Category talk:Ancient Greek declension templates

Template Naming Conventions
Part of me feels as if this really ought to be part of the talk page; if someone could confirm or negate that leaning, I would love to hear it. Medellia 06:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Issues arising from recent changes
Oh my... In simply trying to clear up HTML issues and make the templates more elegant, I'm afraid I may have screwed up some switchable features. Fortunately, in theory, the templates should be easier to mass-edit now that so many common features among the templates are handled by subtemplates. Unfortunately, I realize that I still don't properly understand the the switching features in MediaWiki markup. I humbly ask for help. - Gilgamesh 11:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

See Template:grc-decl-1st-M-alp-pax:

And my version:

...which completely ignores things like and αι, whose functionality and syntax I still don't quite understand&mdash;I never remembered seeing them in years at Wikipedia. See the template's edit history. And virtually all the templates are affected in one way or another. It effects dictionary entries for nouns with mostly regular inflection but irregular dative plural forms, etc. - Gilgamesh 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What the format does is make the regular inflection the default, but allows the editor to enter exceptions to the rules, if need be. To be honest, I've been rather haphazard about the switchables, entering them only as I need them for particular words, and I haven't been truly consistent either.  The format that I've settled on is a two letter abbreviation (instead of numbers, which I had used earlier).  This allows for a specific and intuitive system.  I've made the fix to Template:grc-decl-1st-M-alp-pax (using the new, updated system) and made the appropriate changes to νεανίας.  I'll try and go through the rest of the changes and see what needs to be done with them.  However, all in all, I think the switch to a single standard template is an excellent idea, and may solve a problem which I had been previously unable to get around.  Atelaes 01:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. ^_^ I don't feel quite as stupid now. ^^ By the way, I did notice something you might want to look at&mdash;I don't think singular nominative -ων and singular genitive  -ονος have a plural dative  -οσι(ν).  If I recall, the results for when  ν is swallowed by a following  σ are that the preceding vowel&mdash;if not already long&mdash;is lengthened, and thus  -εν-σ- becomes  -εισ- and  -ον-σ- becomes  -ουσ-.  I think...  I may be wrong. - Gilgamesh 04:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look into that. I very well could have made a mistake.  Atelaes 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you two were able to sort things out. As far as third declension nasal stems are concerned, in Classical Attic the dative plural is -οσι(ν) - as far as I know. I can double check Smyth just to be sure. As I recall from my introductory course, there is no compensatory lengthening due to the fact that the form derives from the  -ασι (as opposed to  -ονσι or something of that sort) dat. pl. ending; the vowel assimilated to the paradigm (becoming an  ο) and thus did not represent a consonantal loss. If that made sense! You are correct, however, in your recollections of what would have happened had the initial form been  -ονσι! Medellia 07:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Smyth Medellia 07:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Breves, again
I have a question regarding the wording on this: "As a general rule of thumb, even a known short vowel can be shown unbreved if it occurs before a consonant digraph or ζ,  ξ, or  ψ, or before another vowel." What is meant by a "known short vowel" in this context? If the vowel occurs before a consonant digraph, it is ambiguous. I'm also a little uncertain as to why the presence of another vowel would change things. The only thought that occurs to me is correption... but I can't see how that would at all factor in. (Although, in truth the confusion could be a product more of the heat in my room than that of the wording...) Medellia 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's based on all the patterns I've encountered in my studies. (I've had no formal training, but as an autistic person, there are some things I gradually absorb like a sponge.)  I never see known short vowels breved before double consonants or vowels.  I only see known long vowels macronned in this context.  And, after a while, I wasn't confused:  Long vowels before double consonants are much rarer, and when they occur, I have found them clearly marked.  After some initial confusion, I found that undiphthonged α ι υ before another vowel are far more likely to be short than long (because in other contexts they were always breved before a single consonant), and that the long ones are clearly marked.  On the other hand, it may just be that this is a matter of taste for people already somewhat familiar with the language.  Fortunately, the IPA is unambiguous.  Hmm...I have an idea.  Could we mark   in romanizations too, for additional clarity?  We already mark   for ᾳ because of the obvious phonological difference from   for αι.  And if they are   we can still write their long versions as   with no ambiguity. - Gilgamesh 10:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I agree; we should be all means mark ā ī ū in Romanizations. As far as short vowels and whatnot, we generally know vocalic length from metered passages. Because closed syllables (in theory, those followed by more than one consonant; I find it better to explain it as consonant-vowel-consonant syllables as the initial succeeding - or, rather, post-vowel - consonant is in fact within the syllable) always scan long, scholars generally are unable to discern whether the vowel alone is long or short. Medellia 16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)