User talk:Omnipaedista

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


Could someone give me an advice on the following problem I have? Hittite and Glagolitic characters just don't appear in any of the browsers I use (Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Safari). I had the same problem with the Gothic runes but I found those fonts with the help of a "got.wikipedian". Omnipedian 16:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Try with Alphabetum fonts, it has most of ancient characters. Crazymadlover
Also try code2001. Also, try [1], which is not a font, but generally has a list of fonts for almost every script you can imagine. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 09:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


Please note this change I made to your additions to amurca. The templates will automatically add the necessary links and categories. If you plan to add many etymologies, then learning the use of the templates {{etyl}} and {{term}} would be worthwhile. --EncycloPetey 22:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


So I noticed that you've been spotting some of our......more embarrassing moments. First of all, let me thank you for pointing some of these out. A lot of what you're seeing is the result of a specific editor who had some rather outdated notions on etymology. Going through their contributions line by line is on my list of "Horrific things that I'd rather scrape out my eyes with a screwdriver than do, but am bound by ethics to complete at some point." For future reference, Wiktionary talk pages are basically never looked at (too high a pages:editor ratio), and you will get better results by following one of two methods: First, and I think the better route, simply tag the entry with {{attention}}, using an ISO code as the first parameter. So, for example, if you find an etymology which is spotty on the Ancient Greek, {{attention|grc}} will get the attention of an Ancient Greek editor, by placing it in Category:Ancient Greek words needing attention (cleaning out said category is on a list which is rather less painful than the screwdriver bit). Secondly, starting a thread in one of our central discussion rooms (probably the Tea room for the types of things you've cited in the past) will also get the entry some attention. However, seeing as your visits (or at least edits) here are somewhat sporadic, and our formatting policies are rather fluid, if you get this message rather later than it was written, please feel free to contact me or any other editor directly to get the heads up on what we're doing at that particular moment. Happy trails. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unified Login[edit]

User:Omnipedian --> User:Omnipaedista. Omnipaedista 06:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


Why do the Swedish capitalize this language name, but not the names of other languages? --EncycloPetey 20:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they don't actually. If you're referring to my last edit to the Ewe entry, all I did was extracting a misplaced section from an irrelevant to the subject entry and placing it as-is to the most relevant one I could find (as you can see in my contribs-log). To be frank, I don't even understand why there should even exist a lemma describing how the ewe language is called in other languages that use the Latin alphabet, since its the same in (almost?) all of them. If you will, you can undo this last edit of mine by reverting me. Omnipaedista 07:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to mention a "crucial" point: the section in the ewe (as in sheep) entry was initially created by a Bot, so I should've just deleted it without transferring it anywhere. But I was confused when I saw that Ewe entry already had a "Dutch section" which was a duplicate of the English one. (Btw, I believe that both the Swedish and Dutch sections should be deleted.) In any case... sorry, for the trouble I might've put you into; still learning how things work here.
Omnipaedista 08:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Why should the Swedish and Dutch sections be deleted? Are they incorrect? If they are valid for those languages, then they should exist. We maintain separate language sections for each and every word in any language. --EncycloPetey 22:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I reverted your edit here. The inflection line should be the same as the entry title (which the exception of certain orthographic adjustments, which in grc are basically limited to vowel length marks). In any case, the inflection line should not link to a different word. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right. Btw, thanks for keeping me informed, in general. Omnipaedista 02:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's no getting around the fact that Wiktionary formatting is complex, dynamic, and often poorly documented, and so we're generally quite happy to help out anyone who seems to have a head on their shoulders (you might be surprised at how rare that actually is :-P). I've been an admin for nearly two years now and I still have to ask people how to do stuff occasionally. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologise[edit]

Sorry, I didnt know that the discussion page wasn't not destinated to discuss. Where can I talk with people of my tests ? What you told me about neogrammarians is exactly what I think, but when you find regularities, why not see them ? In addition, I don't say that every word of every language comes from Latin and greek. I'm not an English native-speaker and when I said "comes " I meant a cognate. I found the word in a page, and now I use it. thanks. --Mark Mage 23:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Well, I realize that I may have sounded harsher than I wanted to. What I meant is that talk-pages of entries in every Wikimedia project have the purpose of hosting discussions on the improvement of the entry's content based on published (ideally peer-reviewed) sources. This means that, in principle, they oughtn't be used either as forums or as places for one to publish a new theory. It's perfectly understandable if you weren't aware of this detail, as a new user here. Regarding the distinction of "comes from" from "relates to", one should be very careful. This is a typical trick used by (mainly nationalistic) agenda pushers: deliberately replacing the word "cognate (to)" in standard etymological derivations by the word "derivative (of)". If you didn't make this replacement on purpose, then at least you prove that you have no particular agenda to promote. But still, the methodology of misperceiving the nature of some epiphenomenal similarities among certain words and not examining first their synchronic background before supporting their genetic relation is highly debatable. The core of the Neogrammarian paradigm is just the opposite: always looking for when (and where) each word was attested for the first time in order to discover how (and from where) it got evolved and find the exact systematic law governing its phonetic change and give a convincing rationale explaining its semantic change, as well. (If you want to know, btw, the canonical etymology of any English word you're interested in, all you have to do is visit and if you want to go deeper in the explanation of the underlying laws leading from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic to Anglo-Saxon to Modern English, all you have to do is read Robert Beekes' textbook "Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction".) Your approach is rather random and ad hoc than systematic and natural; it reminds me of the approach taken in "Cratylus" by Plato or the Byzantine encyclopedia "Etymologicum Magnum". (Although, I have to admit, that your hypotheses are imaginative enough that, at least, one can say that they have a certain artistic value, in the sense that Plato's wordplays have such a value, as well.) The fact that you (apparently) didn't take the time to study what the forefront of modern research suggests on the matters you investigate manifests a certain level of linguistic amateurism (one may well be a professional philologist, but at the same time a non-adept in Linguistics). This does not mean that an amateur is, in principle, unable to contribute to science. It just means that one can do so, only if they have mastered first (either via autodidaxis or via a formal academic training) all the prerequisite standard technical knowledge of their time. Cheers. --Omnipaedista 03:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
To Omnipaedista:It upset me to have read such interesting suggestions about the etymology of God on scriptorium, jump to the author's(mark mage) talk page and see such an unpleasant, controlling, silly "request"-- even if Mage's post had been crackpot, which is uncivil of you to say--But you haven't demonstrated it is crackpot, so your above post could just as easily be the crackpot post. Furthermore, unless my understanding of the rules is wrong, wiktionary isn't the same as wikipedia, it's ok to discuss the subject, not just the article, on the talk pages. That's how questions are asked here, and it's a great way to learn(so we can contribute better), motivate ourselves to keep contributing, & get some deserved R and R, as well as possibly make a real discovery, which Mage may or may not have done. Whether he did or not, I can learn something from it! Original research on the question section in wikipedia is fine, so it should be fine here on the places set aside for questions here also. However, I don't think you meant to be unpleasant, controlling or silly, it sounds as if you are just sick and tired of overly nationalistic linguists. But not all speculations need be nationalistic,& to me, Mage's doesn't sound like it is.Best wishes, Rich 10:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The use of the words quack and crackpot is uncivil when one describes with them people; I used them as technical adjectives describing paradigms (in the sense of "false" and "eccentric", respectively). Useful links: 1) Mark was way out of topic in this talk-page. Plus, he had basically posted the same message to several talk-pages; this tactic resembles rather spamming (ergo vandalism) than constructive utilization of these pages. 2) Is it possible that you have a bias toward defending folk Etymology? As I said above, it might have an artistic value, but this doesn't make it less of a pseudoscience. 3) No need for me to debunk/demonstrate anything; Germanic etymologies are textbook material. Generally speaking, those who attempt to go beyond academic orthodoxy should at least be able to recognize that they are unorthodox; it seems to be the case that if they do, there will be more chances of them being right. Cheers. --Omnipaedista 21:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I have to admit that Mark has contributed very constructively to the coverage of scientific etymology in at least one Wikimedia project so far, since he seems to be the author/translator of this wonderful article: Index radicum Indoeuropaearum -- I came across it while exploring the Latin Wikipedia.
--Omnipaedista 09:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, i might have no more objections if 1)you hadn't been ANONYMOUSLY unpleasant to Mage. 2)if you had gone back later and apologized to Mage on his talk page 3)If you hadn't made such a silly reply above.--After all we don't know who or what you are or your qualifications. Please remember that even if you do have a doctorate and tenure, an amateur might come up with a contribution because of unusual intelligence. (I make no claim of such intelligence for myself) For example,Grassmann would probably be considered an amateur by contemporary standards but I bet he would still make contributions (without further training)if alive today. Best wishes, Richard L. Peterson24.7.28.186 10:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. 1) I have never ever left an "anonymous" (=unsigned) or "pseudonymous" (=sockpuppetty) message to anyone on any Wikimedia project; please clarify what you are talking about. 2) Apologize about what exactly? I did not make any personal attacks against him; I was very specific about why I think that his contributions are not constructive (and potentially disruptive) to this project. I just had to admit that I was maybe overly harsh when addressing to him, since he was sort of a newcomer. 3) Personal qualifications and credentials of the users are irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that a user should be able to keep his contributions to a certain scholarly level. I may have incidentally alluded that Mark's research is subpar, but I did not claim to have given authoritative judgment on the issue (Wiktionary is not the place for either publishing nor for judging original research), but I had to justify why I hold this opinion. If you deem this justification as silly, that's another matter altogether; but I hope you do realize that, generally speaking, there is such a thing as scholarly method and that it serves as a criterion for objectively discerning useful hypotheses from useless ones. --Omnipaedista 11:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I have just realized that when you say I act anonymously, you obviously mean that I act without revealing my real name. If that is the case, you seem to ignore the fact that Wikimedians have the right to remain anonymous. --Omnipaedista 12:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Please see vīs's talk page where it says rōbur has nothing to do with the declension of vīs; why do you think it does? Caladon 07:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed that comment on the talk-page (I used to take notice of the talk-pages before I edit until I realized that most of the times they contain junk and stopped doing so). To the point now: there are at least four popular views about vis and its genitive: 1) it has no genitive, 2) its genitive is vis, 3) its genitive is formed complementarily from robur, roboris "strength", 4) its genitive is formed complementarily from vis, viris "might, violence". My current (outdated) bibliographic resources are at odds with each other, so yesterday I tried to look for an answer in.. ehm.. Vicipaedia, and in a talk-page I found a renowned user proclaiming that the robur version is definitely the correct one. I got carried away without double-checking it and added it to the Wikt. entry. Now, from what I see, this claim is the most ill-founded of the four; it does exist as a popular view (confer the other popular but misguided view that says the plural of virus should be viri), but it seems to be utterly wrong. So for now, I'll revert my edit, but I would like to find some updated source that explains authoritatively this matter, and then maybe add this explanation to the talk-page of vis, and as a comment to the usage notes of the Latin lemma itself. --Omnipaedista 11:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello there, what is the point of this edit at tribuo? Can you please format the entry using la-verb? --Dan Polansky 06:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Not that it matters, but I want to remark that I had the intention to format it properly but something went wrong the first time I tried to make the edit, and instead of correcting it immediately I decided to correct it at a later time. Well.. thanks for pointing this out! --Omnipaedista 03:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern Greek[edit]

The language header we use for Modern Greek (el) is ==Greek==. The heading "Modern Greek" will be flagged as an error that has to be corrected. --EncycloPetey 07:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


When you added the etymology, you classified this entry as an Italian word. --EncycloPetey 07:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


On Wiktionary:Requested entries:Latin, did you mean resonō? --EncycloPetey 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope (1, 2). --Omnipaedista 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. I had to ask because you added it under "R". I assume this was just a bit of "rho"/"r" confusion. --EncycloPetey 01:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
O_O Believe it or not, this is the first time in my life where I seem to have confused those two. :) --Omnipaedista 02:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

IPA brackets[edit]

Please note that most pronunciations on Wiktionary should have slashes /ædʒ/ rather than square brackets. Square brackets are used to denote specific regional rendering of sounds, while slashes are used for general phonemic pronunciations. --EncycloPetey 07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Omnipaedista 07:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Creating new entries[edit]

Hello. When you create a new entry, could you leave the Edit Summary box blank? It already shows up in Recent Changes with a bold N to indicate that it's new, and if you leave the box blank, the actual entry contents will show up instead, which makes the edits easier to see at a glance. Thanks! Equinox 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't leave it blank for aesthetic reasons :) I got this habit from Wikipedia. But since you pointed it out to me, I have no problem leaving it blank from now on, of course. --Omnipaedista 05:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor problem[edit]

You don't need to include sections like ===Etymology=== unless there is something to put there (immediately). See my last edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually put these section headings i.o.t. conveniently fill the sections at a (much) later time. Would it be OK if I just "commentified" them? (eg.: <!--===Etymology===-->) --Omnipaedista 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes I do the same thing. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Appendix, ?[edit]

What is the purpose of the quæstion marks which you put in the Appendix after existing Ancient Greek entries? (When I put quæstion marks, it is because I am uncertain of the spelling) Exempli gratia, the Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian word кенеф (lavatory) descends from Ancient Greek κενός (empty) according to the Български етимологичен речник, albeit via Ottoman Turkish (which I am unable to write). What’s the problem with χιλιάς, the source of хиљада and хиляда? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 17:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The purpose of the question marks was this: after I saw that κέλυφος had been given as a "cognate" of калуф, while in fact their similarity is just a coincidence, I began to wonder whether the other recently added el entries were correct (they might be false friends). For example before you tell me that кенеф is from grc κενός via Ottoman Turkish (according to an etymological dictionary), I had been wondering whether it was not κενός but another Greek word that was intended to be entried there. By the way, the word κενός also exists in Modern Greek, but I would not place the ell word on the list, because it is borrowed directly from grc to ell (the original meaning remaining intact), and therefore it is not a balkanism. 2) The problem with χιλιάδα, is that it is given as a cognate of хавлија "soft towel" (right?). I am quite certain that this cannot be correct. --Omnipaedista 22:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
2) I was too precipitately while copying the frame for хавлия, so I must have overlooked them. They are now removed. Greek κενός does not need to be mentioned, but the Ancient Greek word, which is the source, does. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
So, we agree. --Omnipaedista 12:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Greek adjective headword line[edit]

The headword/inflection line we currently use is not satisfactory (it says m Template:nominative sg) - when it may well be another case form as well as nominative. Most dictionaries, monolingual as well as bilingual, show the feminine and neuter endings after the masculine form.

I have worked up a new template (currently called {{el-test}}) whose output you can see at at τέλειος - please let me know if you think that this is an improvement. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 08:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The template is now {{el-adj}}Saltmarshαπάντηση 12:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically, my only concern is the same as User:Jaxlarus's: see here. The new template is certainly an improvement over the previous one, but in the case of Greek templates there are always minor issues regarding the stress marks. (Unfortunately, right now I don't have much time to elaborate more on that.) --Omnipaedista 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Jaxlarus's comments referred to the template series el-a-... which deal with declension tables, whereas {{el-adj}} formats the headword line. —Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Your etymology edits have indicated this is an English word. It is not. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


This etymology [2] is incorrect. No Classical Latin words come from Modern Greek. --EncycloPetey 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant Ancient Greek not Greek. I have properly corrected this error. --Omnipaedista 01:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Please don't "correct" pronunciations, especially if you're getting them from French wiktionary. They have a bunch of shit mistakes in Albanian and Hindi among others, especially in pronunciations. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 15:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Latin macrons[edit]

When you are adding macrons to Latin entries, it would be better to add them without removing the {{infl}} template, as I have done in this edit. The template places the entry to the category for Latin verbs. --Dan Polansky 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciations of library and principal[edit]

I noticed you undid my edits to the pronunciations of library and principal. I would appreciate an explanation as to why my edits were wrong. Thank you. --WikiTiki89 01:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if /r/ after b is phonetically omitted in certain dialects, the point of the pronunciation section is to give the phonemic transcription of the words; so, the omittance of /r/ in certain environments (even if it exists as a phenomenon, which is to be verified) is not phonemic, therefore irrelevant to a phonemic transcription. --Omnipaedista 17:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Baklahorani song translation, please?[edit]

Hi, Omnipaedista. Have you heard of Baklahorani, a recently revived carnival from Istanbul? I've first heard of it from the Wikipedia article on it. I also came across this song, which is in Greek before 2:45 and in (mostly) Turkish after that. I spread the word about it at Wikitravel because I want the website to know about it. One fellow Wikitraveller, Vidimian, had so kindly made a translation of the Turkish part when I asked for it. Now I'm asking whether you're able to transcribe and translate the Greek lyrics of it. If not, I could try the other native Greek speakers here. --Lo Ximiendo 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Lewis & Short[edit]

Please do not use Lewis & Short for evidence of macron placement for Latin entries. Their scholarship is often out of date, and they typically omit macrons on endings on the assumption that the Classical student will know when they are supposed to be there.

Also, please do not create links to Latin pages with macrons in the name; that should not be done on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My edits were based on: [3], [4]--from Lewis Elem. I have read somewhere that "Elementary Lewis tries to mark, as much as can be determined, all long vowels with macrons, leaving short vowels unmarked, whereas Lewis & Short leaves vowels unmarked either where length is reasonably predictable (somewhat unfortunately, since beginners often don't know when a vowel's length is predictable) or where length cannot be definitively determined because the syllable is already long by position (whereas Elem. Lewis commits itself to making informed assumptions about the length of such vowels when possible). In all other cases Lewis & Short marks long vowels with the macron and short vowels with the breve." Also: it is clear that its scholarship regarding etymology is outdated, but are we positive that the scholarship regarding macrons is also out of date? I would like to compare some of its entries with the respective entries in, say, Wheelock's Latin. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


Do not remove {was wotd) templates from former WOTD entries. That removes tracking information from entries, and could be construed as vandalism. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, is there anywhere a discussion/text documenting the necessity of having these tags in the main page of an entry? What would make more sense would be to have such tags in an entry's talk page. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You can start that discussion, if you like. We used to put them at the top of the entry, before the English header, and as a result of discussion, decided to place them in the English language section. It's unlikely that we'd remove them, or place them on the talk page, since we're starting a non-English WOTD feature, which will necessitate marking a specific language section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


This does not have a macron in my sources. If you think one is required, please provide supporting evidnece. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right about that. I was confused due to the following usage note: "The adverbs ubī (“where”), ubīnam (“where in the world?”), ubīcumque (“wherever”) and ubīubī are sometimes..." I'm going to edit it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


When you say that you're following W.S. Allen, do you mean the general rules he gives? My sources (e.g., Wheelock) indicate that cuius is an exception to the general rules, and that's why it had the pronunciation I gave it. In this word, the ui is considered a diphthong by Wheelock, as it is in the words cuius, huic, cui, and hui. Wheelock indicates these are the only Latin words with this diphthong. W.S. Allen seems to disagree when discussing ui, and calls it "not so much a diphthong", so I'm not sure which source to follow. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to the general rules given by Allen. On the one hand Wheelock is a recent and reliable source, but on the other hand there should exist even more authoritative sources like recent academic papers discussing the matter. In the meanwhile I've just come across a second source indicating that a "diphthong appears in cui, huic, cuius, and huius": Caesar's Gallic War with Introduction, Notes, Vocabulary, and Grammatical Appendix (Chicago and New York: Scott Foresman and Company, 1907), second page of the Grammatical Appendix ("The first is a vowel, which makes a diphthong with the vowel that precedes it"; "The second i is the consonant, pronounced like y in yet"). As for the general matter of IPA transcriptions of Latin words, it is sort of a matter of convention; if we could lay out the rules followed in Wiktionary regarding Latin (e.g., by reviewing or rewriting "Wiktionary:About Latin/Pronunciation"; confer the much clearer "Wikipedia:IPA for Latin") we could avoid confusing inconsistencies in the future. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, another project I just don't have time to work on properly (sigh). My teaching year has started, so my time both here and on Wikipedia will be spent in small pieces. Some history: the pronunciation page dates from my earliest edits here, when I was still hunting down IPA transcriptions for Classical Latin phonemes, so there are certainly errors. I started the page in part because, at the time, I sometimes had to edit from MS-Win computers that were unable to display IPA characters as anything but cryptic little rectangles. Having the vowel chart allowed me to know what I was copying and pasting into pronunciations when I couldn't see the character itself. As a result, the page was minimal, as it served the purpose of our current Edittools. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Help with Greek links/terms[edit]

Category:term cleanup/sc=Grek currently contains pages that use the template {{term}} with sc=Grek, but without specifying a language. As far as I know, most uses of Grek should be modern Greek, but there are probably some Ancient Greek words among them as well. Could you help out by replacing sc=Grek by either lang=el or lang=grc, as appropriate? —CodeCat 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


I think it generally a poor idea to remove work done by established editors without even asking them. I have replaced the two defs you removed, with cites; both were in the LSJ. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I hadn't noticed that this piece of information was inserted by you. The second word sense was poorly formatted and lacked a citation. It's much better now after your latest edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I saw you speak Greek (even Ancient) so I was wondering if you could check this out and fix up the etymology so that the Greek words are actually in the right script? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 11:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Spring fever[edit]

I am rewriting the conjugation templates for Modern Greek verbs, and presently working on the 1st Conjugation. The new layout is based on that found in Βικιλεξικό and now includes imperatives. I will try to stick with this to completion for all verbs. Verbs using the new templates can be found in Category:Greek verbs with inflection-tables, I will delete the old templates as they are depopulated and try to produce a decent guide when each conjugation group is completed. I know we have been here before (Spring 2013 and Spring 2014) and will try to stick with it this time.
Please look at a verb or two when you have the odd moment and comment on my talk page. — thanks   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Could you (or another Greek speaker; maybe @Saltmarsh) take a look at this entry, particularly the third etymology section added in these edits? (by Nemzag?) It seems like it may just be an (ill-formatted) attempt to provide an alternative etymology for Etymology 2. - -sche (discuss) 05:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I've looked at the dictionary definition - any nuances would be lost in translation by me. Perhaps @Xoristzatziki, Sarri.greek could help if Omnipaedista cannot.Saltmarsh (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy 2018 everyone! The guest perhaps thought he was leaving a message to the ancient page δέ. Tricky these little particles! Maybe a good etymologist could help him rephrase his alternative etymon, if his message were forwarded to the Talk page of δέ. Something like attention grc? sarri.greek (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)