Talk:ἡπατίζων

Although this definition may sound ridiculous, it’s good because contrary to popular knowledge, being liver‐coloured is a normal activity for many people. In fact, I’m being liver‐coloured right now. Anybody care to join me? -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 19:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Er. Well, the context I found was talking about a certain type of aloe whose juice apparently resembled liver. (I couldn't find a citation for the other context.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 19:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you can’t find citations for the other context, then it’s probably a defective verb. -- Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So I went and hunted down the other two citations and they're both participial: ἡπατιζούσης (Aët.) and ἡπατιζόντων (Diocles, probable reading but possibly false for απαυτιζότων or απαντιζόντων.) Therefore I move to remove this page and shift the lemma to ἡπατίζων. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Acronym, should an inflected form really have a Descendants section? —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 17:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In a case where a specific form is borrowed, I think it should. For example, surely it's right that has its (at-least) nine descendants listed in the entry for that form, rather than under … — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I had assumed it was **hēpatizōn, borrowed from the masculine form. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 18:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the cited form has an omicron; see Gaffiot's entry, for example. BTW, why do you prefix hypothetical forms with two asterisks? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Single asterisk is "reconstructed", double asterisk is "incorrect" or "hypothetical". Hence I would say "if *dreuganą had an Old English descendent it would be **drēogan." —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 22:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. What an elegantly expressed distinction!, might this sort of mark-up be useful for your idea of having appendical entries for hypothetical terms like ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know how widespread that usage is, but, uh, *shrug*. Also, I moved the lemma. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I've updated (English and Latin) accordingly. Are you sure this should still be marked as a participle, rather than as an adjective? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)