User talk:Saltmarsh/Archive 7

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

Archive for 2015 and 2016[edit]

άλσος etymology[edit]

Hi Saltmarsh. Re this, surely the derivation is only unknown before the Ancient Greek ἄλσος (álsos, grove)…? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes - I had been thinking this through overnight and it was my first port of call this morning. Thanks   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you for answering the {{rfe}}. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for verification#‎ἀφαιρετική[edit]

This one revolves around the credibility of the 1770 source given by the IP who added this sense. I suspect it might be (early) Modern Greek in polytonic script rather than Ancient Greek, as claimed. Your input would be most welcome. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


I am not so sure how to answer (and if I have a real answer...). But οφείλω (as well as homonym χρωστώ) does not have a perfective form since its sense is somehow continuous. (Or someone can say the exact opposite, that sense is once done, but no one can think it with both senses...).
"εξεγείρω" can have continuous and non continuous senses: "εξήγειρα once" someone, and "εξήγειρα continuously, every day". --Xoristzatziki (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xoristzatziki Thanks for that - that explains the difference exactly - cheers   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 11:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi Saltmarsh. An anon. nominated for speedy deletion επίμονως (epímonos), which you created. I rolled back his change, but I note that the lemma, επίμονα (epímona), lists επιμόνως (epimónos) as a variant spelling. Which placing of the tonos is correct? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

επιμόνως (epimónos) is correct. --Fsojic (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
@Fsojic: Thanks. I've moved the entry. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

full stops[edit]

Like here, dictionary definitions are typically fragments and not normally followed by a full stop. --JorisvS (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree - I clicked "undo" by mistake, and then got sidetracked in my 2nd edit and forgot to put things right!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Sorry about that. My guesses are wrong sometimes! :-S  — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you were a thousand miles away - it probably is a reborrowing, but I haven't seen any evidence   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the correction. It's funny how many Modern Greek words derive from French. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Since Katharevousa is an artificial language distinction between her and spoken Greek language is not so clear (there was also a simple Katharevousa [1]).The usage of her in official papers "planted" many phrases in everyday language so many of them are still in use. All school books (including grammatic) until 1976 were written in Katharevousa. Many people still use Katharevousa's terms (like adding ν at the end of nouns in accusative or like genitive θαλάσσης instead of θάλασσας) which are clearly understood but not used wide. So there may be problems in distinguish them (if there is such need). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you - I read something recently which I could précis as: modern Greek was slowly emerging from Demotic and Katharevousa - with Demotic the senior partner. When I asked my Greek teacher why she might use one form one day and another form the next, she wasn't sure why - one just sounded better.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genitive plural of κωλοτούμπα/κολοτούμπα[edit]

You have indicated that these words have no genitive in their plurals by using template {{el-nF-α-ες-3a1}}. However, a Google search finds quite a few hits on κωλοτούμπων/κολοτούμπων.  --Lambiam 23:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

My Greek dictionary says it lacks a genitive plural and I guess that to a Greek its use just doesn't sound right. My Google counts are κωλοτούμπα (371k), κωλοτούμπας (129k), κωλοτούμπες (260k), κωλοτούμπων (321), κωλοτουμπών (576). Since the frequency is about 1/1000 of the other forms I'd say the dictionary has got it right - these are on the internet and many will be informal and hence sometimes ungrammatical. I suspect that in the printed word the forms would not meet our criteria for inclusion.
When frequencies of such forms raise them above the "very rare" I sometimes leave the table blank but add them as a footnote at the bottom of the table "The form 'ξξξξξξων' is rare" or if they are quite "common" I might include them in the table with a footnote saying "Some grammarians consider the genitive plural ungrammatical.".   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Hi Saltmarsh. Thanks for fixing my headwords! Is the dative of the place name Βόλος (Vólos, Volos) Βόλῳ (Vólῳ)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Modern Greek doesn't have a dative - except in a few historical/idiomatic phrases. I wouldn't know about Ancient Greek declensions!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. I have a PDF of a 1909 book by Apostolos S. Arvanitopoulos entitled Θεσσαλικὰ μνημεῖα. Ἀθανασάκειον Μουσεῖον ἐν Βόλῳ, which I interpret to mean Thessalian monuments: Athanassakean Museum in Volos; am I correct? Is that Katharevousa? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes - but @Xoristzatziki would be able to answer definitively   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"Βόλῳ" is definiteley a Katharevousa form. Modern Greek does not have "υπογεγραμμένη" (but some people still use older orthography in their publications, even in words non existent in Katharevousa). In modern Greek someone can only use "Βόλω" in a historical/idiomatic phrase. --Xoristzatziki (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Xoristzatziki. How, may I ask, would you translate "Θεσσαλικὰ μνημεῖα. Ἀθανασάκειον Μουσεῖον ἐν Βόλῳ" and "μέρος πρῶτον: ἡ σημασία τῶν γραπτῶν στηλῶν τῶν Παγασῶν καὶ σύντομος ἱστορία τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ζῳγραφικῆς"? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Just a heads-up that this template is transliterating things twice; I didn't check why, but this should certainly be foxed. Cheers! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - the template had been updated without removing the manual translit - sorted.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

παίρνω πίπα[edit]

Hi! I'm not sure I agree with your replacing of the header verb with phrase. phrase doesn't say much, IMHO; and syntactically speaking, this is still a verb, don't you think? --Fsojic (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with you, to my mind a "verbal phrase" but still a phrase. But I guess that Wiktionary's "house style" agrees with you. So I've changed it, but note you'll need to use the {{head}} template - {{el-verb}} will throw errors!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 19:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)



sorry to bother you again, but since I've the - possibly unwelcome - habit of removing the template DEFAULTSORT when I see it in old entries, and at the same time I see you keep using it (as in ακμαίος (akmaíos)), I wonder what purpose it serves, and what we should do about it. --Fsojic (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

No bother! I'm not consistant - I tend to use it when the accent is early in the word - not good! I think that the "part-of-speech" category sorting is organised from the headword line template, other categories by DEFAULTSORT. You could try asking at WT:GP. (I'm short of time at present)   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 21:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Categories that are placed directly in the entry don't use the automatic sort key generation, while categories that are included by templates do (or should be modified to do). If you want to include, say, topical categories, you can use the {{topics}} template. —CodeCat 21:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CC.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

usage = 5%[edit]

What's the meaning of "usage = 5%" at σαρδέλα? You created that entry in 2007 with that text, but it does not make any sense to me. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I guess this was an edit that never got finished - now edited to the original intention (which was to hint at the more usual spelling). I am never sure about presenting these figures, but they are hopefully useful.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

gain ground[edit]

If κερδίζω έδαφος (kerdízo édafos) is SOP, how isn't gain ground as well? --Fsojic (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I think "gain ground" probably is SOP - although it's used figuratively I'm not sure it's idiomatic -but I felt that we should be more generous with English phrases like that than foreign ones - and leaving the "word separated" translation was sufficient?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Translations for species etc.[edit]

At [[Sturnus unicolor]] and [[spotless starling]] I have added some links, including to external sites, for translations. Sources for translations include Wikicommons, Wikispecies, sometimes Wikipedia, and true external databases like FishBase, Avibase (birds), and Tropicos (most plants). Do you have any thoughts on how we should link to or use these? DCDuring TALK 12:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Perhaps a footnote under "External links? The Greek translations came from The Hellenic Ornithological Society, but if we have multiple English names for some birds - Greece will no doubt outdo us for most species. The seem to be variations in format between entries, do you have any which might act as "model" pages?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment.
Taxon entries are of different vintages and the information available and appropriate differs greatly by type of taxon (rank, etc), acceptance of the name by major databases, existence of each type of information for individual taxa. Furthermore my sense of what is important, interesting, or practical to add to stub or incomplete entries changes.
My own sense of what is desirable and worthwhile for various types of entries has evolved greatly over time.
Genus and species entries are both numerous and of relatively high interest, particularly if the organism is spoken or written about widely. They (and all virus taxa) should have the headword in italics and a gender indication.
For species entries, it is particularly useful to have an image. Species entries have Hypernyms sections only if there are intermediate hypernyms between family and genus (subfamily, tribe, subtribe) or genus and species (subgenus, section). Hyponyms often don't exist and may not be worth including even when they do. Species entries do not have etymology sections because the genus name and epithet are better locations.
For genus entries, images of the type species or, where different, the basionym are desirable, especially if they give indication of why the genus name was selected. Genus names warrant a fairly complete Hypernyms section. I am no longer convinced of the desirability of having complete species lists under Hyponyms, preferring the type species, any species for which we have or should have entries, and referring users to external databases for more complete lists.
For higher taxa, the taxon name should not be in italics, nor need it have a gender. All such taxa are plural in form. I would like to have the most complete entries for the taxa (only order and above) included in Ruggiero et al., which is intended to be a modern classification structure stable for 5 or more years. I use {{Ruggiero}} to indicate that the entry for such a taxon has as much information as is practically available and appropriate.
Family names are the most important type for which I have no explicit content standards, except for the desirability of both Hypernyms and Hyponyms sections.
Names above genus would benefit from image montages or galleries to show the range of morphologies included. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all that - I think if I venture too far I shall be beyond my competence! I should do more than I have done to date no info is better than wrong info!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

μάτια μου[edit]

Hi, I pinged you at User talk:Xoristzatziki#μάτια μου, but you have not responded. I would appreciate any input if you have anything to say. --WikiTiki89 18:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Transcription/transliteration scheme[edit]

Hi! I'm sorry about the other day; that wasn't very considerate of me to just burst in like this and disturb the work you've done, even though I meant no harm. Now, I still think that the current state of affairs isn't satisfying. So what should we do about it? --Fsojic (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that we're talking about "transliteration" — and not "transcription" — using well tried systems as our source seemed the most sensible. Perhaps you can say what you expect a 'good' system to do (in not too many words!). — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to make it short! I agree with you: in this case, I don't think we have to depart from well tried systems. However, I think we should stick to just one of these (for example, ISO 843 Transliteration, or ISO 843 Transcription), for the sake of consistency. We can mention that there are, of course, other schemes, and that we picked just one option among several.
Now, I don't care whether it be a transliteration or a transcription scheme; so if you prefer a transliteration, it's fine by me. That said:
  • Why not have both? With a module, it shouldn't be too difficult to have the two outputs. "Ποσειδώνας" could be transliterated as "Poseidṓnas", and transcribed as "Posidónas", hence something like: "Ποσειδώνας • ‎(Poseidṓnas / Posidónas)"
  • Our current scheme is actually much closer to a transcription scheme than a transliteration scheme. The outputs provided are pretty good phonetic representations of the words (take, for example, the way we romanise "αυ": "av" in certain phonetic contexts, "af" in other phonetic contexts; if it was a transliteration, we would just have "ay"). There would only be two or three things to change to make it perfect: "ει" and "οι" should both be transcribed as "i", and "αι" as "e"... and I think that's all, actually. --Fsojic (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Huh, I'm really confused. It seems that all current standards (namely ISO 843 and ELOT) indeed use "oi", "ei" and "ai" as transcriptions (not only transliterations!) of the digraphs "αι", "ει" and "οι". This makes absolutely no sense to me, especially when I see that the now obsolete BGN/PCGN scheme correctly transcribed these as "e", "i" and "i" (digraphs are called digraphs for a reason, after all). This really seems like a regress to me. --Fsojic (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
(1) Perhaps we should talk about "Romanisation", which makes it clear that we have a letter-by-letter relationship. "Transcription" approximates to pronunciation - so perhaps it belongs under that heading.
(2) When the table we are using was started the letters were entered manually and double diacritics were avoided. I asked you: "Perhaps you can say what you expect a 'good' system to do" - you have just criticised the existing one. So I repeat the request "What do you expect a 'good' system to do" !
I've only ended up defending the status quo because changing requires some sort of debate. Perhaps you should start one elsewhere. — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Re διδ. φιλ., Special:Diff/34644075/41884394[edit]

Hi Saltmarsh. Please forgive the criticism, but defining διδ. φιλ. as an abbreviation of διδακτορικό δίπλωμα (literally doctoral degree) can't possibly be right; that would surely have the abbreviation *διδ. διπ. or something (not specifically that abbreviation, which seemingly isn't attestable, but something like it). Moreover, I've seen διδ. φιλ. used as post-nominal letters, in which case it must be masculine or feminine, not neuter, since, in that usage, Ph.D. means the more literal “doctor(ess) of philosophy” (Latin philosophiae doctor, -trīx) rather than the elliptical “doctor of philosophy[’s degree]” (although, granted, you couldn't guess that from our entry for Ph.D.). May I ask you to reconsider your edits? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)