User talk:Fsojic

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
I have to get away from here.


What is this page for, exactly? It seems redundant to Index:Proto-Germanic... —CodeCat 12:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


The tag was "dated or literary". The only reason to change it to just "literary" would be if you think that it was never a normal word, and has always been strictly a literary term. —RuakhTALK 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Firstly: {{term}} does have a spot for glosses. To see how to use it, please refer to this change I made to vietininkas. Also, I have no idea how you made it this long without being welcomed. Therefore:


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  • How to edit a page is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.
  • Entry layout explained (ELE) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard, the easiest way to do this is to copy exactly an existing page for a similar word.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words Wiktionary is interested in including. There is also a list of things that Wiktionary is not for a higher level overview.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide to Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • We have discussion rooms in which you can ask any question about Wiktionary or its entries, a glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.

Also, please add a BabelBox to your userpage so we can help you with the languages you'll be working in.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Etymology "compare to" and "→ see".[edit]

Firstly — an English source writing about the Lithuanian word laikas might say "Compare Latvian laiks", but never "Compare to Latvian laiks". (I admit, this is completely arbitrary — logically, comparing laikas to laiks is the same as comparing laiks to laikas, so the two phrases should be equivalent — but for whatever reason, one is common, and the other sounds bizarre.)

Secondly — in my opinion, even "Compare Latvian laiks" is not a very good etymology, because it's not clear what you're trying to say. I think it would be better to say something like one of these:

  • Cognate with Latvian laiks.
  • Presumably related to Latvian laiks.
  • Unknown. Perhaps related to Latvian laiks.

(depending what you mean).

Thirdly — unlike the French Wiktionary, we don't use the "→ see" notation in etymologies (as you did at [[skaitvardis]]). We don't have a clear alternative that we use instead, but we don't use that. :-/   Is this O.K.?

RuakhTALK 18:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

lv & lt[edit]

Bonjour! Tu viens de me poser une question sur le niveau de similarité entre le lituanien et le letton. À mon avis (et c'est bien une question subjective), ces langues sont aussi distinctes que l'anglais et l'allemand. Si l'on connaît bien l'une de ces deux langues, on ne comprendra pas forcément l'autre, bien qu'il soit possible de reconnaître pas mal de mots cognats (comme laiks et laikas, qui n'ont pas le même sens...). Il est sûrement plus facile pour un Letton d'apprendre à parler lituanien que pour un Français (ou pour un Brésilien comme moi), mais il lui faudra encore quelques années d'étude pour arriver à lire et à parler correctement...

Tu t'intéresses au lituanien? Qu'as-tu l'intention de faire avec cette langue au wiktionary anglophone? --Pereru (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


Please note that categories can be added much more quickly if you use HotCat, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Voilà! C'est fait! :-) --Pereru (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Template interwiki links[edit]

Please add interwiki template links to the template's documentation page, not in the template itself. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


to suck in which sense? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Latin etymology dictionary[edit]

Do you have access to this book? I looked for it but it's prohibitively expensive. —CodeCat 00:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ocris and Latin archaic terms[edit]

You have new messages Hello, Fsojic. You have new messages at I'm so meta even this acronym's talk page.
Message added 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{talkback}} template.


I started this module, and I'll try to see how far I get with reimplementing our current inflection tables. I don't know all the intricacies of Latin inflection though, just the basics (four conjugations and the io-type is about as much as I know), so is it ok if I ask you to be my consultant? :) —CodeCat 22:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks for taking care of it. --Fsojic (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I converted {{la-conj-1st}}, {{la-conj-2nd}}, {{la-conj-3rd}}, {{la-conj-3rd-IO}} and {{la-conj-4th}} to use the module, and it seems to work ok. I'm not finished with it yet, there is a lot that could be improved, but it works at least. Could you check it to make sure it's all ok? —CodeCat 02:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

{{la-conj-1st-depon}}, {{la-conj-2nd-depon}}, {{la-conj-3rd-depon}}, {{la-conj-3rd-IO-depon}} and {{la-conj-4th-depon}} have now been converted as well. —CodeCat 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

{{la-conj-2nd-semi}} and {{la-conj-3rd-semi}} are done. I noticed that the deponent verbs have both an active (-turus) and a passive (-ndus) future participle, but the semi-deponent verbs only have the active participle. Is that correct? —CodeCat 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I did the -pass3p templates now too. But I'm a bit confused by the -nopass templates. I left a question in the Tea Room, could you have a look at it? —CodeCat 02:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The templates are mostly finished now, see Category:Latin verb inflection-table templates. There are a few that I'm not sure what to do with yet: {{la-conj-2nd-noperf}}, {{la-conj-2nd-redup}}, {{la-conj-3rd-no234}} and {{la-conj-3rd-redup}}. Could you look at these? The "redup" templates seem to be exactly the same as the regular ones, except that they add an extra category, so I don't know if it's useful to keep them at all. —CodeCat 22:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

cases of[edit]

Hello. You've been doing some tremendous work in Ancient Greek, but I hadn't had an excuse to come over and say hi until now. I noticed that you handled the "accusative of person" very nicely on one of your entries (I'm sorry to say that I can't recall which one at the moment). I've noticed abbreviations like "gen. rei" in the LSJ for a long time, but have only recently figured out what they mean, and truth be told still don't completely understand all the abbreviations. I was wondering if you possibly had a list of them all somewhere, and if you had any specific thoughts on their placement in Wiktionary entries. Thanks very much, and please let me know if there's anything I can do for you. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 19:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Latin shortened imperatives[edit]

The verbs dīcō, dūcō, faciō and ferō apparently have an imperative that lacks the -e. I wonder two things:

  • Does this also apply to derived verbs, or only to the base verb?
  • Does the regular imperative with -e also exist?

CodeCat 22:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


The quote from Homer came from here, spelled with an eta. SpinningSpark 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


septimus is 7th, not 17th. In Latin, the next number after 12th that has it's own word is 18th. I don't think we have entries for phrases like "septimus decim" which is 17th

It's a tough call. We jump straight from 20th to 30th, and that seems OK. I agree it's disturbing, but I don't have a better idea.

While we're on the subject, there are also Latin words for 28, 29, 38, 39, ..., 98, 99. How do those fit in?

Looking at other languages, the ordinal/cardinal boxes usually disappear as soon as "next" becomes problematic. Latin cardinal 20 has a dead link to 21, which seems less useful than a live link to 30.

See also

Alternative forms[edit]

There was a discussion a while ago where it was agreed that the "alternative forms" category should not contain any entries. —CodeCat 18:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No passive?[edit]

Passive forms of perdo are easily attestable on Google Books. Why have you removed them from the conjugation table and tagged their entries for speedy deletion? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

cuiae, etc.[edit]

In a similar vein to the previous: the Perseus Latin Word Study Tool finds nothing wrong with most of the forms you've marked for deletion, and at least this one seems to be attested (I haven't checked the others, but I suspect the results will be similar). That's not to say all those entries are correct as written (I don't know Latin well enough enough to say one way or the other)- but marking an entry for deletion is equivalent to saying that you're positive that there are no terms of any sort that include that spelling anywhere in their paradigm. Please do at least a cursory check before marking things for deletion. Thanks. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

... Well, it seems I was really mistaken this time. I have no mercy fo garbage, and tend to have no patience when I think I see some. My bad. --Fsojic (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


The inflection table is showing an error here, apparently because the supine stem is missing. But the headword line suggests there is no supine. So I'm a bit unsure what to do here... —CodeCat 00:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:kc kennylau has removed the passive forms instead. Is that correct? —CodeCat 22:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


I have deleted this template which I think I originally created to match {{el-R-arrow}}. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 06:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


"For some reason, the model doesn't strip these words of their breves." I'm aware of this; there's been a discussion and request for Atelaes to change this. I figure, until that's done, it's better just to mark breves so that more pages will have them once the fix is implemented. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A. Greek prosody question[edit]

I have inferred that all Ancient Greek proparoxytones have short vowels in their ults and penults; can you tell me whether this is the case, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin question[edit]

At Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2015/January#Lemma dilemma, I mentioned a hypothetical Latin phrase, "a big dog and a small cat". If this were to be phrased using -que to join the two halves, and "small" (whatever the Latin translation is) precedes "cat", then which word is -que attached to, "small" or "cat"? —CodeCat 15:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any obligation. You could say magnus canis parvaque feles, canis magnus felesque parva or even magnus canis felesque parva, canis magnus parvaque feles. --Fsojic (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Fsojic. Re this IPA you added, is the in ἰσχίον long or short? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I unfortunately have no idea. --Fsojic (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Is it safe to infer from the Latin ischion that it's short? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have some indication on the length of the first i in ischion? --Fsojic (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just that the OLD omits a macron, I suppose… Too flimsy? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't rely on that: Lewis and Short (I suppose that is what you mean by OLD) don't indicate vowel lengths in closed syllables. See for example iūstus and its entry on L&S. And even if the vowel length was indicated in this case, I don't think we could be a hundred percent sure it would reflect faithfully the Greek etymon. --Fsojic (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope; I meant the Oxford Latin Dictionary. I guess we'll just have to leave the vowel ambiguous, at least for now. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there an online version of it, or do you have it at home? In any case, does it give the vowel lengths in closed syllables? --Fsojic (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
1) I've sent you an e-mail about it. 2) AFAICT, yes. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From the Ancient Greek[edit]

Just a friendly question - why have you been adding the to etymologies - while colloquially I might say "from the Ancient Greek", Wiktionary says for example "from Old French" (see science - not "the Old French"). You'll have a big job on if you're going to change all our etymologies!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Saltmarsh isn't it more elegant to add the in this case? I think @I'm so meta even this acronym usually does this, that's why I've taken up the habit. --Fsojic (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine! You'll have a big job.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
As with all matters of style, tastes differ. One person's elegance is another's pretentious clutter. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh, Chuck Entz: I should explain my reason for prepending "the" before language names specifying originating languages of etyma:
I read etymologies as describing word-histories in natural language, albeit elliptically, in the form "[The lang-1 term term-1 derives f]rom the lang-2 [term] term-2, [which derives] from the lang-3 [term] term-3 […]". Consider, for example, the etymology of the Bislama word wota (q.v.): Wouldn't saying "Bislama wota derives from English water" sound like one were saying that Vanuatu's water is imported from Britain? Of course, context (as do a few other considerations) makes such an interpretation absurd. Nevertheless, omitting "the" before language names is ungrammatical insofar as it diverges from utterable English; you can say "the Bislama wota is from the English water, from the Middle English water, from the Old English wæter…" (omitting "term", "which in turn derives", etc.) without irksomeness, but saying "Bislama wota is from English water, from Middle English water, from Old English wæter…" just sounds wrong.
I don't suppose it really matters, but it has been determined that we should use "from" instead of ⟨ < ⟩ in etymologies, on the basis of similar appeals to natural language. I just hope that my rationale at least makes sense. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, that does make sense; I'll try and remember to save anyone the trouble of editing my (few) etymologies!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh: Much obliged. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

So you want to learn Devanagari[edit]

[1], [2], Wikipedia. Some links. —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 18:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)