User talk:Saltmarsh/Archive 2

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

Archive for 2007[edit]

Case templates[edit]

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know, there exist some form of templates for cases. I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for or not, but for example: Template:genitive_of. Thanks for all of your modern Greek entries! They have been very interesting for me (as I'm a student of ancient Greek). Medellia 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

re el-altspell: we already have {{alternate spelling of}} and it uses the appropriate magic to allow people to customize it. In any case, we don't want the # inside the template: it makes it look (to various tools) like the entry has no definition line! Robert Ullmann 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I made some changes to Ἄρτεμις. I thought it would be confusing to have the modern Greek variant in the definition line, and so I moved it to a "see also" at the top. I was thinking that we should come up with some sort of standard, as I can't imagine this will be the last time we have two variants of the same word. I've noticed that you generally put the Ancient variant in the etymology, which seems reasonable. I suppose, the modern Greek variant would thus be put under derived terms, perhaps. I think the original idea behind this heading is for word descendents within the same language. But, it doesn't really cover the idea of a single word evolving within a language. I'm pretty open if you have any grand ideas, however I'm rather squeamish about putting the modern variant in the definition line, as I think that is confusing and imprecise. By the way, if there's ever anything you want done, an ancient variant that you're looking for or something, please let me know. We are working on the same language, really. Cerealkiller13 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About Greek[edit]

I think an About Greek page is an excellent idea. Allow me to throw some thoughts your way. Perhaps the page should be somewhat more than the About Latin page is. Certainly what the About Latin page has is excellent and is needed for Greek, however I think there are a lot of useful things we could do. I wonder if it would be helpful to have a page that mimics the portal pages of Wikipedia (for example Portal:Biology, with various sections, some of which might include a Greek word of the day, contributors who are working on Greek, and formatting procedures for Greek articles. It could also have links to the category page, index, and requested articles page, as well as all sorts of other stuff I haven't even considered. One final thought, perhaps you could allow us Ancient Greek folks on-board and make it a unified Greek page spanning all time periods, from Mycenaean to modern. Obviously this is your project, and so feel quite free to do as you wish. These are simply some thoughts. The best of luck to you, and I look forward to seeing whatever you create. Cerealkiller13 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


This word is up for verification at Wiktionary:Requests for verification#μαλάκας. Would you be willing to take a look at it? Thanks. Cerealkiller13 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Greek/Ancient Greek[edit]

So, I should have communicated this to you earlier, but I suppose I sort of forgot to. I've been putting the modern Greek variant of an Ancient Greek entry under the descendants header. Certainly they are descendants, but I don't know if they're descendants in exactly the same way as the Wiktionary "descendants" section describes things. In any case, I figured it would communicate the proper idea to the readers. Any problems with this, just let me know, and I'm sure we can work something out. By the way, I noticed you're going through your sandbox. Would you be so kind as to mark anything you come upon that should be labeled as Ancient Greek? I'd appreciate it. I've gone through all sorts of lists and stuff, and so I'm pretty sure that I've got the majority of the stuff already marked, but, stuff does slip through from time to time. Thanks a lot. Cerealkiller13 18:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that putting the Ancient variant in etymology makes the most sense to me. To be honest, part of my reasoning in putting the modern variant in descendants is that I saw a lot of modern entries with the ancient variant in the etymology, and I considered descendants to be the logical counterpart. And what I was talking about with switching stuff to Ancient is simply this. If you find a word that is obviously Ancient Greek, but is put under Category:Greek nouns or adjectives or verbs, or whatever, could you switch the category? I think a lot of new users don't understand that we have two Greeks on Wiktionary, and so will create an entry for an Ancient Greek word, and categorize it simply as Greek. So, if you saw a word like α?ξ listed under Greek, and it's obviously ancient, if you could simply switch it to Ancient. I'll certainly do the same if I find something like άστρο listed under Ancient Greek. Cerealkiller13 07:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Translations - wiki links[edit]

You asked: "do you mean (a) that every language should not need to have a translation (b) every translation does not need to have an inter-wiki link. or (c) something else?"

a, b, and c.

  • a - We can't *require* that translations be added. I am not in favor of "banning" certain languages, though.
  • b - Not all languages have sister wikis. No point adding a redlink to a non-existent location.
  • c - What I really meant was that users should be able to add translations (whether by use of a template, assuming we do it that way, or not) without necessarily adding the link to the sister wiki, and still have things look ok. Basically, there should be a "simplified" version, for a newbie contrib, and an "advanced" form, for someone fully aware of how things work to complete.

I'm assuming we'll either create or modify an existing template to this end, so here's how I'm envisioning it (I don't really have any preference as to whether the parameters to the template are just ordered, or explicit name/value pairs, but this example assumes ordering.)

Simple form: {{translation|languagename|translated word}}

Advanced form: {{translation|languagename|translated word|gender|sister wiki ISO code|sister wiki word name|commentary}}

Someone more clever than me can figure out how to handle the multiple translations case (assume we still want to allow that.) --Jeffqyzt 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Greek lacking definition[edit]

I think that will be unecessary for now. I'm really just looking for words that already have something. To tell you the truth, I don't think I'll be creating very many AGr. entries for quite a while as I'm sort of planing on just going through all the ones we have now and cleaning them up. I'm more or less done with proper nouns (although, I think the header levels are all screwed up, as you recently pointed out), but now I have everything else left to go through. Thanks much for the offer, though. Cerealkiller13 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

About Ancient Greek[edit]

Hey, I've started working on an About Ancient Greek page at User:Cerealkiller13/About Ancient Greek. I was wondering if you would like me to put a link to User:Saltmarsh/About Greek on it, or just leave a red-linked Wiktionary:About Greek on it. If I don't hear from you before I put it up, I'll just put the aforementioned red link up. Feel free to change it to the former if you like. Thanks. Cerealkiller13 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have some uniformity between Ancient Greek and Greek. Here are some of the most pressing concerns (in my opinion) that need to be sorted out right now: Romanization and pronunciation. For Romanization, I found an international standard on Greek transliteration at ISO 843. It seems a reasonable compromise between Classical and Modern Greek pronunciation, and I suppose that, as an international standard, it's somewhat authoritative (although I must admit I have no idea how authoritative). What do you think? As far as pronunciation goes, I think it would be best to use IPA. It is my intention to continue in the tradition that Muke set down of having two pronunciations for each word, one classical and one Koine (and I would imagine, one for modern as well), as in βασιλεύς, although I don't think I'll be doing Sampa, as I don't know anything about it. It is my understanding that Koine pronunciation is much closer to modern than to classical, perhaps nearly the same. If this is the case, we could just have two boxes, one for classical and one for modern. I'm going to write up a pronunciation chart for both classical and Koine, it should be appearing on the About Greek page within the next couple of days. You should check it out, and if it's close enough to modern, we'll just drop it. That's all I can think of, if you come up with anything else, let me know. Cerealkiller13 22:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the move (now my link is blue!). What other areas would you like to see unified between Greek and Ancient Greek? Cerealkiller13 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Ummm.....I'm not understanding most of what you said (sorry!). Headings? Headings - see About (both greeks)? Don't we already have standardized headings? As for Romanization, I put a Romanization standard up on Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek. Take a look at it, and see if it's acceptable. I believe it's an international standard for Romanizing Greek (probably modern Greek, but it works well enough for Ancient as well). I'm not sure about the diphthongs, however, those might be a problem. In any case, take a look, see what you think. As for pronunciation, I don't think we can have a unified pronunciation, because Classical Greek is pronounced differently than modern Greek. As for the word that comes in brackets, I've been just skipping the brackets, to be honest, I don't like them. But I think it's most common to put a Romanization in there. I haven't seen IPA's in there, but I'll take your word that they exist. I think stating that Romanization is standard policy for brackets would be alright. As for inflection tables. I don't think that they should look alike. They're going to be on a lot of the same pages together, and making them look differently will help people keep them apart (especially since what's inside them is so very similar). As far as linking the forms, I don't think we should, just yet. All of Ancient Greek's inflection tables are templates (well, most of them, all of them shortly), and so it will be easy to make them into links very quickly and easily when we want to. We should wait until we start doing forms, which we're not really doing right now. Once we get a bot to do forms pages for us, then we can start linking the inflection tables. I agree that the inflection line should be in the same format for both languages. Anything that I'm missing, try to re-explain it. (Sorry for being such a dunce). Cerealkiller13 07:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, our standard practice is to put the Romanization in the POS line, it goes:

word (Genitive:genform); gender (declension) (Romanization)
And I think this is a good idea. Descendants is a standard heading. Take a look at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained#Descendants. Cerealkiller13 07:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We have genitive instead of plural because, first of all, that's standard practive for Ancient Greek (I don't know about modern Greek), but in an Ancient Greek lexicon, they always show the singular nom and singular gen. I believe the reason they do this is because you can't always figure out all the forms with just the nominative, but you can with the nominative and genitive. This is especially relevant for third declenion forms like ?δωρ. The genitive is often the unmarked full form, whereas the nominative plural is a marked full form (i.e. it's easier to figure out everything else from the genitive than from the plural). You make a good point in that the POS line is different for a lot of languages. I'll look into that a little more fully and think about it. But, God, I really don't want to change the format, because doing so would mean making about 300 tedious edits. But, if it's going to be done, better now than later. Cerealkiller13 07:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Well, inasmuch as I would like to have some uniformity across Greek and Ancient Greek, I don't think this should be done at the expense of the individual projects. I think that, whatever the normal standards are for Greek and Ancient Greek, they should be kept to, even if they differ. And where there is not a standard practice, then we should try and bring the two together. Cerealkiller13 08:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of category indexing[edit]

Hello there, I see you have removed some of the category indexing for Greek categories. If this is because you maintain category:Greek language and for consistency there is no category sorting then I can understand that. Would this be the case or am I missing something?--Williamsayers79 08:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and I agree it does look neater without the indexing. I think indexing is only really useful in a large (potentially confusing!) category such as the English language one. Regards. --Williamsayers79 12:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Greek[edit]

I hadn't checked in on this page for a while, but was very impressed by all the careful (and well formatted!) work you've been doing on the Greek guide. Keep up the good work! (I may have to use some of your layout ideas when I get going again on the corresponding Latin page.) --EncycloPetey 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal pronoun[edit]

Umm... we were planning to switch to just Pronoun for all headers with an in-line template to indicate which ones were (personal). --EncycloPetey 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just in Greek. The headers in almost all languages are currently inconsistent for pronouns. Don't worry about trying to fix them right now, since I'm waiting on DAVilla to set up some of the necessary templates. When that happens, I plan to do a thorough cross-lingual cleanup of all our pronouns... or at leats of all the ones I can find. Some of them haven't even been categorized as pronouns yet. --EncycloPetey 06:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't ever use subheaders for that. That would push all the usual level 4 headers down to level 5 unnecessarily. Instead, we're planning to use an in-line header created by a template, such as {{personal}}. We have to wait, though, because not all the necessary templates have been created. You can see an example of the style by looking at iskay, where something similar has been done for the Quechua numeral "two". Obviously, there will be some difficulties getting this implemented, but I have made a start with the page αυτό. We may be able to figure out and solve some of the implementation difficulties if we work together.
On a related note, how much of the Inflection for αυτό applies to the demonstrative use? I would recommend that a full table of Greek pronouns be put in an Appendix:Greek pronouns, and the page for αυτό include only the inflection pertinent to the third person. My limited knowledge of Greek comes from working with scientific names derived from Greek and some limited study of Koine Greek. --EncycloPetey 15:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the start I made on Appendix:Greek pronouns (essentially pasting in the work you did), and compare with the appendix I've started for Spanish pronouns. I've been meaning to write such a page for a long time, and your work on Wiktionary:About Greek inspired me to finally get the ball rolling.
I've recently acquired a copy of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, which is introducing me to Determiners. However, I've noticed that in their terminology "determiner" is a word function (like "object" or "modifier") while "determinative" is a part of speech. I'm going to raise the issue with the community, as this will impact our POS headers and categories. --EncycloPetey 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek verb conjugation templates[edit]

I put up a sample template. I am taking the categories for verbs from Πύλη για την ελληνική γλώσσα, and using the same exact format as the Greek Wiktionary. One thing they did in the Greek Wiki is that they added all the passive forms of the verbs as separate (main) entries, so they will have separate conjugation templates for those. Are we going to do that here also? (I have not added the passive forms to the template... yet.) Also, if you wouldn't mind, do you have thoughts about the grammatical terms used in the template? For example, I put "past perfective" instead of aorist. Thanks. ArielGlenn 12:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! And happy spring. Here all the cherry trees are in bloom, it has been spring for awhile (California).

I am not sure yet what is going to happen to the templates overall. I was thinking originally that all 20-something categories would have to go in, but because of the way they are set up with the stem, we can get it down to a much smaller number, based on the number of syllables and the basic conjugation group. I hope!

I don't understand the question quite about differentiating the el-conj-'δροσίζω' conjugation template from ancient Greek. Shouldn't the el-* by default be the modern greek templates? I see the ancient greek ones have the name grc-* and I'm not going to mess with those.

I didn't see how to use the {{t}} template for someonething which doesn't have a gender, (but I don't know what 'c' gender is anyways), oh I see, I could have just left them out. My bad, should I change the translations then?

As to the nouns, I'm happy to look at anything that you put up.

I will think some about the About Greek page, and transliteration in particular. ArielGlenn 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Greek transliteration[edit]

Here are my thoughts about the transliteration system. First, thinking about these things makes my eyes cross. You did a lot of work getting those tables together so they can be compared.

In my mind, there are three basic approaches.

One is phonetic, intended to help people figure out how to pronounce words. If we want this to be about pronunciation, I would recommend using IPA markup instead, but in that case, I'd rather send people to ΒΛ where I presume they will put IPA markup at some point for the entries. Some problems with the phonetic based systems are that often δ -> d or dh, and γ -> g even before fronted vowels, while there is never a satisfactory mapping for χ. Even though the IPA has a learning curve, it is clear and precise.

The second is orthographic, which we could do, but since the original word will be right next to the transliteration, it doesn't seem too critical. Most of the transliteration systems for Modern Greek put η -> i anyways, along with (at least) ι -> i, and so there you are already with a problem.

The third is to think of transliteration methods as a way of enabling someone to write down a representation of the word without using the original alphabet, where neither phonetic nor orthographic correspondence is strictly necessary (or achievable). With this approach, which I would suggest we adopt, the best choice is to use whatever system Greeks themselves have adopted, within the context of international communities. In the EU and at the UN some form of ELOT 743 seems to be the preferred choice. Also, not binding but indicative, the Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek) page from (English) Wikipedia recommends the same system.

So for those reasons I'd say, let's go with the the most recent adaptation of ELOT 743 (BGN/PCGN (1996)) or the first column from your transliteration table.

Your thoughts? ArielGlenn 17:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Grease pit#Bot replacement needed[edit]

Figured you might want to see that conversation, and either make the appropriate changes to About Greek or perhaps argue your case in the GP. Atelaes 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do yet, as the solution hasn't been decided upon yet. At some point, we may need to do a replacement of the template uses, but I think we ought to be sure we catch everything we want to all at once, lest we have to edit them all again shortly. --EncycloPetey 19:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

transliteration scheme?[edit]

If you change the Wiktionary:About Greek page to reflect the ELOT 743 choice, I'll start going through and changing the markups. Also, I think the active verb templates are about ready for prime time so I added notes about their usage in a few places. If you agree that they are ok, I'll start adding them in to existing entries. ArielGlenn 06:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the table! A couple of clarifying questions: are we adding an accent in the romanization for stress? And, are we doing anything special with the diaeresis as indictated in your intro to the table, or not (because the table shows differently)? (I'm not stalling, honestly I will get going on changing the transliterations *right after this* :-) ArielGlenn 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(Just to clarify, I think we should do both or neither.) ArielGlenn 08:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many etymology templates[edit]

We have these that have Greek converage:

  • {{AGr.}} (Ancient Greek) (around 300 entries)
  • {{Gr.}} (Greek) (around 800 entries)

but then in case those weren't enough we also have

I think most of the words marked up with them are meant to be in AGr. anyways, but once they're moved out of Gk. and MGr. can we make those go away in favor of Gr. as "the" template for Modern Greek? I don't see a preference on your About Greek page, so if there has been a decision made somewhere else, just point me to it. ArielGlenn 04:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to just show up in this conversation, but having been working quite a bit with Greek etymology lately, I thought I'd put in my two cents. First, all entries with the {{MGr.}} template should be moved and the template deleted. There is no such thing as "Modern Greek" on Wiktionary, there is only Greek and Ancient Greek. I suppose it's not a huge deal between {{Gr.}} and {{Gk.}}, but I prefer {{Gr.}}, if for no other reason than it fits along with {{†AGr.}} better. I think part of the confusion is that, for most people dealing with etymologies, modern Greek is just not on the radar, Greek is basically treated as a dead language, and "Greek" is assumed to be ancient Greek. It is my goal to, eventually, fix all of the words which derive from Ancient Greek, but are tagged as simply "Greek". This is a large project, especially considering that I am toying with the idea of writing the entries for the etymons as I go through them. Bear in mind also that many of the words which are in Category:Greek derivations aren't even tagged with {{Gr.}}, but simply have the cat. put in. There are something on the order of 1,600 words in that category, and I imagine most (perhaps all) of them need to be switched to Category:Ancient Greek derivations. So, it will take me some time to do this. If either of you have a pressing need to empty out that category, save for words which come from modern Greek, feel free to do so. However, if you don't I request that you simply leave me to do it. Firstly, because as I said earlier, I would like to write the etymon entries as I go along. Secondly because most of the entries are spelled wrong, many lack proper breathing marks, many are only using monotonic accentuation, many are using a modern Greek variant, and many are just Romanizations ( pet peeve!). I have spent the last few days moving entries from Category:Latin words from Greek to Category:la:Ancient Greek derivations. Note the text at the top of the former category....:-) Atelaes 05:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've moved a few of them (with the Gr. template) already, only a few a day, it takes time because I'm trying to do cleanup of the sort you mention. But I have lots of other work I could be doing :-) You might want to check a few and make sure I'm not mucking them up... My main concern in wanting to move them sooner rather than later is that new editors will continue to use the wrong template as long as they are still floating around with a bunch of words in them, thus creating more work for us. But it's not a huge rush, more of a slow nagging concern. ArielGlenn 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, I was pointed here by ArielGlenn (talkcontribs), moving {{Gk.}} to either {{AGr.}} and {{Gr.}} as appropriate sounds a good idea to me. I tidied up the List of Etymology language templates a while back since it was a total mess. We will need to depreciate the {{Gk.}} template and remove from that list when we are finished. I don't know much about Greek so will leave the migration of articles to the newer templates to yourselves.--Williamsayers79 09:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Verb forms[edit]

The forms like έχω φορτωμένο aren't particularly marked for colloquial or learned use, they are just standard usage. In the example (here's a link "Όσο δεν έχω φορτωμένο το psmouse.ko, τα X αρχίζουν κανονικά..." translates to "As long as I don't have psmouse.ko loaded, X starts normally..." It's a slightly different sense than "έχω φορτώσει" which is also "I have loaded" where the emphasis is sort of on my action more than on the state of the object. But I suck at explaining these things. This is a better explanation: συντελικές δομές με τα είμαι / έχω ArielGlenn 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Your recent edit to this entry puts the word in a non-existing category, Category:Greek romanisations. Were you intending to populate this category? If not, this action may wish to be undone. __meco 06:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain - someone had created this romanisation of the Greek word before I created the Greek one to go with it. I think that official policy is NOT to have entries for Romanisations, but since someone created this I was reluctant to delete it - in which case it might be handy to have a cat to put them in? —Saltmarsh 09:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I moved your response here. I find it easier to discuss in one place. I follow your intent, so now we have to figure out what to do with this category. Perhaps you would like to take it up in the Beer Parlour? Or I could do it if you would rather not. __meco 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that if romanisations for Greek words have entries, then a category should be created (I wouldn't see a need to ask anyone) BUT I have asked about the legitimacy of the such word entries (Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Entries for romanisations) without at present any interest. —Saltmarsh 05:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


That's an interesting case you got there. If it hadn't been for the very last edit on αετός, I'd say just remove αλιάετος. However, it appears that Arielglenn has put the proper accentuation on the word. This leads me to believe that the word does, in fact, exist in some context in Greek. Perhaps he should be encouraged to write the actual entry. In any case, you can remove the RFV at this point, as its requirements have been met. And the page was never listed the the RFV page, so all you'd have to do is remove the template, and you'd be done. Atelaes 18:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Scuse me for dropping in unannounced, but there is an entry for it here [[1]] and I had found a few references to it earlier with that meaning on line. That's why I just added the accent. ArielGlenn 23:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greek for parrot[edit]

Would you mind checking the Greek translation given for parrot, and creating an entry for the Greek term? Likewise, would you add the Modern Greek translations for listen and Central Europe? These words are pet projects of mine, intended to serve as model pages for editors, so having as many good sample entries for various languages linked from them would help. Thanks. --EncycloPetey 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


"via Germanic" – are you sure? The Germanic form was probably *beurom or *beuwiz (Germanic was unattested so should always have asterisks). bior was the Old High German word, and bier the Middle High German form (which led to modern German Bier). Widsith 10:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK, I think you should rephrase it then to say "probably from a Germanic language" rather than "via Germanic" which means it went from Italian to Germanic to Greek, which can't be right. So where did you get bior, bier from? It doesn't mention them in the birra page, it just says "from a Germanic language" (ie probably some kind of German, rather than from proto-Germanic). Germanic = Proto-Germanic. I'm not making much sense am I. Widsith 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK mate, cheers - probably the safest choice..! Widsith 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I'm curious why you moved the mention of virile to the first sense and removed it from the second. Most uses I've heard of this word (and the dictionary I just checked) use it for "vigorous, strong", i.e. gender qualities rather than biological anatomy. While it can refer to the presence of male genitalia, it was the only clarifying point in the second sense for "gender", which is a difficult concept to communicate to non-English speakers without some synonyms. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you can help with phrasing definitions 1 & 2 to make them clearer. I tried to revise them, but I guess not well enough. The first definition is intended to mean biologically male; what is denoted by "male-ness", whether human or animal. The second definition is intended to cover connotations of maleness -- those traits associated with being a human male (especially in western culture), but which are not necessarily biological. There is a whole subfield of psychology that deals with the differences between biological traits and gender roles. The key point is that definition one deals with universal points of biology (penis, testicles, beard). Definition two deals with cultural expectations and associations (strong, energetic, athletic). --EncycloPetey 05:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I've re-ordered the synonyms and translations sections to follow the same sequence as the definitions. All this will apply to the feminine page as well, of course. --EncycloPetey 06:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Can we pass this to Atelaes?  ?γέννησε is, as you said, AGr third person sing aorist (past perfective) from γεννάω (beget, give birth) and with that augment hanging off the front only in a religious context would you see it that way today. ArielGlenn 08:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been created. Concerning Katheravousa, my preference is to do it something like καρβονικόν and καρβονικό, but I really haven't put much thought into it. What do you think? Atelaes 22:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I was about to ask what we are gong to do about katharevousa, and I see you are already thinking about it. I would prefer to have the terms marked up front (in the language header) so a language learner doesn't wind up using one of them by mistake. Another option is to mark them as alternative spellings of their standard greek equivalents, I suppose. Anyways, I am open to other ideas. So: ideas? (I am currently looking at the entry for φύλλον which is... problematic :-) ) ArielGlenn 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
also the entry αλφάβητον... I expect there may be a lot more of these. ArielGlenn 09:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The template looks good; also, it marks the nonstandard form (i.e. the katharevousa form) as different and lets the standard form stand unmarked (who necessarily knows what "Demotic" means, as a language learner?) Good idea! ArielGlenn 11:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Slow down[edit]

I think you're trying to enter terms too quickly, as evidenced by what you put into West Indian. Make sure those parts of speech match the definitions! --EncycloPetey 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

New shortcut[edit]

You can now use WT:AEL to get to the Wiktionary:About Greek page quickly. (the standard shortcut for a language page is WT:A- for "Wiktionary:About..." plus the ISO language code in capital letters. The shortcut may save you some typing time. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Chess pieces[edit]

I discovered this translation table. The Greek entries may need some work; I was able to do a little, but my Greek is too limited to add inflectional tables and additional meanings. --EncycloPetey 06:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Etymology templates[edit]

In etymology sections, we prefer to use the etymology templates, such as {{F.}} for French or {{AGr.}} for Ancient Greek. For Modern Greek, you also need a parameter of el, so for a Greek word of French origin, you'd add {{F.|el}} in the etymology section. This will not only give the language name, but will automatically categorize the entry as well.

Templates like {{fr}} should never be used. They exist her only because some users copy in information form other wiktionaries that use such templates, and we want to be able to find those pastings and subst them. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Appendix:Official languages of the European Union matrix[edit]

There are a lot of embarassing red links in the Greek column. Could you help create some of these entries? --EncycloPetey 05:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to do them now... I just though I'd alert you to one area that ought to be easy to fill in quickly. Also, should ελληνικά redirect to Ελληνικά, or is this an error? I don't know whether Modern Greek capitalizes language names. --EncycloPetey 05:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Possessive forms exclusion WT:VOTE rewritten and restarted[edit]

I have rewritten and restarted the vote, having attempted to reword the proposal to address the issues that people have raised. You may want to reread the proposal and reconsider your vote. † Raif?har Doremitzwr 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

inflected forms and template use[edit]

I notice you have been using the "form of" templates of late. So I changed the examples from WT:AEL for αδελφοί and added a bit of text about that. Now I am thinking that was too rash; when we get to the adjectives, these templates will not be so helpful because there is no parameter for gender. User:EncycloPetey pointed me to the {{inflection of}} templates they are using for Latin; what do you think about them? ArielGlenn 07:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I will start using them now. Also, I was thinking about having the {{el-verb}} template mark its arguments as Category:Greek verbs (it doesn't seem to do that right now). Is that ok, or am I going to break something, given I didn't write it? ArielGlenn 08:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all your changes and cleanup, and sorry you had to go through and retag the nouns :-( I have changed my scripts to use the new format. Say... you wouldn't want to look at the adj templates, would you?  :-):-) ArielGlenn 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I prefer leaving out the case but having the gender and the full form of each adjective in there; it just seems easier on the eyes to the non-expert. So that means a vote for

  ζεστός m (zestos)     f:ζεστή, n:ζεστό

I know the m there is a bit redundant but it doesn't really hurt anything (and we put the gender in all the translation links anyways, so at least it's consistent).
p.s. I have been working up a bot to watch new (greek) entries so we can (or I can) clean up the tagging and at least get them into a noticeable category. A lot (as if there were a lot to start with!) of them get created with no templates or category markings whatsoever. I'll put the results of that up in a couple of days after it runs a bit. ArielGlenn 10:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A metaphorical vote only! (Besides, I don't believe so much in votes as in reaching a concensus among interested parties.... of which there are, I guess, two :-) ) Yes, no brackets, and I thought about the romanization and decided it was fine without it. Also f instead of feminine is fine. And yes, then changing the noun template to drop the second romanization makes sense to me, and to line it up with this format. We could even put pl instead of plural I guess, hmm. Hey are you ever on irc? (I am in the wiktionary channel most of the time.) ArielGlenn 06:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Concordance:Fragments of Heraclitus[edit]

Thought this would fall within your interests. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

POS summary[edit]

The summary was very helpful! My thoughts:

  1. Noun template: Colon after plural (or none in the adjective template). We also need to be able to mark uncountable nouns.
    • covers: nouns, noun forms, proper nouns
  2. Verb template: Can we mark them as "imperfective past"? I know that's longer, but it's a bit more on target. (Also it's what's in my verb conjugation templates.)
    • covers: verbs in active form, verbs in medio-passive form, verb forms
  3. Adjective template: Great
    • covers: adjectives, adjective forms, comparatives, superlatives
  4. Other POS: Great
    • covers: pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, interjections, articles

Did I forget anything? Are there WT:ELE considerations for any of these? ArielGlenn 22:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Entirely my bad! Of course perfective past (is what is in my templates). Argh! So much for preview helping get it right... ArielGlenn 07:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inflections etc[edit]

Thanks for all your work on the inflections. Thanks for your patience on that too. Do you want to start a betting pool on how many comments the BP discussion gets (other than you or me)? :-)

I put up some ruminations on dialects and all that a couple days ago, see User:ArielGlenn/what to include. I will be interested to hear your thoughts. You have been trying to organize these pages a lot longer than me...

Funny you ask about the redlink list. Just in the last couple of days I stumbled across the Index:Greek and found out that it is virtually useless because it's updated by hand (and hadn't been in about a year). So I have *just* finished redoing those based on the July XML dump; This includes all entries tagged as Greek (l2 tag) and all translations marked as Greek (and not Ancient), with about 10 exceptions because they were oddly labelled. Hope we find it useful!

IRC, dude, I'm telling you... all the cool kids are there :-) ArielGlenn 07:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

translation lines for greek (ancient, modern)[edit]

I have started going through entries tagged with *Greek, Modern and changing them to Greek. (This helps some processing I do with the monthly XML dump.) Some entries though look like this:

I had been restructuring them to say

  • Greek, Ancient: (...)
  • Greek: (...)

thinking that was right. Is it? I cross-posted at User:Atelaes too. Sorry this is so nitpicky, I just don't want to be mucking something up. ArielGlenn 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to Wiktionary talk:About Greek (but hopefully we can sort it out fast). Thanks... ArielGlenn 04:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

oops :-([edit]

I did *not* intend to exclude you from the discussison. *At all*. Pleasae accept my apologies. I really do wish that we could do some of this over irc or some other mechanism "off channel", so to speak. That's all. I'll shut up now. ArielGlenn 11:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration (again)[edit]

Hi! I didn't think that romanisations should be phonetically accurate. That would make them inconvenient for the purposes they are intended. My only concern was that there should not be created any romanisation entries. Secondly, I do think that there could be some improvements in the romanisation system followed here, e.g. oi and oi, but it isn't so much important to me. So, you needn't worry too much about my "hypersensitiveness". :-) --Flyax 07:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


We say νόες in the plural (google it) but it is rare and still sounds a bit strange. We cannot form however the genitive of the plural. Some say των νόων, some say των νοών, but both are wrong. About the templates, I usually don't know what to put in the 'edit summary' box. If it's a new template, there is nothing to say more. If it's an edit, it is something very small. I will try, though. --Flyax 06:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


The form ενδιαφερόντων for the feminine (genitive plural) is incorrect. Although some may use it, it shouldn't appear in the template, even with the notice ungrammatical. What is your opinion? --Flyax 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about the whole declension and also about the oxytone declension. The right form for the gen-pl of the feminine is -ουσών for both declensions. --Flyax 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

tracking new and removed entries (greek)[edit]

Now that I am on a regular schedule of crunching the XML dumps, here is the first round of tracking: User:ArielGlenn/tracking-el. I should clarify that this is the change since the July xml dump, not the change for a 30 day period. Not sure what its immediate use is, but perhaps you'll find it entertaining :-) ArielGlenn 07:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, are you already an admin? Unless you have any objections, I'd like to let you know that I intend to nominate you. DAVilla 07:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's not anything you have to commit to, just a few extra buttons to push like protection, deletion, and restoration, for which the community places its trust in you. No attendance requirements or anything. DAVilla 15:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You mostly learn by doing. The requirement is that you can be trusted not to be malicious or destructive, and (more importantly!) willing to learn and participate. And have shown that over a sufficient period and number of edits, both in NS:0 and in discussions. Robert Ullmann 17:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please accept here. DAVilla 16:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


I think it would be better to use {{checktrans-top}}. What do you think? In any case, it is "translations to be checked" (not "categorised" ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Look for δοσοληψία here. There was a problem with ί in your spelling (another ASCII character maybe?). I am not sure about this, but I think that stressed characters have different ASCII in polytonic and monotonic keyboard settings.--Flyax 09:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly a late reply but on the subject of the accents, it is true that the polytonic accents are a different character (different entry in unicode). But I think Mediawiki silently converts charcters in the "wrong" (i.e. polytonic) code block: see User:ArielGlenn/Unicode hell for my encounters with this, in case it's not already old news to you both. ArielGlenn 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

New Buttons![edit]

I'm happy to announce that you have been promoted. Here are some basic instructions about the new tools. If you have any questions, feel free to ask any other admin, including your promoter, User:Dvortygirl. Also, please update your entry in the administrator list with any additions or corrections at WT:A. Thanks for your hard work in the past and (in advance) for the work you will be doing! Happy trails... and, hey, what's your bandwidth situation like these days? Still inviting you to IRC (unless of course you can't stand it, which is perfectly ok). ArielGlenn 05:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! Rod (A. Smith) 05:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bible template[edit]

See note on WT:GP. I'm moving this to {{books of the bible}} so {bible} can be a context template ;-) Robert Ullmann 13:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited Acts of the Apostles to put the template inside the English section. Keep in mind that some entries may have other language sections with completely different meanings; this applies to English. Looks good ;-) Robert Ullmann 14:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You might want to make it {{book of the Bible}} as Connel suggested; some people like to see Bible always capitalized, and there is no reason not to here? Robert Ullmann 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Bel & Dr.[edit]

Um, what? I just deleted something that looked like obvious vandalism. But, it has your name on it and I know you've been doing the books of the Bible. What is that? --Connel MacKenzie 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in[edit]

Sorry I've been such a slacker lately, I think I didn't even get the Greek index updated before the next XML dump is due (out today or tomorrow)... but I wanted to check in. I see you've got another project going ( the Bible books, where I am of no use whatsoever :-) ) but I hope you are still doing the modern greek entries and that I haven't somehow pissed you off or something, for example with the discussion around pronunciation. If I have, please let me know! Also if I don't weigh in on things (like moving the about:greek page for example) it's usually cause I don't have a good idea what to say that would be helpful... ArielGlenn 20:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

mv Genitive before Accusative[edit]

When I started working here, I just followed the previous model for declension tables, even if I was used to see the Genitive before the Accusative in every Greek grammar textbook of both Ancient and Modern Greek I have. However, after a notice from another user (Wiktionary_talk:About_Greek#Declension_tables) it seemed to me that it would not be inappropriate to edit the tables. --flyax 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply in Wiktionary_talk:About_Greek#Declension_tables --flyax 10:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Please please don't use this; it is written horribly. Use {pedialite}, {sourcelite} if you must replace the box. (I think the box is excellent, and reducing it to more grey text down the left of the page is a serious loss.) Robert Ullmann 06:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be quite so terse, I was trying to (and succeeded at) getting to my bank at 10 AM precisely. There are some people who don't like the boxes; they fight with them, trying to shift them around to keep them from messing up the positioning of the [edit] links. Actually fixing the edit links doesn't seem to be an option. (It may seem to be a bit too deep in the s/w, but remember that we are running on open source s/w all the way down to the silicon ;-) I think the [edit] links are horrid; they are almost okay in the 'pedia, where sections have blocks of text; but no good here. I turn them off, and use right-click for section edits; it would be good if that was the default.
The boxes help a very great deal with avoiding the "list down the LHS" effect, giving us some kind of layout balance. I'd like to see a few more. Robert Ullmann 12:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

{{wikipedia}} and other sister projects[edit]

Is there any reason why you vote Wiktionary:Votes/2007-07/Sister project links cannot be taken? —SaltmarshTalk 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I got some negative feedback on it and never pushed it through, but you could put that question to the community and make revisions before trying to get it accepted. DAVilla 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should check before you delete it?[edit]

You put "vandalism?" in the deletion reason, yet if you weren't sure, perhaps you should have checked the Wikipedia page about it? ORLY? :-D —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The question mark was ironic - it seemed onbvious vandalism.
  1. Perhaps you should sign in?
    The spelling was incorrect.
    There was no etymology or other justification for the entry/definition.
SaltmarshTalk 06:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Could you add the entry for the Greek? The etymology contains the word from the Greek Wikipedia, but it's not in my (Modern) Greek dictionary. I'm not familiar enough with Modern Greek to make a go at it. Do we have a place where (Modern) Greek requested entries can be listed? --EncycloPetey 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

spelling errors[edit]

Is there a policy about spelling errors? I mean, is it preferable to have redirections or entries or nothing at all? You see, the possibility of spelling errors in Greek is huge and we couldn't have 3 or 4 entries for every single word (e.g. αλλαγή, αλαγή, αλλαγεί etc ). Of course some spelling errors occur more often than others, so a redirection could be useful there. In the case of μπίρα it's absolutely clear that the spelling with "η" is wrong; none of the major Greek dictionaries refers to it. And, looking for the word "μπήρα" in Google, I saw that in the most of the cases it was an other form of "πήρα" (I took); I don't know if it is some dialect form or a "phonetic" spelling of "δεν πήρα" (IPA: ?embira). --flyax 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I think I have heard also chemists using in Greek such plurals, but this use is rather informal. According to G. Babiniotis's dictionary the word has no plural. --flyax 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Just checking with you before putting it on RFV. Is it actually used attributively etc? Language Lover 13:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)