User talk:Erutuon

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


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

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! Thanks for the fixes to {{grc-decl-3rd-ευς}}. Any questions on Ancient Greek on Wiktionary, or anything else about the project, feel quite free to ask. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


It is a waste of screen space to have such encyclopedic information. Please come up with classes that have fewer members or with links to WP articles that contain the information, perhaps WP category pages. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no vested interest in lists of chemical elements. I just figured that if someone went to the work of creating a long list, we may as well preserve it. Perhaps it would be better to move it to the transition metal entry or something. Erutuon 00:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure the "work" consisted of cutting and pasting from a list, possibly already in a wiki format, with brackets and punctuation. In any event, I "hid" it under {{rel-top}}. It may be that all of or our semantic relations (possibly excepting synonyms) should be so hidden in its entirety. On long entries, some of us wonder whether monolingual English users especially manage to find their way through long entries with multiple Etymology and Part of speech sections. Non-English and multilingual users are necessarily more accustomed to paging down or using the ToC. DCDuring TALK 00:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Old French[edit]

Hi, if you have the time and the competence, please have a look at Category:Old French terms needing attention. There are parallel categories for Middle French and Anglo-Norman. Also things like Category:Requests for etymology (Old French) and Category:Requests for pronunciation (Old French). Cheers, Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Arabic diacritics[edit]

Thanks for adding them, but note that compound Arabic diacritics (such as shadda-fatHa) can’t be added. Compound Arabic diacritics are incompatible with our software, and they always get saved in the wrong order. There is a way around this problem, but it is somewhat complicated, so it’s best to just add shadda or fatHa/kasra/dhamma, but not both (normally choose the shadda). Also, I would not put a sukun on a final consonant, because final consonants do get vowels under various conditions and environments. —Stephen (Talk) 03:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nasal infixes and other fixes[edit]

Howdy! I noticed your call for Latin and AG nasal infix categories, etc. I'd love to help out on the Latin end, if it gets approved. So feel free to message me if that gets the go-ahead. On another note, I was recently informed by User:ObsequiousNewt that {{grc-IPA}} is preferred over {{grc-ipa-rows}}. You'll have to talk to him about the nitty-gritty of why, but just a friendly FYI! Hope you are having a lovely new year! —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 09:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info about the Greek template! I reverted my edits. :) I figure the main thing with the infix categories is how to add them to entries — what sort of template should be used, and so on. From briefly looking at Category:Latin words by prefix just now, it appears similar categories are very sparsely populated! However, there seems to be a {{prefix}}; perhaps a {{infix}} could be created, though it might require some fancy template coding that only others know how to do. Eru·tuon 09:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
And there is such a template. (I didn't check before posting.) Eru·tuon 09:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I have used the {{prefix}} and {{suffix}} templates extensively but never the {{infix}} template. I think I could help most with finding the infixed terms and with editing the -n- article, if you need help in those domains.
PS: You are correct that Bach is most assurèdly the greatest composer to have ever lived.
JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 09:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The "why" is that {{grc-IPA}} uses a module to generate pronunciations (and is generally the newer template.) As for the infix thing-- there's only that one place that happens with CVnCánō verbs, and it's from PIE, so I'd probably do something more like {{infix|*sleh₂gʷ|*n|lang=ine-pro}}. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to add any categories. I'll look at Module:compounds, but perhaps it's just best to manually add the category on each page. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It could be done that way at first, but I have something a little more complex in mind. Could a template be created to display thus? (The present stem λαμβάν- originates) from *lh₂⟨n⟩gʷn̥-: zero-grade of *sleh₂gʷ- without s-mobile, with nasal infix *n, and with suffix *n̥. (I'm just guessing αν is n̥.) I think this would require a more PIE-oriented template, one that probably does not exist: one that is coded with PIE phonotactics and variant forms of roots, and will allow variations of ablaut and other morphophonological elements. Maybe it's a crazy idea. Eru·tuon 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Given the PIE-related nature of this idea, I posted in Wiktionary talk:About Proto-Indo-European. Eru·tuon 18:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Greek pronunciation[edit]

I like the idea of pronunciation in theory, but... Ancient Greek pronunciations are reconstructions at best, and it's probably worth considering whether we actually want audio files that aren't (can't be) from a native speaker. @JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, whoever else, what do you think? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 15:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: This is the first I've heard of it, but… I like the idea. Why not include audio pronunciations, as long as they accurately reflect the reconstructed pronunciatory transcriptions? My concern is with the pitch-accented "5th BC Attic" pronunciation. I gather from what I've read that there is disagreement about the variability of the pitch(es) of words' unaccented syllables, as well as whether the overall pitch range spans a fifth or a whole octave. Is this still a live issue? And, if so, can we hope for its resolution? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
My main concern is pitch accents. I'm not convinced them can be done consistently. —JohnC5 20:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: I think the native speaker preference should be waived in this case. There are quite a few recordings of Ancient Greek by various scholars and amateurs, some better than others, some worse. If my recordings are on the better side of this continuum, I don't think they should be excluded. Wiktionary should have recordings of Ancient Greek that are at least as good as recordings available elsewhere. There are already recordings of Classical Latin (magnus, puer, femina), so if the native speaker criterion is applied, those will have to be removed as well.
@I'm so meta even this acronym:The question of pitch range doesn't interest me as much as the question of pitch contours. Ancient Greek wasn't like a tonal language where different pitch heights (low, mid, high, and so on, or pitch contours starting and ending at specific heights) are phonemic. Where in a word pitch was highest, and where it abruptly or gradually begins to change and in which direction is more important.
But I think the pitch height confusion comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who says something about a fifth, but doesn't make it clear whether he's talking about the difference between highest pitch and lowest pitch, or the difference between highest and the mean, and the lowest and the mean. He could either be saying the total pitch range is a fifth, or two fifths (a ninth, one note larger than an octave). A ninth is an awkwardly large range when I'm saying just one word, so I tend to use less than that (probably a third). I suspect the range varied based on various factors, just as it would in English.
@JohnC5: I'm not quite sure how to respond. Do you see a particular area of uncertainty regarding the pitch accent that makes it difficult to do consistently? The pitch accent is generally agreed to consist of high pitch and a falling contour immediately after. The acute represents high pitch (on a short syllable) and rising pitch (on a long syllable), and if it's followed by another syllable, that syllable has falling pitch. The circumflex represents high and falling pitch, or rising and falling, on the same syllable. According to A. P. David, falling pitch on a long vowel (either directly after the acute, or coinciding with the circumflex) had stress, and I agree. The grave is more uncertain (according to some people it's pitch falling from mid; according to others, a slightly lower high pitch than the acute, which seems more plausible to me), but that doesn't matter since it only arises in phrases, and most Wiktionary entries are single words. I've practiced Ancient Greek pronunciation quite a bit, and I'm confident that I can render the acute and circumflex consistently based on the information that I know. Let me know if there's an area of uncertainty I'm overlooking. There is, of course, the possibility that I'm not as good at pronouncing Ancient Greek (even if I have all ideas) than I think I am. — Eru·tuon 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have some samples for us? I'm actually fine with this. —JohnC5 22:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are some examples. The first three were to demonstrate unusual Ancient Greek clusters on Wikipedia, the last when I decided to record common AG words for Wiktionary. You can see the rest in the Ancient Greek pronunciation category on Wikimedia Commons. — Eru·tuon 22:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
These are quite nice. —JohnC5 22:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon, JohnC5: Yeah, I like these. Can they be integrated into {{grc-IPA}}? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Not sure if you're asking me, but I don't think the template allows that yet. I don't have the template know-how to make that happen, but I'd certainly add the recordings to the template once it allows the inclusion of soundfiles. — Eru·tuon 15:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Erutuon: Well, I know very little about Lua, but I assume that it would be possible to program {{grc-IPA}} to check for a pertinent sound file given a standard format. My thinking was that the template would take the specification of the |w= parameter (which defaults to the {{PAGETITLE}} if unspecified) as the variable element in the sound-file name. The sound files' names would have to adhere to a strict nomenclature; the one for φθόγγος(phthóngos) would have to be File:grc φθόγγος att.ogg, the one for ψυχή(psukhḗ) would have to be File:grc ψῡχή att.ogg (corresponding to {{grc-IPA|w=ψῡχή}}), and so on. What do you think? @JohnC5, ObsequiousNewt, what do you guys think? Is this possible? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @I'm so meta even this acronym: Oops, should have responded a month ago. I think you're right that the filename has to be more specific, because grc encompasses a long period. I would prefer grc-att rather than a "circumfix", though, since that makes it a little neater.

I thought soundfiles were usually added manually, but of course it would be cool and much simpler if it were automatic. — Eru·tuon 07:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Would you happen to know other words suffixed with -ops? I know little about Ancient Greek but I thought there were some other instances. —CodeCat 03:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

There are a bunch of them. I actually went looking before I saw your message. Perseus lets you search for words ending in a suffix, and even shows how frequent they are. I mostly picked the commonest ones when writing -σύνη(-súnē). Smyth seems to list the suffix in §862, but strangely only lists one word and gives no further information. — Eru·tuon 03:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:inh on roots[edit]

I've added some more documentation to the template to clarify this. Basically, word formation "breaks" the inheritance, and since roots are used only for word formation, they have no descendants unless the descendants themselves are also roots. There is a bit of an issue for root verbs in PIE since we don't seem to have entries for PIE verbs generally. This is mainly because from a PIE standpoint, pretty much every verb in the later IE languages is suppletive. In (earlier) PIE, the present, aorist and perfect were still separate verbs to a good degree. —CodeCat 20:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary:About Ancient Greek[edit]

This page should be for Ancient Greek only. If there are pieces of language-unspecific information, it doesn't suffice to say that they go there because it's not mentioned anywhere else. Instead, those parts should be moved to the general pages. That includes the description of how to use {{inh}}, {{bor}}, {{der}} and {{cog}}, for example. —CodeCat 00:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes: when the main etymology page is updated, any duplicated information should be removed from the Ancient Greek page. — Eru·tuon 00:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm saying you should update it, rather than put all this stuff on the Greek page. —CodeCat 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the main page should have been updated long ago by someone else, as soon as {{m}}, {{inh}}, {{der}}, and {{bor}} were created. I'm not sure I'm the one to do it. I'm a newbie who has mainly edited AG entries, and that's why I edited the AG practices page. However, etymology does interest me, so maybe I will work on updating the main page. — Eru·tuon 00:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


ἔκτμημα(éktmēma) was not formed by suffixing with -μα(-ma), so the etymology shouldn't say so, nor should the categories. The categories are meant to be used only for terms that were actually created by suffixing, not terms that merely contain the suffix, or terms that were derived from some other word that was suffixed with it. —CodeCat 20:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Unfortunately I may have broken this rule multiple times. Still, the etymology could give the derivation without categorizing. — Eru·tuon 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary, since the etymologies of each part can be found on their entries. —CodeCat 21:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If there is an entry. In this case, there's no entry τμῆμα(tmêma) yet. — Eru·tuon 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. There will be one at some point, and it will have the etymology. —CodeCat 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Is the rule really always applied, though? Lots of entries give redundant elements of etymologies. — Eru·tuon 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I usually remove them on sight. —CodeCat 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
All right, I'll try to avoid creating things for you to delete. However, in this case the etymology should be kept until τμῆμα(tmêma) is created, at which time the creator can just copy that part of the etymology. — Eru·tuon 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I still disagree. This is a wiki, so things are always being created and changed. Someone will create τμῆμα(tmêma) one day, we know that for a fact. Etymologies should be created with the assumption that every red link will be blue at some point, so they should not include information that should be on that entry instead.
In a paper etymological dictionary for just one language, it's useful to have the whole etymology in one place, but even those refer to other entries in that same dictionary when they can. An Ancient Greek etymological dictionary wouldn't elaborate on the etymologies of ἐκ-(ek-) or τμῆμα(tmêma) in the entry for ἔκτμημα(éktmēma). Wiktionary is multilingual and a wiki, so there's very little reason to put every single detail of the etymology in every entry. We can just refer to other entries and let them handle it; they're each just a click away to the user. If you're so bothered by the lack of an entry for τμῆμα(tmêma), why not create it? And for that matter, why don't you feel a similar need to elaborate on ἐκ-(ek-) until its entry is created? In fact, by your logic, every single entry using the prefix ἐκ-(ek-) would have to include the entire etymology of ἐκ-(ek-) in them, copied over however many times the suffix is used. Then, when someone finally creates ἐκ-(ek-), some will come along and remove all the duplicate etymologies again? Do you see how this just isn't sensible? —CodeCat 21:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Because ἐκ-(ek-) is much more common and more likely to actually be created, I suppose. — Eru·tuon 21:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a rule for myself that whenever I create a term that is a composition of smaller terms, I always immediately create entries for them too, and the parts that they're made of as well. That way, etymologies are always complete and the derivational history of the word is a lot clearer. I make an exception for prefixes and suffixes, because I remind myself to check all the categories in Category:Ancient Greek words by suffix to make sure that the entries for them all exist too. —CodeCat 21:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds reasonable. Then I will plan to make the entry on τμῆμα(tmêma) sometime soon. — Eru·tuon 21:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


Are you sure this belongs under PIE *h₂er-(to fit, fix, put together)? Martirosyan and Beekes derive ἄρνυμαι(árnumai), Armenian առնում(aṙnum) and Avestan ərənuuaiṇti from a homonymous *h₂er-(to take, acquire) root. --Vahag (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, no, I am not. I simply read the entry on the Armenian word after searching for the Greek word, and assumed it was the same root. Apparently that's not the case. The meaning did sound wrong, actually: "put together" versus "take". My mistake. Unfortunately, I don't have any references on PIE to add the homophonous root to the PIE page, but I can correct the Greek entry based on this information. — Eru·tuon 06:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I don't want to bother with creating the PIE entry at this time, because it has so few descendants. --Vahag (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

PIE grades[edit]

Root grades are not just a random thing that you can derive words from. Rather, they're a consequence of the derivational process. Certain derivational types simply apply certain grades to the root as part of the process. For example, the adjective suffix *-tós isn't "added" to the zero grade of the root. Rather, the root becomes zero grade as a consequence of adding that particular suffix. The grade is "inherent" in the suffix. Moreover, due to ablaut, the grade of a single suffix or other derivational process may not be fixed, but can alternate in different parts of the paradigm (singular vs nonsingular in verbs, nominative vs genitive in nominals). Think of words like *mén-ti-s ~ *mn̥-téy-s. With such words, saying they derive from any particular grade is meaningless. —CodeCat 22:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I have read that grades are likely a consequence of a Semitic-style derivation process, and I'm aware that grade alternates, for instance in ἔπιθον, πείθω, πέποιθα, and so πείθω(peíthō) would have to have multiple grades listed. Still, I wish there were some way to categorize verbs at least, probably other words too, by PIE stem formation: reduplication, infixation, and suffixation as well as ablaut grade. — Eru·tuon 22:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That could be done, but you have to keep in mind that new formations were created in languages as they evolved. PIE had no such thing as the k-aorist for example, which is common in Greek. And the grade that a particular derivation once triggered may have been replaced by another grade. The descendants of PIE have plenty of examples with *-tós attached to other grades, for example, and none of these are original. Ablaut alternations are often levelled; few languages if any still preserve the alternation seen in *méntis, and Latin no longer has the full-grade form of the nasal infix (which appeared in PIE in the singular forms) in any verbs. Athematic formations may become thematic, new suffixes formed by combining old ones, and so on. So at best, what could be said is that certain formations remain recognisable, in some form, in the descendant, but they often don't match the PIE situation in every detail. At worst, the formation may be completely unrecognisable, as happened with nasal-infix presents in Germanic which generalised the nasal throughout the whole verbal paradigm, perfect and all. Latin has also done this in some verbs. Could these still be considered to be nasal-infix presents? I think if you want to do this, you may want to think a bit more about just what your categories are supposed to represent and contain. —CodeCat 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The categories would have to be language-specific, so as not to imply that all of them are inherited from PIE, even if the formation patterns are inherited or sort of inherited, and I would only try to create ones for Ancient Greek right now. Smyth lists lots of stem formations, some of which can be traced to formations that exist in several other PIE languages, some of which are unique to Greek (for instance, the nasal-infixed and -suffixed presents like λαμβάνω(lambánō)). I suppose I should get ahold of Sihler again, because I think he described verb stems. — Eru·tuon 22:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well if course, if you want to create categories for formations synchronically within Ancient Greek, then go ahead. :) We already have prefix and suffix categories after all, and there are formations that aren't prefixes or suffixes (like the nasal infix). Documenting those would be a good idea. Something to consider though is whether to document formations that are not productive, but just "leftovers". I don't know if nasal presents were still created in Ancient Greek times, but I suspect not. Then again, Germanic strong verbs aren't productive either and we categorise those. —CodeCat 22:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I kind of thought I was doing that with {{PIE morph|grc}}. Would you recommend, then, that I title the template with grc rather than PIE? — Eru·tuon 22:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes. That's probably better too, so that it can account for Greek-specific formations like k-aorists. —CodeCat 22:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, makes sense. Okay. — Eru·tuon 22:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Greek adjective headword templates[edit]

These include parameters for the feminine and neuter forms, and there are different ones available for different declension patterns. But I noticed that this information is already available in the inflection tables. Look at ὀλίγος(olígos) for example; the headword and inflection table have the same information. Personally, I think inflection information should be kept to the inflection section as much as possible, especially if information is put in both places. Therefore, I'd like to propose removing these forms from the headword line so that they're only in the inflection section. I see that the same has already been done with {{grc-verb}}, although there is still a cleanup category Category:Ancient Greek verbs using headline parameters with some entries in it. —CodeCat 15:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with this request. Just as we list the genitives of nouns in the headword we should keep the nominatives of adjectives to show the declension. People frequently don't add the declension tables and having just a bare headword provides the user with no information whatsoever. —JohnC5 15:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Verbs are different: most of them have a lot more forms than nouns, so the headword line would have to be pretty huge (as the pre-definition information is in LSJ entries). But adjectives and nouns just have two, three, or four forms, not too messy. So I'd prefer to keep the forms in headwords.
I do wish the headwords could be reshaped; it's weird how there's only a transliteration for the headword, and the other form or forms are in a parenthesis. Clunky. Not yet sure precisely what it should look like. — Eru·tuon 00:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


I don't think this should be done. Otherwise it implies we should be creating entries like δῆμός (or, for that matter, μακρὸς). Which seems to be all to many entries. It'd be like... I guess the closest example I can think of is listing e.g. under . —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@ObsequiousNewt: Yes, it implies we should create a host of other "form of" articles, but I think it's necessary. Otherwise Wiktionary won't be helpful to more naive readers: they won't know that, for instance, ὅ γε is an example of (ho) rather than (). It is especially necessary in the case of () because the entry already exists. I wish the search function could eliminate the necessity (that is, allow someone to find (ho) when searching for , but it doesn't at the moment. (Maddeningly, the search will not find forms with macrons or breves either...)
However, another solution would be to create inflection tables with grave-accented forms and oxytone forms before enclitics. For instance, a table of δῆμός γε, δήμου γε, ...; a table of an oxytone noun followed by another word. Then the form δῆμός could be found in a search. — Eru·tuon 18:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
What about a hard-redirect of δῆμός to δῆμος, and μακρὸς to μακρός? (And in such a case as this, keep the page as written.) Pinging @JohnC5, I'm so meta even this acronym, Angr. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd be fine with that, as long as the page also explains the form and shows it somewhere. — Eru·tuon 18:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: I have long thought that Ancient Greek oxytones should all have hard redirects from their baria-marked equivalents. Surely such a thing is bot-enforceable, right? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: I believe so, yes, although I have not written any bots before. I am still working on a rewrite of Module:grc-conj. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 13:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Assuming that such bot-enforceability is possible, would you consider having those redirects a good thing? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: Yes, I think this is a good policy. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: Cool. I've started a discussion about it at Wiktionary talk:About Ancient Greek#Redirects from baria forms for oxytones. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


How so? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 12:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I misread "likely" as "more likely". Still, I've added a note to the etymology section. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt: This was an etymology I came across while reading Pooth (p. 7). Interesting how the meaning "exist" of *h₁es- would (I guess) shift to "life force", then "well-being", and finally "goodness". Cunliffe seems to support this etymology (intentionally or not) rather than the derivation from *wesu-, since he doesn't give a form with digamma after the headword, as he does in other entries. — Eru·tuon 01:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

"where" to mean "whence"[edit]


I'm curious: in what context can "where" by itself mean "from what place"? (yeah I'm stalking a bit the Ancient Greek contributors, not to spot mistakes but because I'm interested in what you guys do) --Fsojic (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fsojic: Hmm, good question. Now that I think about it, where doesn't usually mean "from what place". "*Where do you come?" is ungrammatical. I can't think of any examples in which "from what place" isn't expressed by where ... from. A mistake on my part. I'll correct it. Still, where does need to have a translation list for "from what place" or "where from". — Eru·tuon 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Phonemic symbols for RP[edit]

Hi. Do you have an idea how we could tackle the issue of the hopelessly outdated set of phonemic symbols for RP? The issue is relevant because it makes me refrain from putting Australian IPA in entries, because the outdated RP set would make it look like there are two different sounds here (e.g. lot would have to be transcribed /lɒt/ in RP, which (phonetically) is correct only in case of the traditional RP, spoken e.g. by Richard Dawkins, whereas the Australian IPA would have the correct /lɔt/). Any thoughts? I know that I kind of argued otherwise on Wikipedia... Mr KEBAB (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I have thought a little about this. I recently added some of the newer, more accurate, symbols for RP to the English pronunciation appendix. I think switching to the newer symbols in entries would require (1) consensus and (2) a lot of monotonous find-and-replace, or bot work.
The correct place to get a feel for consensus would be the beer parlour. Nobody has objected to my changes to the Appendix, but that page isn't heavily watched, and who knows if everyone would be happy with a lot of edits imposing the newer symbols on entries.
It seems like there needs to be some way to mark the transcription system in entries, whether they are based on this or that system from this or that author. That way, both /ɒ/ and /ɔ/ for the lot vowel could be used in entries. The labels for transcription system would have to be added to Module:a/data. But probably that idea would require consensus too (and I'm not sure how it could be displayed). — Eru·tuon 03:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems to me that we need a template, in which symbols are converted depending on which system you want to see. When you enter the RP transcription, you should do so using traditional symbols (so /lɒt/, then you could choose whether you want to see /lɒt/ or /lɔt/.
"Nobody has objected to my changes to the Appendix, but that page isn't heavily watched" - yep, that's... basically the reason :) I can assure you that that debate will not be an easy one to win, but we don't have much to lose here, just time.
Can you write at the beer parlour? You'll do a better job than me at explaining things (my English isn't the best), just make sure you mention the RP vs. General Australian thing. Mr KEBAB (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: I will eventually. I have to think what to say and I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment. — Eru·tuon 03:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Mr KEBAB (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


You may have thought you had time to tinker with this, but Module:Alternative forms assumes any module with the correct name is a functioning module and invokes it if it has a parameter to check. It turns out that there were dozens of English entries with text in the dialect parameter, and all of them had module errors due to your leaving your module without the return statement at the end.

Please be more careful, and check Cat:E at least once after you've been doing module work. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll make sure to check for module errors in the future. — Eru·tuon 18:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Curly apostrophes[edit]

I noticed that you are already converting Ancient Greek links (such as here) to use curly apostrophes, while the modules have not been updated to convert link targets to plain apostrophes. Did we decide that the entries are going to themselves be located at the curly apostrophe spelling? --WikiTiki89 21:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion that you're right that modules should not automatically convert plain apostrophes to curly (or at least that it's a waste of effort to try to make it happen), and at the same time it seems to be generally agreed on the WT:AGRC talk page that entries should have plain apostrophe and displayed text should have curly apostrophe. @Angr and I have made edits to institute this practice. I suppose the plain apostrophe is simply being used because it seems to already be the practice here on the English Wiktionary to use it in entry names. Module:languages/data2 should probably convert curly apostrophe (as well as spacing coronis and smooth breathing) to plain apostrophe for entry names, but nobody has made the edit yet. It's not horribly urgent, because there are in many cases redirects from the curly-apostrophe entries to the plain-apostrophe ones. I'm unable to myself, since I'm not a template editor. I was going to ask an admin to make the edit, but just haven't yet. — Eru·tuon 22:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think you should have made sure that that was done before proceeding to edit links. --WikiTiki89 22:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I can do this for you if you tell me what exactly you want to do with the spacing coronis and smooth breathing, and whether you want this for both Ancient and Modern Greek. --WikiTiki89 22:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that would be great. I'm not sure what should be done for Modern Greek, since I am not very involved in entries for that language (I realize I should've referred to the data3/g module, which contains grc not the data2 module, which contains el), but I would very much appreciate it if you added "["..u(0x2019)..u(0x1FBD)..u(0x1FBF).."]" to the "from" array within the "entry name" array for m["grc"] and "'" to the corresponding "to" field. The characters referred to here are the single right quotation mark, spacing smooth breathing (psili) and spacing coronis (koronis), all of which are sometimes correctly or incorrectly used as apostrophes in Ancient Greek texts. They all look almost identical, so are better referred to using their Unicode numbers. — Eru·tuon 23:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


@JohnC5, CodeCat, I'm so meta even this acronym: where does heiulor come from? --kc_kennylau (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: It appears to be an extension of (h)ei. The suffix is mysterious to me, perhaps similar to ululō? —JohnC5 04:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@JohnC5: More importantly, is the "i" geminated? --kc_kennylau (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know of an etymological reason why it would be geminated. —JohnC5 04:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@kc kennylau, JohnC5: The etymology of “ēiulō” on page 596 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82) reads “ei + -i- + -ulo; for suffix cf. iubilo”, which strongly suggests to me that the -i- is geminated. The etymology of “iūbilō” on page 977/2 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82) reads “cf. io¹; for term. cf. sibilo”, the one for “ĭō¹” on page 963/3 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82) is simply “Gk. ἰώ”, and “sībilō” on page 1,753/1 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82) has “next + -o³”, where “next” is “sībilus¹” on page 1,753/1 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82), whose etymology reads “onomat., cf. Gk. σίζω, ψίθυρος”. I’m sure y’all can look up the Greek yourselves (!)… — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)