User talk:GianWiki

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


Hi. About this: the Italic script for Umbrian should be entered in Unicode characters, not as images. --Vahag (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Vahagn. Yes, I probably should have used Unicode characters. I just thought rendering the stylistic variants of Old Italic script (Umbrian, in this case) could be a good thing to do. Thanks for the advice.

GianWiki (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The image can be shown in the page for 𐌖𐌄𐌓𐌚𐌀𐌋𐌄𐌌(uerfalem), when it is created. --Vahag (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


See my changes: 五蘊 and 五蕴. Thanks. Good job by the way. JamesjiaoTC 21:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding dashes to separate out language sections[edit]

Make sure you add four dashes ---- to separate out the language sections. See here: Added dashes JamesjiaoTC 02:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


  1. Chinese languages are tonal. These IPA-notated pronunciations are therefore basically inaccurate.
  2. 蘊 in Beijing Mandarin is /yn51/, not /jʊn51/.
  3. 春 in Guangzhou Cantonese is /tsʰɵn55/3/.

Wyang (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Avestan, Middle Persian, etc.[edit]

Hi. Thanks for adding those scripts. Do you look up the exact spellings in dictionaries or do you "detransliterate" yourself from a given romanization? --Vahag (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I "detransliterate" after looking up the script's characteristics (e.g. vowel omission) and checking if the given spelling is plausible according to the script transliteration. —This unsigned comment was added by GianWiki (talkcontribs).
Please don't do that. We need the exact spellings as attested in extant manuscripts, which are capable of passing WT:CFI, not hypothetical detransliterations. Also, I have to revert most of your recent edits to Armenian and Persian entries, because they are wrong, e.g. تنگ(tang) is not derived from Middle Persian *vitang. --Vahag (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
My apologies. Reading that تنگ(tang) is related to վտանգ(vtang), I think I inadvertently assumed the two to be cognates (a silly mistake, I have to say). With this assumption, I went further and assumed the Etymology entry for վտանգ(vtang) could be applied for تنگ(tang) as well (I mainly thought so because, sometimes, etymological information is included in an entry yet missing in a 'cognate' entry, as far as I've seen. I just thought this was one of those cases). Again, I apologize: I will try to not to rush things the next time.
GianWiki (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, I made many similar mistakes when I started editing Wiktionary. --Vahag (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A Welcome, and a Note[edit]


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It 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.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for 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.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

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!

Please pay special attention to our Criteria For Inclusion. We go by usage, not whether it can be found in a dictionary. Some of your recent Latin entries for modern technology seem unlikely to exist in actual use, though Latin is still used by the Vatican, so I could be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I myself do not know how widespread their usage may be, but I believe that the very existence of these terms, and to the fact that someone took the time to plan and construct them in order to somewhat revitalize the language by expanding its lexicon (see the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis found at the Holy See website or the 2007 Auxiliary Spanish-Latin Dictionary for a Modern Usage of Latin) is reason enough for their inclusion.on Wiktionary. I might be wrong, but I believe this should be taken into consideration.

GianWiki (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that some of your entries have been challenged at WT:RFV. There's some debate as to whether modern Latin is covered by the partial exemption in the CFI for languages with little documentation. Classical Latin is, but modern usage is a separate issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese[edit]

The pages you created (戰國, 战国) were full of errors. Please stop adding languages you are not familiar with. Wyang (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Latin proper noun forms[edit]

Could you please add {{la-proper noun-form}} to these entries under the ===Proper noun=== header? It provides a bold headword and categorizes. Thank you. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of your 大麻 edit[edit]


Please read Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-04/Unified Chinese and related discussions, which affect the new policy for entries in Chinese topolects. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ancient v Modern Greek[edit]

Thanks for trying to help - but the pronunciation sections which you added belong in an Ancient Greek entry. — Saltmarshαπάντηση 17:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

aeque atque[edit]

(might as well post it here) I don't see how this is not sum-of-parts. --Fsojic (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you be more specific as to what you mean by that? GianWiki (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It's just that I don't see how there is a need for this entry when we already have aeque and atque. There isn't some special meaning to this locution that couldn't be deduced from the two words that compound it. At least that's what I think. --Fsojic (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of creating the page after seeing it was one of the Requested entries for Latin. GianWiki (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Grazie per le tue contribuzioni! Nonostante sia irreligioso, in realtà preferisco la fonologia ecclesiastica perch’è più italiana. ☺ --Romanophile (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


Most Romance nouns and adjectives derive from the Latin accusative form, so saying it derived from indigentem is technically correct. Showing that form also makes it much more obvious how the modern form came to be (the nominative has no final -t in it after all). So maybe something like {{m|la|indigens|indigentem}}? That way it shows the actual form it derived from, but still links to the right lemma. —CodeCat 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure to what extent lemma forms are to be preferred in such cases, but your proposal seems reasonable - GianWiki (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know either. I've seen entries linked in the way it was originally, in the way I suggested above, and also just with the lemma alone. It also seems to differ for different words; first and second declension words are always linked directly from what I've seen, but third declension ones sometimes not. For verbs most entries link to the first principal part, some to the infinitive, and some link to the first part but show the infinitive (like I did above). So I don't really know what the preferred practice is. —CodeCat 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
For verbs, I remember reading somewhere that the present first-person singular form is preferred; I don't recall ever finding such clues about nouns, though. - GianWiki (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Extra heading levels are only used when there are multiple etymology sections. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much for the information. GianWiki (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Right now, both pronunciations are listed as Classical ({{la-pronunc}} produces a Classical pronunciation, and the other pronunciation is tagged {{a|Classical}}). Was one of them supposed to be Ecclesiastical? - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I forgot to rename the template. Thanks for letting me know. GianWiki (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your additions[edit]

... but please be careful! :-)Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I will be more careful. GianWiki (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Latin Ecclesiastical pronunciation[edit]

Hi GianWiki. I see you add a lot of Latin Ecclesiastical pronunciatory transcriptions. Do you think it's possible to automate the generation of Ecclesiastical pronunciatory transcriptions similarly to the way Classical pronunciatory transcriptions are currently generated for Latin terms by {{la-IPA}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this myself, and my guess is that a template - similar to the already existing {{la-pronunc}} or {{la-IPA}} for Classical pronunciation - might be the solution. I've also thought about doing it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know the first thing about writing a template from scratch; otherwise, I probably would have already done it. If you happen to have any advice in regard to this, please feel free to share it. GianWiki (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more or less the same thing. (BTW, there is no difference between {{la-pronunc}} and {{la-IPA}}; the actual template is {{la-IPA}}, whilst {{la-pronunc}} just redirects to {{la-IPA}}.) Ideally, what we would do is edit {{la-IPA}} and Module:la-pronunc in such a way that {{la-IPA}} would end up generating both the current Classical transcriptions and the desired Ecclesiastical transcriptions (perhaps with presentation like {{grc-IPA}}, but without the collapsibility feature); that should be possible as long as the input text used to generate Classical transcriptions (e.g., prōnuntiātiō) is sufficient for generating Ecclesiastical transcriptions, too. AFAICT, the editors that have developed this template and module are CodeCat, Keφr, and kc_kennylau. I don't have the Lua-coding ability to make the necessary changes myself, but as long as we get the help of one or more of those editors (That would be greatly appreciated, CodeCat, Keφr, and/or kc_kennylau.) and you can provide the principles of Ecclesiastical pronunciation, I'd be more than willing to do what I can to develop Latin Ecclesiastical pronunciatory autotranscription. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I can help. Basically what's the rule for stressed syllables in Ecclesiastical Latin? Is it the same as Classical Latin? --kc_kennylau (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
There are only a few differences from the existing Classical Latin pronunciation template(s):
  • <c g sc> give /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/ when preceding <e i ae oe>, and /k g sk/ elsewhere (/ʃ/ phonetically geminated when intervocalic: fascis/ˈfa.ʃis/, [ˈfaʃ.ʃis]).
  • <ti> gives /t͡si/ when preceding a vowel, and /ti/ elsewhere.
  • <ph> gives /f/; <kh th> give /k t/ regardless of position.
  • <gn> gives /ɲ/ (phonetically geminated when intervocalic: magnus/ˈma.ɲus/, [ˈmaɲ.ɲus]); <qu> gives /kw/.
  • <ae oe> give /ɛ/ (maybe /e/ can be arranged to phonetically give an [e] in order to avoid ambiguity).
  • Stress accent is exactly the same as in Classical Latin. No phonemically long vowels (but vowels in open, stressed syllables are phonetically long (/ˈ[ˈglaː]). GianWiki (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Please refer to caelum, the first test of the new feature. --kc_kennylau (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. According to the description, caelum should give /ˈt͡ʃɛ.lum/, [ˈt͡ʃɛː.lum].
Done. --kc_kennylau (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Vowels in open, stressed syllables are only lengthened in phonetic pronunciation ([ˈt͡ʃɛː.lum]), not in the phonemic one (/ˈt͡ʃɛ.lum/). GianWiki (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to add that <y> should give /i/. GianWiki (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@kc kennylau, GianWiki Thanks for working on this, guys. Is there anything you need me to do to help with this?
@GianWiki: Re "<c g sc> give /t͡ʃ d͡ʒ ʃ/ when preceding <e i ae oe>", I assume that this "softening" also occurs when those consonants precede ⟨y⟩, yes?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
You are right, thanks. I forgot to mention it earlier. GianWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@GianWiki Would you please provide me words to test? I'll send you the test results and you can help me to point out where's wrong. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Here's a few: lingua, Aegyptus, prōpositiō, fascis, pugnus, sciō, moenia, chalybs, Athēnae. They should cover all the aforementioned points. --- GianWiki (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:la-IPA/documentation#Ecclesiastical. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work.
  • Long vowels are not phonemes in Ecclesiastical Latin, so no lengthening is needed in the phonemic trascription (e.g. /ˈmɛ.ni.a/). If - simlarly to the Classical pronunciation - a phonetic pronunciation is also going to be shown (e.g. [ˈmɛː.ni.a]), that's where it belongs.
  • Labialized velars are to be rendered in Ecclesiastical as simple velar-labiovelar sequences (/kʷ gʷ/ → /kw gw/). For example: lingua(Classical) /ˈlin.ɡʷa/, [ˈlɪŋ.ɡʷa]; (Ecclesiastical) /ˈlin.ɡwa/, [ˈliŋ.ɡwa].
Also, for some reason, Ecclesiastical rendering of Athēnae got the stress accent wrong.
I again thank you very much for your effort, and apologize for my pedantry. --- GianWiki (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Accordingly modified. What about the "o" vowel? What is its value in short vowel and in long vowel? --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
You're doing a really great work. There's only one last thing about vowel rendition: phonemic /a e i o u ɛ/ should give phonetic [a e i o u ɛ], maintaning the same values when lengthened [aː eː iː oː uː ɛː]. About the /o/: I usually render it as [ɔ], unless the vowel of the preceding syllable is closed (i.e. /e i u/), in which case I render it as [o]. I have no idea how difficult it could be to do something like that, but /o/, [o] can do just as good. -- GianWiki (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. scio returns /ˈʃi.o/, [ˈʃiː.o]. --kc_kennylau (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. On the other hand, I tested the template on the word gnōscō, and I can't help noticing that ⟨sc⟩ is rendered as /ʃ/ (/ˈɲo.ʃo/, [ˈɲɔʃ.ʃɔ], while it should be /ˈɲos.ko/, [ˈɲɔs.kɔ]), which should only happen when it is followed by ⟨e i y ae oe⟩. -- GianWiki (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Careless mistake. Fixed. Would you like to provide more words for testing? --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Carthāgō, Rōma, kalendae, prōloquium, succēdāneus, disciplīna, chīrurgia, duō, zōna. About <z>, I believe it could be rendered as /z/, [d͡z], and I think /o/, [o] (long: /oː/, [oː]) is a better default rendition of <o> than /o/, [ɔ]. Also, I've noticed the presence of nasalized vowels (e.g. cōnsul/ˈkon.sul/, [ˈkõː.suɫ]; verbum/ˈver.bum/, [ˈver.bũ]): those only belong in Classical pronunciation (the words can simply give vowel-nasal sequences /ˈkon.sul/, [ˈkon.sul] and /ˈver.bum/, [ˈver.bum]; the "velarized l" [ɫ] can also give way to a simple [l]). Thanks for your noticeable patience, by the way. -- GianWiki (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Template:la-IPA/documentation#Ecclesiastical. --kc_kennylau (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Increasingly satisfactory. Also, I think I've figured out a way around the /o/ issue: phonemically, there should only be /o/ (I'm only specifying because I think I might've worded my previous suggestions badly, since /o/ and /ɔ/ now seem phonemically distinctive), while the phonetic rendering can be based on the orthography: ⟨o⟩ can give [ɔ] (thence [ɔː] when accented in open syllable), while ⟨ō⟩ can give [o] ([oː] when accented etc.). For example: prōloquium/proˈ, [proˈlɔː]; Rōma/ˈ, [ˈroː.ma]. Everything else is great. -- GianWiki (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Changed accordingly. Please give your opinion on Template_talk:la-IPA#Ecclesiastical_fixes. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

PIE *kel-[edit]

May I ask what source you used for this? All sources I can find include a final laryngeal. —CodeCat 00:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It was merely a careless mistake on my part; I'm going to have to be a bit more careful. Also, thanks for the editing. -- GianWiki (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Come si dice gelo nell’italiano antico? --Romanophile (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Cercando - su tuo suggerimento - ho trovato la forma Lua error in Module:links/templates at line 53: The language code "roa-oit" is not valid. (e mi sono permesso di aggiungerla a Wiktionary). --- GianWiki (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

lindo si usa nell’italiano antico? --Romanophile (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Ho trovato un'attestazione del suo uso, quindi immagino si possa dire di sì. --- GianWiki (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Che significava? Era eguale alla parola italiana? --Romanophile (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fondamentalmente, sì: l'ho letto - in riferimento ad indumenti - nella tipica accezione di “pulito, ordinato”. --- GianWiki (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Italian[edit]

Could you add a cutoff date for Italian/Old Italian please? Cheers. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

hyphens in IPA[edit]

Hi! The hyphens in -issimus and -ísimo aren't pronounced. They are silent. So there is no need to put them into the IPA template. Additionally, edits like this one (diff) add the page to these two hidden categories: Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid representation marks and Category:IPA pronunciations with invalid IPA characters. --MaEr (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Hey Gian. Thanks for your work on the obsolete Italian. Please try to be careful to keep interwiki links at the bottom of the page (as I did in this edit). For more information on how to format things, please see WT:EL or feel free to ask me. Grazie! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing: you are right. I'll be more careful. — GianWiki (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


This entry as it currently stands could unfortunately mislead by implication, since this is a classic early Mediterranean word (also occurring in early Semitic etc.) which was almost certainly borrowed into Indo-European branches from non-Indo-European languages (not the reverse). Neither the word nor the physical object is at all likely to have existed on the Pontic-Caspian steppe ca. 3000 B.C. The laryngeal may be purely theoretical (and historically spurious), since the word may not yet have existed in various Indo-European branches at a time when laryngeals still existed... AnonMoos (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently being discussed on Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium if you have any thoughts... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Declined forms of decibilis[edit]

I had to clean up all the non-lemmata you created. If you're going to create entries for the declined forms of decibilior and decibilissimus, please don't make the same mistake again. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I didn't notice I forgot to add the headers. - GianWiki (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
No worries; mistakes happen. Note, too, that the first parameter of {{la-adj-form}} is obligatory; if it isn't specified, the page gets added to Category:Latin adjective forms needing attention (which is how I noticed your mistakes), even if the form has no macra. As a more minor point, in future, please list declined forms by case, then number, then gender (rather than number, gender, case, as you have been doing) for consistency with bot-generated entries for Latin non-lemmata. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding inheritance and borrowings in Italian[edit]

Hi GianWiki, and thanks for all the great contributions you've made. Just had a quick comment to make on some edits, however. Being a native speaker, you of course know the Italian language itself much better than myself and other users, but regarding the etymology of some words, I have to note that it is erroneous to call many of the ones you have "inherited". I understand that it is tempting to view modern Italian as being almost entirely inherited from Latin, but as with all the other Romance languages, a considerable part of it was actually borrowed in a learned fashion by scholars and such in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. The core part of the language and basic vocabulary (a few thousand words) is largely inherited but many of the ones you've added were almost surely not, from a linguistic point of view. It may be surprising to find that there are probably more borrowed terms than inherited in all the Romance languages. Now that Wiktionary is making distinctions between the two, it's important to note this. For example, most of the mythological figures deriving from Classic Greco-Roman antiquity can't have been inherited, because that implies they were part of the day to day speech of the common people, and surely they were not for most of the Middle Ages (that was the realm of scholars, elites, and learned people, and they usually took it directly from Classical Latin or Greek texts). In linguistics, inherited means they were passed down primarily orally, originally from the largely undocumented Vulgar Latin, and not through literary texts (and thus would have changed much more over time). Also, just because a word seems fairly common now in modern Italian doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't borrowed at some point in the past. Certain common words, like those ending in '-zione', were taken from Latin or were later constructions. However these borrowings happened pretty deep in the past, so by now they've become normal, commonplace, and well-ingrained in the language, so they don't always seem noticeable. Others were purposely adapted to existing Italian phonological characteristics to make them "fit into" the language better, like Latin 'ct' > Italian 'tt' or Latin 'ae' > Italian 'e'.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find an Italian etymological dictionary that distinguishes between inherited and later borrowed or learned terms like I have for French and Spanish, but we can infer with fairly good probability based on what we know of linguistic rules, phonetic shifts, and changes in meaning. A lot of the borrowed terms were also borrowed in other Romance languages, or have doublets that were inherited. With Italian, it can be trickier since it is naturally closer to Latin than the other languages. But I avoid using the 'inh' tag on certain words that are overly intact and similar to the original Latin, especially if it is a rare or literary word or one that normally should have looked different and undergone more changes into Italian, based on what we know of sound shifts. If uncertain whether it is inherited or borrowed, I usually just slap the more general (and ambiguous) 'der' tag on there for now until someone else decides how to deal with it. I just wanted to bring this up since when periodically looking at the lists of inherited terms in Italian, I find I have to remove certain ones that are clearly not. But other than that, keep up the good work! Word dewd544 (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)