a word that might be used.

Wikipedia says that it was coined by Mikhail Epstein, the Professor of Cultural Theory and Russian Literature at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and that it was first used in 2005. It’s from Greek protos, first, plus logos, word, but might equally be taken to be an blend of prototype and neologism.

As protologism is quite often used within the Wikipedia community, it is itself no longer a protologism, but has ascended to the status of jargon."

I did not make up the word divisec and have heard it used several times, including on network television (albiet decades ago). It is also not a neologism as the word is at least decades old. It may be jargon, but then you seem to allow jargon as you use the word neologism.

I recall from High School a paper that was returned to me by my English teacher. He had started to chastise me for using a coined word "opine", but changed his opinion and note after rethinking or possibly looking it up. He never said. I attended a Word Perfect seminar many years ago. The presenter was waxing enthusiastic about the spell checker having every word in the English language and asking the audience for specifics to try. I asked him "Try geas spelled G E A S. A mystical compulsion. The knight had a geas laid upon him to search for the Holy Grail." The presenter had the grace to appear flustered when Word Perfect (an early version from so long ago) failed to find the word geas. I mention these incidents to point out that no one knows everything, but everyone knows something.

I also did not make up the humorous line: "the interval between when a traffic light turns green and when the motorist behind you honks their horn." I borrowed it from a comic seen back in the 1960's.

I have never seen divisec used in print, and so cannot give you printed references. Having heard it in past times, and having never heard (to my recolection) any other word for a varying time interval, I thought to be a help to your project.

I appologise for taking so much of your busy administrators time (yes, I took time to read previous posts) knowing from your chastising others that you must read every post completely and thoroughly.

I am not ashamed of my identity and welcome e-mail at (not so subtle dig, in case you missed that ... :-) lol )

D. Pietra Judge

An unattributed quote is not useful at all on Wiktionary. There is no issue of whether the word was invented by you or someone else. Our inclusion criteria require that all entries be supportable with durably archived quotes. If you can provide such quotes, then divisec would be acceptable as an entry here. --EncycloPetey 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat needed[edit]

Hello. The admin vote for Leolaursen has succeeded, please can he be made administrator? --Volants 09:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


According to your edit here, antebellum, postbellum, etc. are not descendants. However, those respective pages imply they are. If they aren't descendants, where do they come from (as suggested in your summary)? -- Cbf536 20:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The English word is formed by joining two separate Latin words that originally were a phrase. So, it is not a Decendant by the criteria we normally use. It is neither inheritted nor borrowed as a word. It is a new word in English formed from two separate elements. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Are there any conventions used here to note the similarity of these, or are they not included? -- Cbf536 21:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't have a mechanism for these sorts of situations, no. The problem with including them is deciding how much gets included. There are many legal phrases in English that derive from Latin expressions, and listing all of them as Descendants at their component Latin words is clearly not desirable. For the case of words like antebellum, the situation is less clear, and there isn't a decided set of criteria. --EncycloPetey 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


THIS IS NOT A WORD! you have to be joking right. This is not a dictionary, it is a glorified blog! Find me one PRINTED and academically accepted dictionary with the word importantness and I will donate 20$ to this sad excuse of a website! People take you seriously and it is causing more damage than good to people. I should create a page saying that "Chalaballa" is the new verb for eating cake, "I was sad so I chalaballaed, it made me feel better." and you would have no valid reason to say it isn't true since it will be on your site and according to you this is "a dictionary".

Sort your shit out! Thank you

If you won't read the items given to you, then why should I respond. Clearly you are trolling and need to be blocked. Prove me wrong. --EncycloPetey 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Who would come across a word like this in any source? and therefore if you consider this a plausible word that people may need to know the definition of you are NOT a dictionary. Dictionaries were created to help people understand and correctly spell words. Not invent words then justify them. I agree that some individuals may believe this is a word, if this is the case, PLEASE put a notice within the page that this is NOT a word accepted within literary and academic circles but that importance is. Then link the word importance and it's definition. This is misinforming individuals who do not know better. Thank you for your understanding

Still haven't read WT:CFI, but continuing to argue. Dictionaries (and Wiktionary in particular) describe language, rather than prescribe language. You're not listening, only trolling and vandalizing. If you won't read, there's nothing left to do but protect Wiktionary content by blocking you. --EncycloPetey 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Can you please help? Is "calo" (with its present active infinitive "calare") a real Latin verb? I find it in several etymologies and in Lewis and Short, but have found only one hit of "calare" in Latin Wikisource. Both "calo" and "calare" are found in Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin/verbs, but that says little about the actual usage of the word. --Dan Polansky 08:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's real. It's in both Feyerabend and Facciolati, as well as in L&S. Also, I can find several uses of calavit on b.g.c., which shows it isn't just a dictionary word. --EncycloPetey 13:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Let me ask for one more word: is "clino" ("clinare") a real Latin word? Again, found in etymologies. And it is mentioned at κλίνω. --Dan Polansky 14:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not in Classical Latin. Only the "perfect passive participle" form clīnātus (bent, crooked) seems to exist in the Classical period. The verb does show up (rarely) in Later Latin. The only citation I've found found is listed in Souter, who says the verb means "decline" and cites it from a grammatical text. So, I don't know whether it's an error in the original text for declino, or if not, then I don't know which possible meaning of "decline" is used in the cited source (physical tilt or grammatical inflection). --EncycloPetey 04:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll leave "clino" uncreated, then. --Dan Polansky 09:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Not quite certain what to do with a case like this one. Britto in Classical Latin meant an inhabitant of Britain. Because of how the histories of Roman Britain and Brittany (aka Little Britain) are connected the word that was the natural descendant in some of the Romance languages, including French and Catalan, came to mean an inhabitant of Brittany, and a later reborrowing of the original came to be used for an inhabitant of Britain so as to avoid ambiguity. Do both get put in the descendants section, or just the "orginal" with its semantic shift? I did just the original for now with a quasi-usage note at the head of the descendants section.

The entry could also use some other help, but resolving the descendants issue is my main concern. — Carolina wren discussió 02:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the word Britto in Classical Latin meant either an inhabitant of Britain or of Brittany. So, both decendants should definitely be listed. Modern meaning isn't an issue with considering descendants anyway; only the etymology matters. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean Late Latin, don't you, or do you use a later date for splitting Classical and Late Latin than 200? In Classical times, Brittany was part of Gallia Lugdunensis. The Britons didn't start colonizing Armorica Brittany in quantity until the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the 5th century. Any way, revised the descendants section for Britto as best I could, tho the entry could still use a declension and other appurtenances appropriate for a Latin noun that I'm not qualified to add. — Carolina wren discussió 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No, I mean Classical Latin. Lewis & Short have a supporting citation from Marcus Valerius Martialis dated to 102. --EncycloPetey 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Granted, my skill in Latin is close to non-existant, but while the Martialis cite an be used to document the existence of the word, I can't see the cite being used to document the sense at all.
Martial XI XXI
Lydia tam laxa est, equitis quam culus aheni,
Quam celer arguto qui sonat aere trochus,
Quam rota transmisso totiens inpacta petauro,
Quam vetus a crassa calceus udus aqua,
Quam quae rara vagos expectant retia turdos,
Quam Pompeiano vela negata noto,
Quam quae de pthisico lapsa est armilla cinaedo,
Culcita Leuconico quam viduata suo,
Quam veteres bracae Brittonis pauperis, et quam
Turpe Ravennatis guttur onocrotali.
Hanc in piscina dicor futuisse marina.
Nescio; piscinam me futuisse puto.
Maybe someone who doesn't have to rely upon the translations of others to make sense of Latin can find something there that establishes the sense, but other than Britons were known for wearing breeches, to me there doesn't appear to be anything that can be gleaned from this cite as to the meaning. Anything earlier than c.385 giving a definition that includes Brittany is something I'd have to see shown in the source material to believe. The settlement of Britons in Brittany by Magnus Maximus plays too prominent role in Brythonic legends and is corroborated by the historical and archaeological record. — Carolina wren discussió 05:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Possibly so. Lewis & Short are not without errors, but at the very least, we need to acknowledge in the entry that this meaning has been assigned by some authors. Unfortunately, L&S don't indicate why they think this quote refers to people in Brittany. --EncycloPetey 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Are you sure this is dictātrix and not dictātrīx? Also, may I request your help with tumēscō, as to whether I have added it correctly (specifically, whether it should be formatted like albēscō or like quiēscō in terms of templates)? Caladon 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake on dictātrīx; you're quite right that the final vowel should have a macron. The verb tumēscō conjugates like albēscō, and not like quiēscō. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Latin and Late Latin[edit]

Let me ask: how are Medieval Latin ({{ML.}}) and Late Latin ({{LL.}}) included, represented and marked up in Wiktionary? Like, do they all share the same "Latin" L2 heading, and are individual senses pertaining only to some of the varieties of Latin marked up in some standardized way, or at least in a common-practice way? --Dan Polansky 15:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The L2 language header is always Latin, regardless of the period. The individual senses are marked with a {{context}} label, such as {{context|Late Latin|lang=la}}. The "Late Latin" parameter produces the label text for the tag, and the "lang=la" parameter prepares the tag in case other context information is added later (or in case we change the way we're doing categories at some point). The tag doesn't currently categorize the word (at least not that I'm aware of), but it does label the sense according to period. The same method is used for Medieval Latin, etc. --EncycloPetey 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind?[edit]

Hey. Would you mind forwarding to me the emails that 史凡 sent you? (pretty straightforward) I'm still trying to talk to him and it'd be nice to know the sorts of things he's been sending your way. Thanks! L☺g☺maniac chat? 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Literal translations[edit]

Can do, boss! I looked through some pages before starting, and some where with the literal first, others with the literal in the definition. 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: ad nauseum[edit]

And it did correctly, because someone uploaded file commons:File:En-us-ad nauseum.ogg to Commons. My bot cannot judge which words are 'correct' and which are misspelled, because it is not a human and does not know English! In such cases you should not complain to me, but do just as someone did on Commons, so re-upload the .ogg file under a correct name. --Derbeth talk 06:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The same with the old story with Canadian 'about'. My bot will keep adding it, because there is such file. If you find that the Canadian recording is in some way 'incorrect', you should make a request on Commons to delete it. If you don't, I assume the file is correct and I won't do anything about it. Or better, just download 'en-ca-about-real.ogg', re-upload it under the name 'en-ca-about.ogg' overwriting the old file, and copy the description from the first file to another, which would be much faster.
Don't you think that there's something ridiculous in keeping on Commons a file named "X-real"? It's like writing an article "X" and "X (correct and without errors)". Keep in mind that files on Commons are used also by other Wiktionaries, sometimes in the same fully-automated way as with my bot, and also those files may be used directly by people learning English. If you find an error, it's your duty to fix it for all, not just your small project. --Derbeth talk 06:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons doesn't work that way. I can't request an "incorrect" pronunciation be deleted there. They don't work that way. I did request a page move for their ad nauseum file to the correct spelling, but any such change could take weeks to happen. This is still only one instance, and meanwhile the problem will have to be corrected via your bot somehow. You will have to take responsibility for the erroneous edits of your bot, as it is a requirement of our bot policy. If you are unwilling to abide by Wiktionary policy, the permissions granted to run a bot here will have to be reconsidered by the community. --EncycloPetey 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
commons:File:En-us-ad nauseum.ogg redirects to commons:File:En-us-ad nauseam.ogg as of a couple weeks ago, just in case you didn't know... L☺g☺maniac chat? 15:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I did know. I'm the one who requested the move, and it took two weeks for that spelling error to be corrected becuase of Commons procedure. Hence, my comment about "could take weeks". --EncycloPetey 15:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
ah. The way you had worded that it sounded like the move hadn't taken place yet. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It's funny that every time I met wrong pronunciation files and reported them, all were removed. I can't see any reason for keeping incorrect files and if Commons rule disturb correcting mistakes, those rules should be changed.
I fix my bot if people report cases of wrong pronunciation files, but I would prefer them to remove the cause of the problem, not its result - so remove the file on Commons. Commons work for all projects and it's just selfish to fix your own problem and let all others deal with it. --Derbeth talk 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I cannot remove files on Commons. I applied to be a sysop there precisely for this sort of problem, but was denied adminship. So, I can't remove files on Commons. You can fix your bot to recognixe entries that are misspellings because we use a template for them. It is rude of you to believe the problem is someone else's and refuse to fix what you can easily fix. --EncycloPetey 20:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Word of the Day[edit]

For the word of the day, I have recorded two OGG audios for two words (raspy and haiku). Could you update the the templates? Thank you. --The New Mikemoral 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If the files were uploaded with the correct file names to Commons, then the templates will not need to be updated. However, you used non-standard capitalization, and that's what's leaving the links red. When you upload audio files, please use lower-case filenames. Wiktionary is very case-sensitive. You can correct the problem by re-uploading and asking Commons to then delete the duplicates with the incorrect capitalization. --EncycloPetey 01:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you. I asked an admin on the Commons to rename the files. --The New Mikemoral 01:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Counting of Latin verb forms[edit]

I for one consider this edit a worsening:

  • {{conjugation of|linquo|linquō|pres|act|inf|lang=la}} is a transparent use of a template.
  • {{conjugation of|[[linquo#Latin|linquō]]||pres|act|inf|lang=la}} is an intransparent, clumsy workaround, one that does not say "I am a workaround".
  • {{count page|[[Wiktionary:Page count]]}} is a nice workaround, one that says "I am a workaround".

It is not a big deal either way, a cosmetic issue, though. --Dan Polansky 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And I disagree. I prefer to use the inflection templates for this, rather the including a separate template whose sole purpose is to make the page "count". My bot has been adding inflected forms with a uniform set-up, and I prefer such uniformity in case we later have a better work-around. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Note that {{count page}} is only needed when there are no interwiki links; there are already often interwiki links, and as other Wiktionaries keep adding Latin inflected forms, the need for {{count page}} or any other workaround will be increasingly removed. When {{count page}} is no longer needed in an entry, it is removed from the entry automatically by a bot: see the history of ciere, to which AutoFormat first added {{count page}}, which was subsequently removed by Interwicket as it became superflous thanks to interwiki.
Using explicit #Latin uniformly creates many workarounds that are actually unneeded; the workarounds will ultimately be unneeded altogether when all Latin verb forms get interwiki links. By contrast, I use the template {{conjugation of}} the way it was designed to be used, and leave it to bots to decide whether a technical workaround is actually needed. I, a human, should not be bothered with technical workarounds, and, with {{count page}}, I indeed need not be, as it is added and removed by bots. --Dan Polansky 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ahem... I am the one who designed the template {{conjugation of}}, so please don't presume to tell me how it was designed. It's a matter of preference, and I've made my choice. You need not be bothered by my choice. --EncycloPetey 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
May I then ask you, the designer of the template, what you have made the second parameter of {{conjugation of}} good for? Why is it that when you are using your own template, you are always leaving the second parameter empty?
I admit that I have made an uncertain inference about the intention of the designer of the template, based on the way the template actually works. All inferences about intentions are uncertain, though.
Also, quoting an example of use from documentation of the template, an example created by you:
{{conjugation of|amō||pres|act|inf|lang=la}}
--Dan Polansky 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

succurro, socorrer[edit]

Do you consider mentioning both the 1st person sg and infinitive forms of the Latin verbs in etymologies of Spanish verbs recommendable or one can content oneself with only adding the lemma? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider listing both forms to be preferred, as noted at WT:ALA. WT:AES also implies that including both forms is recommended for Spanish entries. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

bureaucrat needed[edit]

Per Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2009-10/User:Di gama bot for bot status, would you mind bottifying Di gama bot? Thanks.​—msh210 20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.​—msh210 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Did I paraphrase it enough? Razorflame 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's not grammatically correct for English, as it stands. It probably ought to credit the Random House Dictionary as a source, as well. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll go and fix it up. Thanks for the help so far. Cheers, Razorflame 23:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a citation to the Random House dictionary, and I copyedited the definition that I provided. Thanks again for the help, Razorflame 23:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Interesting. I suppose sense 3 could be one of those overspecialized pseudo-senses based on sense 2 (for which I just found three tolerably literary citations while hunting for anything for sense 3), or a "figurative / by extension", whicih would still really need citing to make it WOTD-worthy. The Chambers definitions are basically the aggregation of our 1 and 2. Equinox 00:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Help:Language inflection bot[edit]

Hi EP, could you please look at Help:Language inflection bot, to see if you have anything to add?

animat and blazon[edit]

Since you claim a fair facility with blazon, I thought perhaps you might know a one word equivalent for the term animat in Catalan heraldry. — Carolina wren discussió 20:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, nor that I can find in my personal library. English blazon usually specifies the part that is differently colored with a specific term, such as membered (for talons or claws), orbed (for eyes), langued (for tongues), vested (for clothing), etc. The only possible generic term I can think of is marked, but I've only seen it used for stripes or spots on an animal depicted naturalistically, and it isn't very common as a term in heraldry. --EncycloPetey 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Referencing the intermediate step of the Latin stem in the etymology was deliberate for several reasons. Firstly, when it comes to sources for Catalan etymologies, they often conflict as to which form(s) of the Latin ancestor was used. (For extern, the GDLC gives externus, -a, -um while the DCVB gives only externum.) Secondly, it often is the case that the bare stem is the Catalan lemma form, so listing the stem reinforces the connection. Thirdly, in those third declension cases where the nominative/vocative singular diverges from the stem used for the other forms, it's pretty much invariable that the stem is the source form, not the nominative/vocative singular. So, it's my considered opinion that referring to the stem provides a reasonably uniform way of handling Catalan descendants of Latin nouns/adjectives that makes clear how they arose: via the simplification of the Latin gender, number, and case endings into the Catalan system of gender and number endings. — Carolina wren discussió 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with adding the stem into the etymology is that it makes the stem a separate form or step. Such a step never happens in practice. For etymologies on Wiktionary, we always trace words from words or consciously used word parts (like suffixes). The lemma is the form we use, even though most western romance languages obtain their substantives from the ablative form. The particular form is not really relevant for etymologies in most instances, because our lemma is merely the principal dictionary form. Our etymologies, even if they point to the nominative singular do not mean that the nominative singular was the sole originator. Rather, the nominative singular stands in place for the word as a whole. All the inflected forms are equally part of any word. Singling out a form of a word for use in the etymology is not indicative of anything special about that particular form except that it is the name of the location for all information about the word. Thus, including the "stem" is superfluous, and a needless duplication of information. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Where the relationship between the stem and the nominative singular is not apparent, I'd say that including the stem in the etymology is definitely a useful detail of the same order as glosses and cognates. Including it in other cases would be more out of a desire for uniformity, but still useful I think. I do not believe that the use of a lemma in these cases is not intended to indicate a specific form is something that all users will find intuitive. I feel that making explicit that a specific form is not intended would be helpful to casual users, albeit not essential. — Carolina wren discussió 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand your position, but disagree. The inclusion of the stem is more likely to be confusing than enlightening, as it looks like a prefix and carries no additional information. An intercalary form is only warranted in cases where such a form actually exists, such as English verbs that derive from the participle of a verb (in which case the participle should be interjected in the etymology). There are plenty of cases beyond the stem-changing cases where the morphological relationship is not immediately apparent. This is a can of worms best left unopened. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


says who? Fnidner 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. Can you fix up this word for me? I tried to define it, but I failed. It is a Latin word, though. Razorflame 21:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of creating incomplete entries in languages you don't know, you should request them. The Latin requests page is at WT:RE:la. Other requests pages have similarly structured shortcuts. --EncycloPetey 03:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Latin books and other unrelated points[edit]

Once you acquire copies of Latham and Niermeyer, if possible, please may you verify aurificium and the definitions I included there a while ago, and abbatizo, which means I am an abbot. I originally wanted to include quotes, though I don't feel confident translating passages myself for obscure words or whether this is advised practice. Thanks for informing me that you were hoping to get these.

On another matter, I don't know if you saw this edit a while ago [10], and separately, what your position is on the inclusion of 'I' in front of every possible meaning, e.g. on depingo, or whether this is just as acceptable as only including it at the beginning of each definition line (only mentioning this because I prefer standardization, rather than having many different ways of formatting). I also noticed on sanctifico that you didn't italicize the translation line, and I was wondering if this is what should be done on all quotes; it would be helpful if the rules of formatting were made certain. Caladon 22:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. I hadn't seen that edit, but have reverted now and left a note on the editor's page. Latin verbs should be given a precise translation. Where the lemma is the first principal part, it should be translated accordingly. Where the verb is defective (such as licet), then the translation should change accordingly.
  2. Not every translation must begin with "I", if they can be separated by commas. However, for complex translations (especially multi-word translations), I tend to start each translation on a definition line with "I" and separate them with semicolons.
  3. Honestly, I'm not sure what our standards are for translations of foreign language quotations. I know we had a discussion concerning the format of made-up examples in the Spanish entry for tener, and for that discussion we decided the translations should appear in quotes, rather than be italicized. So, for FL quotations, I'd say their translations ought either to be in quotes or "naked", but certainly not italicized. We tend to italicize only made-up examples. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Please see my reply on my talk page. Razorflame 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Foramen acus[edit]

I was wondering why you deleted the term foramen acus? It isn't a sum of parts any more than eye of a needle. --BiT 06:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The term eye of a needle is idiomatic, since a needle does not have an eye. The term foramen acus "aperture (of a) needle" is not at all idiomatic. It is a literal hole in a needle. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
But this is a real word, maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules here- if e.g. some major word (like "man" or "love") were a sum of parts would Wiktionary not allow it as an entry? --BiT 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not if the meaning can be deduced from the simple combination of meanings of the component words. What do you mean by "real word"? --EncycloPetey 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
A "real word" as in it's noted in dictionaries, not that I'm using that as leverage. I'm not sure I agree that it doesn't deserve an entry because it's meaning can be deduced since it's not as easy to reverse engineer it; i.e. you know that the eye of a needle is a "hole of a needle" in Latin but there are a dozen ways to denote "hole" in Latin. I personally think this article deserves to stay, even if just to link to from the translations section and the Latin wiki --BiT 11:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


I was wondering why you changed “duodeuicesimum” to “duodevicesimum” in the article on foemina? As it’s a quotation, would it not be more correct to use the original spelling? —Hawke 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My questions before I can reply to that are: (1) Is it a quotation from an original edition published in the year indicated? Or is it a later edited edition? Do we know for certain one way or the other? The quotes added to Wiktionary from 16th century (and earlier) English sources are often vague on this point. Most Shakespeare quotes that are added are not representative at all of the original spelling, capitalization, etc. The Wikisource Shakespeare texts, for example (despite claiming late 16th and early 17th century dates), are all modern edited editions. (2) Did the publisher of Moore's book consistently and reliably distinguish between "u" and "v" when printing? The First Folio of Shakespeare's works does not. So, the title page of one's of Shakespeare's plays says "ROMEO and IVLIET". The page header on the back of that page says "Romeo and Juliet", but the header across from that on the next page says "Romeo and Iuliet". On the first page of the same play are lines printed as "put vp your Swords", "looke vpon thy death", and "Giue me my long Sword." Elizabethan printers, in my own experience, did not distinguish between "u" and "v" as we do today. The orthographic form "v" appeared only at the beginning of words, and could represent either letter.
So, it is entirely possible that Moore's book was printed as given initially in the quote, according to the standards of English printers (or possibly Dutch, since the English in the time of Henry VII were printing more of their books abroad than at home). However, without verification that an original copy is being cited, and not a later reprinting, I can't agree firmly one way or the other. If it can be verified that the original 1516 edition used "u", then that is what I would want in the quote. Without that verification, I would treat it like any other edited edition, to be normalized for the sake of the reader. --EncycloPetey 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


In this edit [11] (and afew other recent ones), you've modified UK pronunciations in ways that don't tally with my sources, but which I can certainly hear in recent UK television programmes (now that I know to listen for it). Is there a source you're going by for these, or is it experience? Is there a simple general principle for when or where this distinction between UK and US occurs that I could commit to memory, so that I know to consider it when adding future IPA transcriptions? --EncycloPetey 04:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I am following the new OED in marking /a/ for UK and /æ/ for US. This is also the UK vowel quality as described in Trudgill's "English accents and dialects" (2005). Most dictionaries still give the old-fashioned RP value /æ/ for UK, but I actually think this is misleading since the difference between UK and US <a> is easy for everyone to hear and it makes sense to represent it. Almost no one in Britain actually uses [æ] anymore, except the Queen. I brought this up on Wiktionary:About Pronunciation and some argued that it was a sub-phonemic issue which we shouldn't bother with, but in the absence of consensus I am going to follow the OED and my other sources until we decide otherwise. Ƿidsiþ 09:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Editable CFI - Idiomatic[edit]

On the discussion page I have argued my case for removing the word "idiomatic". Please do me the courtesy of arguing your case, not just reverting my work without any discussion. This is, after all Editable CFI, which is intended to be open for discussion, not just upholding the present status-quo.--Richardb 23:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Main Page[edit]

On the main page I added "This English language edition contains words of all languages, the explanations being in English." The reason I put it in there is that it initally confused me as to what makes this the English Wikisaurus. I'm sure it confuses many people new to Wiktionary.

You reverted it, without the courtesy of any discussion, with the reason "grammatically incorrect".

  • Why do you consider this grammatically incorrect ?
  • If it does not meet your definition of grammatically correct, why not correct it, rather than delete it ?
  • If it is inelegant, perhaps you can do better,

Please do not be so discourteous, even if I may be be a mere pleb, not an academic linguist of your high standing.--Richardb 00:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The additions you inserted included a misplaced descriptive participle with a confusing choice of verb form.
But, more importantly, the discourtesy here was yours. Please do not make such changes to the main page without discussion. It was you who were discourteous in deciding that the Main Page's description of this project should be so significantly changed without any prior discussion. Please do not do that again. Instead, seek opinions *before* making such changes to the Main Page. --EncycloPetey 17:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

WiktLookUp on LA[edit]

There's a request to get the Wiktionary Look Up gadget added at Latin. The tool allows people to look up terms in a preferred language a couple of different ways - from the user's language preference Wiktionary, or from the language setting of the website the script is hosted on (especially if it's not a Mediawiki website.) What this request is really for is to add an XSLT (an xsl template) to la.Wiktionary so people can retrieve the top definitions for terms via the API.

I was wondering if you could help out with the translations of the script's text? it's only a few lines:

If you feel up to the challenge, you could help speed this along by starting the template. It's much easier if someone who understands the layout of the Wiktionary does this, so the template will get meaningful information out. Here are step-by-step instructions.

- Amgine/talk 18:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I can help with the translations, but I think the coding is a little beyond me. I have a good working knowledge of some "ancient" programming languages, but not a solid working knowledge of JavaScript or other useful codes. So, while I have a sense of what the code is doing, I don't get the full measure of it.
  • "released under" -> exsolutus per
  • "Error:" -> Erratum:
  • "More" -> Plus
  • "Create" -> Crea (I'm using the imperative here, since I think that's how this is used, but I don't have the context.)
  • "Could not retrive definition of $1" (This is trickier to translate, since $1 ought to appear in the genitive, but...) Non putuit reddere definitionem de $1
You might ask User:Alex1011 at Victionaum for a second opinon, as I'm not 100% confident in my translations for the last two. --EncycloPetey 18:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow! That was very fast! Thank you very much! I see someone has already jumped in to ask Alex1011 to verify the translations. It will be really cool (and a little odd) to have la.Wiktionary as an option, particularly for contributors to la.Wikipedia I expect. Thanks again! - Amgine/talk 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I passed the request on to vicipaedia:taberna, I think an English speaker is better able to check the translations. User:Alex1011

Don't be dick[edit]

Read and learn before you type:

WritersCramp 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WritersCramp contacted me via OTRS, and I took a look at just the recent exchange here. I wanted to ask a question about transliteration: surely the textual representation does not alter the language? konnichiwa, こんにちは, and 今日は are differing ways of representing the same phrase in Japanese? - Amgine/talk 07:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
That's only done for Pinyin and for Japanese Romaji (and Kanji) because they are standard dictionary and common communication forms. We don't use transliterated page names for most langauges. Pinyin and Romaji are rare exceptions. --EncycloPetey 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
<grin> Well, rare in the sense of 'on Wiktionary'... I understand this, but I wonder if this actually the best approach. For example, Hindi and Sanskrit are progressively represented in latin transliterations in their native contexts. This is less-true of Arabic, but in Israel and Egypt it appears not uncommon. As a guideline perhaps its useful to say "most transliterations indicate borrowed usage, but where English usage is rare the source language header may be used" ? Also, what is the usual policy regarding translations into latin script in usage in non-English contexts? for example, Dutch transliteration al-islām ? - Amgine/talk 16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Transliterations are frowned upon, as I indicated. If a transliteration has subsequently been borrowed into another language, then that word is a part of the borrowing language, and not a form of the original language. You can see how we have chosen to handle Sanskrit at WT:ASA. --EncycloPetey 16:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Just ran accross w:List of ISO romanizations as well. Off to read that... - Amgine/talk 16:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
But do keep in mind that not all transliterations used on Wiktionary are used in page titles. Most appear only on inflection lines, in etymologies, in translations scetions, etc. --EncycloPetey 16:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work![edit]

Hi there EP. I just wanted to give you some kudos for all the great work that you do for the English Wiktionary. Please don't stop and keep up the good work! I hope to do the same! Cheers, Razorflame 18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

out-of-service vs. out of service[edit]

Dear EncycloPetey, there is no reason to put hyphens in this phrase unless it is used as an adjective immediately preceding a noun. References: (1) to see how this is used on signs, for example, try a Google image search for '"out of service" sign'. I have yet to find one instance of the hyphenated version on an official sign. (2) Standard usage of similar expressions suggests that we do not need hyphens (and indeed this is corroborated by every grammar reference I know). Would you say "The man was out of breath" or "The man was out-of-breath"? "His coat was out of fashion" or "his coat was out-of-fashion"?

Now, as an adjective before the noun, of course one does need hyphens: "There are five out-of-service elevators in my building." "The out-of-breath man needed more exercise." "Everyone laughed at his out-of-fashion coat." Surely no one would consider "out of breath" to be an alternative spelling of "out-of-breath"! The same applies to all the examples.

Regards, 19:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said: If you can provide evidence, then we can make some changes. Wiktionary is not a place to post usage assertions made on personal authority. --EncycloPetey 19:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no shortage of evidence.

The Oxford English Dictionary lists the following phrases used with 'service', among others: at service, in service, into service, on service, out of service, to go to service, to put to service, to set to service, to go into service, to put into service, to take into service, to place out at service.

Merriam-Webster: "in active service", "I'm at your service", etc.

Encarta: "The number you have dialed is not in service".

This isn't a matter of personal opinion, it is an obvious mistake. (Conversely, can you find any evidence whatsoever that "out-of-service" is standard?)

Your reply demonstrates a lack of understanding of which "evidence" is relevant. The multiple usage of service in various terms has no bearing on the subject at hand. --EncycloPetey 19:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More evidence: the Wiktionary page for "out-of-service" itself states how this form should be used. Please tell me what other kind of evidence you would like. I get the impression that I do not understand this site, since I am used to traditional dictionaries.

On older forms[edit]

On the older forms section, they are placed only when it has a word like the one in Katharevoussa, alternative forms are okay though. Pumpie 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Help:Writing definitions[edit]

Nice work. That's all I was gonna say. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


Greetings, I was the one who attempted to update the Asiaphile entry. You reverted. Please refer to the discussion at said page for my reasoning. Thanks for your time.


Lots of red links here. Please could you fill them? --Volants 13:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of red links everywhere on Wiktionary. For Specific Latin requests, the best place to post them is here. --EncycloPetey 15:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Correct, it isn't. Thank you for making me aware of the mistake :) -- 17:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

celeripēs descendants[edit]

Firstly, thanks for responding to my request that celeripēs (and others) be added. Regarding your reversion, we should note that the English term didn’t come directly from Latin, but rather viâ the French, either by some kind of indentation method, pointing, or omission (celeripede is listed in the Descendants section of the French entry céléripede). What do you suggest?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

English words that derive from Latin via French usually are not listed in any special way. Middle English (and thus Modern English) is an amalgam of French and Old English. In this instance, if the English word is the result of a very recent borrowing from French, then a {{qualifier}} tag can be placed after the word to indicate that it is a "borrowing" or some such. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
PS - I can't take credit for celeripēs, since Caladon actually created that entry. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely celeripede is just such a recent borrowing; it certainly didn’t exist in Middle English (which developed into Early Modern English centuries before the word’s referent was invented).  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome[edit]

Thanks! I happened to notice the word of the day was lacking audio and decided to try my hand at it. Thanks also for the welcome message and for the pointers to the Ancient Greek and Latin pages. —Caesura(t) 06:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello there EP. Darkicebot no longer needs the bot flag because Opiaterein's bot has taken over the adding of form of entries for Esperanto. Please remove his bot flag. Thanks, Razorflame 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi-I realized my mistake, and was just going back to fix it. You beat me to it!! --Funandtrvl 21:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Clue for deletion? Input greatly appreciated[edit]

Can you let me know why my page was deleted for the term of "Flaggot." There's quite a few of us using that term now. I'd like it to be up on the site since I was the creator of it a year ago.

Subsequently can you let me know what edits I needed to make so it can stay up once it is up. That information would help tremendously as this is my first Wiki listing.

Thanks so much! Paul

I'm not EncycloPetey, but the general rule is that you need 3 citations, spanning more than one year, for an entry to be included. Try [12], there is a dictionary ref there for "flaggot". (I'd respond to you directly, but I don't know your id). Facts707 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi there, I just wanted to remark that whenever I see either you or Semper show up in Recent Changes I know I can relax a little because a lot of the time whenever I click on [diff] or a page to delete, one of you has already gotten to it even before it loads on my screen. Thank you for all you do here! Also re blatant - it is always good to hear that other editors do get amused as well .... should that be transferred to WT:BJAODN somehow? :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 01:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied, probably, but not transferred. Thanks. It was even easier when Connel was still around, since he patrolled even more thoroughly. --EncycloPetey 02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


please give any [competent] source that states that it is now made usually of other material then willow bark-- 18:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already replied to yor question on your talk page, but you keep jumping around from IP to IP. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

it's not copied from any dictionary but based on Polish language dictionary-- 18:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for clarification about rule of not splitting of "folk instrument" -- 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


OED lists it as a verb gives as etymology "[f. L. fabulat- ppl. stem of fabulari to speak, f. fabula FABLE n.] ". An adjective "fabulate" is not listed in OED. Cheers, AxelBoldt 00:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit earlier & Language[edit]

Hey! First of all, thank you for pointing me to that page on fictional universes, I had a hard time understanding that whole rule thing. Secondly, holy crap! Look at your languages! Yay for linguistics majors! I need to update my language page. Thirdly, Ĉu vi diras esperante? Happy thanksgiving!

Whoops, forgot to sign in. It's me, Quintus. Thanks! Quintus314 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Gotchya. You sure that box is legit? :) If you EVER care to learn esperanto, I used a very passive course to get me started and an active course to continue. But I'm not here to convert :) Quintus314 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete taxonomic names[edit]

Is there a convention for the capitalization of obsolete one-part taxonomic names? Ie, are they also capitalized? The entry zoanthacea, just moved to Zoanthacea is what raised the question. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The same rules apply to all zoological names under the ICZN, or to botanical names under the ICBN. Any taxon name at the rank or genus or higher is always capitalized. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. DCDuring TALK 02:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Latin plurals[edit]

This has four members, but it shouldn't. Can you empty it please? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 14:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Could you add File:En-us-retard-2.ogg to retard? Thanks, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. --EncycloPetey 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the file name had to be changed. Try without the "-2" and could you please remove the {{rfap}}? Thanks, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 05:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've changed the file name, but I won't remove the {{rfap}}, since the verb sense still lacks an audio file. The verb sense is pronounced differently. --EncycloPetey 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The short "i" sound, correct? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫WT:APR 06:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but also with the stress on the second syllable instead of the first one. --EncycloPetey 06:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(<--) I'll get to recording soon. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫WT:APR 07:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

New conditions[edit]

Hello there. You may block me if you see me editing outside of these languages: languages listed on my babel. Any edits to other languages besides those (except reverting vandalism) may be blocked. Razorflame 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

gender‎; 05:15 . . (0) . . EncycloPetey (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 7943130 by Tyranny Sue (Talk) - restore to traditional sequence; they were not alphabetized in the last edit)


I'd like to discuss your reversion of my edit of gender, in which I alphabetised the ordering of genders ("female, male" replacing "male, female"). You didn't really provide a reason for it, just "restore to traditional sequence" (w:index.php?title=gender&action=history : "05:15 . . (0) . . EncycloPetey (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 7943130 by Tyranny Sue (Talk) - restore to traditional sequence; they were not alphabetized in the last edit)") Is there a Wikipedia policy to follow traditional ordering of genders (instead of a more logical/objective/apolitical rationale like alphabeticisation)?
(Also, I'm not sure why you wrote "they were not alphabetized in the last edit". Why would this affect future edits?)--Tyranny Sue 05:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at your edit, please. You did not alphabetize them as you claimed. That is what my edit comment referred to. If they had been alphabetized, then "common" would have been placed first. However, that would result in confusion, since common is (ironically) a less frequent grammatical gender. I maintain further that alphabetization is deterimental in this instance, partly for the aforementioned reason; partly because grammatical gender is normally listed as m, f, n in all textbooks; and partly because masculine is the default lemma gender on Wiktionary. The other definitions benefit from remaining parallel with the sense for grammaticla gender.
No, there is no Wikipedia policy to follow, because this is not Wikipedia, this is Wiktionary. Wiktionary standard practice is generally "keep whatever was put in originally, and don't change it without a very good reason." --EncycloPetey 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I meant 'Wiktionary' not 'Wikipedia'.

I can see what you mean about the grammatical sense (4). Fair enough.
However, I do think that sense 5 ("casually, to avoid confusion with ‘sex’ in the sense of ‘sexual relations’) The sex of individuals (male or female.") however, does benefit significantly from alphabetising so I do intend to restore that part of my edit.--Tyranny Sue 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I presented two reasons why I disagree with you, including standard practice. I have reverted that edit, since it does nothing to benefit the entry, and does make the definitions unparallel. --EncycloPetey 06:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The only reason you gave that applied to your reversion of my sense 5 edit was that you think it needs to be parallel with the ordering used in the previous sense. There is a bigger issue of balance involved. My sense 5 edit addresses the imbalance of always putting 'female' after 'male', a compulsion based only on outdated gender politics which Wiktionary should be free from. This is one of the features that positively distinguishes Wiktionary from standard/traditional dictionaries. --Tyranny Sue 00:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
As your own edit history shows, Wiktionary does not always put 'female' after 'male'. you have made sure of that. But now you have gone to the opposite extreme of uniformly placing "female" before "male", which does not improve or positively distinguish anything. In any event, Wiktionary is not a political forum. --EncycloPetey 03:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my edit history doesn't cover every possible instance of the terms 'female' and 'male' that show might up on Wiktionary. And no, the "opposite extreme" would actually mean putting 'woman' before 'man' and 'girl' before 'boy', which, of course, I haven't done.
The fact that Wikitonary is not a political forum is exactly why orderings should follow an apolitical rationale such as alphabetic ordering rather than the undeniably political practice of consistently placing words associated with one gender before ones associated with the other.--Tyranny Sue 06:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your motives are political. And no, alphabetical ordering is not apolitical in and of itself. It is an arbitrary criterion, but not apolitical. However, as an arbitrary criterion, there is thus no reason for its use in this situation, unless you intend to alphabetize every list of items that appears in every definition, which would just be silly. -EncycloPetey 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


I trust that you have or will revert my idiotic error? --Ceyockey 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


Considering your objection to the context-tagging of snail, I would ask whether you object to this edit → . --Ceyockey 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


  1. How do adjective like ruricola, undicola and anything ending in -gena work? Are they only used in the feminine for all genders? And if so, using the {{la-decl-1st}} adds it under [[Category:Latin nouns]], in the case of undicola.
  2. Are there any differences in pronunciation between Late Latin and Classical Latin?
  3. Should the {{defdate}} template be used instead of {{context}} for showing which age of Latin the definition is used in, for example monastērium uses context tags to show that it is used in Medieval Latin.
  4. Why on the entry for ministrō is the pronunciation /ˈmi.nis.troː/ rather than /miˈnis.troː/? Caladon 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Some brief replies for now (I've been ill lately, and don't have a lot of time to reply just now):
  1. Yes, ruricola & co. are strictly first declension, but technically can be either masculine or feminine. I've been meaning to update the declension templates for some time now, but haven't had the opportunity. Each time I plan to do so, something happens that prevents me from having sufficient time to act. I'd say, use {{Latin-decl}} directly as a way around the categorization problem.
  2. Yes, there are differences between Classical and Late Latin. Late Latin was the time whe some of the vowel and diphthong pronunciations underwent a shift, as did some of the consonants. The bigger problem is that these changes were not uniform across the Empire. It is thus very hard to assign a pronunciation meaningfully that is "Late Latin".
  3. Defdate is a new, experimental template. It is currently being used only for English. I'd rather stick with using {{context}} because that template allows for language specific tagging and for categorization. This can even be applied retroactively, if necessary,
  4. That pronunciation appears to be an error.
--EncycloPetey 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I would like to ask whether Langenscheidt is correct with this exception to the rule of dividing syllables: normally p, b, t, etc., followed by an l or r, joins with the following syllable, but if the word is a compound word with the first of the two consonants belonging to the preposition, then the consonants are divided, e.g. compare quadrātum and obrogō, which does not follow the above, which, if it did, should be /ˈː/. Which is correct? Caladon 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
That exception for prepositional syllables is not one that appears frequently in other references I have. Mahoney's New Latin Grammar states more generally that compounds (of which the preposition+root is given) are separated as syllables. With two sources in support, and none I kind find that say otherwise, let's call it the norm. --EncycloPetey 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I should note that Langenscheidt does say before that the rule, of the division of syllables, holds good for compounds such as 'a-bi-go', 'i-ne'o', whilst some dictionaries and grammars write them as ab-igo and in-eo, in order to show their etymology. What it exactly says is "consonant groups consisting of a mute (p, b, t, d, c, g) or f, followed by l or r, are generally (alaways, in prose and in the earliest poetry) left undivided: thus, a-pri-cus, a-gros, re-flu-o. This does not apply, however, to compound words in which the first of the two consonants belongs to a preposition; in this case, the two consonants are always divided: e.g. ab-rupi, ad-latus, etc." I don't know if this changes anything. Caladon 08:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I do own a copy of Langenscheidt, and did read it before replying. Sorry, but I did mean "let's call that the norm" in reference to your original question. For the more general case of compounds, I'm less certain, since most books I have just describe the general situation in Latin and aren't always helpful when in comes to special cases. I only have found a rule about dividing syllables of compounds in two of the references I own: Langenscheidt and Mahoney. Please do note, however, that the Langenscheidt entry for ineo is divided as in-eo in its headword. So, Langenscheidt itself is one of the dictionaries that divides these words to show etymology. Mahoney (among those she gives for compounds) separates ab-est, but that is the only example that she gives relevant to the question of whether or not the final consonant of a preposition can form a syllable with an initial vowel of a verb.
So...there isn't a lot to go on, and we have two respectable sources saying different from each other. Without additional guidance, I'm inclined to follow Mahoney on this. I'm not sure how many folks out there are likely to be able to help with this question, but there are a few on Wikipedia. You might raise the issue at w:Talk:Latin spelling and pronunciation. Although the article does not currently address this subject, there are a number of folks who watch that article and its talk page regularly. You could also as at WikiProject Latin itself. --EncycloPetey 16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, considering it's quite old, Kennedy's Latin Primer also says that the separate parts of compounds are kept distinct, giving ab-rumpo as an example but no more. Caladon 16:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between the orthographic division of syllables at the end of a line, and the division of phonetic syllables in an IPA transcription. For orthographic division, many people (including myself) prefer to follow the etymology of the word, at least if it's reasonably transparent. However, for pronunciations, we should follow the pronunciation. For phonemic transcriptions in /slashes/, we should not have syllable breaks at all, as AFAIK syllable breaks are not phonemic in Latin. However, for phonetic transcriptions in [brackets], we should ignore etymology, as AFAIK that doesn't affect pronunciation. So, ab-rupi, /abrupi/, and [a.bru.pi]. The exception would be if the morphology affected the pronunciation, which might be revealed by unexpected stress assignment: If, say, the sequence CVCVCVC (all short vowels) were pronounced on the penult, that would indicate that the syllabification was CV.CVC.VC, rather than the expected CV.CV.CVC. (In this case I think we'd have to say the syllable breaks, or at least morpheme boundaries, are phonemic.) I don't know if there are any such words in Latin. kwami 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You've written quite a lot and ended it with "I don't know if this happens in Latin." The whole question is what happened in Latin pronunciation. You haven't addressed the question being considered except to reiterate things already known by myself and Caladon. I know what the orthographic breaks are, but that's wholly irrelevant to the question of Classical pronunciation. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Word of the day/December 8[edit]

John Lennon glasses - nice touch. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


If you get a spare second, this Latin entry could do with a look-in, thanks. Conrad.Irwin 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ick. I'm going to call it a "pronoun form" for now, since that's how hic is currently labelled. However, it (along with its forms) is one of those words that will need to be cleaned up properly once I redo the inflection tables. I think hic is better categorized as a Determiner, since it is demonstrative, functions as both a modifier, and functions as a pronoun. --EncycloPetey 01:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC) is another, would it be better for me to put them into {{attention|la}} ?
Probably, at least for now. I may have time in about a week to tackle the inflection tables issue finally, but I may not. Life has been hectic and unpredictable lately. --EncycloPetey 02:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

New Latin contributor[edit], didn't know if you'd seen. Adding what seem to be nonce Latin words. Nadando 04:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. These could conceivably appear in Vatican documents or taxonomic diagnoses of new species. In any case, the adjectives shouldn't be capitalized. I may have time to check a few of these tomorrow or this weekend. --EncycloPetey 04:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there EP. What are the main differences between Portugese and Galician? They seem to be very similar. Portugese also seems to be fairly similar to Spanish, of which I know a bit of. Anyways, thanks for the help in advance, Razorflame 06:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All Iberian Romance languages are very similar, since they all descend from Latin in close contact with each other. The main differences between Portuguese and Galician are vocabulary, spelling, pronunciation, morphology, grammar, and contractions. They don't spell words the same way, such as mediação versus mediación; vespa versus avespa; or pôr versus poñer. Galician does not use à, ã, ê, õ, ô, or ç, and Portuguese does not use ñ. The verb endings are different, which you can see by comparing Portuguese cantar with Galician cantar; the differences are most notable in the imperfect, preterite, subjunctive, and the second-person plural. The irregular verbs show eve more differences, such as Portuguese ser with Galician ser. Also look at Category:Galician contractions, which contains contractions of the article that do not occur in Portuguese. There are so many differences between Galician and Portuguese that enumerating them all would take a very long time. --EncycloPetey 16:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Am doing what I can, but just for the redirect {{birds}} there are 179 transclusions left. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it's taking you so long. I just did 50 in 15 minutes manually. Note: I copy/paste [[Category:XX:Birds]]. --EncycloPetey 00:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Streisand effect[edit]

Hello Petey -- But why? -- WikiPedant 02:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to use that template. We already have simple wikisyntax for that. If you type: [[w:Foobar|]] when editing, with nothing after the pipe, the wiki software automatically expands it for you. So, the template doesn't save on editing either. --EncycloPetey 02:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, but {{w}} seems to work just fine, and for me it has the advantage of producing edit pages which are less cluttered. If a template is out there and works properly, it should be reasonable to assume that it's fair game to use it. -- WikiPedant 03:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I just see it as needless clutter. The wikisyntax in universal to all the wikis; the template is specific to a single project, and so is less friendly to later editors. --EncycloPetey 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's only natural that each project will have some templates specific to its needs (although cross-referencing to Wikipedia is obviously common to many projects). Anyhow, I spend a lot of my editing time adding quotations and am forever crosslinking authors' names to Wikipedia. For me {{w}} makes the citation lines of quotations a little tighter, both for reading and writing (even if it only saves the "|" keystroke). Or perhaps my problem is just that I'm such an old-timer that I always prefer syntax which takes up the fewest bytes (a consideration that really used to matter in the old days of computing). -- WikiPedant 03:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Please unblock my bot. It will not run again until it has the bot flag. Thank you, Razorflame 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be trusted to keep your word, or to exercise restraint. There is no reason to unblock the bot if you're not running it, is there? --EncycloPetey 06:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason to have it blocked in the first place, is there? Basically, I am trying to find a use for my bot somewhere here on the English Wiktionary, and with Ido verb forms, it seemed like a pretty easy thing to ask the bot to do. I don't understand why people have to be so hesitant about allowing me to run a bot here on the English Wiktionary for Ido verb forms when they are clearly indicated on the conjugation tables and when, after discussion with several Ido speakers who speak Ido much more fluently than I do say that there are no additional forms to the ones that are listed on the conjugation tables. Therefore, there should be no hesitation. Furthermore, my bot has already been an approved bot previously, so blocking it for being an unapproved bot is ironic and not very helpful. Razorflame 06:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is. You were running it, despite the fact that it is not authorized, dspite asking for it to be unflagged, and despite a vote going against granting you use of another bot. --EncycloPetey 06:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just unblock it so that we can stop quabbling over whether or not it should be blocked. Also read my extended note above. Razorflame 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just accept that your bot is blocked. End of discussion. The vote you opened for having a new bot has no support and multiple oppose votes. The community is not inclined to grant you another bot. --EncycloPetey 06:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why am I the one that everyone has to fucking pick on? All I've been trying to do is help this damn Wiktionary, and all that I've gotten in return is grief. People need to understand that people make mistakes and that people learn from them. I have learned from my mistake and now, other people on this site are being pains in the butt about it. You seriously need to lighten up and just unblock my bot. I'm not planning on running it, but I can't have it blocked either because I use the bot on other places and it would stop my bot from working there. Razorflame 06:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with EP here. It might as well be blocked, since you can't use it anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi EP. Since the penult (la) in īdōlolatrēs is not a heavy syllable, shouldn’t the stress for that word fall on the antepenult (lo; as /iː.doːˈːs/)?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The penult is (or is not) a heavy syllable. When a consonant blend occurs after the penultimate vowel, that vowel's syllable can be heavy or not, at a poet's discretion. --EncycloPetey 03:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Does that mean that both pronunciations (differing only by stress) ought to be given in the entry?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It means I need to think about what we want to do on Wiktionary. Wheelock would probably prefer your pronunciation, but some other authors would hedge a bit. --EncycloPetey 03:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
How do you feel about this solution? Notâ the use of {{U:Latin tr poetic stress alteration}}, which can be transcluded in every such case in future.  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
We could try that and see where it goes. However, it doesn't just apply to tr. Any consonant pair of a stop plus a liquid (l or r) has this property when it occurs in this position. --EncycloPetey 02:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I’ve now moved it to {{U:Latin stop+liquid poetic stress alteration}} and added parameters to specify the stop–liquid pair in question; you can see how easily it can be used in the entry. Does that sort the problems with it?  (u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Further on this issue… Caladon asks whether the use of {{U:Latin stop+liquid poetic stress alteration}} is appropriate for lūcubrō, where the stop in question is b and the liquid r. Given that you said above "Any consonant pair of a stop plus a liquid (l or r) has this property when it occurs in this position.", am I right to assume that this pronunciatory variation also occurs with lūcubrō?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, yes, but far less likely with this verb where the first and final syllables have long vowels but not the penult. --EncycloPetey 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean first and final, or antepenult and final? That is, in a heavy-light-light-<stop+liquid>-heavy word, would the poetic stress alteration also be unlikely? (If so, then it would be unlikely in īdōlolatrēs, given the long first ī.) I assume you meant antepenult and final. Also, what is the tendency when the antepenult is heavy but the final syllable is light, as in ēlūcubror? Do you think the fact that such poetic stress alteration is infrequent when a word's final syllable and antepenult are both heavy is worth noting in {{U:Latin stop+liquid poetic stress alteration}}?  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
We're already extending ourselves a bit with the current template. The authors who discuss stress placement at all usually hedge their conversations, which in itseld is rather remarkable, since my experience is that they normally either pronounce sweeping generalities or else describe every insignificant exception. I think it's safer not to overstate ourselves in this situation. And in my previous comment I was specifically making an interpolation from what I've read, but making the interpolation only about trisyllablic words with a long-short-long vowel length where the <stop+liquid> sits after the short vowel. --EncycloPetey 15:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Understood. We'll leave it out then, since it is only rare in that circumstance, rather than non-existent.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

maternalis and other similar words[edit]

Please may you provide your insight on this discussion, which is on my talk page [13]. I would have thought that because these words weren't attested in Latin when the English word was first attested, then the etymologies should be changed (unless I'm missing a text from an earlier date). Since the words appear later on in Latin, they should have an entry? Caladon 21:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have asked some questions on my talk page to keep the discussion in one place. Caladon 17:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please could you check māternālis, paternālis, frāternālis and māternitās for errors and things that need adding. Thanks. Caladon 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello there EP. I just wanted to say that I overreacted and that I made a fool of myself on your talk page and that I just wanted to say that I am sorry for my actions. It is definitely something that I need to work and, and you have my word that I will work on it now. Anyways, I hope that there are no hard feelings between us, Razorflame 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ya visto?

I would like to formally apologize for any drama that I might have caused, and I would therefore like to say that I am sorry for any PAs that I might have made on you. Thanks, Razorflame 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from, I believe some might call this creature a loose cannon. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

British alt.sp.s[edit]

I've responded to your comments at WT:BP#.28British.29_Alternative_spelling_of, and would like to know your further opinion (there, of course), if you have a chance. Thanks.​—msh210 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually opposed the idea. I did point out some serious concerns of mine, but did not oppose implementation. That action on my part was deliberate. If my concerns have been examined and addressed, as they seem to have been, then I have nothing further to contribute to the discussion. --EncycloPetey 18:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks: that's what I wanted to know.​—msh210 19:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


On pages like papagaios, shouldn't it say that it is the masculine plural of the word instead of just the masculine form of the word? Cheers, Razorflame 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We've never standardized that. some of the plural form pages were created before the templates were accelerated. Some plural sections are created by copying the other language section's format. And even when the templates are accelerated, the syntax isn't the same for all languages, so they don't always end up looking the same. The accelerated Galician noun templates usually don't indlicate gender or number on the inflection line. the fact that it's plural already appears in the definition, and the gender and other grammatical information is usually just placed on the main entry (singular). I'm not sure what's normal for Portuguese. --EncycloPetey 03:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the help :) Cheers, Razorflame 03:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting your comment[edit]

Weird. I don't know how I did that. Unintentional. Equinox 12:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WOTD cross-outs[edit]

Hi there EncycloPetey. A couple of times in the past, you've crossed out a word that I nominated for WOTD and added a question mark at the end of it, without adding it to the queue of new WOTDS. Can you please explain why you did that, as it is confusing to me. Thanks, Razorflame 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The only one I see is impetuous. It's crossed out because it's scheduled to be featured later this month (29 Dec). I select all the entries before the first of the month, and cross out all the selected words at the same time, even if they haven't yet appeared on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi EncycloPetey,

Should attitude have a special {{heraldry}} def, per w:Attitude (heraldry)? Or is sense #1 enough? (I ask because I just defined תנוחה referring to the heraldic sense of attitude, but if none of the senses at attitude is going to have a {{heraldry}} tag, then I should probably elaborate on that a bit.)

Thanks in advance!
RuakhTALK 17:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The current definition 1 is fine. In fact, the WP article should probably be renamed, since none of the major heraldry texts in English I've ever used calls this anything but position or posture. The term attitude isn't even used in Elvin, who collected lots of obscure (and sometimes even inaccurate) terms for his Dictionary of Heraldry. --EncycloPetey 18:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! —RuakhTALK 20:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

template troubles...[edit]

Hi could you please take a look at {{pl-decl-noun}} and tell me if you know where/how I screwed up? Thanks. Also I think it might be a good idea to archive some of your talk page. ;-) 50 Xylophone Players talk 17:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK (to both), but could you describe to me what problem it is you think you've created, so that I know what to look for? --EncycloPetey 17:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, Isee the problem. My guess is that this is an inherent problem of the wikisyntax for what you're trying to do. The only way I know to solve this would involve completely restructuring the way the template and all its calls work. You might ask Robert Ullmann or Conrad.Irwin, as they have more template experience than I have. --EncycloPetey 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I din't find a CSS class named prettytable inflection-table, so I assume Palkia50 wanted to use both classes inflection-table and inflection-table, calling them incorrectly, leading to an ugly outcome, in my opinion. I've then edited {{pl-decl-noun}} but didn't chose a specific class; I just placed the links where they're necessary. They're working now. --Daniel. 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No they weren't. They were adding "1. Polish" and displaying explicit brackets in the plural column, which was the same problem I could not solve. I've reverted to Maro's edit. --EncycloPetey 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I've tested at the entry aria and worked well, though. --Daniel. 19:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
But it didn't work at słownik, where the parameters are not placed on a single line. --EncycloPetey 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really following this discussion, but the correct way to assign two classes to an element is to include them as class="class1 class2". (Specification.)​—msh210 20:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is in the display of the display of links targetted to a specific language section. That is, including "#Polish" with a pipe is not working. It fails when the entry that calls the template has a return after a parameter and before the next pipe. --EncycloPetey 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
From testing in my userspace, I've concluded that it's a MediaWiki weirdness; named parameters, and explicitly numbered parameters, drop final newlines during transclusion, but positional parameters (i.e. implicitly numbered parameters) do not. I've implemented the only workaround I can find that doesn't require us to edit every existing entry that displays the problem. It's an ugly, ugly hack. :-)   —RuakhTALK 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL. A template only a motherboard could love. --EncycloPetey 20:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
For next time {{#if:||{{{1}}}}} will also strip the newline, but it's hardly a nicer solution. Conrad.Irwin 21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, good point! In that exact form, it's not much nicer, but there's usually a useful template that can be used similarly (for example, in this case we could have had a helper template that set lang="pl" and xml:lang="pl", and that didn't produce self-links). —RuakhTALK 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice one, Ruakh. I've developed another workaround which seems to work well in just one template; though please feel free to revert if necessary. Any of these solutions is fine for me. --Daniel. 21:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. :-)   —RuakhTALK 21:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


The "also" section already had the "w/o" entry before I got to it,

additionally, wo1 etc are diacritics, they indicate the tone used to pronounciate the term. 06:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As for more than one line... it didn't fit, so I didn't see an alternative, is there one? 06:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that you restored "w/o" to the "also" template, but you said that it should not include extra characters, the "/" is obviously an extra character... what's up with that? 06:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Aw, thanks that's so sweet!Kaixinguo 20:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick action re parens.​—msh210 21:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


This entry was correctly formatted. You introduced quite a number of formatting and content errors. --EncycloPetey 21:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Categories are supposed to be at the bottom (you weren't even looking at what you're were doing, how disappointing), and the spelling Cracow is increasingly outdated, but the edit warring isn't my thing, so congratulations on making it worse. --Poeticbent 21:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
No, categories are supposed to be at the end of the language section. If you refuse to learn form your mistakes, you will be blocked. --EncycloPetey 21:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi EncycloPetey,

I'm aware that my example sentence may have had deficiencies; but I think it's important to note that perky as often as not has a negative connotation in usage. One can't say the same thing of the words happy, cheerful or optimistic.

What I was trying to record is not simply ironic or sarcastic usage; but rather, the way the word perky in itself is often used to connote a certain excessiveness or theatricality (the same applies to perkier and perkiness).

Do you think it would be fair to note " (oft. disparaging) " or " (sometimes disparaging) " as part of the principal definition? This is what I was going to do initially, but it seemed like the matter merited a more detailed explanation.

I decided to amend the definition after reading a discussion among non-native English speakers of a writing excerpt which was clearly intended as a humorous piece. Neither reader picked up on the mocking flavor of the word "perkiness", and the ensuing discussion, very solemn and earnest, pretty much missed the point.

Since there's no way to understand a priori that perky has a particular flavor in practice, I think it's important to at least reference this flavor in the wiktionary definition. --Krnntp 01:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm beating a dead horse, but if perky is often or usually used in a dimunitive or disparaging sense, wouldn't that at least merit a mention in { { context } } ? Perhaps every English adjective could be used in a slightly insulting way, but not so many of them are. My apologies if you are tired of talking about this, --Krnntp 06:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I think also, that the definition I wrote may have been misread (I may have phrased it in an ambiguous way). The pointedness, exaggeration, deliberateness I mentioned were not supposed to describe the intent of, or manner of usage undertaken by, a speaker of the word "perky" (as one might see in writing that has an ironic or sarcastic tone), but rather, to describe the deliberate intent or manner of conduct of the perky party in question.
Where I wrote Lively or enthusiastic in a pointed, deliberate, or exaggerated way, or to an annoying degree
...I should have written { { context|informal } } Unnaturally lively or enthusiastic, esp. as if undertaken by effort
...Which preserves exactly the meaning I was trying to describe.
Oh, PS, Happy Holidays --Krnntp 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Galician sections?[edit]

Hi there EP. For several of my new pages that I made (Spanish entries), Interwicket added a link to the Galician language dictionary, which makes me think that the same word is also a Galician word. Would you mind going through them and adding the Galician sections?

Thanks, Razorflame 17:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

They are not Galician words. They are Spanish words that have entries on the Galician Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the help :). Cheers, Razorflame 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You say that they aren't Galician words, but wouldn't duplicidade, permeabilidade, impermeabilidade, pluralidade, futilidade, similaridade, multiplicidade, and mutabilidade be the Galician equivalents of these words? Cheers, Razorflame 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. But the words you listed are not Galician words. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there EP. Thanks for the note about the attention template. Can you please add a Latin section to the word provide? Thanks, Razorflame 18:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What kind of content did you need to have added? --EncycloPetey 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw on one of the other Latin pages that that word was in the derived or related terms section for that entry, so I thought that it was missing a Latin section. Am I mistaken? Razorflame 18:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
No, but these kind of "make-work" requests are not usually favored by Wiktionarians. There are many "contributors" in the past who have made and posted lists of to-do items for other people, solely out of a sense that wiktionary had to have these words and without any rationale for their selection. Such requests usually tend to be ignored. We do have entry request pages, but they're intended for people who actually need the information to be added for a reason. For example, someone learning a language may have come across an unfamiliar word, and needs to know more. Or, someone working on the English entry for bercary finds that it comes form Latin bercāria and would like to have that entry added in order to help their work.
Making a request to have an entry added simply because it's missing is considered bad form. Especially if it's for no specific reason, and without any need for the entry, and without any knowledge of what the word is or means. Such a request is rather pointless, as we are missing many thousands of such words. They'll be added eventually. --EncycloPetey 18:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for explaining the rationale behind this request and how it is considered bad form. Thanks! I'll make sure not to ask anyone to add a specific entry for me in the future. Thanks again, Razorflame 18:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the asking is fine, if you have a reason. The bad form is in making chore lists for other people. --EncycloPetey 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Is having curiousity about what the word means a valid reason to ask someone to add an entry? Anyways, I'll try not to make chore lists for anyone in the future. Thanks again for your help, Razorflame 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Not if it's very rare and occasional. If it's commonplace, then it can be tiresome or irritating to some editors. --EncycloPetey 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you for the very kind and helpful advice. I'll try to keep it in mind from now on. Cheers, Razorflame 18:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback: Nils von Barth: Formatting[edit]

You have new messages Hello, EncycloPetey. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.

Re: taxon template[edit]

Is it now the standard convention to use this template? So shall I update with it any taxonomic definition that I come across? Twpsyn Pentref 23:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Twpsyn Pentref 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you, specifically for recently creating the entries arbolar and grillar. I was needing them. --Daniel. 21:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there. How is my Italian coming along? I've written a few more sentences on User:Razorflame/Italian sentences, and I hope that I would be able to make some basic Italian entries very soon. Do you think that I am almost able to start making Italian entries yet? Razorflame 04:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Basic level 1 language skill is more than being able to assemble short sentences, with a limited vocabulary, in the present tense. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could go from '0 to 1 in a few weeks (although Stephen might). I really wouldn't expect anyone to move up from 0 to 1 in under three months of study. You need to be able to parse and read material given to you, or at least be able to figure out the part of speech of any new words you encounter. In a language like Italian, this requires being extremely familiar with the inflectional endings for nouns, adjectives, present tense verbs, and past/preterite tense verbs, as well as knowing something about pronunciation, agglutination, and syntax. There is also a minimal vocabulary one should know reasonably well at level 1, especially articles, pronouns, question words, common prepositions, and conjunctions, although not necessarily a fixed word list for other words. As a sort of rough test, a person should be able to read and write the language at a first grade level (although not necessarily have the spoken and auditory skill of a native six-year old). At least, that's how I see it. The ratings are not precisely defined, and some interpretation is left to the individual editors. --EncycloPetey 04:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for the feedback. Cheers, Razorflame 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi there EP. Could you make the Latin word explosio please? It is used in the etymology sections of both explosion and eksplodo, and I really could use it created so that the readers of both articles can enjoy the origins of where both words come from. Thanks, Razorflame 05:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The best place to put Latin requests is at Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin. I don't always have time right away to do these, and (as you've noticed) my talk page tends to accumulate new sections, which pushes older sections up off the screen and out of mind.
RF, there are actually quite a few words that are red-linked to from etymology sections. I wonder if there is (or should be) a list of them somewhere... --Yair rand 05:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
A separate linked list page would be nice. Putting them all on the Latin requests page would flood it, and special requests would become lost. There is no such list currently in existence, and I'm not sure how simple it would be to generate, since many of the Latin items in etymologies are the wrong form for the lemma or simply erroneous. I am constantly correcting Latin-related information in etymologies. --EncycloPetey 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Ok, so the English Wikipedia has Rosebay redirecting to the article on Fireweed, and I was wondering if that means that the entry for rosebay here should either redirect to fireweed, or if it should be an entry in which the definition just says fireweed. Which is the correct way to do it? Thanks for the help in advance, Razorflame 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't do redirects here. The two entries should probably list each other as synonyms, Also, both entries should identify the genus and/or species that the name refers to. --EncycloPetey 21:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
fireweed lists the family that it comes from. Since rosebay means the same thing as fireweed, chances are that the same definition can be used in both. Cheers, Razorflame 21:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article identifies the species. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it does, and I just added it a second ago :). Anyways, Rosebay also refers to another name for oleander, so now I am looking at two possible definitions for this word. Razorflame 21:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a frequent problem with common names of plants (and some animals). A few common names apply to vastly different plants, such as "sugar maple", which in the region around the Ozarks refers to a species of poplar. --EncycloPetey 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've figured it out. The rosebay willowherb is the other name for fireweed, while just rosebay is another name for oleander. It took a little detective work, but that is exactly how it came out. Cheers, Razorflame 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Move to Iohannes? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Even in the Medieval records, this is just an orthographic variant. The spelling can be found in the etymologies, so we don't really need the redirect. --EncycloPetey 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Darkicebot?[edit]

Hi there EP. Within a few days, I am going to need to test out a new program that I've been writing to help add Esperanto verb forms (with the appropriate pronunciations), but I will be unable to do that if my bot is blocked. Is there any way that you can unblock my bot so that when the time comes, I can test the program that I've been writing? Thanks, Razorflame 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would only matter if the community were willing to grant bot rights to you. The last request was quite firmly voted down, and it seems unlikely that community opinion will have changed that rapidly in the interim. There isn't a lot of point in you going to all the effort to create the program if the community won't grant you a vote of confidence to use it. There's nothing that prevents you from making a few limited tests through your primary account, as long as it is just a few limited tests to demonstrate and verify functioning. But if it's more than a total of 60 or so edits of testing, it's a bad idea. --EncycloPetey 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I was only going to make like 5-10 test edits because I know that any more than that would be a bad idea. Razorflame 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As I say, you can do that through your regular account with no problem. --EncycloPetey 22:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
However, that would require quite a bit of reprogramming on my part, which I would rather avoid. Razorflame 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And if the community doesn't approve, you've still done a lot of programming for naught. If you intend to apply again for a bot, it might be best to post the code and get opinion first on the likelihood of bot approval. Otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time to engage in the effort. --EncycloPetey 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting)Can you unblock my bot for a few minutes so that I can get him to add interwikis to my userpage please? It should only take like 5 minutes. Razorflame 18:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary. It's a single static list, and can be copied from any other wiki where the list exists. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't exist on any of my userpages on any wiki. I need to run it the first time to have it add them all to one wiki. It shouldn't be that big of a deal. I could have it done in 2 minutes and you could re-block it if you feel that you can't trust me to have my bot unblocked. Razorflame 19:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Then you need to generate one on another wiki. You do not have permission to run a bot here, and the community does not want you to run a bot here, so please stop pestering me to run a bot here. I can't grant that permission to you against the decision of the community. --EncycloPetey 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't the community think that I can run a bot capably? I ran Darkicebot with the Esperanto form ofs for 23,000 edits without a hitch; what is the big issue with me running a bot here? Are you or the community afraid that I would do something against concensus to harm the Wiktionary? All I want to do is help the Wiktionary. Razorflame 19:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You would have to ask the community, or else read the comments they made in the last vote. I am unable to read minds to find out their reasons, and am unwilling to read posted text for you that you could read yourself. --EncycloPetey 19:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I've taken your advice and asked the community in the Beer Parlour. Now to await some replies :) Razorflame 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WT:BP#Name appendices[edit]

Yeah, I realized afterwards that your comment was directed at quite a few people, but
(diff) (hist) . . Wiktionary:Beer parlour‎; 12:30 . . (+3,794) . . EncycloPetey (Talk | contribs | block) (→Name appendices: (edit conflict) reply to Logomaniac)
looked a little intimidating at first..... (: L☺g☺maniac 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't Category:Taxonomic names get moved to Category:mul:Taxonomic names since it's topical and Translingual? --Bequw¢τ 00:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a sticky issue. A number of folks believe there shouldn't be any mul: categories. Some people would probably argue that the category should be Category:Translingual taxonomic names, since these are names, which is the same thing as a proper noun, and I'm sure there are other weird ideas waiting to surface. As it stands, there isn't any real harm in the category name, since these particular Translingual terms are used in English; they merely happen to be used in a whole lot ot other languages as well. So, I don't think it's a pressing issue, myself, and am content to leave it as it stands. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
See the new WT:CDPR#Incorrect topical categorizations for why I was concerned about this category and others (such as Category:Botanical author abbreviations). These Translingual topical categories currently only exist for Translingual entries, so their parent in the English topical hierarchy is unclear (currently Category:Taxonomy, Category:Botany). I believe Translingual topical categories should exist but maybe the issue should raised on WT:BP or WT:AMUL. I believe both of these are topical categories because they are categorizing based on the referents (species and people) rather than on lexical characteristics of the terms (entries in both should be under Category:Translingual proper nouns). --Bequw¢τ 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of cleanup to be done for these entries and the category contents. I'm not sure that moving the categories around at this stage would contribute much, but you could certainly pursue it if you think it's worthwhile. I see so many of these that need to have the PoS fixed, formatting corrected, and some are mislabelled in the wrong language. I'd just as soon wait until the dust has settled a bit. --EncycloPetey 02:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)