User talk:JohnC5

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive – 2014201520162017


Why can't we change the module:de-noun so that it displays the accusative declensions in the second row and the genitives at the fourth row? It's important because it's then easier to compare. See Frau, Innenstadt, Mann.

For the definite article: Both of the nom. and the acc. declensions are the same for neuters/feminines/plurals.

The dative is the same for masc. and neut.

The genitive is the same for masc. and neut.

The gen. pl. is the same for fem. and pl. as well as dat. fem.

--Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I prefer listing the accusative next to the nominative as well. —Rua (mew) 00:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri, Rua: I'm fine using either order (I've certainly seen both). I'll mention that de.Wikt uses the current ordering, but I don't care too much. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 06:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm very excited to see the module change. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We should be careful about this. I don't recall ever seeing the order nom/acc/dat/gen. When one is accustomed to nom/gen/dem/acc, this change seems confusing and difficult. Note that we use this same order, nom/gen/dem/acc, for Russian, Latin, Ancient Greek, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Belarusian, and Serbo-Croatian. —Stephen (Talk) 10:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
This is probably not worth the effort, but I'd like a gadget that would allow each user to use the order s/he prefers / is most accustomed to. I think the grammatical tradition of each country (language?) differs about this: for example, the usual ordering in the French grammatical tradition for Latin is "nom., voc., acc., gen., dat., abl.". --Barytonesis (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be changing such things without consensus from the editors that work with the German entries, anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Barytonesis: I created a script for reordering cases in declension tables: User:Erutuon/scripts/changeCaseOrder.js. It currently works for Ancient Greek and Latin. — Eru·tuon 00:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
In theory I like the idea of basing the order of cases on syncretism. For instance, a similar order for Ancient Greek (nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative) would show syncretism between nominative and vocative, and nominative and vocative and accusative, more clearly by putting these forms next to each other. But it's unfamiliar and somewhat confusing to me. I experimented with this order in Module:grc-decl/sandbox; the result can currently be seen in the appendices linked from Appendix:Ancient Greek declension tables. — Eru·tuon 22:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Somehow your script didn't work for me after I applied it for German: User:Mahmudmasri/vector.js. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri: In order for the script to find a table, the table needs the class inflection-table-language code: like this. The same should be done for all German declension tables – though honestly, I need to come up with a better name for the class, because the script doesn't affect conjugation tables: perhaps declension-table-language code. — Eru·tuon 20:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mahmudmasri, JohnC5: See Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/March#German case ordering. Let's discuss this more widely. – Jberkel 10:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I made my vote. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


this edit is IMHO a mistake, in Latin nouns from verbs are regularly past-participle + -or

  • amo, amatus, amator
  • edo, esus, esor
  • invenio, inventus, inventor
  • pingo, pictus, pictor
  • colo, cultus, cultor, etc.

By going back to ine-pie, you are only confusing the reader. compare with etymology of eater. --Diligent (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diligent: I'm fully aware that -or was a productive suffix in Latin, but there's comparative evidence for this word being inherited from Indo-European. To say that it is created synchronically in Latin would be a misrepresentation. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 08:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can we at least, mention the standard construction and link it with edo, esus ? --Diligent (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
@Diligent: I've added the surface analysis. Also, the suffix is -tor. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 09:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey John, I sent you an email, when you have a moment. Thanks. --Victar (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Victar: Thanks for the heads up, but I haven't received anything from you today, as best I can tell. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I sent it 5 days ago. :3 --Victar (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Victar: I responded to that email 4 days ago. :V For further context, I'm not sure what we can do about this issue as it stands. —*i̯óh₁nC[5] 05:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Weird, I don't have a reply in my inbox nor in spam. --Victar (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


Just out of curiosity, do you know if there is any rule that determines whether a stem takes the "-vant-" or the "-mant-" suffix in Sanskrit?--Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 03:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tom 144: Yes, Ryan Sandell did a paper about it at the 27th annual WeCIEC. I'll try to get it for you. —*i̯óh₁n̥C[5] 10:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Thanks! --Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 14:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Stems in consonants[edit]

I find the declension templates of great use and I thank you for your contribution thereto. Now, while creating स्पृध्‎ (spṛdh‎) I couldn’t make the template work: this is because no template to that effect has yet been developed, right? Something like this but, you know, encoded for the Wiktionary. Thanks for your attention! —This unsigned comment was added by Gfarnab (talkcontribs).


Thank you for your ἀγγούριον corrections: so, we have to add prosody in lists too... It seems i have to stop adding words, because i really don't know prosody. About the ety of ἄγγουρον: I have seen at el:αγγούρι more info, different from αγγούρι.ety, that might be interesting (and I am unable to cope with). About choosing between 'References' or 'Further reading' headings: as a user of wikt, i always wondered why not ref.footnotes at specific data as in wikipedia (I mean: this info at ety, that addition, etc, come from this ONE source -as one footnote for multiple references-). Further reading i would add, when i have read it, but have not used anything from it. Is this any close to the policy of grc@en.wiktionary? P.S. Excuse my adding ancient greek things... I do it only when they coincide or affect modern greek entries. I do not mean to burden you with more work. Thanks, sarri.greek (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)